342 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

Many of the kirkwall mages spoke out against rebellion and violence,

Which ones? Even the First Enchanter was calling for riots.

 

The mages burning everything in their wake are the minority. Most just want to be left alone.

 

All of your arguments so far are grounded in little to no evidence, or evidence that does not effectively serve to substantiate your points. 

I find that those who claim that "most mages just want to be left alone" have about as much evidence supporting this as those who claim that "mages want to burn everything".

[Gwydden]

I find that those who claim that "most mages just want to be left alone" have about as much evidence supporting this as those who claim that "mages want to burn everything".

Somehow I doubt mages are anymore of a hivemind than templars are.

[Swoopdogg]

I find that those who claim that "most mages just want to be left alone" have about as much evidence of this as those who claim that "mages want to burn everything".

The problem is that our only real reliable sources are the games, which have very lacking representation. For instance, there aren't many children shown in the games, or fat people, old people, sick people, etc.

 

The reason people come to the conclusion that most mages are violent is because most of the mages we come across in the games are enemies that we have to fight for the sake of gameplay.

 

I'm assuming most mages want to be left alone based on human nature and what we've seen of the few "normal" circle mages we run across

[Swoopdogg]

Which ones? Even the First Enchanter was calling for riots.

 

I find that those who claim that "most mages just want to be left alone" have about as much evidence supporting this as those who claim that "mages want to burn everything".

After being provoked by the Templars. The mages were forced to rebel after being sentenced to death a la Rite of Annulment. Or should they all just sit and let the Templars kill them?

[MisterJB]

 

I'm assuming most mages want to be left alone based on human nature

And you think human nature translates into "wanting to be left alone"?

Calling that a simplification would be itself a simplification.

I also don't believe human nature would translate into burning everything ahead of us but it is evident mages will use magic for selfish purposes.

 

what we've seen of the few "normal" circle mages we run across

That seems rather biased. If you admit we have seen few Circle mages who are not violent, why assume they are the norm?

 

After being provoked by the Templars. The mages were forced to rebel after being sentenced to death a la Rite of Annulment. Or should they all just sit and let the Templars kill them?

I was actually referring to the beginning of Act 3.

And you didn't give me an example of a Kirkwall mage advocating temperance.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Sure they can, just train under your chaos God and you're fine. 

No you are not. The Daemons of the Warp have driven ALL Alpha level psykers that have ever existed mad, and they have subsequently been killed. The only Alpha level psykers that havn't been driven mad by Daemons, are the ones that are killed by the Inquisition before.

[Swoopdogg]

And you think human nature translates into "wanting to be left alone"?

Calling that a simplification would be itself a simplification.

I also don't believe human nature would translate into burning everything ahead of us but it is evident mages will use magic for selfish purposes.

 

That seems rather biased. If you admit we have seen few Circle mages who are not violent, why assume they are the norm?

 

I was actually referring to the beginning of Act 3.

And you didn't give me an example of a Kirkwall mage advocating temperance.

Nobles with armies at their command will use those for selfish purposes as well, what of it? There are honorable nobles and selfish nobles, just as there are honorable mages and selfish mages.

 

Again, there are few examples of nonviolent mages because this is a video game. Heck, there are few examples of nonviolent dwarves in DA2--most of them were trying to kill you, aside from that merchant who set you up with Fenris and then Bodahn and Sandal. But I think we can safely assume that dwarves by nature aren't Carta thugs, yes?

 

I admit I don't have a good example of a kirkwall mage advocating temperance because the only mages we encounter in DA2 are rebels, because the only mages we ever meet and speak to are the mages outside of the circle-- AKA mages who have ran away and are fighting against the Templars. I imagine that would be different if we were allowed into the circle. It wouldn't make sense to meet a mage in, say, the sewers who was against running away and rebelling.

 

And Orsino wasn't advocating bloodshed and murder, just speaking out against Meredith, which was perfectly reasonable. He only started advocating bloodshed after he was given the death sentence along with his fellow mages. He had been dealing with blood mages, yes, but I think it was clear he was driven somewhat mad (maybe not clinically mad) due to his circumstances.

 

Many of the violent mages aren't evil. They're driven to do violence because of their circumstances. That sort of thing isn't unheard of. Many elves are driven to do violence because of enslavement, oppression, etc. Shall we brand every elf a criminal and lock them all away in a tower?

 

Again, this is a video game. We don't have many examples of lots of things. For instance, I couldn't be sure horses even existed until finding out we can ride them in DA:I.

 

I'm not saying every mage is a peaceful saint. I'm just saying that they are human beings (and elves) and that they can't be treated like monsters because of their magic.

[MisterJB]

Nobles with armies at their command will use those for selfish purposes as well, what of it? There are honorable nobles and selfish nobles, just as there are honorable mages and selfish mages.

 

But the power of a noble extends only  so far as people are willing to acknowledge it.

If the soldiers of a noble disobey or a coin lose value, they lose power.

 

The same does not happen with the abilities of mages. Also, when was the las time a normal child; noble or not; destroyed a thriving city? Because the last time a mage child did was Connor. And he didn't even mean to.
 

 

Again, there are few examples of nonviolent mages because this is a video game. Heck, there are few examples of nonviolent dwarves in DA2--most of them were trying to kill you, aside from that merchant who set you up with Fenris and then Bodahn and Sandal. But I think we can safely assume that dwarves by nature aren't Carta thugs, yes?

Why? If most of an observed population behaves in a certain manner, why pretend they're anything else? Perhaps most of Kirkwall's dwarven community is composed of thugs working for the interests of the Carta and the Merchant's Guild.

Even Varric does so.

A matter of fact is that Kirkwall's Circle was breeding blood mages and Abominations like a Broodmother.

 

 

I admit I don't have a good example of a kirkwall mage advocating temperance because the only mages we encounter in DA2 are rebels, because the only mages we ever meet and speak to are the mages outside of the circle-- AKA mages who have ran away and are fighting against the Templars. I imagine that would be different if we were allowed into the circle. It wouldn't make sense to meet a mage in, say, the sewers who was against running away and rebelling.

Perhaps. Or perhaps most of Kirkwall Circle was composed of rebels.

 

 

And Orsino wasn't advocating bloodshed and murder, just speaking out against Meredith, which was perfectly reasonable. He only started advocating bloodshed after he was given the death sentence along with his fellow mages. He had been dealing with blood mages, yes, but I think it was clear he was driven somewhat mad (maybe not clinically mad) due to his circumstances.

He was. Meredith asks if what he was looking for were Kirkwallers with pitchforks and torches breaking into the Gallows.

He responds "It's couldn't be worse."

 

He was clearly looking to incite the people of Kirkwall into violence against the Templar Order. And do not think he wouldn't position the mages so they could benefit from the bloodshed.

 

 

Many of the violent mages aren't evil. They're driven to do violence because of their circumstances. That sort of thing isn't unheard of. Many elves are driven to do violence because of enslavement, oppression, etc. Shall we brand every elf a criminal and lock them all away in a tower?

 

Ah, but circumstances will always exist. Templars are not the sole source of suffering in Thedas. We've seen a great number of mages use their magic for violent and selfish purposes because of things that had nothing to do with the Order.

Therefore, if mages are free, who will prevent theses accidents caused by "circumstances"?

 

Also, elves can't kill people with their minds.

 

 

I'm not saying every mage is a peaceful saint. I'm just saying that they are human beings (and elves) and that they can't be treated like monsters because of their magic.

They are not being treated like monsters, they're being treated like people that are more dangerous than the others.

 

Society exists because we restrict our freedoms everyday. It is the entire purpose of the law system; to tell us what we can and can't do.

These restrictions are imposed upon us from the very moment we are born; not because we have given evidence of being dangerous, but because humans have the inherent potential to harm others.

 

Therefore, if mages pose a greater risk, is it not logical that the restrictions placed upon them should be stricter in order to reflect this?

[Swoopdogg]

But the power of a noble extends only  so far as people are willing to acknowledge it.

If the soldiers of a noble disobey or a coin lose value, they lose power.

 

The same does not happen with the abilities of mages. Also, when was the las time a normal child; noble or not; destroyed a thriving city? Because the last time a mage child did was Connor. And he didn't even mean to.
 

 

Why? If most of an observed population behaves in a certain manner, why pretend they're anything else? Perhaps most of Kirkwall's dwarven community is composed of thugs working for the interests of the Carta and the Merchant's Guild.

Even Varric does so.

A matter of fact is that Kirkwall's Circle was breeding blood mages and Abominations like a Broodmother.

 

 

Perhaps. Or perhaps most of Kirkwall Circle was composed of rebels.

 

 

He was. Meredith asks if what he was looking for were Kirkwallers with pitchforks and torches breaking into the Gallows.

He responds "It's couldn't be worse."

 

He was clearly looking to incite the people of Kirkwall into violence against the Templar Order. And do not think he wouldn't position the mages so they could benefit from the bloodshed.

 

 

 

Ah, but circumstances will always exist. Templars are not the sole source of suffering in Thedas. We've seen a great number of mages use their magic for violent and selfish purposes because of things that had nothing to do with the Order.

Therefore, if mages are free, who will prevent theses accidents caused by "circumstances"?

 

Also, elves can't kill people with their minds.

 

 

They are not being treated like monsters, they're being treated like people that are more dangerous than the others.

 

Society exists because we restrict our freedoms everyday. It is the entire purpose of the law system; to tell us what we can and can't do.

These restrictions are imposed upon us from the very moment we are born; not because we have given evidence of being dangerous, but because humans have the inherent potential to harm others.

 

Therefore, if mages pose a greater risk, is it not logical that the restrictions placed upon them should be stricter in order to reflect this?

You make some good points, and I'd like to take a moment to say that anyone who says video games can't be taken as a serious medium clearly have never played a bioware game. I mean, we're knee deep in a political debate regarding a completely made up world.

 

It's true mages have more dangerous potential inherently within them than normal people, but that does not justify imprisoning them the moment magic is discovered within them. The point of locking up mages is presumably for the protection of society, yes? Aren't mages a part of society? Assuming they are, they are entitled to the same rights as anyone else. I don't care if they can set you on fire with their mind. They're people. Just because they can set you on fire doesn't mean they will. I could pick up a knife and go stab someone right now, but that doesn't mean I will. For one, that's illegal, but more importantly, I have a moral code that prevents me from harming someone. The presence of magic within someone does not erase their moral code, nor does it make murder any less illegal.

 

I agree that more caution should be exercised around mages, just as more caution should be exercised around someone with a holstered pistol. But imprisoning all of them is far too extreme.

 

Templars should be replaced by a more tolerant and uncorrupt organization. I'm not advocating the complete unrestricted freedom of mages, just as I'm not advocating total anarchy to replace all the governments of Thedas. Mages won't be going around killing people because 1) morality and 2) it would be illegal and the mage-police-or-whatever would come after them. Law enforcement is the main reason most of us don't commit crimes, and it definitely would be the same with mages.

 

And I would argue that they are being treated like monsters. Many people in Thedas see them as monsters.

 

Everyone deserves equal freedom. That inherent right should not be taken away from mages.

 

I've already argued that there are many better ways. But too many people have a black and white way of viewing magic.

 

Mages will always want to be free. The circles are not a solution because they infringe on that freedom, therefore many mages will try to rebel. That's why there needs to be a compromise. The circles are proven failures.

 

Even if I did agree with you that mages should be treated differently than ordinary people, I would not agree that they should be locked up, simply for the point stated just above. Introduce oppression and the oppressed will always fight against it, and many of them will be willing to do so violently. That is also human nature.

 

So the only solutions that would work would be compromise and just killing them all, and I think we can both agree that the latter is not justified.

[EmperorSahlertz]

*Snip*

I'm sorry but that was a whole lot of moral idealism that completely ignored the existance of Abominations. Don't worry though, we here at the BSN specialize in the strangling of dreams and destruction of idealism.

[Chari]

I had one in DA2. One is more than enough. 'Sides my only mage will be dalish, and he doesn't believe in superiority of anyone. He just wants to give his people freedom, home and sweet justice

[Xilizhra]

I'm sorry but that was a whole lot of moral idealism that completely ignored the existance of Abominations. Don't worry though, we here at the BSN specialize in the strangling of dreams and destruction of idealism.

Very, very poorly.

[Swoopdogg]

I'm sorry but that was a whole lot of moral idealism that completely ignored the existance of Abominations. Don't worry though, we here at the BSN specialize in the strangling of dreams and destruction of idealism.

I believe I mentioned that I'm not calling for the total non-supervision of mages. There still needs to be a sort of mage-police, mage-sentinel force, but like I said, the Templars are done.

 

My main point now is that the circles don't work, because as long as they're a thing, mages will always try to rebel. Even if the mage rebellion is crushed and the surviving mages are sent back to the circles, mages will rebel again eventually, even if it is after 100 years or so.

 

Case and point: some kind of compromise is the only solution that would work aside from just killing them all.

[Dean_the_Young]

Very, very poorly.

 

I don't know. I certainly had a hand in corrupting you. Compared to where you were in the idealistic days of ME2, you've lost a lot of the luster of universalism ideals and have embraced your authoritarian tendencies for favored sub-groups.

[Dean_the_Young]

I believe I mentioned that I'm not calling for the total non-supervision of mages. There still needs to be a sort of mage-police, mage-sentinel force, but like I said, the Templars are done.

 

My main point now is that the circles don't work, because as long as they're a thing, mages will always try to rebel. Even if the mage rebellion is crushed and the surviving mages are sent back to the circles, mages will rebel again eventually, even if it is after 100 years or so.

 

Case and point: some kind of compromise is the only solution that would work aside from just killing them all.

Mages will always try to rebel regardless. In so much that mages can be treated as a collective, they're as inclined to be subversive and rebellious as any other people. And people are quite willing to rebel and oppose any authority, no matter how severe (or not) it is, since people are quite poor at holding context beyond their own perspective.

 

Today's compromise is tomorrow's detested status quo, just as yester-year's loathed status quo was a previous time's compromise. There is no such thing as a permanent compromise because the next generation will simply take the gains for granted and chafe at whatever restrictions are left, no matter their validity.

[Xilizhra]

I don't know. I certainly had a hand in corrupting you. Compared to where you were in the idealistic days of ME2, you've lost a lot of the luster of universalism ideals and have embraced your authoritarian tendencies for favored sub-groups.

Some things that can be implemented in the universe of Mass Effect (and I've since lost my desire for Control, I only take it now because it has the least direct effect on anything) are not so easy to implement in Dragon Age.

 

Although I would not personally consider my current advocacy for fair representation of mages within the Chantry's government to be "authoritarian," at least not moreso than any other government in the setting.

[Swoopdogg]

At this point I'm not sure any solution for the mages will work.

 

The lore for them is seriously f'd

[Dean_the_Young]

Some things that can be implemented in the universe of Mass Effect (and I've since lost my desire for Control, I only take it now because it has the least direct effect on anything) are not so easy to implement in Dragon Age.

 

Which is a reflection of ability, not inclination. This is related to the frequent confusion between being too weak to do notable harm and being virtuous.
 

 

Although I would not personally consider my current advocacy for fair representation of mages within the Chantry's government to be "authoritarian," at least not moreso than any other government in the setting.

 

Your advocacy for positions isn't what make you authoritarian in nature. It is the means by which you present and defend to reach those goals, and your treatment of dissent that challenges you in any meaningful way, that make you authoritarian.