772 réponses à ce sujet

[Aaleel]

And where exactly is it stated that the number of magical incidents were fewer than in other places? Besides, we already know areas of Rivain are magocracies. Maybe the Seers in the Circle were a new thing. Maybe they were plotting to overthrow the monarchy.

We don'tt know.

 

The Circle being a school does not work. I don't know about you, but I'd rather there being solid walls and guards keeping those capable of setting me on fire with their minds preventing them from doing so rather than just rely on their goodwill.

 

Because if the number of incidents were high it would never have taken the Chantry as long as it did to figure out mages weren't locked up.  Yes, we don't know what was in the minds of mages, what we do know is what actually happened.  Mages came and went freely to the circle and aided templars when needed.  But for some reason you ignore this and condem all mages regardless of their actions.

 

I'd personally rather have a society where people aren't locked up for no other reason than what they may do.  The whole idea of I'll take your freedom and commit bad acts against you and justify it by saying I'm only protecting myself from bad acts you might commit in the future is hyocrisy at its finest.

 

Even when they called for the right of annulment the mages still had done nothing wrong but leave the circle to be with their families.

[AshenEndymion]

You seem to be conflating Chantry authority with the power of the Andrastian nobles.

 

And you seem to be thinking that the Andrastian nobles have more say in the affairs of the people than the seers, when every text clearly says otherwise.

 

This makes no sense. If the hahren of the clan have the authority to say that they don't "approve of the match", then I don't see how it's an example of the Keeper imposing his authority over non-mages. And the mother left because her heart was stricken with grief - it's pointed out by Ashalle that she hold out as long as she could to give birth, but that she couldn't go on without Mahariel's father.

 

The hahren is a person, the elders are a group.  The keeper is a part of the elders, and the other "leaders of the clans" tend to defer to the keeper and his/her decisions. 

 

Ashalle says that the mother left her clan because of grief.  I don't doubt the Dalish Warden's mother died during childbirth(ie "stricken with grief, held out until childbirth, but couldn't go on without Mahariel's father").  But the Dalish of that same clan say that Merrill left of her own will and is becoming a danger to the clan, not that Marathari kicked her out of the clan.  So I have no doubts that saying the Warden's mother left of her own clan of her own accord is as much revisionist history as the Merrill thing.  Kind words to continue the oppression of non-mages and keep them brainwashed.

[MisterJB]

Xil answered this.

Are you going to? You are the one I'm having an argument with.

 

 

In Tevinter, I've no doubt that mundane is a half-insult, but it means common as mundane can, and in another definition distinguishes non-mages the other-worldliness of mages in connection to the Fade. It's also used elsewhere in the lore and when it isn't, the term non-mage is used. Normal is never used to describe people without magic In WoT. Its inappropriate.

And yet "mundane" is never used outside of Tevinter or by mage supremacists. One could argue non-mage is just as innapropriate.

There aren't any real life mages and thus I'm not breaking forum rules.

 

Drakon created a society bent on subverting Tevinter and spread it, with force in some cases. There was no round table consensus in creating societies that rejected mages in power, and Nevarra and Rivain have never rejected magic to the extent Orlais.

Other than the slaves and Southern tribes as a whole rallying around the woman that said "Magic exists to serve man, never to rule over him?"

It's not about rejecting all of magic; even Drakon used mages against the Blight; it's about allowing the non-magical people of Thedas to have control over their societies. Not hand them over to mages and have them become Tevinter in all but name.

 

 

And you don't think non-mages could invent a cheaper and more efficient alternative to glowlights? Even a mage that might want to make coin from a novel alternative?

Not as long as people rely on magic.

 

The people in these communities seem to like things fine or at least find it preferable to their alternatives. If they didn't, I doubt they would have resisted the Chantry as they have so thoroughly. If they can accept abominations as natural disasters, I don't see it as anyone else's concern.

It stands as a warning of the danger posed by free mages; even those seemingly "benevolent".

 

I won't laud his character, but I don't think that's wholly accurate.

The point is that it's difficult to prove any of these Abominations were created by the Circle.

A person leaning towards the mages will see Huon as having been made mad by the Circle and think he would have lived peacefully had he been left alone.

 

A person leaning towards the Templars will notice how there is no mention of Templars in his speech. Rather he speaks only of lashing out against humans and thus it's possible he was always harboring violent ideas and the education on the Circle enmpowered him to pursue this.

 

If we can't even prove why these Abominations became so, how can we ask the people of Thedas to risk their lives on the off chances they won't cause any harm?

 

If the circle is at least in part about preventing abominations, it shouldn't have a test that produces them just as often as not.

The test weeds outs those who would have, most likely, become Abominations later in life. That way, they are eliminated before they can harm others.
 

[MisterJB]

Because if the number of incidents were high it would never have taken the Chantry as long as it did to figure out mages weren't locked up.

What makes you think the Chantry in Orlais keeps tabs of the number of Abominations produced by the Circle in Rivain? Or that the Chantry in Rivain isn't an accomplice?

 

Mages came and went freely to the circle and aided templars when needed.  But for some reason you ignore this and condem all mages regardless of their actions.

What am I ignoring, precisely?

That they aid Templars? The mages in Ferelden aided Templars but they still couldn't just leave the Circle when they damned well pleased.

 

I'd personally rather have a society where people aren't locked up for no other reason than what they may do.

I'd prefer one where people who can kill me with their minds are not inviting spirits from a different world whose mind is alien, pursue one goal at the expense of everything else and do not even understand the concept of time or half measures, can influence the minds of said people who can boil my blood in my veins and are capable of being corrupted by human emotions into their heads.

But hey, maybe that's just me.

 

 

Even when they called for the right of annulment the mages still had done nothing wrong but leave the circle to be with their families.

Thus endagering everyone around them.

 

Besides, that's not true. The Templars and Seekers first ordered the mages to abide by the laws of the Circle.

When they refused and resisted violently, that's when they declared the Right of Annulment.

So, what were they doing wrong? Well, killing Templars and Seekers for one.
 

[Caramacchiato]

Isabela says it best in a party banter:

 

Fenris: So I hear you think that mages should be free.

Isabela: Everyone should be free, not just mages.

Fenris: Not everyone's dangerous.

Isabela: It's not about who's dangerous, it's about having choices made for you. Don't you wish you had the choice not to have lyrium stuck under your skin?

Fenris: I do.

Isabela: This is silly. I don't want to argue.

Fenris: Do you want to guess what color my underclothes are again?

Isabela: Oh yes! That's much more fun.

[AshenEndymion]

Isabela says it best in a party banter:

 

Fenris: So I hear you think that mages should be free.

Isabela: Everyone should be free, not just mages.

Fenris: Not everyone's dangerous.

Isabela: It's not about who's dangerous, it's about having choices made for you. Don't you wish you had the choice not to have lyrium stuck under your skin?

Fenris: I do.

Isabela: This is silly. I don't want to argue.

Fenris: Do you want to guess what color my underclothes are again?

Isabela: Oh yes! That's much more fun.

 

Profound words.  And if I had the choice to give the Tome of Koslun to the Arishok before he laid waste to Kirkwall, I'd probably give them the consideration they are worth...

[Aaleel]

What makes you think the Chantry in Orlais keeps tabs of the number of Abominations produced by the Circle in Rivain? Or that the Chantry in Rivain isn't an accomplice?

 

What am I ignoring, precisely?

That they aid Templars? The mages in Ferelden aided Templars but they still couldn't just leave the Circle when they damned well pleased.

 

I'd prefer one where people who can kill me with their minds are not inviting spirits from a different world whose mind is alien, pursue one goal at the expense of everything else and do not even understand the concept of time or half measures, can influence the minds of said people who can boil my blood in my veins and are capable of being corrupted by human emotions into their heads.

But hey, maybe that's just me.

 

 

Thus endagering everyone around them.

 

Besides, that's not true. The Templars and Seekers first ordered the mages to abide by the laws of the Circle.

When they refused and resisted violently, that's when they declared the Right of Annulment.

So, what were they doing wrong? Well, killing Templars and Seekers for one.
 

 

- You're ignoring the fact that mages cameand went feely and the society didn't turn into chaos, it functioned fine.

- I prefer to one where people with swords who would kill me are locked, or bandits that would kill me on the road are locked up.  But I don't advocate locking up everyone with combat training that's not in the army or the Templar order.

- If we've come to the point ofmages spending time with their families is endangering them I don't know what to say.  I'm sure their families don't feel that way.  We're just getting into wild exaggerations now.

- As far as killing templars and seekers,  Yes how dare they defend their right to freedom, and to be with their families from people who came to take it away for no reason.  Mages were not the aggressors.

[MisterJB]

- You're ignoring the fact that mages cameand went feely and the society didn't turn into chaos, it functioned fine.

Entire areas were being ruled over by mages. And we have no idea of how many were abused or killed by Abominations.

 

 

- I prefer to one where people with swords who would kill me are locked, or bandits that would kill me on the road are locked up.  But I don't advocate locking up everyone with combat training that's not in the army or the Templar order.

Good things swords can be taken away, eh?
How does one take away magic?

 

- If we've come to the point ofmages spending time with their families is endangering them I don't know what to say.  I'm sure their families don't feel that way.  We're just getting into wild exaggerations now.

Mages can be possessed at any time. Meredith's sister killed 73 people.

Mages are a danger always.

 

- As far as killing templars and seekers,  Yes how dare they defend their right to freedom, and to be with their families from people who came to take it away for no reason.  Mages were not the aggressors.

They don't have a right to freedom. If they're part of a Circle, then they have a duty to abide by the laws of the Circle.

 

[Xilizhra]

They don't have a right to freedom. If they're part of a Circle, then they have a duty to abide by the laws of the Circle.

Which the Chantry no longer controls, so all of this is moot.

[MisterJB]

Which the Chantry no longer controls, so all of this is moot.

Yes, yes, the Chantry hasn't controlled the Circle for years now and that hasn't prevented any of these arguments.

We'll both be able to side with the factions of our choice, Xil.

[Aaleel]

Entire areas were being ruled over by mages. And we have no idea of how many were abused or killed by Abominations.

 

 

Good things swords can be taken away, eh?
How does one take away magic?

 

Mages can be possessed at any time. Meredith's sister killed 73 people.

Mages are a danger always.

 

They don't have a right to freedom. If they're part of a Circle, then they have a duty to abide by the laws of the Circle.

You keep saying we don't know, but the difference between the two of us is that you assume the worst in every mage, ignoring the mages who have aided you in the past. 

 

Swords are readily available if a person wants to rob, steal and kill they can.

 

People in general are a danger mage or not, some will turn out good some not.  How many people did Arl Howe kill at the start of Origins?  How many elves died as a result of the slave trade Loghain was engaging in.  Like I've said from the start the entire argument is hypocrisy. 

 

Their really is no repsonse for the phrase "They don't have the right to freedom", so I'll just leave it at that.

[lil yonce]

Are you going to? You are the one I'm having an argument with.

Um. I agree with her. If you want to address my opinion, address what she said.

 

And yet "mundane" is never used outside of Tevinter or by mage supremacists. One could argue non-mage is just as innapropriate.

There aren't any real life mages and thus I'm not breaking forum rules.

It's used once or twice outside mention of Tevinter IIRC. Non-mage is most often used, I remember, but mundane isn't wrong. And non-mage is not inappropriate - WoT uses it repeatedly. Also, you may not be in violation of forum rules, but you're aware of the negative real life associations the term "normal" can conjure. It would be most respectful to not use it IMO for that reason, and in-universe, its inaccurate as Xil pointed out, and has a dehumanzing consequence.

 

Other than the slaves and Southern tribes as a whole rallying around the woman that said "Magic exists to serve man, never to rule over him?"

It's not about rejecting all of magic; even Drakon used mages against the Blight; it's about allowing the non-magical people of Thedas to have control over their societies. Not hand them over to mages and have them become Tevinter in all but name.

And that phrase doesn't mean mages should not have power. Tevinter has taken the same phrase and used it to justify mage rule, demonstrating just how broad interpretations of it can be.

 

Not as long as people rely on magic.

Um. If a better alternative is presented, people will use it. I mean, we don't still rely on steampower or coal or strictly any one power source from by-gone eras because, hey, its always been around.

 

It stands as a warning of the danger posed by free mages; even those seemingly "benevolent".

So now its a threat for existing?

 

The point is that it's difficult to prove any of these Abominations were created by the Circle.

A person leaning towards the mages will see Huon as having been made mad by the Circle and think he would have lived peacefully had he been left alone.

 

A person leaning towards the Templars will notice how there is no mention of Templars in his speech. Rather he speaks only of lashing out against humans and thus it's possible he was always harboring violent ideas and the education on the Circle enmpowered him to pursue this.

 

If we can't even prove why these Abominations became so, how can we ask the people of Thedas to risk their lives on the off chances they won't cause any harm?

 

The test weeds outs those who would have, most likely, become Abominations later in life. That way, they are eliminated before they can harm others.

It's not difficult. If you don't consider the circumstances its simple to blame turning abomination all on the mage. A closer look reveals that the circle bears a lot of blame in the abominations we've seen. And the Harrowing as now conducted does not prove failed mages would have later become abominations.

Modifié par lil yonce, 04 août 2014 - 02:06 .

[Inprea]

They don't have a right to freedom. If they're part of a Circle, then they have a duty to abide by the laws of the Circle.

 

Why do they have a duty to the circle when they didn't choose to join it? Yet somehow they don't have a right to freedom. If they don't freely choose to be part of the circle then they have no duty to it.

[MisterJB]

Why do they have a duty to the circle when they didn't choose to join it? Yet somehow they don't have a right to freedom. If they don't freely choose to be part of the circle then they have no duty to it.

 

I didn't choose to be born to my nation.

I still have a duty to it.
 

[Joe25]

Pro Mage 

Spoiler

[Aaleel]

I didn't choose to be born to my nation.

I still have a duty to it.
 

 

Would you still say that if they locked you up for no reason, having committed no crime?  Would you just say well these are the rules so I'll just accept it?

[Xilizhra]

I didn't choose to be born to my nation.

I still have a duty to it.
 

But you can leave your nation and go elsewhere.

[The Baconer]

So much naivety. All the mages have to do to control all of society is to use magic towards making money. They already produce glowing stones for Val-Royeaux thus, we see the beginnings of electricity except it can only be produced by mages. Do you see us today holding a revolution against electricity?

If allowed to flourish, magic would eventually dominate the entire making the population entirely dependant on mages. After that, it's a matter of sending the right money into the right pockets to approve the right laws.

 

Give mages freedom, and they'll be in control within a century. Which is why they should have no power to make decisions beyond what happens within the Circle.

 

Research that leads to the creation of devices like the glowlamp would occur anyway if mages are allowed to conduct it within the Circle. If they actually manage to invent something akin to a magical power-grid people will be clamoring for it regardless, unless of course you make some techo-phobic law banning the development of magical tech, which sounds like an awful policy.

[DarthLaxian]

He didn't say the world would be a better place.   Just that everyone would be dependant on mages.

 

If mages are allowed to be free from restrictions, then the societies in which they exist in will eventually turn into magocracies... That's the case for every nation in Thedas that doesn't strictly control their mages.

 

What I don't understand is why some people think that it's a good thing for the overlords to be mages instead of normal people...  I mean, if you're a mage, sure, it's awesome. But if you're not a mage, there's no reason to see that as a good thing unless you've been brainwashed into thinking it like the Dalish have been.

 

This is baseless speculation (Tevinter does not count - as it has (as far as we know) always been under mage rule)

 

There are free mages that don't dominate people:

 

Witches/Wizards of the Wilds (!) - Hell, even Flemeth (the prime example, despite her being more powerful than the run of the mill mage) does not openly dominate (people do as she says because they fear her, yes, but she does not rule them as it is - she uses them when she needs them and leaves them to their own devices otherwise)!

 

So that's a flawed argument - yes, some mages might go for domination, but most probably wouldn't (hell, if mages were offered to be let out of the circles after learning control, there would be some, that would just leave after achieving that (not wanting magic in the first place - like that praying apprentice in DA:O during the mage origin who thinks the maker has cursed her!))

 

Hell, that's saying:

 

Let us condemn all humans, as some are monsters/murderers/rapists etc. - even if those abominations are balanced out by figures like Mother Theresa or Martin Luther King, Albert Einstein, William Shakespear, Ludwig van Beethoven etc.

 

greetings LAX

[Inprea]

I didn't choose to be born to my nation.

I still have a duty to it.
 

 

That is not a fact it's a belief at best. Just like some believe that every sentient being has certain innate rights granted to them simply by being a sentient being or gifted by their creator. Yet you want to declare mages have no right to freedom and speak of duty as if it was a fact.

 

Some would also argue that a nation has a duty to its people and if that duty isn't being met they have a right to defend their interest. At least the average person in thedas seems to have the right to leave their nation of origin if they dislike its demands.

[AshenEndymion]

Would you still say that if they locked you up for no reason, having committed no crime?  Would you just say well these are the rules so I'll just accept it?

 

If they locked me up, I committed a crime.  I may not agree that it should be a crime, but it's still a crime.  In Andrastian nations, being a mage is a crime.  A mage may not like it, but if they don't, they can leave.

 

But you can leave your nation and go elsewhere.

 

So can mages.  Mages can make it to Tevinter as feasibly as someone in nation they don't like can make it to a different one.

 

There are free mages that don't dominate people:

 

Witches/Wizards of the Wilds (!) - Hell, even Flemeth (the prime example, despite her being more powerful than the run of the mill mage) does not openly dominate (people do as she says because they fear her, yes, but she does not rule them as it is - she uses them when she needs them and leaves them to their own devices otherwise)!

 

If Flemeth were to ask something of someone, and they didn't do it, would she punish them in some manner?  If yes, then she's ruling over people, even if Flemeth is leaving people to their own devices when she's not around(keep in mind, the only time the player gets to say 'no' to Flemeth, she turns into a dragon and tries to kill them).  Flemeth(and the other witches of the wilds) will take what she wants, from anyone, if she thinks she can take it.  Thus she's no different from a magister of Tevinter.

 

There are no free mages that don't try to exert their power over others...

[Daerog]

Okay, so let's give mages a choice between the Circle or they can go to Tevinter. Plenty mages like the Circle, it should be there for them, those who don't want restrictions for being a mage can go where there is none and leave the nations that want these restrictions.

 

Until there is public education that can help mundanes deal with mage neighbors, it would be wrong to place people in danger by having mages move into town... they would just lynch the mages anyway out of fear of not knowing how to live with and defend themselves from a mage.

 

Maybe enchant towns so they negate magic and mages can live there like mundanes. Maybe mass produce antimagic armor, shields, and weapons?

 

Cultures are different, saying the Orlesians or Fereldans should be like Tevinter or Rivain with how they approach mages and magic is like asking the Dalish to be more like the Andrastians with how they are open to trade and use a lot of diplomacy with neighbors. It's not going to be a welcomed suggestion.

[Samahl]

So can mages.  Mages can make it to Tevinter as feasibly as someone in nation they don't like can make it to a different one.

 

Seriously?

[A Clever Name]

If they locked me up, I committed a crime.  I may not agree that it should be a crime, but it's still a crime.  In Andrastian nations, being a mage is a crime.  A mage may not like it, but if they don't, they can leave.

 

 

So can mages.  Mages can make it to Tevinter as feasibly as someone in nation they don't like can make it to a different one.

 

 

If Flemeth were to ask something of someone, and they didn't do it, would she punish them in some manner?  If yes, then she's ruling over people, even if Flemeth is leaving people to their own devices when she's not around(keep in mind, the only time the player gets to say 'no' to Flemeth, she turns into a dragon and tries to kill them).  Flemeth(and the other witches of the wilds) will take what she wants, from anyone, if she thinks she can take it.  Thus she's no different from a magister of Tevinter.

 

There are no free mages that don't try to exert their power over others...

They can break out of the Circle?  Cool, sounds about the same as breaking out of prison just because you don't like it there.  Reasonable.  Especially the threat of death or Tranquility that comes along with breaking out of the Circle.  Hopefully their phylacteries haven't been made yet - that would be a shame.

 

Your point being?  A non-mage who doesn't like Tevinter's magocracy is welcome to leave and join one of the White Chantry nations as well.  I don't see what this has to do with your argument.

 

Ifs don't make an argument - they make speculation.  Flemeth attacks the player because her daughter Morrigan sent them to kill her - as far as I can tell that sounds like self-defense.  And she's different from a magister in the fact that she doesn't live in Tevinter, doesn't hold a seat in the Senate, and we have no known examples of her owning slaves or practicing blood magic rituals.  You're arguing that someone who was raised differently than you has an inherently flawed set of morals because they possess different perspectives and instincts.  They would feasibly say the same of you to them, and that sort of stance doesn't really get anyone anywhere.  It doesn't change what that person knows or the values they were raised with.  I wouldn't have used Flemeth as an example since she's rather morally ambiguous, but the point should be acknowledged that she hasn't tried to dominate or rule anyone just because she's a mage.  Yet.

 

Aneirin doesn't try to exert his power over others, either.  Nor does Bethany, or Merrill, or Marethari, or Malcolm...should I continue?  It's an awful generalization to make, and I'd never say "all Templars try to abuse Circle mages," because they don't.  We've seen plenty of awesome Templars, because in the end, people are people, and their morals aren't determined by their skill sets.  Power, in all its guises, is neutral, and reflects the person that wields it - not the other way around.

 

It's silly to argue over what people "deserve."  Who ever has the right to decide that?  Opinions are skewed from involvement, while those who have no stake in the decision don't know how both sides will react or fare.  Impartiality is hard to achieve to begin with, especially in the Dragon Age setting.  In the end everyone gets to decide how they would like in the upcoming game.  Everyone gets to reflect what they believe the factions deserve into their playthroughs, so in the end everyone should feasibly be happy.

[Daerog]

Seriously?

Well, it kind of would be the same. Nobles and mages in loosely guarded Circles can do a lot, respected enchanted can move around a lot. However, peasants are usually tied to their land without connections elsewhere, but they are not hunted down for leaving, they are allowed to go off and starve.