1751 réponses à ce sujet

[efd731]

Nevarra has circles as well. They are one of the more chantry fervent countries in The dad.

incorrect. They are at war with Orlais(seat of the chantry) have a completely different climate, and haven't been explored at all in game. There is no information abiut the state of their mages besides the fact that the mortalitasi are royal advisors and frequently raise the Nevarran dead. Given the free reign this implies, probably not that fervent about their andrastianism. Are you thinking of the Anderfels by chance?

[wcholcombe]

[quote name="Mo
There are 2 villains here, not one, but arguably, now it's too late. The harm is done.

It was the responsibility of the people in charge of Circles, the Templars, the Chantry, the Divine and whoever else, to change this system before it led to this, and either try something new, or mimic other nations that deal with these problems without Chantry Circles(sort-of, for Tevinter), like Tevinter, the Dalish, maybe even Nevarra. But they didn't. And they wouldn't. We needed 1000 years and a rebellion for them to arrange negotiations.[/quote]

And that is exactly the point of Viviennes comment and others in this thread. The Divine was making reforms. The mages had an ally who was the mostppowerful person in Thedas when it came to the circles. She had publicly countered her lord seeker and stated that magic was a gift. She was the most reform minded divine in history possibly and the mages spit in her face. Even then she still supported them against Lambert.

As for treatment, again as has been established Kirkwall was undully harsh. Prior to Anders, it has been shown that mages enjoyed a good deal of freedoms once harrowed and some even before being harrowed.

Don't transpose the treatment of the last game and Asunder make you believe all towers were like that for 700 years.

Also, tevinter invented the circles, and Nevarra has circles.

[Vandicus]

incorrect. They are at war with Orlais(seat of the chantry) have a completely different climate, and haven't been explored at all in game. There is no information abiut the state of their mages besides the fact that the mortalitasi are royal advisors and frequently raise the Nevarran dead. Given the free reign this implies, probably not that fervent about their andrastianism. Are you thinking of the Anderfels by chance?

Celene has Morrigan and Vivienne in her court.

 

Orlais being the seat of the Chantry's power, I'm not sure that influential mages indicates free reign.

 

The College of Magi is located in Cumberland(a Nevarran city) on top of that. It would seem strange to me that the Chantry would have mages regularly convene in a country outside their control as well as maintain such an extravagant structure there. 

 

Also, what is necromancy supposed to imply? As far as I understand, its not forbidden like blood magic.

[AshesEleven]

 

People also bring up how the mages are prisoners, but they flat out ignore the city elves, castless-dwarves, and peasants which also are prisoners by their same definition. City elves can't really leave their allianages, Casteless dwarves are stuck in there own area, and serfs by their nature are tied to the land. They can't just up and leave either. 

 

Most mages circle are much better off then the city elves lives, yet people seem to be far more on their case then the city elves case. Life for a commoner in thedas isn't all that great. For those that live in crippling poverty, ie city elves and casteless dwarves it is far worse. As you said, if fiona or any mage didn't have magical powers their lives would be much worse off. Yet why are they not being defended. 

 

People bring up the fact that mages can't have children or marry, but that is wrong.  mages can, otherwise wynne would not have had her son. 

 

Another thing that I have noticed that kind of annoys me is that the mage supporter seem to ignore and not care about the lives that mages have killed. From Meredith's sister who killed her family to serial killers like Quientin. They seem to ignore that just to focus on their own opression. Do there lives not matter as much as the mages?

 

 

Nevarra as well has mages in a special place, as advisors to the royal family. Well if you a member of the Mortalitasi, creepy necromancers. but they are weird, but also interesting. 

 

 

 

Concerning the city elves...Anders had the gall in DA2 to say that the elves and the mages shared a similar plight.

 

WHAT.  

 

Don't you dare claim that mages have it anywhere near as bad as elves, Anders.  It just sickened me.  After I heard that line I was like "Oh you're totally going down when I get my hands on you."  

[wcholcombe]

http://dragonage.wik.../Circle_of_Magi

incorrect. They are at war with Orlais(seat of the chantry) have a completely different climate, and haven't been explored at all in game. There is no information abiut the state of their mages besides the fact that the mortalitasi are royal advisors and frequently raise the Nevarran dead. Given the free reign this implies, probably not that fervent about their andrastianism. Are you thinking of the Anderfels by chance?

I must say I love head canon.

Cumberland is the circle seat of the Grand enchanter and is the largest and most powerful circle in thedas. It is also in Nevarra.

Plus world of thedas says the dominant faith is chantry. We don't know what exactly the mortalasti are except that they mummify.

[herkles]

Nevarra has circles as well. They are one of the more chantry fervent countries in The dad.

 

Just doubled checked the wiki, and yeah. Nevarra does have circles, forgot about them. It also is where the grand enchanter is based. However, it still doesn't change my point that they had an alternative of being like how the mortalitasi are treated. Though you are right. 

 

 

incorrect. They are at war with Orlais(seat of the chantry) have a completely different climate, and haven't been explored at all in game. There is no information abiut the state of their mages besides the fact that the mortalitasi are royal advisors and frequently raise the Nevarran dead. Given the free reign this implies, probably not that fervent about their andrastianism. Are you thinking of the Anderfels by chance?

 

uhm. no?

they are not at war with Orlais, not any more. the last time the kingdom of Nevarra and the empire of Orlais were at war was in 8:70 Blessed. Just because they were at war did not mean they were at war with Orlais since they are also faithful to the chantry. 

 

Not sure what their climate has to do with anything or the fact they haven't been explored in game.

 

Actually we know a bit about about Nevarra. we know why they believe this as one big example, notably that when a person dies that a spirit must come to this world.  Most of the information though is more on the countyr then the Mortalitasi.

 

Anderfels is the most devoted, but that doesn't mean other nations aren't devoted either. 

[Shahadem]

@Mornmagor:  I am not Pro-Templar. 

 

And yes, I do tend to think about how my actions would affect those around me before I make them.  And yes, if I heard voices and saw images and felt my body was being invaded - if I was capable of it mentally - I would absolutely inter myself in an asylum.  I also agreed with Samara about the Ardat Yakshi. 

 

And mages had plenty of freedom - they just had to prove they were worthy of the trust.  (Like Wynne, Vivienne, Finn, Ines)

 

And yet she couldn't have children or a normal life. All her choices were decided by the Circle. While she may have had a silk leash, she had a leash nevertheless. And just because she was happy in that life doesn't mean everyone was or could be.

[The Baconer]

incorrect. They are at war with Orlais(seat of the chantry) [...] There is no information abiut the state of their mages besides the fact that the mortalitasi are royal advisors and frequently raise the Nevarran dead.

 

Where is this stuff even coming from

[Adanu]

Concerning the city elves...Anders had the gall in DA2 to say that the elves and the mages shared a similar plight.

 

WHAT.  

 

Don't you dare claim that mages have it anywhere near as bad as elves, Anders.  It just sickened me.  After I heard that line I was like "Oh you're totally going down when I get my hands on you."  

 

Actually, they are pretty similar, though elves have more freedom of movement.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Actually, they are pretty similar, though elves have more freedom of movement.

Slightly more, given that the elves need to pay for it out of essentially nonexistent wages. Though I'll also note that mages get room and board, and are able to live without working (since they are explicitly not used for slave labor according to David Gaider, and we have evidence for that ingame with the fact that one of their best mages was able to get away with not teaching apprentices in official classes.)

[Mornmagor]

This is not about Dwarves or Elves. This is about oppression, and where it leads.

 

So yes, if you oppress Elves too much, they will rebel as well, and we had occurrences like that in the past. The difference is, that an Elven rebellion from the slums is not as hard to deal with compared to a Mage one, unless it happens all over. We didn't have that so far, we have it with Mages.

 

So i fail to see what this point proves. Of course people are oppressed all over. And it usually leads to vending years of frustration. You're agreeing with me? That oppression leads to tension?

 

And Mages are not oppressed? Excuse me, having you taken from your family, either you want it or not, when you're little enough, is not going to impact you at all? Of course it will.

 

Stripping you from nobility, not allowing you to marry or have kids, or have any kind of power in society, but to adhere to every thing you are told in the Circle, is ok?

 

It's okay, because they don't have to fear of bandits? Yeah they have to fear Templars and Tranquility. Really? Bandits are the problem?

 

They won't have to defend a noble's war? They will be used as meatshields where appropriate, don't worry. Wars expand to cities, which have Circles. You're not just out of it. Darkspawn the same. A city overrun by Darkspawn during a Blight, is gonna have the Mages of the Circle defend it anyway. So what point are you making exactly?

 

I mean, the dangers of an open world are a problem now? That we have to face with seclusion? So we're fine? They should be happy with the absence of bandits now?

 

Starving and illiterate? No, no, no, our Inquisitor, if Human Mage, belonged to a family where there was no point of starvation, or illiteracy. It doesn't work that way.

 

Mage life, is not better or worse than living in the city as an Elf. It's a different kind of "tragedy", the kind that you are stuck with a label you didn't choose.

 

The point was not, if others were oppressed as well. I mean, what kind of point is this? Mages are not oppressed, because others have it worse(in the poster's opinion)? This is a logical fallacy, one has nothing to do with the other.

 

The point i made was, that oppression, will lead to a rebellion at some point. The consequenses of said rebellion, may vary. Now, we have something serious. An Elven alienage one, was not as serious in a previous game. Tension will be there however, and it will build up, until at some point it's vented.

 

The Circles might have been different than the events in Kirkwall or Asunder, but a system that has few freedoms in general, is going to lead to our situation eventually. You don't need the majority for that. A few can start the uprise. With enough bad luck, and the wrong people in the wrong places, you have yourself a rebellion. You have a system where people can easily abuse others. That's okay, because they might potentially become abominations and kill people?

 

Vivienne isn't talking about that. She believes that the Circle system is one of priviledges for the Mages, priviledges that according to her, they don't see.

 

We don't have to agree on everything with Vivienne.

 

Suffice to say that, yes, this was a bad time.

 

The changes however, should have been made, not because of power abuse in a book or Kirwall, but because the system had holes in it, stripping people from the freedom to even be with their family.

 

I repeat, people are more easily pro-Templar than pro-Mage, because they can imagine a self security danger easier, than themselves being hunted by the world.

[Sports72Xtrm]

alright the pro templars have to address that the Circles are intolerable. The evidence is everywhere, in every game mages are trying to free themselves from the circle. In DA:O, mages turned to blood magic because they couldn't handle the Templars oppressive authority over them (the Ferelden Circle). Kirkwall, Starkhaven ,even the White Spire in Asunder. People can say the mages have it so good all they want but its head cannon since if it was truly a paradise, mages wouldn't go to such lengths for change. The Mage unrest is not head cannon.

[Xilizhra]

@Mornmagor:  I am not Pro-Templar. 

 

And yes, I do tend to think about how my actions would affect those around me before I make them.  And yes, if I heard voices and saw images and felt my body was being invaded - if I was capable of it mentally - I would absolutely inter myself in an asylum.  I also agreed with Samara about the Ardat Yakshi. 

 

And mages had plenty of freedom - they just had to prove they were worthy of the trust.  (Like Wynne, Vivienne, Finn, Ines)

Didn't you side with the templars in DA2?

[Xilizhra]

@Xilizhra:  I believe the problem comes in where you actually believe the problems presented in the fictional world don't exist for the majority of mages when we're told flat out otherwise.

 

- Demons are drawn to mages. 
- The vast majority of possessions are mages

- Demons don't have to have permission.  They can either 1) Trick you. Or 2) Force their way in.

- Emotion is the driving factor of possession. (THIS is what makes every mage dangerous.)

- There is no protection against demonic possession that "training" can provide.  Because by training, you seem to mean "Oh, I got "Resist Demon" talent and am now impervious.  Not even the Grand Enchanter is impervious to possession.  The Tevinter Magisters are not impervious to possession and they have the greatest mages on Thedas.

- A mage throwing fire with his mind... is not the same as a crazed peasant with a torch. 

- Using any magic weakens the Veil (other things do too to be certain - but every spell weakens the Veil)  For myself - this is tantamount to pollution - and I wouldn't want my town polluted by a weakened Veil and that is as a mage.  Even if I were living in New Lothering... I'd apply for huge restrictions on magic within town limits (my own included).

 

I'm not sure what you believe about blood magic.

 

As for Harrowings - if the Tevinter do them (and I "think" they do - but I'm not sure) then there's very likely a good reason Harrowings happen.  I personally believe they're essential - but I'm open to being proven wrong on this (and I don't believe any evidence at all has been provided so far - Hawke's children are special snowflakes)

Then show me a situation where a mage was possessed when the Veil wasn't already ripped, or the demon had been summoned before, and I'll believe you.

[AshesEleven]

Actually, they are pretty similar, though elves have more freedom of movement.

 

And elves are completely mistreated by EVERYONE, and generally don't have the power to fight back.  They aren't educated, live in the slums of cities, are considered inferior citizens, and there isn't anyplace in Thedas except perhaps running to the Qun for elves to get away from oppression.

 

Whereas mages are taken care of if they behave, have ALL THE POWER IN THE WORLD, are educated, live in safe towers, and are treated with fear but also respect.  And if a mage really hates all that crap, the Tevinter Imperium exists as a place where mages rule.  

 

No, it isn't similar.  In one case we have blatant racism, in the other we have justified fear.  

[Vandicus]

This is not about Dwarves or Elves. This is about oppression, and where it leads.

 

So yes, if you oppress Elves too much, they will rebel as well, and we had occurrences like that in the past. The difference is, that an Elven rebellion from the slums is not as hard to deal with compared to a Mage one, unless it happens all over. We didn't have that so far, we have it with Mages.

 

So i fail to see what this point proves. Of course people are oppressed all over. And it usually leads to vending years of frustration. You're agreeing with me? That oppression leads to tension?

 

And Mages are not oppressed? Excuse me, having you taken from your family, either you want it or not, when you're little enough, is not going to impact you at all? Of course it will.

 

Stripping you from nobility, not allowing you to marry or have kids, or have any kind of power in society, but to adhere to every thing you are told in the Circle, is ok?

 

It's okay, because they don't have to fear of bandits? Yeah they have to fear Templars and Tranquility. Really? Bandits are the problem?

 

They won't have to defend a noble's war? They will be used as meatshields where appropriate, don't worry. Wars expand to cities, which have Circles. You're not just out of it. Darkspawn the same. A city overrun by Darkspawn during a Blight, is gonna have the Mages of the Circle defend it anyway. So what point are you making exactly?

 

I mean, the dangers of an open world are a problem now? That we have to face with seclusion? So we're fine? They should be happy with the absence of bandits now?

 

Starving and illiterate? No, no, no, our Inquisitor, if Human Mage, belonged to a family where there was no point of starvation, or illiteracy. It doesn't work that way.

 

Mage life, is not better or worse than living in the city as an Elf. It's a different kind of "tragedy", the kind that you are stuck with a label you didn't choose.

 

The point was not, if others were oppressed as well. I mean, what kind of point is this? Mages are not oppressed, because others have it worse(in the poster's opinion)? This is a logical fallacy, one has nothing to do with the other.

 

The point i made was, that oppression, will lead to a rebellion at some point. The consequenses of said rebellion, may vary. Now, we have something serious. An Elven alienage one, was not as serious in a previous game. Tension will be there however, and it will build up, until at some point it's vented.

 

The Circles might have been different than the events in Kirkwall or Asunder, but a system that has few freedoms in general, is going to lead to our situation eventually. You don't need the majority for that. A few can start the uprise. With enough bad luck, and the wrong people in the wrong places, you have yourself a rebellion.

 

Vivienne is talking about that. She believes that the Circle system is one of priviledges for the Mages, priviledges that according to her, they don't see.

 

We don't have to agree on everything with Vivienne.

 

Suffice to say that, yes, this was a bad time.

 

The changes however, should have been made, not because of power abuse in a book or Kirwall, but because the system had holes in it.

 

 

The mages live an existence subsidized by the likes of the serfs and city elves. They are not attempting to reform the society they live in, but allegedly move into normal society.

 

Where they will be serfs and live in alienages.

 

 

As Vivienne observed, this doesn't seem to be a well thought out decision.

 

That is why the situation in which mages would be living were they not mages, is relevant. 

 

*EDIT

 

And yes, outside of Circles seems a lot worse than in them. I haven't seen much evidence to indicate that templar abuses are significantly more common than the depredations of the nobles(its pretty much a problem with people having power over others, and I don't see why either group should have a significant deviation from the other, aside from templars having more people cross checking their behavior). Add bandits and darkspawns to that and the mage situation seems better than the serf or city elf one.

 

Most serfs would probably have a few winters where they went hungry, especially during war time.

 

Mages are neutral due to the Chantry, and are explicitly forbidden from participating in wars.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Whereas mages are taken care of if they behave, have ALL THE POWER IN THE WORLD, are educated, live in safe towers, and are treated with fear but also respect.  And if a mage really hates all that crap, the Tevinter Imperium exists as a place where mages rule.  

I will note as a flaw in your argument that there are abuses by corrupt Templars. (Which can to some degree be remedied. I certainly intend to try if I'm allowed to rebuild the Circles in my image.)

[Mornmagor]

The mages live an existence subsidized by the likes of the serfs and city elves. They are not attempting to reform the society they live in, but allegedly move into normal society.

 

Where they will be serfs and live in alienages.

 

 

As Vivienne observed, this doesn't seem to be a well thought out decision.

 

That is why the situation in which mages would be living were they not mages, is relevant. 

 

Or they just wanted a break from the Chantry? You can have circles without Templars running them.

 

And also, if Circles are in Nevarra, and the strongest one is there, why are the abominations a "frequent natural disaster"?

 

Shouldn't it be the opposite? Why are the Dalish not suffering from these abominations with no Circles?

 

Edit: You can't be serious that life in Circles is a priviledged one. The argument has substance if you look at from the perspective of "where the Mages would be living NOW", after all this, but this would never happen, if the Circles were different places and allowed more freedom.

[Xilizhra]

The mages live an existence subsidized by the likes of the serfs and city elves. They are not attempting to reform the society they live in, but allegedly move into normal society.

 

Where they will be serfs and live in alienages.

 

 

As Vivienne observed, this doesn't seem to be a well thought out decision.

 

That is why the situation in which mages would be living were they not mages, is relevant. 

 

*EDIT

 

And yes, outside of Circles seems a lot worse than in them. I haven't seen much evidence to indicate that templar abuses are significantly more common than the depredations of the nobles(its pretty much a problem with people having power over others, and I don't see why either group should have a significant deviation from the other, aside from templars having more people cross checking their behavior). Add bandits and darkspawns to that and the mage situation seems better than the serf or city elf one.

 

Most serfs would probably have a few winters where they went hungry, especially during war time.

 

Mages are neutral due to the Chantry, and are explicitly forbidden from participating in wars.

Aside from there being a lack of evidence of the existence of serfdom in Thedas, whatever common mundanes are out there aren't fed to demons as a coming-of-age ceremony, have no prospect of having their emotional capacity forcibly ripped out, won't have all their children stolen, and don't live in a prison where they're constantly being watched by armored overlords.

[Vandicus]

Or they just wanted a break from the Chantry? You can have circles without Templars running them.

 

And also, if Circles are in Nevarra, and the strongest one is there, why are the abominations a "frequent natural disaster"?

 

Shouldn't it be the opposite? Why are the Dalish not suffering from these abominations with no Circles?

 

 

Rivain is the place where they've got seasonal abominations.

 

If I recall correctly, we've heard of a Dalish clan before being wiped out by its Keeper(as an abomination).

 

 

By Circles without the Chantry do you mean Circles without mundane oversight, or Circles without an international organization, or Circles without Andrastian oversight?

 

Without mundane oversight, all it takes is one arse(say an Uldred or the guys who created second Tevinter) to use blood magic and demons and force everyone else to capitulate or die.

 

You might argue the templars were little able to stem the event in Fereldan, but at the least they would've kept it to one Circle. It'd be pretty horrible if all the mages were taken over by a madman or would-be king.

 

 

Without an international organizations bears the problems of nobles forcing mages to fight in wars. Which in turn leads to blood magic and all kinds of craziness. An international organization needs to exist to maintain neutrality and it needs to be strong enough to keep nobles from simply ignoring it.

 

I don't really see the problem with the organization being Andrastian, the mages are highly likely to be Andrastian themselves, and so is anyone else likely to oversee such a system.

 

The Chantry was previously the only organization that could fit the role.

 

The more I hear about the Inquisition we'll be leading in DA:I the more its sounds like it could fit the role and allow us to create better Circles(if it is, I imagine it'll come off as rather hyper-idealized, but that's fine Warden's ability to solve everything was that way too).

[AshesEleven]

I will note as a flaw in your argument that there are abuses by corrupt Templars. (Which can to some degree be remedied. I certainly intend to try if I'm allowed to rebuild the Circles in my image.)

 

They -can- be abused by corrupt Templars, which is a problem, and one that happens frequently in some Circles.  But city elves face abuse from all humans.  Obviously not all humans are racist against elves, but a majority of them are. 

[The Baconer]

And also, if Circles are in Nevarra, and the strongest one is there, why are the abominations a "frequent natural disaster"?

 

You're thinking of Rivain, not Nevarra.

 

Also, the Rivaini regarding abominations as "natural disasters" was never at any point implied to be derived from their frequency. It is a rather liberal interpretation that some people like to hold.

[Vandicus]

Aside from there being a lack of evidence of the existence of serfdom in Thedas, whatever common mundanes are out there aren't fed to demons as a coming-of-age ceremony, have no prospect of having their emotional capacity forcibly ripped out, won't have all their children stolen, and don't live in a prison where they're constantly being watched by armored overlords.

 

The validity of the Harrowing is a question independent of the existence of an organization like the Circle.

 

Slavers, DA:O elven Origin, and the general existence of being subject to a noble would suggest otherwise.

 

Society is feudal. See the Stolen Throne. Wars between nobles have hugely adverse effects on the serfs, and not unsurprisingly, they are the involuntary fodder for their wars. Those who refused to live on the nobles' land and pay their taxes were hunted down(Loghain's origin story pretty much).

 

Granted, its possible non-Orlesian Fereldan is more benign. There's nothing to indicate that they would necessarily be more tolerant of people freely living on what they consider to be their land though.

 

The Circle is as much a prison as any Alienage. It might even be argued Alienages are more so, given that mages can travel internationally.

 

*EDIT

 

Not to say I find the existing Circle systems acceptable or perfect by any means.

 

I'm just arguing that Vivienne's viewpoint seems very rational and well thought out. I'd be far more optimistic about the outcome of the mage rebellion if someone like her was leading it. I don't think the mage rebellion has a very clear idea of what they want or how to get it, or how their actions are being viewed.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Aside from there being a lack of evidence of the existence of serfdom in Thedas, whatever common mundanes are out there aren't fed to demons as a coming-of-age ceremony, have no prospect of having their emotional capacity forcibly ripped out, won't have all their children stolen, and don't live in a prison where they're constantly being watched by armored overlords.

Ferelden has a rank called "freeholder," which basically translates to "landed commoner." I think I remember that Orlais has serfs. As for "a prison where they're constantly being watched by armored overlords," one could argue that the Alienages qualify. (I'll see if I can do something about that, since at least the Templars have some reason to fear the mages. It might not even be that hard, since the elves seem to be thinking along the same lines in the Dales.) As for the rest of your points, they're legitimate, and all I can say is that I can see why it's all done and can't see how to avoid both those practices and the problems they're meant to avert.

[Xilizhra]

The validity of the Harrowing is a question independent of the existence of an organization like the Circle.

 

Slavers, DA:O elven Origin, and the general existence of being subject to a noble would suggest otherwise.

 

Society is feudal. See the Stolen Throne. Wars between nobles have hugely adverse effects on the serfs, and not unsurprisingly, they are the involuntary fodder for their wars. Those who refused to live on the nobles' land and pay their taxes were hunted down(Loghain's origin story pretty much).

 

Granted, its possible non-Orlesian Fereldan is more benign. There's nothing to indicate that they would necessarily be more tolerant of people freely living on what they consider to be their land though.

 

The Circle is as much a prison as any Alienage. It might even be argued Alienages are more so, given that mages can travel internationally.

You say this as though you think I like any other nation in Thedas. I don't. All of them are terrible. But the peasantry isn't revolting in any of them, which is why they haven't been a topic of discussion. I'd be happy to support said revolts, but again, they're not happening.

 

Also, "an organization like the Circle" is a question that's priority two in my mind. Priority one is stopping the templars from killing or imprisoning everyone, and ensuring they can never do so again.