1428 réponses à ce sujet

[Uccio]

The things is it isn't like reforms weren't asked for previously to the rebellion, obviously tweaking the existing system is better than this **** storm we got going on now. Talking to various Mages in the games mainly origins it's clear that many felt the Circle wasn't progressing in a meaningful way or fast enough. Or at least that was always my impressions of it, course idiots like Bloodmages only hindered any efforts 'good/normal' mages were attempting but I basically get the feeling that Mages were already seeking changes it just wasn't happening.

 

Templar Mindset DA:O/part of DA2: "You want to change the system? Lol nope, systems been in place for 1,000's of years besides y'all are dangerous."

 

Templar Mindset rest of DA2: "You want to change the system?(Hold a vote): "I'll gut you like a fish where you stand."

 

I see "evil blood mage" only as a symptom for the current circle system. When you are deprived of the life of a human being you tend to look for solutions, even extreme ones. What do you have to lose since you don´t even have anything? A golden cage is still a cage, with wardens.

Why do slaves rebel? Yeah, that´s right.

 

ps. I personally don´t see anything wrong with blood magic. It is just a tool, and if mages would know more about it and have a change for normal life, then most likely the majority would refrain from using it. The forbidden fruit and all.

[Helios969]

I see "evil blood mage" only as a symptom for the current circle system. When you are deprived of the life of a human being you tend to look for solutions, even extreme ones. What do you have to lose since you don´t even have anything? A golden cage is still a cage, with wardens.

Why do slaves rebel? Yeah, that´s right.

 

ps. I personally don´t see anything wrong with blood magic. It is just a tool, and if mages would know more about it and have a change for normal life, then most likely the majority would refrain from using it. The forbidden fruit and all.

 

Point 1: Blood magic is rampant in Tevinter where Mages rule absolute, so it isn't oppression that is driving Mages to resort to it.

 

Point 2:  Blood magic is rooted out because it is too easy for a Mage to rationalize taking it too far when they feel they are justified.  It is a slippery slope...going from sticking oneself to sacrificing animals to slaughtering people for more and more power.  The only not completely insane blood Mage was Merrill, yet her pride and stubbornness led to the Keepers death and potentially slaughtering her entire tribe.

 

I have no problem with general Mages and think the Circle system needs to be overhauled, but I think I'll just continue cutting down every Blood Mage I see if for no other reason to make Thedas a safer place to live.

[Adanu]

How about classical definitions of slavery as a property arrangement, the right to force labor from a slave, and the right to the profits of a slave's work (and thus any property the slaves claimed)?

 

Mages in Dragon Age (well, those outside Tevinter) fail on all three counts. They aren't considered, treated, or traded as property assets, they aren't forced to work, and they retain property rights and independent income from what work they choose to do.

 

'Slave' isn't synonymous with 'not free.' An infinitely better description is simply 'detainee.'

 

Sorry, mental gymnastics with pedantic twisting of words isn't going to win me over. It's a mental gymnastics argument using the letter of the word to defeat the spirit of the word.

 

Try again.

[Keroko]

Sorry, mental gymnastics with pedantic twisting of words isn't going to win me over. It's a mental gymnastics argument using the letter of the word to defeat the spirit of the word.
 
Try again.

A slave is someone forced to work for another person.

Neither templars, the Chantry or even royalty can force the mages to work for them (refer to Cailan requesting the Circle to help in Origins and neither the Chantry nor templars being able to do a goddamn thing about the Circle agreeing).

 

Ergo, mages aren't slaves.

[Yinello]

A Dwarf Casteless would trade places with a Mage anytime.

 

I don't like it myself but it looks like the game might force me to pick a side instead of brokering peace. In that case, I would pick the mages, because most of the problems are best fixed on their side.

[Adanu]

A slave is someone forced to work for another person.

Neither templars, the Chantry or even royalty can force the mages to work for them (refer to Cailan requesting the Circle to help in Origins and neither the Chantry nor templars being able to do a goddamn thing about the Circle agreeing).

 

Ergo, mages aren't slaves.

 

I direct you to the priest in the war meeting *ordering* the mage in Ostagar to save his spells for the darkspawn, because she refuses to allow lives to be trusted to him.

 

Considering we weren't there when the assistance messenger came and did that 'request', I don't consider that example valid.

[MisterJB]

I direct you to the priest in the war meeting *ordering* the mage in Ostagar to save his spells for the darkspawn, because she refuses to allow lives to be trusted to lhim.

Considering we weren't there when the assistance messenger came and did that 'request', I don't consider that example valid.

This the same Ostagar where we saw a mage saying "what her reverence desires is of no concerne to me."?
She was telling him to do something just as I might tell you to think before writing arguments but that does not make you my slave anymore than it made him hers.

[Keroko]

I direct you to the priest in the war meeting *ordering* the mage in Ostagar to save his spells for the darkspawn, because she refuses to allow lives to be trusted to him.

 

Considering we weren't there when the assistance messenger came and did that 'request', I don't consider that example valid.

 

And I'll direct you to Alistair saying the Chantry doesn't like the mages being there but being unable to do a damned thing about it, and the mage he was talking to literally saying that what the priestess desires is no concern of his. The priestess in the war council doesn't 'order' anything, she mocks him. Because she doesn't want him here in the first place. Which only proves even more the Chantry can't order the mages around, because here they are anyway.

 

Also the mage origin. Gregoire is against your mage leaving the Circle to join the Wardens, but all he does is object. He doesn't have the authority to stop you. Duncan doesn't even need to invoke the Right of Conscription.

 

And again post-Broken Circle, when Wynne asks to leave she asks Irving, not Gregoire. And it's Irving, not Gregoire, who gives Wynne the approval.

 

The Circle has rules to uphold, and the templars are there to insure they do, but neither they nor the Chantry can order the mages to war. That is for the Circle itself to decide.

 

Therefore, not slaves.

[MisterJB]

At any rate, this is in the game:
"Stronghold of apostate mages
Let the fools in Redcliff play the good mage as they always do. We know the truth. This world is ours to conquer. And every worthless peasant who threw a stone and Templar who glared in disappointment at our Harrowing deserve to know it as well."

Só there are good and bad mages in the hinterlands área. The bad mages call themselves "apostate" while the good mages are helping a Chantry Cleric help refugees. I wonder if this means they are the ones who came back.
Once this is over, I propôse the mages at Redcliff are rewarded while these apostates swing from a rope.

[Adanu]

This the same Ostagar where we saw a mage saying "what her reverence desires is of no concerne to me."?
She was telling him to do something just as I might tell you to think before writing arguments but that does not make you my slave anymore than it made him hers.

 

I'll bet he wouldn't say that to her face.

[Keroko]

I'll bet he wouldn't say that to her face.

 

Maybe, maybe not. What it proves is that he's not a slave. A slave would not be in a position to even consider refusing their masters 'requests.'

[berrieh]

1. You can listen to random mages walking around the gallows. Click on one during any of the acts, more likely in Act 1, and they'll say they can't talk to you or they'll get beaten. 

2. During Act 2, you hear another random mage say that they've been put down for the Rite of Tranquility, and that can't happen because she passed her Harrowing. Also, if you loot the Knight-Lieutenant before Karl starts speaking again in Act 1 when recruiting Anders, you'll get a note from Alrik ordering his men not to go to Meredith when it came to tranquilizing Karl. There's also the woman who was made tranquil who tells her former lover that she belongs only to Alrik now. 

 

yes, I know Alrik is pretty much the one doing this, but he could easily have been caught since the Rite of Tranquility requires Meredith's and Orsino's approval, and they need to sign the Order (as per Mage origin in Origins) so Meredith could have easily caught him years before his death by simply looking at the number tranquil and comparing it to her records. 

 

Interesting. I don't think this speaks to systemic problems as much as Meredith's poor leadership, which is basically not in question. Meredith is paranoid, overzealous, and not attentive enough to notice a corrupt Templar. This does not suggest to me that the Circle system is based around these things. I remember the part where mages say they can't talk, but didn't remember specifically saying they will be "beaten." 

 

I direct you to the priest in the war meeting *ordering* the mage in Ostagar to save his spells for the darkspawn, because she refuses to allow lives to be trusted to him.

 

Considering we weren't there when the assistance messenger came and did that 'request', I don't consider that example valid.

 

That mage was not ordered to go to War, though; merely given directions when at war. The soldiers are likely given all kinds of directions, some of them rudely delivered; are they slaves? 

 

As Keroko detailed, the mages are not required to fight or be there - many don't even want them there. They are less conscripted than the soldiers probably. 

 

The only people who HAVE slaves, ironically, are mages in Tevinter. 

[Xilizhra]

Hell, it's not even necessarily a serial rapist- just the 'burnt alive' fetish is absurd enough to be comical.

 

It's like David in ME2's Overlord DLC. When I see the eyes pried open for no reason but shock value, I laugh.

It doesn't have to be a fetish. Rape is more about domination than sex per se.

[TTTX]

The only people who HAVE slaves, ironically, are mages in Tevinter. 

technically Orlais have slaves too.

 

It's not unheard off for some of the nobles of Orlais to own elves as slaves, even though it's illegal.

[Lord_Caledore]

And I'll direct you to Alistair saying the Chantry doesn't like the mages being there but being unable to do a damned thing about it, and the mage he was talking to literally saying that what the priestess desires is no concern of his. The priestess in the war council doesn't 'order' anything, she mocks him. Because she doesn't want him here in the first place. Which only proves even more the Chantry can't order the mages around, because here they are anyway.

 

Also the mage origin. Gregoire is against your mage leaving the Circle to join the Wardens, but all he does is object. He doesn't have the authority to stop you. Duncan doesn't even need to invoke the Right of Conscription.

 

And again post-Broken Circle, when Wynne asks to leave she asks Irving, not Gregoire. And it's Irving, not Gregoire, who gives Wynne the approval.

 

 

These are all good points that I'm just now remebering as I re-play Origins. I think DA2 skewed my perception of how mages were treated; while it's not a picinic in Origins for mages by any means, they definitely have more autonomy, and the Templars have less authority over matters not related to maleficar and apostates.

I guess the question is which is more typical, the way Mages and Templars interact in Origins or in DA2. A lot probably depends on the individual Knight-Commanders and First Enchanters, but I also would think that DA2 is by no means the norm. Given how screwed up that city was, and adding the effects of the red lyrium on Meredith, I'm inclined to believe the Kirkwall Circle was an extreme case.

Of course, things escalated after Ander's actions, and then you saw a lot more extremist elements on both sides come out of the woodworks. But prior to that, while the Circle system certainly had major flaws, Origins seems to show that's it not necessarily as dysfunctional in other places as it is in Kirkwall.

[Xilizhra]

These are all good points that I'm just now remebering as I re-play Origins. I think DA2 skewed my perception of how mages were treated; while it's not a picinic in Origins for mages by any means, they definitely have more autonomy, and the Templars have less authority over matters not related to maleficar and apostates.

I guess the question is which is more typical, the way Mages and Templars interact in Origins or in DA2. A lot probably depends on the individual Knight-Commanders and First Enchanters, but I also would think that DA2 is by no means the norm. Given how screwed up that city was, and adding the effects of the red lyrium on Meredith, I'm inclined to believe the Kirkwall Circle was an extreme case.

Of course, things escalated after Ander's actions, and then you saw a lot more extremist elements on both sides come out of the woodworks. But prior to that, while the Circle system certainly had major flaws, Origins seems to show that's it not necessarily as dysfunctional in other places as it is in Kirkwall.

The Circle system cannot avoid horrific dysfunction unless it can reject the current Harrowing model and involuntary Tranquility, to say nothing of Annulment.

[Dark Helmet]

The Circle system cannot avoid horrific dysfunction unless it can reject the current Harrowing model and involuntary Tranquility, to say nothing of Annulment.

 

In your opinion maybe.

 

Harrowings, Tranquility, and Annulments all exist for a reason.

[Master Warder Z_]

The Circle system cannot avoid horrific dysfunction unless it can reject the current Harrowing model and involuntary Tranquility, to say nothing of Annulment.

Pfft.

[Keroko]

The Circle system cannot avoid horrific dysfunction unless it can reject the current Harrowing model and involuntary Tranquility, to say nothing of Annulment.

 

Saying "we must throw this away" ignores that those systems exist for a reason. While the Annulment is easily discarded with alternatives present (kill the bad mages, don't kill the good mages) the harrowing exists to ensure a mage is strong enough to resist demons. Tranquillity ensures a mage who has set his mind to evil will never harm anyone with his powers.

 

Alternatives for these systems must exist before they are discarded. If the mages in Inquisition cannot provide these alternatives, that is one strike against supporting them.

[Xilizhra]

Saying "we must throw this away" ignores that those systems exist for a reason. While the Annulment is easily discarded with alternatives present (kill the bad mages, don't kill the good mages) the harrowing exists to ensure a mage is strong enough to resist demons. Tranquillity ensures a mage who has set his mind to evil will never harm anyone with his powers.

 

Alternatives for these systems must exist before they are discarded. If the mages in Inquisition cannot provide these alternatives, that is one strike against supporting them.

Harrowing is relatively easy to fix, and I've offered the same suggestion several times on that measure. As for Tranquility... firstly, it'd only work to ensure that apprentices who have their mind set on evil wouldn't harm anyone, as it's illegal to make Harrowed mages Tranquil already. And I'd say that rather few apprentices would really have committed crimes so terrible that anything like that could really be warranted even with in-universe standards. So I think we'd lose rather little by simply abolishing involuntary Tranquility. I would also add a trial period to voluntary Tranquility, curing the Tranquil after the initial Rite so that they can have a taste of both states and seeing whether they truly want to continue being Tranquil.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Saying "we must throw this away" ignores that those systems exist for a reason. While the Annulment is easily discarded with alternatives present (kill the bad mages, don't kill the good mages) the harrowing exists to ensure a mage is strong enough to resist demons. Tranquillity ensures a mage who has set his mind to evil will never harm anyone with his powers.

 

Alternatives for these systems must exist before they are discarded. If the mages in Inquisition cannot provide these alternatives, that is one strike against supporting them.

If there are alternatives available, the Templars already forego the annulment in favor of the alternative.... The problem is, that when a situation calls for the annulment, then there usually aren't any alternatives.

Tranquility not only hampers the "evil mage", it also makes sure that the weak mage (who are often much more of a threat really) doesn't succumb to demons. It would be preferable if the mages in question could just lose their magic, and retain their personality, but that avenue of research went out the window with the rebellion.

The Harrowing is basically just a trial by fire, which a mage MUST go through at some point in their life anyway. Better it happen in a controlled environment, than out in the open. No alternative exists.

[Keroko]

Harrowing is relatively easy to fix, and I've offered the same suggestion several times on that measure. As for Tranquility... firstly, it'd only work to ensure that apprentices who have their mind set on evil wouldn't harm anyone, as it's illegal to make Harrowed mages Tranquil already. And I'd say that rather few apprentices would really have committed crimes so terrible that anything like that could really be warranted even with in-universe standards. So I think we'd lose rather little by simply abolishing involuntary Tranquility. I would also add a trial period to voluntary Tranquility, curing the Tranquil after the initial Rite so that they can have a taste of both states and seeing whether they truly want to continue being Tranquil.

 

How many times must we repeat that it's not illegal to make harrowed mages tranquil? Nowhere in any Dragon Age source is it said that making harrowed mages tranquil is illegal. The rules on tranquility state that it can be performed on any mage not capable or not willing to control their powers. Harrowed mages can and do fall in the later category, as Ulric and Orsino showed us.

 

And remember, this is Thedas. The penalty for stealing bread is already a public flogging. Death if you stole from the ruling noble. It only goes up from there, so saying something is a penalty "too heavy" for the kind of crimes mages can commit is severely underestimating the level of punishment dealt in Thedas.

 

But say we abolish tranquillity. How would you deal with criminal mages? No normal prison can hold them, and Aeonar is pretty much a death sentence.

 

As for a trial period on voluntary tranquility... what will this accomplish? Those that chose the rite did so because they knew that they wouldn't be able to face the  demons anyway. Trying to manipulate them out of becoming tranquil will -with the rare exception- only result in them turning into abominations eventually.

[Tevinter Soldier]

At any rate, this is in the game:
"Stronghold of apostate mages
Let the fools in Redcliff play the good mage as they always do. We know the truth. This world is ours to conquer. And every worthless peasant who threw a stone and Templar who glared in disappointment at our Harrowing deserve to know it as well."

Só there are good and bad mages in the hinterlands área. The bad mages call themselves "apostate" while the good mages are helping a Chantry Cleric help refugees. I wonder if this means they are the Jones who came back.
Once this is over, I propôse the mages até Redcliff are rewarded while these apostates swing from a rope.

 

yes because from what we've seen the templars aren't off, butchering pillaging and raping everything they can find.

the hinterlands has fallen into complete disarray and both sides are acting like grommets, yet once again only mages could possibly be the bad guys

 

as to exact how disgusting BOTH have been:

Spoiler

a group of templars stop some refugee's, Start pushing and threatening them and demanding supplies, then some apostates show up and blasting fire balls not caring the refugee's are there, the templars that aren't dead kill or chase off the mages, then one turns back and it's heavily implied he intends to rape the sole surviving refugee. but the person recalling all off this shoots him with an arrow

 

Spoiler

templars murder a farmer and steal the ring that his wife gave him, giving her a BS line about a shovel might actually be a mages staff

 

but sure it's always the mages.

[Xilizhra]

How many times must we repeat that it's not illegal to make harrowed mages tranquil? Nowhere in any Dragon Age source is it said that making harrowed mages tranquil is illegal. The rules on tranquility state that it can be performed on any mage not capable or not willing to control their powers. Harrowed mages can and do fall in the later category, as Ulric and Orsino showed us.

 

And remember, this is Thedas. The penalty for stealing bread is already a public flogging. Death if you stole from the ruling noble. It only goes up from there, so saying something is a penalty "too heavy" for the kind of crimes mages can commit is severely underestimating the level of punishment dealt in Thedas.

 

But say we abolish tranquillity. How would you deal with criminal mages? No normal prison can hold them, and Aeonar is pretty much a death sentence.

 

As for a trial period on voluntary tranquility... what will this accomplish? Those that chose the rite did so because they knew that they wouldn't be able to face the  demons anyway. Trying to manipulate them out of becoming tranquil will -with the rare exception- only result in them turning into abominations eventually.

Build a different prison that isn't some sort of demon-infested hellhole. It shouldn't be hard; Origins clearly demonstrates that one can enchant an area to nullify all spells cast in it.

 

And if someone is afraid or weak, we train them to not be. Unless they maintain that they want to be Tranquil... but you seem to be assuming that no one who was cured of Tranquility would ever want to return to that state, which is most interesting to someone who's advocated for keeping it around.

[Br3admax]

 

yes because from what we've seen the templars aren't off, butchering pillaging and raping everything they can find.

the hinterlands has fallen into complete disarray and both sides are acting like grommets, yet once again only mages could possibly be the bad guys

 

as to exact how disgusting BOTH have been:

Spoiler

a group of templars stop some refugee's, Start pushing and threatening them and demanding supplies, then some apostates show up and blasting fire balls not caring the refugee's are there, the templars that aren't dead kill or chase off the mages, then one turns back and it's heavily implied he intends to rape the sole surviving refugee. but the person recalling all off this shoots him with an arrow

 

Spoiler

templars murder a farmer and steal the ring that his wife gave him, giving her a BS line about a shovel might actually be a mages staff

 

but sure it's always the mages.

 

It's like you completely ignored the point of that post to rant or something. He clearly said there are good and bad mages and he supports the good ones. He's also said on many occasions that the Templars look shift as **** in DA:I.