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.
Would he continue to support the good mages if they had still refused to return to the Circle?
Would he continue to support the good mages if they had still refused to return to the Circle?
You'll find that most Templar supporters are FAR more reasonable than most Mage supporters, I think.
I've seen an overabundance of drama and emotions on the Mage side of things, while the Templar side relies on logic to back it's position. There are exceptions to every rule, of course.
So they would let the good mages in question continue living outside the Circle?
So they would let the good mages in question continue living outside the Circle?
No, because that would be against the core principle of what we stand for.
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.
No, because that would be against the core principle of what we stand for.
So King Tony's statement actually had nothing to do with the statement of mine that it replied to?
The Circle system cannot avoid horrific dysfunction unless it can reject the current Harrowing model and involuntary Tranquility, to say nothing of Annulment.
Unfortunately Harrowing is the part of the system that is there to stay; for each and every Mage is a gateway for evil spirits. Likewise Annulment is there to stay, because there will be a time for the "We have to kill them all. Maker can sort his own" option like it or not.
And Involuntary Tranquility is a recent unwelcome addition by Meredith and her merry band of psychos.
If they're temporarily living in the Chantry and the Circle has fallen, then that's better than running wild and tossing fireballs at bystanders.So they would let the good mages in question continue living outside the Circle?
The good mages support reform and got dragged into a war because of extremist.Would he continue to support the good mages if they had still refused to return to the Circle?
I think both sides have sound arguments, though I cannot agree with the Chantry way of handling magic both from a moral and practical point of view, but I've never understood why people keep saying that if mages are let free then slavery happens.
Even if you don't take our own world as an example, Orlais is proof enough that you don't need magic for slavery to exist in Thedas, in fact if not in name, or for people being killed just because someone has total power over them (Chevaliers and their sick final test of killing city elves for example). It's about power, and magic is just another form of power, like religion, nobility or royalty. And the destruction or mayhem potential is extremely high, if not more, for those too.
Slavery in Tevinter is cultural, and I'm pretty certain they would still be into slavery even without magic.
If they're temporarily living in the Chantry and the Circle has fallen, then that's better than running wild and tossing fireballs at bystanders.
To clarify, no, the good mages shouldn't be allowed to leave the Circle. They should be rewarded for they're good deeds, but that's all.
So you would not, in fact, support them if they continued to live outside the Circle. Right.
The good mages support reform and got dragged into a war because of extremist.
I highly doubt they'd go over to supporting the templars now.
Good mages know why the Circle is needed. Depending upon their number, I'd be willing to extend living conditions similar to those Winne enjoyed after the Blight to mages who
remained loyal.
I can't help but feel that Wynne is a bad example of a model mage being rewarded. It didn't seem that it did her any good when Lambert decided that he had enough. If even someone like her could not convince Templars of her good will, who could?
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.
The fact that they haven't built such a prison despite the obvious convenience of it seems to imply it's hard to do over a significant area.
And funny thing about willpower, it's not something that can be trained the same way muscle and knowledge can.
Yes, I am aware that tranquillity is a fate worse than death for anyone who's had the displeasure of having it, then being cured of it (no matter how temporarily). But so is demonic possession. And the while former tends to exclude the deaths of all your friends, the later does not.
If either the mages or templars in Inquisition say "hey, we found a rite of tranquillity that blocks magic but doesn't rip all emotions out" then whichever side has it will gain some major support points in my book.
The fact that they haven't built such a prison despite the obvious convenience of it seems to imply it's hard to do over a significant area.
Well, they wanted to keep Aeonar's magic because they wanted to use the Veil tears to determine guilt or innocence, or something. It's in the codex.
And funny thing about willpower, it's not something that can be trained the same way muscle and knowledge can.
Actually, it can. Otherwise, there'd be no such thing as a loser who reinvented themselves, and those do happen--they happen far more often with mentorship. Willpower isn't some fixed, set thing that never changes after you're born.
Yes, I am aware that tranquillity is a fate worse than death for anyone who's had the displeasure of having it, then being cured of it (no matter how temporarily). But so is demonic possession. And the while former tends to exclude the deaths of all your friends, the later does not.
Then we train them to be better at resisting demonic possession.
I highly doubt they'd go over to supporting the templars now.
Considering they only voted for independence by one vote, they're already supporting the Chantry, and were discussing peace, I'd say your thought is kind is baseless
Note that I said templars, not Chantry.
Well, they wanted to keep Aeonar's magic because they wanted to use the Veil tears to determine guilt or innocence, or something. It's in the codex.
Not what I meant, I meant that building something the scale of the magic-blocking vault door on a building scale should be something both templars and mages would totally want, given the alternatives. Yet, they haven't. They're missing some key knowledge here that would actually let them build something on that scale.
Actually, it can. Otherwise, there'd be no such thing as a loser who reinvented themselves, and those do happen--they happen far more often with mentorship. Willpower isn't some fixed, set thing that never changes after you're born.
No, you're right. Willpower can rise and fall. But it's not something that itself can be trained as one would train muscles. If it was, things like depression would not be a thing so many are struggling with, even with therapy.
Then we train them to be better at resisting demonic possession.
To quote Optimus Prime: "Were it that easy..."
Seriously, you think the First Enchanters liked sentencing people to tranquillity? You think they liked signing the forms of those willingly requesting to be made tranquil? The mages in the Circles did everything they could, but some people just don't have the strength of will required to fend of demon all their lives..
So they would let the good mages in question continue living outside the Circle?
Provided the mages have viable method of continuing to do so that doesn't screw over anyone who isn't them? Yes.
Good mages know why the Circle is needed. Depending upon their number, I'd be willing to extend living conditions similar to those Winne enjoyed after the Blight to mages who
remained loyal.
Can I sign up?
I wouldn't mind keeping the Harrowing if but to appease the mundane paranoia that a test is required to show mages are able to resist demonic possession and they wouldnt have a leg to stand on that they couldn't master themselves. But I'd introduce an alternative other than the rite of tranquility as an alternative such as the training of seers. Possession by a good spirit is preferable than labotomization by tranquility or possession by a demon.
I wouldn't mind keeping the Harrowing if but to appease the mundane paranoia that a test is required to show mages are able to resist demonic possession and they wouldnt have a leg to stand on that they couldn't master themselves. But I'd introduce an alternative other than the rite of tranquility as an alternative such as the training of seers. Possession by a good spirit is preferable than labotomization by tranquility or possession by a demon.
Yep it worked very well with anders wait it didn't...
Yep it worked very well with anders wait it didn't...
Fights for justice and freedom even if he's dragging everyone kicking and screaming, dedicates his life to helping the downtrodden and healing the disenfranchised. I think it worked just fine. He was a white knight in a world without white knights who had a dream of something better for mages and mundanes both that didn't required systematic oppression. Compared to the other Machiavellian sadistic bastards out there, both mages and mundane unlike, anders was a saint.
Note that I said templars, not Chantry.
As soon as the mages go back, so too will the Templars. There is no working with the Chantry without working with it's arms, even if they leave.
Fights for justice and freedom even if he's dragging everyone kicking and screaming, dedicates his life to helping the downtrodden and healing the disenfranchised. I think it worked just fine. He was a white knight in a world without white knights. Compared to the other Machiavellian sadistic bastards out there, both mages and mundane unlike, anders was a saint.
Hmm really? I support mages, but you gotta remember he blew up a chantry. I mean I don't care for the head priestess since she signed her own death warrant, but anders is not a white knight far from it I could agree somewhat during act 1 so to speak but I disagree that he is a saint.
Now act 3? Yes he healed the sick and downtrodden but by that point anders felt he ran out of options since no peaceful means were working his manifesto etc so he went the "dirty" route.
Hmm really? I support mages, but you gotta remember he blew up a chantry. I mean I don't care for the head priestess since she signed her own death warrant, but anders is not a white knight far from it I could agree somewhat during act 1 so to speak but I disagree that he is a saint.
Now act 3? Yes he healed the sick and downtrodden but by that point anders felt he ran out of options since no peaceful means were working his manifesto etc so he went the "dirty" route.
And Andraste did not send the Imperium a strongly worded letter to initiate her revolution, she started a war. Anders did what he had to do to get the ball moving, I don't fault him for it. I actually agree with a lot of what he said, there was no "compromise" when the mages where so easily cowed or bribed to look the other way at the abuses and mundanes don't want to change because they fear change. It was bound to happen anyways if it wasn't anders, it would have been a resolutionist or some other bad mage. Mages have been rebelling in every game and discontent for the status quo is evident.
Retour en haut