242 réponses à ce sujet

[Vicious]

Wow. Such rage at something so simple.

[MisterJB]

Vivienne didn't say most mages were allowed to live outside the Circle.

She said most Circles allowed mages to live outside with permission and there is a big difference between the two.

[Ryriena]

Natual rights as a idea has been since the mid evil times. It came up a lot during the mid evil times mostly in the Age of Enlightenment. People like Francis Bacon were a part of the section of time in the Middle Ages.

[Aaleel]

Vivienne didn't say most mages were allowed to live outside the Circle.
She said most Circles allowed mages to live outside with permission and there is a big difference between the two.

I believe I said Vivienne said most mages were allowed to live outside the circle with the first Enchanters permission. Which unless I'm blind is exactly what you said.

[Ryriena]

Okay, this is totally straying into the utterly pedantic, but you are looking for the Early Modern Period. (I'm sorry. The historian in my can't stand it).

All I'm saying is that mage arguments really are as simple as "I want freedom." Nobody has yet to present some statement on "natural, inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" except maybe for Anders' manifesto which was never completely read to us. "I want freedom" and "people deserve X rights simply because they are human beings" aren't the same argument. The first one is as ancient as humans. The second one mostly didn't pop up until the Enlightenment with many a smallish blip of it in ancient Greece.

In fact "the Great Chain of Being" is more how people in the Middle Ages thought of such things.

Still the Middle Ages and many you have no idea what I know about history.

[MisterJB]

I believe I said Vivienne said most mages were allowed to live outside the circle with the first Enchanters permission. Which unless I'm blind is exactly what you said.

 

Well, it is and isn't.

 

"Most mages are allowed to live outside of the Circle with the First Enchanter's permission" can be intepreted two ways.

1-Most mages live outside of the Circle which is false.

2-Most mages are, theoretically, allowed to live outside of the Circle if they have the FE's permission but the FE simply does not grant them easily.

 

The second interpretation has the same meaning as what Vivienne actually says which is "Most Circles allow mages to live outside if granted permission".

 

What that means is not that most mages live outside of the Circle but rather that most Circle, technically, allow their mages to live outside if granted permission and simply most aren't.

This is the same meaning as the second interpretation of what you said but in complete opposition to the first interpretation.
 

[Giantdeathrobot]

What is decidedly modern about wanting freedom?  That's as old as Moses freeing the slaves, if someone takes it you want it back, and ultimately if given the chance they'll fight for it, which is exactly what happened in Dragon Age.

 

You don't think city elves want to be free, or would fight for their freedom if they thought they had a chance to win and escape?  Qunari can become Tal-Vashoth, etc.

 

I really don't see how this is a modern concept.

 

I didn't talk about that. I talked about due process (which is pretty much nonexistant, just look at how the Inquisition deals with criminals) and natural right of people to be free. Sure, you want to be free, but that other people want you free on principle is very far from a given, and in Thedas doesn't apply to mages for many (if not most) people.

 

@IanPolaris: The only non-mage who advocates for mage freedom is Leliana. Justinia was a reformer but not even close to the extent Leliana is, and Cassandra wishes the treat the mages better but still wants the Circles restored. And apart from the rebel Mages (who have a stake, suffice to say), we meet very few people who don't want Circles in place (hell even Dorian doesn't think it is such a bad idea, just badly implemented), while in the modern world the very idea that they should exist would be far more contentious since we place more value on personal freedoms. 

 

The concept that mages should be semi-imprisoned for what they are in order to protect themselves and others is not questionned by many people in-universe, beyond obviously said mages. Many think they should have better living conditions, but allowing them to be completely free? Most think it too risky at best and a recipe for disaster at worst. The games simply do not support the notion that the people have Thedas have modern values regarding such freedom.

[IanPolaris]

You think the 1600s are the Middle Ages? 

 

*Edit* At this point, I'm about 70% suspicious you're just trolling me. 

Doesn't matter since the Technology and Society of Dragon Age are pretty clearly early modern as well (circa 15th to 17th century).  The siege engine designs and uniform designs are a dead giveaway.  I also point out that THEDAS is a fantasy world that has a lot of modern social concepts baked in part so we can both relate to the game and provide commentary and insight into modern problems and questions in a different setting.  The idea of individual rights is very much a part of the Thedas universe and the idea of the Halocaust is raised not just in DA;A but also in DA2 (The Tranquil Solution ring a bell?)

[IanPolaris]

 

@IanPolaris: The only non-mage who advocates for mage freedom is Leliana. Justinia was a reformer but not even close to the extent Leliana is, and Cassandra wishes the treat the mages better but still wants the Circles restored. And apart from the rebel Mages (who have a stake, suffice to say), we meet very few people who don't want Circles in place (hell even Dorian doesn't think it is such a bad idea, just badly implemented), while in the modern world the very idea that they should exist would be far more contentious since we place more value on personal freedoms. 

 

The concept that mages should be semi-imprisoned for what they are in order to protect themselves and others is not questionned by many people in-universe, beyond obviously said mages. Many think they should have better living conditions, but allowing them to be completely free? Most think it too risky at best and a recipe for disaster at worst. The games simply do not support the notion that the people have Thedas have modern values regarding such freedom.

 

Actually Cassandra wants mages to run the circles.  Admittedly that's not the same as total mage freedom, but it's a far cry from what the Templars and Chantry were willing to even consider.  It's clear when you talk to her, that the idea that a mage is locked up for being a mage is an idea that troubles her.  As for Justinia, Justinia wanted mages to be treated FAIRLY and she certainly didn't seem to be opposed to the abolition of the circles if that was what it took.  The idea that the Divine wanted ANY reform causing the Templars and Seekers to throw a temper-tantrum and walk away with their toys shows just how bad the situation had gotten. 

 

As for what most think, I remind you that this was the result of over a thousand years of essentially non-stop anti-mage propaganda by the Chantry.  As Goebbles once famously said, if you tell a big lie, convincingly and often enough, from a high enough authority, people will accept it as the truth.  The fact is mages aren't a danger because they can't be possessed except by their own consent.  Now even those that say mages should be free will agree that magical education should be mandatory (see Conner for exhibit A as to why).

 

However, I find that DA:I is a pro-Chantry and pro-Templar proganda piece almost from start to finish.  The Devs promised us we wouldn't have to support the chantry....but in effect we do (in fact in a lot of ways we BECOME the Chantry), and the game goes out of it's way (including retconning the Dalish) to make the Templars and Circle system look better (including what Dorian says).

[Aaleel]

I didn't talk about that. I talked about due process (which is pretty much nonexistant, just look at how the Inquisition deals with criminals) and natural right of people to be free. Sure, you want to be free, but that other people want you free on principle is very far from a given, and in Thedas doesn't apply to mages for many (if not most) people.

 

@IanPolaris: The only non-mage who advocates for mage freedom is Leliana. Justinia was a reformer but not even close to the extent Leliana is, and Cassandra wishes the treat the mages better but still wants the Circles restored. And apart from the rebel Mages (who have a stake, suffice to say), we meet very few people who don't want Circles in place (hell even Dorian doesn't think it is such a bad idea, just badly implemented), while in the modern world the very idea that they should exist would be far more contentious since we place more value on personal freedoms. 

 

The concept that mages should be semi-imprisoned for what they are in order to protect themselves and others is not questionned by many people in-universe, beyond obviously said mages. Many think they should have better living conditions, but allowing them to be completely free? Most think it too risky at best and a recipe for disaster at worst. The games simply do not support the notion that the people have Thedas have modern values regarding such freedom.

 

Well you were responding to me and I never said anything about due process, so I just talked about my points.

[Ryriena]

You think the 1600s are the Middle Ages?

*Edit* At this point, I'm about 70% suspicious you're just trolling me.

Sorry I was in the car I do think that the Middle Ages didn't end until 1650 when the Age of Elightment actually starred the first two centuries were stepping stones to the more modern era. I should have clarified thought historical it ended in the 15th century my apoglizes for the confusion. Though it clasfied as pre modren history by historians.

[Ashagar]

The middle ages are often dated as ending between 1453 with the fall of Constantinople though some put the date as late as 1500 while the early modern period is set as beginning in the late 15th century to early 16th century and ending with the French revolution in 1798.

[Daerog]

Actually Cassandra wants mages to run the circles.  Admittedly that's not the same as total mage freedom, but it's a far cry from what the Templars and Chantry were willing to even consider.  It's clear when you talk to her, that the idea that a mage is locked up for being a mage is an idea that troubles her.  As for Justinia, Justinia wanted mages to be treated FAIRLY and she certainly didn't seem to be opposed to the abolition of the circles if that was what it took.  The idea that the Divine wanted ANY reform causing the Templars and Seekers to throw a temper-tantrum and walk away with their toys shows just how bad the situation had gotten. 

 

As for what most think, I remind you that this was the result of over a thousand years of essentially non-stop anti-mage propaganda by the Chantry.  As Goebbles once famously said, if you tell a big lie, convincingly and often enough, from a high enough authority, people will accept it as the truth.  The fact is mages aren't a danger because they can't be possessed except by their own consent.  Now even those that say mages should be free will agree that magical education should be mandatory (see Conner for exhibit A as to why).

 

However, I find that DA:I is a pro-Chantry and pro-Templar proganda piece almost from start to finish.  The Devs promised us we wouldn't have to support the chantry....but in effect we do (in fact in a lot of ways we BECOME the Chantry), and the game goes out of it's way (including retconning the Dalish) to make the Templars and Circle system look better (including what Dorian says).

 

The Circle was originally intended to be run by the enchanters, with Chantry and Templar oversight. Overtime, Templars overstepped their original authority in some of the situations we know of, especially Kirkwall. However, it was the early mages who negotiated with the Chantry to create the Circles, and the enchanters set Circle policy and they would meet every now and then in Cumberland to discuss governing the Circle. The Chantry was fine with this system, but they had oversight and could veto things, but it was mostly up to the Templars to police the Circles, not the Chantry, with the Seekers policing the Templars. The failure of the Circles is on the Seekers more than anyone else. (Edit; Well, there was also Fiona's warmongering, but Lambert didn't help things either.)

 

 

Demons are able to manipulate people in order to possess them. Whether "forced" through torture (like in DA2, but that one templar was able to resist) or not, mages are still at great risk for possession. Even without possession, mages are extremely dangerous, who are able to manipulate reality if knowledgeable enough.

 

The commoners did not want mages just running around, even before the Chantry rose to power. The original Inquisition had to police, hunt, protect, and do other things involving the mages before the Chantry came in who then provided housing and education for mages and brought the Inquisition into the fold... although the original Inquisition seemed to not be very trusting of outsiders and kept their secrets, secrets that would have helped...

 

If mages were allowed to go out and do whatever, people would freak out. The Chantry spoke of the dangers of magic, which is true, and some Mothers did stress it more than others, some didn't care either way, but the distrust of mages is not the fault of the Chantry alone. Horror stories of mages don't come from the Chantry, they just talk about the darkspawn, blood magic, and such; most of the horror stories and gossip originate from the commoners.

 

 

Edit2: As for Vivienne, I think she is more in touch with reality than the other Circle mages we talk to in Inquisition. She at least considers the views and attitudes of those outside the Circle. Her worldview is broader than others who only think about the Circle. Fiona, even though she did live outside the Circle, was still ignoring the thoughts of the powers outside the Chantry and Circle.

[Ashagar]

In the time before Andraste and much later the chantry a lot of hate came from the fact that Tevinter's maglords conducted conquest of Thadas, enslaved countless people, blood sacrificed countless people for power and then the old gods of the empire rose as arch-demons leading monsters that tried to destroy the world.

[Han Shot First]

Last I checked, Jowan was trying to steal his phylactery because he was a blood mage, and realized that Irving and Gregior knew he was a blood mage, and wanted to get out of the Circle(and not be caught after leaving) before he died...

 

Honestly, what I find most interesting about all of Anders' comments about his escaping Ferelden's Circle is that he never mentions asking Irving(or his possible successor) to leave the Circle and being denied...

 

Anders proves that life in the Ferelden circle wasn't that bad. He escaped several times, and several times the Templars brought him back. He was never made Tranquil though, and doesn't seem to have been mistreated by the Templars in any way. In fact Anders even implies that he let himself be captured, because before the whole Justice thing he was more of a prankster than an ideologue, and he apparently had a thing for one of the female Templars sent to bring him back in.

[Daerog]

Anders proves that life in the Ferelden circle wasn't that bad. He escaped several times, and several times the Templars brought him back. He was never made Tranquil though, and doesn't seem to have been mistreated by the Templars in any way. In fact Anders even implies that he let himself be captured, because before the whole Justice thing he was more of a prankster than an ideologue, and he apparently had a thing for one of the female Templars sent to bring him back in.

 

He was never made Tranquil because the Fereldan Templars actually followed their orders and did not overstep their authority, like in Kirkwall.

 

(Edit: Which is kind of funny imo, with Fereldan's Circle still being more laid back, even after the FE before Irving was plotting to overthrow Maric, have Orlais conquer Fereldan, experimented with blight magic, and brought a darkspawn into the tower... you'd think Fereldan's Templars would have been "Oh, wow, we totally screwed up, better shape up now!" Well, they did operate as they should, but... I just think its funny the FE could do so much traitorous stuff under the watch of the Templars... then again, Orsino was a blood mage...)

 

Tranquility is not meant to be a punishment, which is why people freak out even when the Inquisitor does it, it is only meant to be for those mages deemed unable to complete their Harrowing or resist demons... or if they request it...

 

(On that note, I remember posting about the girl elf from DotS who could communicate with dragons probably being made Tranquil, and then we see an elf woman tranquil saying how she doesn't talk to dragons anymore. While I mostly guessed it because it would make the lore more stable and the rebel mages wouldn't have dragons on their side causing mayhem, I do wonder if it was because Templars once again overstepped their authority, if she requested it, or if she wouldn't pass the Harrowing. With her other comments, I assume the Templars abused their authority...)

[IanPolaris]

My responses in bold:

 

The Circle was originally intended to be run by the enchanters, with Chantry and Templar oversight. Overtime, Templars overstepped their original authority in some of the situations we know of, especially Kirkwall. However, it was the early mages who negotiated with the Chantry to create the Circles, and the enchanters set Circle policy and they would meet every now and then in Cumberland to discuss governing the Circle. The Chantry was fine with this system, but they had oversight and could veto things, but it was mostly up to the Templars to police the Circles, not the Chantry, with the Seekers policing the Templars. The failure of the Circles is on the Seekers more than anyone else. (Edit; Well, there was also Fiona's warmongering, but Lambert didn't help things either.)

 

Not according to the Nevarran Accords.  Part of that deal was that the Chantry would "deal" with Mages including controlling them, and the Seekers of Truth and Templars would help.

 

Demons are able to manipulate people in order to possess them. Whether "forced" through torture (like in DA2, but that one templar was able to resist) or not, mages are still at great risk for possession. Even without possession, mages are extremely dangerous, who are able to manipulate reality if knowledgeable enough.

 

The fact remains that you can not be possessed without your consent.  I also point out that if the risk of abomination were as high as you (and the Templars) like to claim, then civilization would have been a smoking ruin before any organized civilization (let alone the Ancient Elves or Tevinter) could have formed.  Not only that, but the fact that Andraste herself wanted mages and mundanes to live alongside each other is a prime indicated that at best the abomination issue is overblown and at worst a fiction created by the Chantry/Templars to justify locking away mages.  I also point out that assassins and warriors are dangerous too, but no one locks them away.

 

The commoners did not want mages just running around, even before the Chantry rose to power. The original Inquisition had to police, hunt, protect, and do other things involving the mages before the Chantry came in who then provided housing and education for mages and brought the Inquisition into the fold... although the original Inquisition seemed to not be very trusting of outsiders and kept their secrets, secrets that would have helped...

 

That actually isn't true.  The Commoners didn't want Magisters or those that abused magic (like the old Tevinters did), but in fact until about a thousand years ago, mages living alongside mundanes was the NORM and the world didn't exactly fall to pieces.  What's more evidence that the circles have actually improved things even for non-mages is pretty thin on the ground (as in it doesn't exist).

 

If mages were allowed to go out and do whatever, people would freak out. The Chantry spoke of the dangers of magic, which is true, and some Mothers did stress it more than others, some didn't care either way, but the distrust of mages is not the fault of the Chantry alone. Horror stories of mages don't come from the Chantry, they just talk about the darkspawn, blood magic, and such; most of the horror stories and gossip originate from the commoners.

 

Self Fulfilling prophecy.  It was the Chantry that created the fear in the first place to a very large degree.

 

Edit2: As for Vivienne, I think she is more in touch with reality than the other Circle mages we talk to in Inquisition. She at least considers the views and attitudes of those outside the Circle. Her worldview is broader than others who only think about the Circle. Fiona, even though she did live outside the Circle, was still ignoring the thoughts of the powers outside the Chantry and Circle.

 

Vivienne wants what's best for Vivienne and the rest of the world could burn for all she cares as long is she gets hers.

[IanPolaris]

He was never made Tranquil because the Fereldan Templars actually followed their orders and did not overstep their authority, like in Kirkwall.

 

(Edit: Which is kind of funny imo, with Fereldan's Circle still being more laid back, even after the FE was plotting to overthrow Maric, have Orlais conquer Fereldan, experimented with blight magic, and brought a darkspawn into the tower... you'd think Fereldan's Templars would have been "Oh, wow, we totally screwed up, better shape up now!" Well, they did operate as they should, but... I just think its funny the FE could do so much traitorous stuff under the watch of the Templars... then again, Orsino was a blood mage...)

 

Tranquility is not meant to be a punishment, which is why people freak out even when the Inquisitor does it, it is only meant to be for those mages deemed unable to complete their Harrowing or resist demons... or if they request it...

 

(On that note, I remember posting about the girl elf from DotS who could communicate with dragons probably being made Tranquil, and then we see an elf woman tranquil saying how she doesn't talk to dragons anymore. While I mostly guessed it because it would make the lore more stable and the rebel mages wouldn't have dragons on their side causing mayhem, I do wonder if it was because Templars once again overstepped their authority, if she requested it, or if she wouldn't pass the Harrowing. With her other comments, I assume the Templars abused their authority...)

 

Solas comments that the circles would have quickly made him tranquil as punishment had he joined the circles in one of his convos with Cassandra and Cassandra doesn't argue the point.  [It was Cassadra that thought Solas could teach the circles so much.]

 

I also note that Tranquility was commonly used as punishment even in the Fereldan circle.  Jowan comes to mind but there were others.  It wasn't just Kirkwall templars overstepping their bounds.  Heck even in Tevinter, the Magisterium can sentence a mage to tranquility (per Dorian).

 

The reason the mages freak is because using tranquility this way was very close to some of the worst abuses the Templars could and did do.

[Daerog]

Thanks for your comments IanPolaris.

 

-However, I don't remember Andraste saying that mages and mundanes should live side by side. She didn't say they should be locked up. She just said that magic was dangerous and mages have a responsibility and a burden.

 

-Your opinion of Vivienne is not fact, but your impression of her. Her willing to risk her life on the front lines shows to me that she does care about the world. If she just wanted position and was selfish, she would have just sent her Loyalist to help fight. However, she knew she was a capable fighter and an asset on the front lines, where she would be risking her life to save Thedas.

 

-I didn't say that abominations ran rampant or anything in the past or in other systems outside the Circle. Just because something is high risk, doesn't mean it is commonplace.

[Daerog]

Solas comments that the circles would have quickly made him tranquil as punishment had he joined the circles in one of his convos with Cassandra and Cassandra doesn't argue the point.  [It was Cassadra that thought Solas could teach the circles so much.]

 

I also note that Tranquility was commonly used as punishment even in the Fereldan circle.  Jowan comes to mind but there were others.  It wasn't just Kirkwall templars overstepping their bounds.  Heck even in Tevinter, the Magisterium can sentence a mage to tranquility (per Dorian).

 

The reason the mages freak is because using tranquility this way was very close to some of the worst abuses the Templars could and did do.

 

I did agree that Templars overstepped their authority. DA2 points out that Harrowed mages are not supposed to be made Tranquil. It is not meant for punishment. I know of no cases in Fereldan's Circle where it was used as punishment for some crime or such, no Harrowed mage was made Tranquil there without them requesting it. That I know of, I haven't read all the books or comics.

 

Jowan was going to be made Tranquil because there was no confidence that he would be able to pass his Harrowing. It was deemed a better alternative than possession. That he was resorting to learn blood magic, or was suspected to resort to, just showed how weak of will he was and such. They didn't know he did blood magic for sure before he actually used it, so the Tranquility was only going to happen because they believed he couldn't do the Harrowing.

[Zetrial]

I believe I said Vivienne said most mages were allowed to live outside the circle with the first Enchanters permission. Which unless I'm blind is exactly what you said.

 

 

Well, it is and isn't.

 

"Most mages are allowed to live outside of the Circle with the First Enchanter's permission" can be intepreted two ways.

1-Most mages live outside of the Circle which is false.

2-Most mages are, theoretically, allowed to live outside of the Circle if they have the FE's permission but the FE simply does not grant them easily.

 

The second interpretation has the same meaning as what Vivienne actually says which is "Most Circles allow mages to live outside if granted permission".

 

What that means is not that most mages live outside of the Circle but rather that most Circle, technically, allow their mages to live outside if granted permission and simply most aren't.

This is the same meaning as the second interpretation of what you said but in complete opposition to the first interpretation.
 

 

Word for word from my earlier screenshots I posted in here.

 

'Most Circles allowed Mages to live away from the tower, either on their own or in service to the nobility. All that was required was permission from the first enchanter.'

 

So no she doesn't say most Mages, she says most Circles. I'm not weighing in on the discussion just ensuring the information being discussed is as accurate as possible.

[Daerog]

Thanks for the correction Zetrial.