153 réponses à ce sujet

[Qun00]

The general consensus is that they're closer to a tool used by those who fear mages than something actually meant to help them.

But according to Vivienne some Circles are different from others, and in most of them mages are allowed to leave the tower as long as they have permission from their First Enchanter.

What do you believe?

[Feranel]

That every circle -is- different, some may as well be Hogwarts, others, Alcatraz. 

[TheTsar_]

They're a good thing provided they're used correctly. They shouldn't be used as a prison, doing so just causes more problems than it solves. If a Mage proves responsible and educated, they should be treated the same as everybody else when it comes to political positions and freedom. 

[Mes]

I think they should be voluntary, like a school or university or something. 

 

I'm kind of black and white when it comes to mages - I don't believe anyone should be confined to a circle and have to get "permission" to leave on the basis of being born a different way to others. 

 

Vivienne likes to go on about the dangers of magic, but I think cornered people are more dangerous.

[Qun00]

They're a good thing provided they're used correctly. They shouldn't be used as a prison, doing so just causes more problems than it solves. If a Mage proves responsible and educated, they should be treated the same as everybody else when it comes to political positions and freedom.

I'm rather interested in getting to know what people believe the Circles are right now.

[Sports72Xtrm]

Circles are meant to protect mages and muggles alike but when has the reality ever match the ideal?

Muggles see a single story of mages:a single story of catastrophe. In this single story there was no possibility of mages being similar to muggles in any way, no possibility of feelings more complex than pity, fear or hatred, no possibility of a connection as human equals. Now from solas we hear that spirits react to mages and become demons because if mages see only evil, or darkness in the Fade, they embody it and become demons. Has the Circle fostered any such psychological security and stability to prevent abominations or fostered an abusive home and environment? From all I know of how magic works, it seems that these hedge mages, even those that belong to weird cults, have a better chance of not becoming abominations than Circle mages. e.g.,:

 

The Circle of Magi was established centuries ago to protect us, and to protect those without magic from the things we might do. No man in his right mind would disagree that these are noble goals. I refuse to believe that the Chantry intended the injustice and oppression we suffered in the intervening years. Segregation of mages from non-mages withintemplar-guarded compounds was the best—possibly the only—option available.

We have recently had to face the stark reality that the system failed us. The Circle of Magi in Ferelden's Kinloch Hold was one of the most liberally run, and even there we saw sedition and dissent, resulting in a failed revolt that nearly destroyed the entire tower. Perhaps stringency could work where leniency failed? I would present Kirkwall's Gallows as evidence against such thinking. Knight-Commander Meredith's vice-grip on the Circle in her care backfired, leaving us where we are now.

If the Circles, no matter how they are managed, do not—perhaps cannot—function as intended, what is next? There are no easy answers. The events of recent years have forced me to reexamine my views on freedom. As Aequitarians, we have always advocated self-control and cooperation with the Chantry, but this approach may no longer serve. I must consider that our Libertarian brothers and sisters had the right of it all along. Look at the strife and chaos that now consumes our world. Fighting for independence, for a better system, may not improve our situation. But it cannot make it any worse.

—Letter from Senior Enchanter Vormann Quine of Cumberland to a colleague, dated 9:39 Dragon

 

 

then we have the templars who are discarded when lyrium takes their mind. Unable to find hope that they are forever leashed to the chantry via lyrium addiction, and ofcourse they hold the power of life and death over mages which are taught by the chantry to hate them, keep an emotional distance, be stringent, harsh and judgemental above all else. The "good templars" like thrask, or samson, are cast out and left to beg for money as a lyrium addict.

 

The Circle system does nothing but breed resentment on all sides, producing monsters like red templars, or abominations. And for what?, because people are afraid of change. I think it's a terrible system that hopefully will find a way to solve its age old problems before its too late if the inquisitior hasn't been able too already. It's a failure system imo that needs radical reform.

[mireisen]

I believe they're necessary. I'm on Vivi's side, and Cass says that they need heavy reforms, which I also think should happen. Mage prisons, hell no. Prestigious universities like in Tevinter? Yes! I don't think mages should be roaming free, because the power they wield is dangerous, no one should deny that. Maybe a buddy system of a mage and templar, with heavy restrictions to ensure their safety and security. I sort of see it go that way if Circles are abolished.

[justafan]

They cause far more problems then they solve.  Sure Tevinter has its fair share of problems, but one thing it does well is show that allowing mages to be free does not create a country full of abominations killing civilians left and right.

 

The theory behind the circles is not necessarily a bad one, that being that mages should be brought together under supervision in order to learn how to control their awesome powers.  From what we have seen, this arrangement has allowed many mages to hone their powers while keeping normal citizens safe.  Where it goes wrong is making this situation more or less for life, with lots of leeway on how Templars can implement punishment.  If the mages were not there for life, it being more like a 5-10 year mandatory boarding school, then this would probably solve almost all the problems associated with the Circle system.  There is a fairly convincing argument that mages shouldn't be left entirely alone.  Circle membership should be mandatory in order to learn the dangers of magic, how to control it, and how to avoid demon possession but imprisoning people for life to the system only breeds resentment and rebellion, while allowing mistreatment to go unpunished as the abusers are the only ones with access to the outside world.

[Sports72Xtrm]

It's a common misconception that mages desire "roaming free" as being above the law or lack formal training. On the contrary, they believe the College of Magi was created to regulate magic, they just wish to govern themselves. I don't even think mages are opposed to templars existing, but to act as a constant jail warden to mages breeds resentment and stereotyping of mages as criminals that even templars will adopt and abuse.

[AlexMBrennan]

I don't care what you want to call it but circles need to remain prisons to work at all - if you take a "weak willed" mage who is going to turn into an abomination at the drop of a hat, educate them for the mandatory ten years and then let them walk out then you're gonna get another massacre like Redcliffe. You have to detain that person because their right to freedom is overridden by everybody else's right to not be massacred by abominations and reanimated corpses.

I'm not saying that the circles are well run at present, or that it is in any way fair to the mages but it seems the least bad option.

[Han Shot First]

I think they are needed. Without them you end up with something like Tevinter, which is nothing more than a tyranny of mages. 

 

The fatal flaw in the system was that there wasn't enough checks to Templar authority in place, that the system wasn't implemented in a uniform fashion and some circles were too restrictive, and that the authority of the First Enchanters was sometimes trampled on. The First Enchanters should enjoy some degree of autonomy, with Templar intervention in Circle business *only* when things have gone completely off the rails. And there should be some review process in place to investigates uses of the Rite of Annulment. There should be a council of trusted senior mages, templars, and chantry officials in Val Royeux who review cases after the fact to verify that the Rite was correctly applied. If the Rite was determined to be carried out unjustly, the Templars in question should be thrown into chains and face possible execution for murder.

 

Hold those responsible for abuses accountable. Also there should be greater allowance for experienced mages who have proven themselves trustworthy to serve outside the Circles as healers or advisers to noble houses and such. Have trusted mages serve in a role similar to the Maesters of A Song of Ice and Fire. (a.k.a. Game of Thrones) This already goes on to some degree, but in a very limited fashion. There would be a lot less discontent if more mages were allowed to spend some time outside the Circles as well. Strict confinement should only be limited to the young and inexperienced or those who have proven themselves untrustworthy.

[justafan]

I don't care what you want to call it but circles need to remain prisons to work at all - if you take a "weak willed" mage who is going to turn into an abomination at the drop of a hat, educate them for the mandatory ten years and then let them walk out then you're gonna get another massacre like Redcliffe. You have to detain that person because their right to freedom is overridden by everybody else's right to not be massacred by abominations and reanimated corpses.

I'm not saying that the circles are well run at present, or that it is in any way fair to the mages but it seems the least bad option.

To quote Cmdr. Shepard dealing with a Volus "You wrongly accuse this girl [an innocent Quarian] of stealing and now all you can say is that she "might " have done it". Just because someone can do something wrong doesn't mean they will, and you have no right to curtail their rights unless they have done something wrong themselves. And neither Tevinter or the Dalish encampments are overrun with abominations slaughtering citizens, and mages there are allowed far more freedoms and rights then their circle counterparts.  Assuming guilt with no chance of proving innocence is what got the mages to rebel in the first place.

[Jackums]

"According to Vivienne..." Take that with a grain of salt.

 

Anyway, I'm sure there were Circles that were more liberal and hospitable, but generally speaking the system itself had become corrupt and ineffective, which multiple characters in DA:I acknowledge, including Vivienne. Also, Cassandra, Leliana, etc. It's pretty much unanimous that change was needed.

 

The idea behind the Circles makes sense, but not the way they enforced it. The Circles were founded on fear and religious dogma, not on principle or any desire to benefit and educate the mages. It was about culling magical threats, and the mages being educated in controlling their powers was just a convenient byproduct of that. Reverse the situation, help people to understand mages and see them as human beings, as to not alienate them. This doesn't mean to lose caution or become ignorant of the potential dangers of magic, but to dissolve all of the unnecessary tension and segregation that just spurs conflict.

 

There has to be a balance of regulation and freedoms. Tighten your grip too much and you get the Mage-Templar War. Conversely, going without any established laws and rules and you get untrained mages incapable of controlling their abilities, which has its own list of problems.

[Miggs]

I think they are very rounded.

[Warden Commander Aeducan]

I think they are very rounded.

I see what you did there.

[fchopin]

I'm rather interested in getting to know what people believe the Circles are right now.

I believe they are prisons the way they were shown in the first two games so that is what i think.

If they change to be more like universities so people can study and the mages have more control then i would say great but if i was playing a mage in the first two games and i was in a circle my first thought would be to escape and kill any person who tried to stop me without any reservations.
The same applies to slaves in the game.

[Captmorgan72]

Mages should be given total freedom and Circles should only be used as Colleges. However the Templar Order will be even more important than before. All Mages will be warned that if they use their magic for evil purposes, (harming civilians, summoning demons, etc) the Templar Order has the authority to arrest them and they will face a trial of their peers. Resisting arrest will result in immediate destruction. 

[Ieldra]

Here's my take on it:

 

At the time when the Circles were established, they may have been the best solution anyone could think of, but they have failed, They have failed because the system is built on wrong assumptions, a wrong approach to the problem and an ideology fundamentally hostile to magic. It has persisted because there were enough decent people in the Chantry and in the Circles who mitigated its downsides. 

 

(1) "Perhaps those who are treated as potential monsters in the Circles are more likely to become monsters in the end" (my Warden Eorlin Amell in his Mage Manifesto). In the Circles, you learn too much fear. Fear of your own abilities and fear of the Fade. The former is detrimental for any mage, though the line between caution and fear is blurry. The latter, as we now know, skews your perception.

 

(2) According to the Chantry, mages have to share the blame for the Blights. An attempt to impose guilt for what you are is counterproductive to mental health, and in my personal opinion, also one of the greatest crimes anyone can commit. It also breeds resentment and undermines self-confidence. 

 

As it appears, a mandatory period of training, and temporary segregation during that training, is necessary. Magic schools should, however, not indoctrinate their students with an ideology, and even less an ideology hostile to magic. Responsible use of magic is covered by ethical principles that apply to everyone: do no harm, be fair, consider the effects of what you do on your community. To use magic to benefit yourself within these constraints, to use it in a context of legitimate rulership, is perfectly acceptable.

 

As for the problem of people's fear of magic: it is not an acceptable measure against persecution to lock the prospective victims away. Rather, perpetrators should be dealt with harshly. Beyond that, magic can do many useful things, and most mages, I think, would like to use their abilities in useful ways, just like anyone else who has a talent for something. If mages were not isolated but seen more often doing useful things, the fear would be mitigated.

 

Some people claimed that the fear of magic was visceral and couldn't be mitigated. I disagree. If I trust my neighbour not to kill me with a gunshot as a rule, why shouldn't I trust them not to kill me with a fireball? And if I trust my neighbour to be circumspect enough not to burn down the house we both live in by leaving a burning cigarette on the carpet, why wouldn't I trust them to be circumspect enough in their dealing with Fade spirits to not get possessed? All these things, mundane and magical, of course still happen, but they're rare enough that we don't expect them to happen. A good magical training should be enough to make it so.

 

Also, a "magic police" should consist of both mages and non-mages. since it has to be trusted by the mageborn and those without magic alike. How this should be organized remains to be debated.

[Bizantura]

An elite class needs to stay on top to be an elite class.  For that you need a fearfull herd thus create a inexhaustible villain you protect that herd from.  In DAO those inexaustible patsies are, you guessed it, mages. 

[Sidney]

As for the problem of people's fear of magic: it is not an acceptable measure against persecution to lock the prospective victims away. Rather, perpetrators should be dealt with harshly. Beyond that, magic can do many useful things, and most mages, I think, would like to use their abilities in useful ways, just like anyone else who has a talent for something. If mages were not isolated but seen more often doing useful things, the fear would be mitigated.

 

The problem with this logic is that this isn't strictly speaking just a civil rights issue. It can be framed that way but it is also a public health and safety issue.

This isn't a case of just locking away Tutsi because the Hutus might kill them. The mages themselves are a problem because, and goodness knows this has been well documented in the games, they have a nasty habit of being possessed.  The circles are there so, as happened in Ferelden, if things go sideways, you can contain the problem. To put it another way, how would modern society deal with people who had a genetic defect that caused them to in 1 of a 100 cases explode and kill everyone within a 5 meter radius?

[EmissaryofLies]

Tevinter has it right; the barbarians in the South who allow themselves to be corralled like cattle do not deserve their freedom.

[Aaleel]

They should be schools and they should be voluntary.  You'd get more mages to attend than you do by forcing them.  No parent is going to send their kid off the prison voluntarily, they're going to hide them like Hawke's family did with Bethany, or try to find someway to teach them on their own like Conner's mother did.

 

You'd discover mages at younger ages because parents would bring them in, and most people would want to learn how to use their magic properly when they're not scared of being abducted and jailed.  A lot of demons and the Tevinter prey on mage's fear of the Chantry and losing their freedom.  Come to me I'll give you the power to defend yourself, or we'll protect you from the Chantry.

 

You're always going to have bad mages like you do in any group.  However, you create more enemies, apostates, and fear being oppressors and not allies.  Laws and jail are a deterrent because people don't want to face penalties, or lose their freedom.  But if you're going to lose your freedom regardless, what reason do you have to follow any laws?

 

If you can put a Chantry everywhere, you can put a mage school their and have Templars acting as police to step in when a magical crime is committed, THEN you lock a mage up.  

[Ieldra]

The problem with this logic is that this isn't strictly speaking just a civil rights issue. It can be framed that way but it is also a public health and safety issue.

This isn't a case of just locking away Tutsi because the Hutus might kill them. The mages themselves are a problem because, and goodness knows this has been well documented in the games, they have a nasty habit of being possessed.  The circles are there so, as happened in Ferelden, if things go sideways, you can contain the problem. To put it another way, how would modern society deal with people who had a genetic defect that caused them to in 1 of a 100 cases explode and kill everyone within a 5 meter radius?

This analogy fails because possession does not happen at random, and mages can be trained to deal with Fade spirits. As I said, I usually trust my neighbours to be circumspect enough to not set the house on fire by accident, say, by leaving a cigarette butt on the carpet. So, why wouldn't I trust a mage neighbour to be circumspect enough in their dealings with Fade spirits to not get possessed?

[MoonDrummer]

Life would be easier if everyone was a dwarf.