1551 réponses à ce sujet

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Apprentices can be taught to control their magic in a free setting with experienced teachers with out throwing them in a nice jail cell for the rest of their lives. This is an obvious truth Pro-Circle people don't want to aknowledge. The Circle is a big prison that non-mages throw mages into so they can forget about them but as First Enchanter Edmonde says, "You cannot squeeze people into a smaller and smaller box and hope they will disappear"

 

Ferelden produces mages like Connor and Keili. If those PTSD nutbags are the product of your "pep-talks" than you are willfully ignorant on the adverse effects of them rather than see the truth of it.

It's only an "obvious truth" in settings where abominations aren't a known bug of the magic system. And even in TES, which is the setting that inspired me to make that argument, the Mages Guild does have to sort out some nasty errors from failed attempts at Conjuration magic that endanger people who can't defend themselves magically. The presumably Mages Guild backed work that sets out how that setting's Mages Guild came to be even concedes that the idea that magic research in the middle of a city is stupid is not entirely stupid itself. I freely acknowledge your point that free mages likely won't end the world, and that there are conceivable systems that aren't the Circle. I have never seen you concede that there's any reason to be concerned that ending the Circle will make the world worse.

Connor's self-hatred is to some degree because he went abomination and nearly wiped out a city, and knows himself to have done so. There is no pep-talk that will have a more extreme effect on him than that will, whether the intended of the pep talk is negative or positive. With Keili, I think it's partially because she's just a teenager, though some Chantry jackass could be making things worse. At any rate you're forgetting the priest that Wynne states helped Wynne get over herself and become relatively well adjusted. The pep-talks don't always work, but we watch them work for the kids and we know they must have worked for Wynne. On the whole, we're able to see more cases of them causing mages to develop a sense of self-worth than of the opposite.

 

 

You assume I consider Tevinter worse than southern thedas.

In Orlais, we have nobles irresponsible to those they rule who can't use blood magic, and therefore only have a limited number of ways to hurt those who serve them for the noble's own exclusive benefit. In Tevinter, we have nobles irresponsible to those they rule who can sacrifice a servant to empower themselves permanently, or to explode a rival, or to sink an enemy fleet, or to build a palace. Notwithstanding that Celene would probably like to be able to do that, she can't. The Tevinter magisters are thus worse than she is practically if not morally.

[MisterJB]

 

Connor was possessed by a demon and killed dozens, possibly hundreds of people.

He has actually experienced reality first hand unlike apprentices who believe that they are the exception to the rules, that because they have never hurt anyone, they never will.

His words can be harsh. Mages are not monsters but there can be no denying that he has a much more realistic outlook than pro-freedom mages who have never even see an Abomination.

 

[Sports72Xtrm]

It's only an "obvious truth" in settings where abominations aren't a known bug of the magic system. And even in TES, which is the setting that inspired me to make that argument, the Mages Guild does have to sort out some nasty errors from failed attempts at Conjuration magic that endanger people who can't defend themselves magically. The presumably Mages Guild backed work that sets out how that setting's Mages Guild came to be even concedes that the idea that magic research in the middle of a city is stupid is not entirely stupid itself. I freely acknowledge your point that free mages likely won't end the world, and that there are conceivable systems that aren't the Circle. I have never seen you concede that there's any reason to be concerned that ending the Circle will make the world worse.
 

When I first started Dragon Age in Origins, I was also Pro-Circle and Pro-templar. But after DA2, learning about magic, the fade, demons, templars, the harsher realities of Circle life, my view on it has evolved. And idk much about TES but their Mages' Guild can't be more persecuted that the Circle of Magi. Thus comparing the too settings is irrelevant; it's apples and oranges.

 

 

Connor's self-hatred is to some degree because he went abomination and nearly wiped out a city, and knows himself to have done so. There is no pep-talk that will have a more extreme effect on him than that will, whether the intended of the pep talk is negative or positive. With Keili, I think it's partially because she's just a teenager, though some Chantry jackass could be making things worse. At any rate you're forgetting the priest that Wynne states helped Wynne get over herself and become relatively well adjusted. The pep-talks don't always work, but we watch them work for the kids and we know they must have worked for Wynne. On the whole, we're able to see more cases of them causing mages to develop a sense of self-worth than of the opposite.

Connor and Keili are the product of stigma against magic. Connor maybe became psychologically imbalanced when a demon is ripped from him, I'm not sure if he's mentally capable since even Marethari says there would be adverse affects from it.

 

Wynne's faith is derived from an idealized notion of the Circle- a Circle to her only protects and educates mages and the mundane people. That's what she clings to and the hopelessness that it can't get any better. But her idealized notion is based on a lie and since she's been indoctrinated by the Circle and hasn't seen other cultures do something else which could be more effective, she's not worldly enough to know better. The Circle is a prison meant to stifle mages. Even the mages you are trapped with who Wynne would like to believe is loyal and thinks with their best intentions at heart, aren't. Take Adrian for example, she threw her son, precious cinnamon roll Rhys, under the bus to further her agenda and she's part of the vocal mage leadership. You have people like Vivienne who would scheme against you if you don't subscribe to her political beliefs and I doubt she would stick up for Rhys when he was accused of murder as it would force her to fight against templars, The templar leadership are so biased against mages that they do everything in their power to stifle you. For example Lambert, lord seeker condoning murdering Wynne herself. And the Chantry, when has their intervention even led to meaningful change when they are bound by their duty to support the templars or risk civil war? Faith is great but it requires truth to sustain it and though she says she fully supports the Circle, it's based on an idealized version of it not grounded in reality, and her actions speak differently. She allowed Aneirin to run apostate, when her convictions and faith in the Circle system should have led her to turn him in to the templars since Wynne as she claims, believes a mage not supervised by the Circle can be a danger to himself or others. She went behind the Divine's back and sent the results of the research to every Circle showing a lack of trust on what Justinia would do with the information. She fought the templars and Lambert, going against the "duty" of the templars when it is not her place to go against the Lord Seeker no more than it for Irving to stop bad cop Gregoir as you said yourself. Her faith would have ultimately led to disillusionment because it's not grounded in truth. She'd either kill herself, become like Keili, or wisen up and see the Circle for what it is: a prison meant to stifle mages.

 

 

 

In Orlais, we have nobles irresponsible to those they rule who can't use blood magic, and therefore only have a limited number of ways to hurt those who serve them for the noble's own exclusive benefit. In Tevinter, we have nobles irresponsible to those they rule who can sacrifice a servant to empower themselves permanently, or to explode a rival, or to sink an enemy fleet, or to build a palace. Notwithstanding that Celene would probably like to be able to do that, she can't. The Tevinter magisters are thus worse than she is practically if not morally.

But non-mages are just as dangerous as mages, they just like to pretend they're not because it'd knock them down a peg. They can summon demons. Look at the Harrimans, they summoned a desire demon with out a mage. And the elven Orphanage summoned demons by massacring elves. Despite mages always being looked to as the source of every magical catastrophe, any non-mage can summon demons and create catastrophe since all a demon requires is enough death; and with the amount of elitism and callousness in Thedas, would be easy to provide by anyone with power. Hell dragon and doomsday cults are making a come back. Even the seekers require opening the veil just to aquire their powers, and a spirit bold enough to want to help and crosses over but is constantly stifled eventually becomes a demon. Let's not forget the Red Templars led by Samson and the Order of Fiery Promise led by Lord Seeker Lucius himself. You can bury your head in the sand and pretend that magisters and blood magic is the worse it can get for Thedas but factually it's not.

[Boost32]

Lady Harriman was a mage, she had mage powers.

[Jaison1986]

 

Yes, the latter actually has a good reason to be.

 

All we need now is for a cop to break into your house and stomp you to death. That would prove your point.

[TK514]

All we need now is for a cop to break into your house and stomp you to death. That would prove your point.

 

Wow.  Bitter much?

 

That was really uncalled for.

[Jaison1986]

Wow.  Bitter much?

 

That was really uncalled for.

 

Oh, really now, and saying that misery brought by our own authority is a good thing is not? No, it was not uncalled for at all.

[thesuperdarkone2]

Guess tresspasser will reveal whether mage freedom works or not, assuming they even talk about it at all.

[Jaison1986]

Guess tresspasser will reveal whether mage freedom works or not, assuming they even talk about it at all.

 

I'm sure it will work out either way. Side with the mages or the templars, everything will be mostly fine. BW knows that if they prove either side wrong, they would instantly lose the "gray morality" argument that they aways talk about.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

When I first started Dragon Age in Origins, I was also Pro-Circle and Pro-templar. But after DA2, learning about magic, the fade, demons, templars, the harsher realities of Circle life, my view on it has evolved. And idk much about TES but their Mages' Guild can't be more persecuted that the Circle of Magi. Thus comparing the too settings is irrelevant; it's apples and oranges.

I'm willing to do the same, if you can give me reason to. Which I doubt.

 

The point of the TES comparison is that their magic is much, much less dangerous and much less stigmatized than DA's, and even they concede that practicing magic in crowded cities isn't necessarily a good idea. If you add in the much worse stigma against magic in DA to the thing where mages in DA can become an abomination, then that just strengthens my point. This is because the whole idea of my argument is that TES's way of handling magic, which looks a lot like what I believe you to want, doesn't work in this setting.

 

Or did you mean that the difference between the Mages Guild (which allows you to live wherever you want) and the Circle (which doesn't) means no comparison can be made at all? Because I don't think you have a case there, given that my argument for why that works in one setting but not in another is in fact based on an attempt to notice the salient differences and ask whether the same system is the optimal way to handle both forms of magic. (Which I believe the answer to is "no.")

 

Connor and Keili are the product of stigma against magic. Connor maybe became psychologically imbalanced when a demon is ripped from him, I'm not sure if he's mentally capable since even Marethari says there would be adverse affects from it.

My point in pointing out why Connor might be the way he is was to show that there's an alternative reason for him to hate himself, in addition to the one you state. Pointing out that there's another other reason doesn't help your argument. Or were you just saying that he might be more vulnerable to being told to hate himself? Because maybe he is, but let's not pretend that that's the only reason why he could hate himself for what happened even if it's not entirely fair of him.

 

As for Keili, yeah, the stigma against magic probably doesn't help, but it's not unknown for a teenager to hate themselves. Besides, I don't think we're shown any reason to believe the Chantry officials she's currently exposed to are trying to help her hate herself instead of trying to help her self-esteem.

 

 

Wynne's faith is derived from an idealized notion of the Circle- a Circle to her only protects and educates mages and the mundane people. That's what she clings to and the hopelessness that it can't get any better. But her idealized notion is based on a lie and since she's been indoctrinated by the Circle and hasn't seen other cultures do something else which could be more effective, she's not worldly enough to know better. The Circle is a prison meant to stifle mages. Even the mages you are trapped with who Wynne would like to believe is loyal and thinks with their best intentions at heart, aren't. Take Adrian for example, she threw her son, precious cinnamon roll Rhys, under the bus to further her agenda and she's part of the vocal mage leadership. You have people like Vivienne who would scheme against you if you don't subscribe to her political beliefs and I doubt she would stick up for Rhys when he was accused of murder as it would force her to fight against templars, The templar leadership are so biased against mages that they do everything in their power to stifle you. For example Lambert, lord seeker condoning murdering Wynne herself. And the Chantry, when has their intervention even led to meaningful change when they are bound by their duty to support the templars or risk civil war? Faith is great but it requires truth to sustain it and though she says she fully supports the Circle, it's based on an idealized version of it not grounded in reality, and her actions speak differently. She allowed Aneirin to run apostate, when her convictions and faith in the Circle system should have led her to turn him in to the templars since Wynne as she claims, believes a mage not supervised by the Circle can be a danger to himself or others. She went behind the Divine's back and sent the results of the research to every Circle showing a lack of trust on what Justinia would do with the information. She fought the templars and Lambert, going against the "duty" of the templars when it is not her place to go against the Lord Seeker no more than it for Irving to stop bad cop Gregoir as you said yourself. Her faith would have ultimately led to disillusionment because it's not grounded in truth. She'd either kill herself, become like Keili, or wisen up and see the Circle for what it is: a prison meant to stifle mages.

This is why I try to limit myself to shorter paragraphs. I'll try to answer all of this if you try not to repeat anything I've already answered.

 

Wynne's seen the bad in the Circles. She's also well aware that there are lynch mobs outside of them. She does tend to idealize the Circles, and arguably more than they deserve, but in her defense: they were home. Her first memories were as an urchin. Not even a city urchin who could fall in with a gang: she was a country urchin dependent on what might have been the one farm for miles. Someone like her really was lucky to find the Circle.

 

Adrian threw Rhys under the bus for what you want. She also attempted to throw "blue fire" (which I'm not sure works like regular fire but doesn't sound like a non-lethal attack to me) at some peasants who feared magic for justifiable reasons in order to get them to back off when all that was needed was a Templar's warning before they backed down. And if it did work like regular fire lets not overlook how stupid it is to use it in a peasant building in a medieval setting: those tend to be flammable. If her presence in the Circle is a good reason to not want to live there, her actions outside it and against it are also a good reason for some mages to need to.

 

Vivienne is in many ways the best argument against your assertion that a scheming aristocrat is no less dangerous than a scheming mage. She establishes herself as a threat by freezing a man who was threatening you with a sword in his place and being more than willing to kill him if you ask it. He cannot defend himself because she is a mage, and according to Cole's banter he's only in that position at all because she's also better at being an Orlesian than he is. If she wasn't married to the idea of the Circle as a place for mages to learn and humanized by Cole seeing her softer side in banter (over her objections, mind you; let's not skate over the fact that Cole is creepy too) I'd find her to be the scariest character in the game not excepting Anders or Corypheus. And if she makes the Circle a scarier place to be? She makes everywhere else she is that too.

 

But you're also wrong that Vivienne is unwilling to stand up against the Templars. She doesn't say the Templars are always right, merely that standing up to them in the exact way Fiona tried was foolish. And her endgame is that the Templars are firmly under her control, which is scary because it's her controlling them but also entirely necessary since we've seen what happens when they go uncontrolled.

 

The above paragraph mostly answers your point that the Templars are biased: if they do everything in their power to screw with mages, keep them more firmly controlled.

 

She did try to persuade Aneirin to go back to the Circle. Which was probably foolish of her given that the last time he was there they tried to kill him, but then that's probably why she didn't hand him over to the Templars.

 

Going behind the Divine's back was questionable. Not to deny there were Tranquil who shouldn't have been, but the process of curing Tranquil does not seem to lead to reliable mages. They seem to be overly emotional, and that's a bad thing for a mage.

 

 

But non-mages are just as dangerous as mages, they just like to pretend they're not because it'd knock them down a peg. They can summon demons. Look at the Harrimans, they summoned a desire demon with out a mage. And the elven Orphanage summoned demons by massacring elves. Despite mages always being looked to as the source of every magical catastrophe, any non-mage can summon demons and create catastrophe since all a demon requires is enough death; and with the amount of elitism and callousness in Thedas, would be easy to provide by anyone with power. Hell dragon and doomsday cults are making a come back. Even the seekers require opening the veil just to aquire their powers, and a spirit bold enough to want to help and crosses over but is constantly stifled eventually becomes a demon. Let's not forget the Red Templars led by Samson and the Order of Fiery Promise led by Lord Seeker Lucius himself. You can bury your head in the sand and pretend that magisters and blood magic is the worse it can get for Thedas but factually it's not.

Lady Harriman is seen with a demon in a Tevinter Ruin. That's not the same as summoning it despite being a non-mage. Boost seems to think she was a secret apostate, as observed by her using magic. The other interpretation is that the demon gave her the magic, which is weird but I guess possible. Anyway, the demon's presence requires that it found its way past the Veil. It does not require that it was summoned, since demons can find their way through on their own in some areas, or specifically that Harriman summoned it without being a mage. (I could swear I pointed all of this out to you last time you used that argument.)

 

As for the rest of it: most non-mages can't cause enough death on their own to damage the Veil enough to get a demon out. People like Howe can kill enough people to damage the Veil, but he's very much in the minority as far as having that much authority.

 

As for the Templars: they need lyrium. Mages can use it, but don't need to. A templar who drinks semi-rare blue lyrium can block magic, and pays dearly for it eventually. A templar who drinks the (until fairly late in the series much rarer) red lyrium gets a lot more power than that, and pays much worse for it eventually including their own death. Samson has way more power than that: despite not being visibly mutated from all I remember he can apparently muster the strength to snap a man in half after a several day forced march, but the amount of effort Corypheus had to go to... he had a Tranquil work to seal him into a suit of Red Lyrium that would have killed any other man to wear. And even then, their powers are much more limited in scope than the mages. A mage can cast just about any spell: fire, frost, lightning, summoning spirits with almost no effort where anyone else has to kill a whole bunch of people, and so forth. A Templar who catches a mage off guard cuts off his magic and stabs him, and a mage who catches that Templar off guard does **** knows what to him.

 

The dragon cults carry much the same problem: their Reavers have increased power and apparently life-steal, but that's nothing to a mage's sheer versatility.

 

Seekers are much the same as Templars as far as the threat their magic poses, not counting the spirit they apparently court. (Not sure how they do that, maybe they know a place where the Veil is weak? Or a spirit who's already through? I doubt it's because they can bend the Veil at will, since there's no decent evidence that non-mages can do that. At any rate, I don't think there's much risk of it becoming a demon: if there was it probably would have happened, and they seem to take precautions against it judging by the bit where it won't touch impure minds.)

 

What does the Order of the Fiery Promise do? I know what they want to do, but having not gotten that quest yet I don't know where they get the power they think will accomplish their goals. If they're not a magical threat they have no prayer of ending the world as they desire to, and if they are they probably fall into one of the above slots. (Or have mages, which means they aren't a rebuttal of the Circle system so much as evidence in favor of its wider application.)

 

Nor do any of these work as an argument against containing mages even if I conceded they were worse. Just because there's a lot more dangerous things out there doesn't mean you should add another to Thedas.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I'm sure it will work out either way. Side with the mages or the templars, everything will be mostly fine. BW knows that if they prove either side wrong, they would instantly lose the "gray morality" argument that they aways talk about.

That would actually make things less grey. The argument of the pro-Templars is that if mages aren't kept under surveillance, bad things can happen. If it's made clear that bad things don't happen, we lose some of our justification for what we do. Now, granted, two years is a bit less time to let problems develop than I'd want to make strong judgements based on, but it's still a long enough period of time that if mages haven't started doing messed up things or going abomination we'd start wondering.

 

Now for a more grey setting, make the tradeoffs clear. Make it clear that if mages are free, problems arise. You can still argue that mages should be free, but it becomes clear why someone would argue against you just as it is clear why you guys argue against us.

[thesuperdarkone2]

I'm sure it will work out either way. Side with the mages or the templars, everything will be mostly fine. BW knows that if they prove either side wrong, they would instantly lose the "gray morality" argument that they aways talk about.

I actually found Gaider complaining about people always siding with mages quite funny considering he's annoyed a majority of people tried to stop a deranged lunatic from murdering an entire group of innocent people for something they didn't do, or how he made the templars the villains in Asunder. Really, it's like he wants people to side with templars yet makes the templars villainous in return.

[thesuperdarkone2]

I'm sure it will work out either way. Side with the mages or the templars, everything will be mostly fine. BW knows that if they prove either side wrong, they would instantly lose the "gray morality" argument that they aways talk about.

More likely than not the diehard pro-templars like TKS, boost, and warder would simply claim it to be a fairy tale ending and how if this was reality, the mages would destroy the world if given freedom and would continue acting like this even if the game proves their beliefs wrong.

[thesuperdarkone2]

That would actually make things less grey. The argument of the pro-Templars is that if mages aren't kept under surveillance, bad things can happen. If it's made clear that bad things don't happen, we lose some of our justification for what we do. Now, granted, two years is a bit less time to let problems develop than I'd want to make strong judgements based on, but it's still a long enough period of time that if mages haven't started doing messed up things or going abomination we'd start wondering.

 

Now for a more grey setting, make the tradeoffs clear. Make it clear that if mages are free, problems arise. You can still argue that mages should be free, but it becomes clear why someone would argue against you just as it is clear why you guys argue against us.

Well if you ally with them, Vivienne and Cullen claim abominations are inevitable. How many abominations actually happen or are mentioned occurring because of allying with the mages? Exactly. Seems like the possession threat is overestimated

[MisterJB]

Oh, really now, and saying that misery brought by our own authority is a good thing is not? No, it was not uncalled for at all.

Oh I am so sorry you felt personally victimized by my comment on how sometimes authorities do "bad" things for the sake of the greater good. For instance, quarantines.

Had I known your feelings were this fragile, I would have kept it to myself. Sorry.

It is strange, however, that you do not believe in the greater good. Why, I assumed you were in favor of the rebellion.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Well if you ally with them, Vivienne and Cullen claim abominations are inevitable. How many abominations actually happen or are mentioned occurring because of allying with the mages? Exactly. Seems like the possession threat is overestimated

I seem to recall Cassandra mentioning them as a threat that the Seekers were supposed to hunt down when you start her personal quest Unfinished Business. But then the mages you fight in that quest don't seem to be possessed. Their books, yes. Them, no.

 

I do think you're making a bit more of this than it might deserve, however, since these are mostly trained mages and I didn't necessarily think those were the biggest threat for turning. It's when the free mages who choose the next generation's curriculum start lowering the standards for what mages are allowed to do and how competent "competent enough" is that problems might emerge. Though I'm willing to concede that won't necessarily happen. Still, we might see enough to be sure whether you're right about this in Trespasser, and if we don't then we almost certainly will in the next game should there be such a thing.

 

 

I actually found Gaider complaining about people always siding with mages quite funny considering he's annoyed a majority of people tried to stop a deranged lunatic from murdering an entire group of innocent people for something they didn't do, or how he made the templars the villains in Asunder. Really, it's like he wants people to side with templars yet makes the templars villainous in return.

He's annoyed that people like you and Sports are automatically siding against the Templars. Not even in the decision at the end of DA2, since that was a fairly clear cut one. It's just that people side against them and hate on them on the forums when a lot of them really are just trying to help. He makes their dark side clear, but feels he's failed to impress on you why a good person (or a semi-good person) can still support them.

 

 

More likely than not the diehard pro-templars like TKS, boost, and warder would simply claim it to be a fairy tale ending and how if this was reality, the mages would destroy the world if given freedom and would continue acting like this even if the game proves their beliefs wrong.

Nobody's expecting they'll destroy the world. Except TKS, if he's not trolling. But yeah, realistically you would not expect Leiliana's idea to go well. At all. We might be about to get a hint whether or not it will anyway in Trespasser.

[WashclothRepairMan]

Would you make her Divine? :>

 

Anyone that would make Vivienne the Divine is simply insane.

[WashclothRepairMan]

 

Then the Circle is fine because people hurt people.

Or are there different degrees of people hurting people? Restrictive system is bad but world war is cool and mob justice are cool?
 

 

 

 

Of course not, she is a mage.

I won't be setting a precedent.

 

 

 

Well, if you are just looking for someone to parrot your own viewpoint in a different voice, you are in the wrong place. People debate here.

Oh, and we sacrifice everyone's freedom every day so society can exist. That is the whole point of the legal system.

 

MisterJB, I'm starting to think you're just trolling.

[WashclothRepairMan]

On Vivienne: I do like Vivienne for the reasons I've kind of hinted at. She's clearly thought the issue through and has considered different arguments and points of view when she argues her case. She speaks primarily from her own experience rather than taking into consideration the variety of experiences of mages in southern Thedas, however. Meaning, she misses the point: of course the restrictions aren't fair or fun or really very nice at all for a respectable quantity of mages. If you start from the premise 'the restrictions on mages are fair', you're fighting an uphill battle.

 

The better question is whether restrictions are necessary for a functioning society. I think it is also a more interesting question.

No she hasn't. She's reacting from an irrational, emotional view of things.

[Shienis]

He's annoyed that people like you and Sports are automatically siding against the Templars. Not even in the decision at the end of DA2, since that was a fairly clear cut one. It's just that people side against them and hate on them on the forums when a lot of them really are just trying to help. He makes their dark side clear, but feels he's failed to impress on you why a good person (or a semi-good person) can still support them.

 

That's unfortunately given by the fact, that whoever shouts the word "freedom" first, usually wins the mob's favour. If Anders used the word "anarchy" instead, which would by the way describe his actions more accurately, he would have much less followers or sympathisers.

[Ieldra]

Connor was possessed by a demon and killed dozens, possibly hundreds of people.

He has actually experienced reality first hand unlike apprentices who believe that they are the exception to the rules, that because they have never hurt anyone, they never will.

His words can be harsh. Mages are not monsters but there can be no denying that he has a much more realistic outlook than pro-freedom mages who have never even see an Abomination.

Connor is psychologically damaged. "It was all me" is simply not true. Connor's story may serve as a cautionary tale, but where he went wrong is when he let the demon in, after it manipulated him to do so through his desire to help his father. That's what people should focus on when they use his story as a cautionary tale. Whatever the demon did later wasn't Connor.

 

With regard to the Circles, his story actually showcases the problems with the Circle system: if the Circles were schools instead of prisons, the parents of mageborn children would be rather less likely to hide them away. If being mageborn wasn't regarded as a social stigma by the nobility (because mageborn children can't inherit), the girl from Chateau d'Onterre might have survived to become a capable mage.

 

The scenario with Vivienne as Divine is probably the most stable one with regard to the situation of the mageborn, and it is admittedly a marked improvement, but it won't change that for many mageborn, their sojourn in the Circles will feel like life imprisonment, for no fault of their own. This is especially true for those who don't buy into its ideological premise, don't follow the party line. I think it is worth some risk to try and explore alternatives.

[Boost32]

More likely than not the diehard pro-templars like TKS, boost, and warder would simply claim it to be a fairy tale ending and how if this was reality, the mages would destroy the world if given freedom and would continue acting like this even if the game proves their beliefs wrong.

Leliana ending is a fairy tale ending and I don't have those extremes views like TKS.
And I already saw evidence of the mages screw ups to believe the contrary, Bioware making everything work like in the carebear world will not change my view.

And its not like if they show it can't work, the pro-mage diehard crowd like you, Xil and others will change your's views.

Anyone that would make Vivienne the Divine is simply insane.

People who make Vivienne Divine are insane? And you want to convince us that MisterJB is the one trolling?
And she way better than the insane redhead.

Connor is psychologically damaged. "It was all me" is simply not true. Connor's story may serve as a cautionary tale, but where he went wrong is when he let the demon in, after it manipulated him to do so through his desire to help his father. That's what people should focus on when they use his story as a cautionary tale. Whatever the demon did later wasn't Connor.
 
With regard to the Circles, his story actually showcases the problems with the Circle system: if the Circles were schools instead of prisons, the parents of mageborn children would be rather less likely to hide them away. If being mageborn wasn't regarded as a social stigma by the nobility (because mageborn children can't inherit), the girl from Chateau d'Onterre might have survived to become a capable mage.
 
The scenario with Vivienne as Divine is probably the most stable one with regard to the situation of the mageborn, and it is admittedly a marked improvement, but it won't change that for many mageborn, their sojourn in the Circles will feel like life imprisonment, for no fault of their own. This is especially true for those who don't buy into its ideological premise, don't follow the party line. I think it is worth some risk to try and explore alternatives.

Thats not a fault of the system, thats a fault of the person who didn't sent the kid to the Circle, they broke the law, you can't fault the system because of their mistake. And the mage Inquisitor was allowed to visit their family on holidays, I doubt those 2 would have a different treatment because Ferelden and Orlesians Circles are quite permissible.
Those who doesn't accept should be put on solitary to not rotten the others, the Libertarian faction should be disbanded and those who try to spread its view should be summary punished.

[Ieldra]

Those who doesn't accept should be put on solitary to not rotten the others, the Libertarian faction should be disbanded and those who try to spread its view should be summary punished.

So you want the Circles to be even more like a totalitarian police state than they already are?

[Boost32]

So you want the Circles to be even more like a totalitarian police state than they already are?

No, I want for those who have a good bahevor to be rewarded with more freedoms, but those who try to destabilize the news Circles (like the Libertarian did in the past) should be harshly punished
If they are let on their own, they will grow bold and act against the system like Fiona, Adrian and Anders did. There should be a tolerance 0 with agitators.

And I disagree with you on the Circles being a totalitarian police state.

[Ieldra]

No, I want for those who have a good bahevor to be rewarded with more freedoms, but those who try to destabilize the news Circles (like the Libertarian did in the past) should be harshly punished
If they are let on their own, they will grow bold and act against the system like Fiona, Adrian and Anders did. There should be a tolerance 0 with agitators.

And I disagree with you on the Circles being a totalitarian police state.

If "good behaviour" means "toeing the party line" and political disagreement is punished that just proves my point. I can only observe that some of the most outspoken pro-Circle debaters here appear to have a preference for authoritarian forms of government. I am not surprised.