All demographics have criminal individuals.
Yes, the latter actually has a good reason to be.
Prove this will be constantly true at any given time in any given place.
It's the opposite. As a citizen I have a social contract with the law system not to mistreat me, not with every individual person. It's the reason why we consider imprisoning an innocent person worse than letting a guilty one free.
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.
I just wish they would be honest about it.
It's the opposite. As a citizen I have a social contract with the law system not to mistreat me, not with every individual person. It's the reason why we consider imprisoning an innocent person worse than letting a guilty one free.
I agree with you, but I'm surprised to say someone named "TevinterSupremacist" saying it. Tevinter isn't exactly an embodiment of that principle.
@WashclothRepairMan:
Exactly what I was thinking, but refrained from adding to my post 
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.
Not really. Vivienne is a terrible human being. That's generally something that makes for a poor holy leader. She doesn't fix or even recognize the fundamental rot with the status quo that led to the mage/templar war. At least Leliana tries to fix it. But Viv just goes with the same demonstrably broken system and throws some meaningless goodies at the mages in an attempt to placate them all while still imprisoning them. She's also a raging hypocrite. Surely, as Divine, she doesn't have to go back to a Circle and she'll get a comfy, lavish lifestyle to boot.
But Cassie is the ideal candidate for Divine. Someone who recognizes that without serious reforms, far more than Viv has in mind, you're only delaying another uprising, but also sees the practical uses of Circles as centers for learning and safe practition of magic.
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.
While the anti-Circle appear to prefer to have either anarchy or sunshine-and-butterflies-utopia.
Why is it so BAAAAAD to want mages to follow a set of rules? It's a thing that everyone must do in order to coexist with any society. Why it's so great idea to grant mages an exception? Because they have super-powers?
While the anti-Circle appear to prefer to have either anarchy or sunshine-and-butterflies-utopia.
Why is it so BAAAAAD to want mages to follow a set of rules? It's a thing that everyone must do in order to coexist with any society. Why it's so great idea to grant mages an exception? Because they have super-powers?
Are they honestly anti-circle or anti-templars? Because setting mages free without any training would never work out. Even the most pro-mages know that much. The mages will aways need circles. They need to learn to control their magic. That being said, most pro-mages would like these circles to be rid of templars, or at least replace them with a group of more tempered watchers that don't have as much power.
Good behavior means Bethany, Wynne, Vivienne, mages who support the Circle and work to improve it.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.
While the anti-Circle appear to prefer to have either anarchy or sunshine-and-butterflies-utopia.
Why is it so BAAAAAD to want mages to follow a set of rules? It's a thing that everyone must do in order to coexist with any society. Why it's so great idea to grant mages an exception? Because they have super-powers?
The guideline for the classical anti-Circle position is not about exceptions. It is, in fact, about making as few exceptions as possible and not making the mageborn subject to pre-emptive imprisonment, but like everyone else, only punish them if they have actually done something to deserve it. This position accepts mandatory training, which may necessitate temporary confinement (but not isolation), but regards anything beyond that as unjustified.
It is not bad to want people to follow a set of rules. However, acceptance of such rules depends on whether they are regarded as fair, and whether they are applied fairly by the executive. Systematically disadvantaging one group is usually regarded as unfair, often even by those not of the disadvantaged group. It is fundamentally undesirable and only acceptable under the direst of necessities. The rational disagreements in the mage/templar debate are usually about whether such necessities exist, and what measures exactly may or may not be justified.
There is also a more fundamental difference at work here: how much importance people place on individual autonomy as it conflicts with loyalty to your community and acceptance of legitimate authority. As I see it, a community that treats you as a second-class citizen can't expect loyalty from you. As long as Thedas' non-mages accept the pre-emptive imprisonment of the mageborn, they have no moral right to expect equal consideration from them. There is also the question of how legitimate the templar's authority over the mageborn is. The Libertarians' political goals are exactly about that: to be ruled by a *legitimate* authority. Anarchy is not on the table, but the templars and the Chantry are not regarded as legitimate, often because they blame the mageborn collectively for the world's greatest evils.
Between the cultural climate and human nature, it is possible, in the end, that segregation is the only solution. In that case, however, the mageborn have every right to demand - and ultimately enforce, if necessary - segregation on their terms. It's either integration with full rights and obligations, or separation with no rights or obligations.
Are they honestly anti-circle or anti-templars? Because setting mages free without any training would never work out. Even the most pro-mages know that much. The mages will aways need circles. They need to learn to control their magic. That being said, most pro-mages would like these circles to be rid of templars, or at least replace them with a group of more tempered watchers that don't have as much power.
I'm a bit confused about what is the problem with templars you're talking about: is it "a group called Templars is present" or "someone with power to snuff out magic is present" or "some Circles went out of control because no-one questioned templars' wrong decisions"?
The guideline for the classical anti-Circle position is not about exceptions. It is, in fact, about making as few exceptions as possible and not making the mageborn subject to pre-emptive imprisonment, but like everyone else, only punish them if they have actually done something to deserve it. This position accepts mandatory training, which may necessitate temporary confinement (but not isolation), but regards anything beyond that as unjustified.
Please elaborate on that - currently it seems you have some awesome rainbows-and-flowers-idea, but lack the thought about practical application. How would this highlighted idea work differently from most of the Circles?
I'm a bit confused about what is the problem with templars you're talking about: is it "a group called Templars is present" or "someone with power to snuff out magic is present" or "some Circles went out of control because no-one questioned templars' wrong decisions"?
The problem is that templars have absolute power. They can do whatever they want with mages. This ranges from Meredith making run away mages tranquil even if they were not blood mages, or in more extreme cases, making Maddox tranquil for sending a love letter. Or Lambert going as far to ignore the Divine wishes and attack the mages of the spire. Not to mention their views on mages are sullied by the Chantry bias, going as far as to make outrageous claims that they have holy power over the mages. No one have have holy power over anyone. Only a crazy zealot would think that. And because of this, we need a new group that is not as biased and that would deliver more fair jugdment to the mages, such as the Inquisition, in the scenario were Leliana is Divine and the mages were conscripted.
Why is it so BAAAAAD to want mages to follow a set of rules? It's a thing that everyone must do in order to coexist with any society. Why it's so great idea to grant mages an exception? Because they have super-powers?
Please elaborate on that - currently it seems you have some awesome rainbows-and-flowers-idea, but lack the thought about practical application. How would this highlighted idea work differently from most of the Circles?
The difference is that the confinement is temporary, and ideally, that the parents of mageborn children can choose where to send them, though that may be limited by economic constraints. Mageborn who have finished their training have the right to move about freely and use their abilities for any lawful endeavour by default, just as any non-mageborn, and just like with normal people, the executive can't confine them any further without a good reason, rather than confinement being the default.
Also, the mageborn would not be subject to a different authority than anyone else, especially not under the authority of an organization ideologically biased against them. As I said elsewhere, having templars and the Chantry oversee the mageborn, that's like recruiting the US-American police force from the KKK.
The problem is that templars have absolute power. They can do whatever they want with mages. This ranges from Meredith making run away mages tranquil even if they were not blood mages, or in more extreme cases, making Maddox tranquil for sending a love letter. Or Lambert going as far to ignore the Divine wishes and attack the mages of the spire. Not to mention their views on mages are sullied by the Chantry bias, going as far as to make outrageous claims that they have holy power over the mages. No one have have holy power over anyone. Only a crazy zealot would think that. And because of this, we need a new group that is not as biased and that would deliver more fair jugdment to the mages, such as the Inquisition, in the scenario were Leliana is Divine and the mages were conscripted.
Or, you know, just throw out the ones who are biased against mages. As seems to have already happened judging by the Templar War Table missions.
Prove this will be constantly true at any given time in any given place.
Prove if you touch fire, it will burn you.
It is statistically impossible to have an ethnicity without criminals or just people who don't have accidents.
Of course, mage accidents tend to involve dozens of deaths.
It's the opposite. As a citizen I have a social contract with the law system not to mistreat me, not with every individual person. It's the reason why we consider imprisoning an innocent person worse than letting a guilty one free
.
Actually incorrect.
You have a social contract with both the state and every citizen not to breach your rights but exceptions are permitted in both cases.
For instance, everyone around you has the legally binding obligation to not use your car without your permission. However, if, for instance, someone was injured and yours was the only method of transportation close at hand and someone took it to take that someone to the hospital, it would be a mitigating factor taken into account in court due to the right of life being more important than the right of property.
Likewise, during states of emergency, the state has the right to infring upon the freedom of the citizens.
the Libertarian faction should be disbanded
No, man. The Fraternaties are a great idea.
First, it keeps the mages arguing with each other rather than with us and the Libertarians are a good way to identify the troublemakers.
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.
Well...yeah.
A normal kid would have mourned. A mage kid destroyed one of Ferelden's major towns.
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.
However, if the restriction of the Circles are lessened, we risk thier efectiveness. And there are always going to be a few families to whom the prospect of any restrictions are too much.
Connor was a noble. There is no way Isolde wouldn't have been able to visit him.
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.
Why?
And that is a serious question.
The Circles provide luxurious accomodations, food, safety, education, etc. They actually allow mages to have an higher standard of living than most people in Thedas.
Certainly, there can be abusive Templars but certainly no more than there can be abusive nobles or guardsmen.
And they may be stifling but just how much social mobility does the majority of Thedas has in reality?
So, that is what they risk if they remain in the Circles.
But, if mages are free, normal people risk literally everything. Their livelihood, their homes, their families, their freedoms, their lives.
Why should we risk everything for a hundred people so that one person feels less restricted? I honestly can't see any justification for this.
Which is not to say that there can't be alternatives. I have just never seen one proposed that couldn't be defeated simply with "greater exposure to a greater number of people with increased Templar reaction time duet to distance from the mages leads to a greater number of deaths when accidents happen" or "Power begets power. If their magic is not restricted in some way, they will rule society in a couple of generations."
It tends to be just "train them and then release them on an unsuspecting population."
And that's where I fundamentally disagree. Why would a mageborn be more likely to take this from them than a non-mageborn? Especially if there is a functional "magic police"?But, if mages are free, normal people risk literally everything. Their livelihood, their homes, their families, their freedoms, their lives.
And that's where I fundamentally disagree. Why would a mageborn be more likely to take this from them than a non-mageborn? Especially if there is a functional "magic police"?
Why did Connor decimate Redcliff and not Bevin? Its not exactly hard to figure out if you think about it.
And that's where I fundamentally disagree. Why would a mageborn be more likely to take this from them than a non-mageborn? Especially if there is a functional "magic police"?
Tell us how this "magic police" is supposed to work, please.
Everytime I hear somebody say that templar squads should sit somewhere in their base and only react when there is a magic related crime reported my hair stands on end.
Every single example we have of a mage going ballistic without templars nearby always ends in an Anders Breivik scenario. Body count rising because the local authorities are unable to handle the problem, while the templars need to mobilize, march out and reach the place. And that's only the cases where there is anybody reporting it. What if there's nobody left to report? What if the people are charmed/controlled with blood magic? What if the next templar garrison is three days away?
If somebody could present one implementation that's not based on wishful thinking or "tough luck, non-mage!" attitudes I would actually consider it.
@Tobi, don't you know? The templars have helicopters and CCTV set up all over the place, they're just pretending not to so they can go on getting their jollies from abusing the poor harmless mages ![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
Most cities and towns we have seen had a Templar force stationed there. Lothering, Denerim, Kirkwall, Val Royeaux, Amaranthine. So, it's not like this anti-magic police force doesn't exist.
World of Thedas volume 2 tells us that Meredith's sister became an Abomination with Templars nearby and she still killed 72 people.
It's just not enough.
Prove if you touch fire, it will burn you.
First, in order to prove "if you touch fire, it will burn you", we need to first have a common definition of what fire is and what burn is and what you(me) is. If we don't have those common definitions, then there's no point to the question.
If we have, then on an ontological level, what fire means and what properties it has and what me and my skin is already include the "if contact, then burn" concept.
The same can't be said for "mages will f*ck things up if free" because mages are people and a generalising statement about people behavior (unless we reach omniscience, at least as far as the study of the brain goes) isn't something that can be done, no matter how statistically likely a generalisation is.
Of course, you still have to prove what I asked you to, in order to support your case, independently of whether I can prove your fire example or not. My wanting to humor you and going along with it, doesn't change that.
As for the second part, that's pure naivete, expecting random, unknown to you people to conform or not conform to their legal obligations is wishful thinking at best. At least the social system is "supposed" to care for you, I'd never assume the same for any unknown person.
Connor is moot point because Isolde is the true criminal here. No matter the circle's reputation, she would have kept him hidden to avoid the humiliation of having a mage child, all because of the status quo. If not for her, Eamon would have sent Connor to the circle and all the crisis at a Redcliffe would have been avoided.
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.
He was manipulated, yes. But he was able to be manipulated specifically because he was a mage. It was not his fault, he was tricked, and his motives were pure. But he was the cause nevertheless.
"Not guilty. But responsible" as Mordin would say.
He is a cautionary tale, of the enormous burden that magic can be. How a mage must always be on guard. ANd how much damage they can cause, even inadvertently, if they do not.
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.
The Circles are schools. THough they are schools mages are required to attend. That this purpose have been perverted over the centuries is not in question (at least not by me)
Yes, if Vivienne proves to be a capable Divine, it may be the catalyst needed to ease restrictions on mages inheriting titles. THough I believe that will be a long time coming in any case.
Retour en haut
