94 réponses à ce sujet

[o Ventus]

It's a fair deal given that every mage has the potential to destroy the world.

 

Except they don't. Not even remotely.

[Meave]

Responding to your topic question since it seems you vary in your actual first post, Templars look over mages because it was decided oversight was needed for the mages, because of Tevinter. 

 

As it's explain in DAI The Inquisition predated the Templars. Once they spread the word for the Chantry, they laid down their arms (hahahaaha) and became the Seekers and Templars. They made an agreement with the Chantry to look over the Mages, because the Chantry wasn't able to.

 

People are so scared that Mages are going to blow up the world that they decided to stick them all in the closet like Harry Potter.

 

Yes, it is broken, because it does force too many restrictions on mages and steals their freedoms, but at the same time it protects them. The people are so weary of magic as is that they might actually kill you if you are a mage out there in the world. It appears as if the only groups that don't treat mages like something to be feared are the Vints and Dalish. Anyone else might just outright kill you like I said before.

 

this is just Chantry's BS, just political play to keep power, they know as well as anyone that a religion which have to elect their own leader (instead of letting their Goddess/God decide) is not worth following so they just terrorize people with their templars and seekers

[Jeffry]

Why? Because they are a danger to themselves and can be a danger to others. They are friggin beacons for demons and not all of them can resist the temptation. And if they were not in check, they would rule the world just as Tevinter's magisters. I don't know about you, but I think one nation full of slavery and blood magic is enough.

 

During DAO I supported their cause, during the first 2 acts of DA2 as well, they were after all severely oppressed. But everything changed with Anders's terrorist act. And then on top of that they sided with those slavers who once ruled the world because they were mages. Do they deserve to be opressed, just because they were born so? No. Do they deserve greater freedoms? Yes. Would it be wise to let them run completely free? Hell no.

 

Oh yeah and on top of that they were able to start the Blights, just because they were so power-hungry, not a cool thing to do

[Dreamer]

Except they don't. Not even remotely.

 

No? I'm pretty sure the entire plot of Inquisition can be summed up as "OMG mages are dangerous and have the potential to rend us from the universe! How do we deal with this in a safe and humane way?"

[catabuca]

The people of Thedas act as they do towards mages because of fear. That fear may or may not be warranted. There's no denying mages can become abominations or give themselves over to blood magic, but the workings of the fade, of magic, and of spirits/demons isn't something the people of Thedas truly understand yet, so whether they are overreacting, reacting in an understandable way, or not applying the right logic to the situation is difficult to say.

 

The people of Thedas are products of their society. They react to the things they see, the things they hear, and the things they experience. They are subject to the whims of their rulers, who will often exploit fear in order to gain position. Over the course of history, entire groups - like the Templars - can be shaped in doctrine and purpose through the subtle machinations of rulers and others who want power, aided unwittingly by a lack of understanding and an inability (or unwillingness, or both) to try to understand.

 

To suggest that BioWare is pro-Templar and anti-mage is to misunderstand the purpose of this kind of storytelling. They've created a tension that in some ways reflects many aspects of our own world. Our own history is littered with examples of extreme prejudice and oppression borne out of fear and misunderstanding, and fuelled by a heavy dose of political manoeuvring for power. BioWare isn't planting its flag in the camp of either mages or Templars, but presenting a story and a world in a way that asks us to understand where oppression stems from, that shows we're all victims of it even if we're on the 'winning' side, and that tries to examine how misunderstanding leads to unequal balances of power particularly when used and exploited as a tool for political gain.

[Meave]

Why? Because they are a danger to themselves and can be a danger to others. They are friggin beacons for demons and not all of them can resist the temptation. And if they were not in check, they would rule the world just as Tevinter's magisters. I don't know about you, but I think one nation full of slavery and blood magic is enough.

 

During DAO I supported their cause, during the first 2 acts of DA2 as well, they were after all severely oppressed. But everything changed with Anders's terrorist act. And then on top of that they sided with those slavers who once ruled the world because they were mages. Do they deserve to be opressed, just because they were born so? No. Do they deserve greater freedoms? Yes. Would it be wise to let them run completely free? Hell no.

 

Oh yeah and on top of that they were able to start the Blights, just because they were so power-hungry, not a cool thing to do

 

do you people even read what I wrote? or do you just read first sentence and then reply with first thing that comes to your mind?

I never said mages shouldn't be watched over. But mages are better to watch over mages cos hey it's your friend who started to act weird so hmm maybe let him be inspected by comitee or something and when demon presence is detected well, grab some friends and let's kill that demon. At least mages can protect themselves against demons, while templars can't do a crap except try to kill it, but we saw in Circle tower how that works out for templars, plenty were corrupted by demons, actually more corrupted templars than mages so hmm they didn't do very good job, did they? They are only there to do one thing, nothing else and they fail so wohoo big fancy useless templars while all it takes is one old hag Wynne to keep demons at bay...

[Koneko Koji]

 

 

They are only there to do one thing, nothing else and they fail so wohoo big fancy useless templars while all it takes is one old hag Wynne to keep demons at bay...

 

Not a good example there given that the old hag was possessed by a spirit at the time...

[Grieving Natashina]

pfff that what chantry said... for all we know it could be as well templar or a priest in origin, but after that it was simply a demon

I can see where you're coming from, but there is actually evidence to support the original Darkspawn theory:

 

In DA2, when you first meet Corypheus (in the Legacy DLC, and the best part of DA2 imho) and you'll find an ancient amulet that is from Tevinter.  If you take Anders with you, he'll say that the amulet looks like the real deal.

 

Darkspawn and demon magic aren't one and the same.  In fact, according to the lore, they are completely different.  The big reason why Cory was able to control demons was by doing two things: Controlling and/or allying those that could call them (the Tevinter mages, as well as the rebel mages if you sided with the templars) and because of the orb's power over the Fade.  Up til the end, the Orb had power still over the Fade, just the Inquisitor removed the skeleton key that unlocks/locks rips in the Fade.

 

Cory's first words in Legacy are rather pitiful, crying out for Dumat (the first Old God to become an Archdemon,) and talking about "the city, it was supposed to be golden...it was supposed to be ours."   There isn't a lot of room for doubting that Corypheus is a darkspawn once you play Legacy and read up all the codex entries you can find.  Whether or not the Chantry version of events that lead to the first Blight in terms of the "Maker is punishing us for our sins" is correct, it truly looks like something led the Magisters to breach the Fade and attempt to enter the Golden city.  

 

Evidence provided by Cory during Legacy (when he was really out of it, and ironically a much harder boss fight,) as well as the Altar of Dumat that you can find, suggests that Dumat called to his followers to enter the Fade physically.  I think Dumat, or the thing claiming to be Dumat, somehow coerced them to do that brave but idiotic move.  I don't think Cory is a demon, but I wonder if a demon (Pride would fit) claiming to be Dumat tricked his followers and kicked off the events that led first Blight.  I know Dumat was a real being, but I could see a higher level demon pretending to be him if it suited their needs while whispering in the mages minds.

 

Shoot, even Anders shows that he can believe that Cory is one of the original darkspawn.  If you are up for playing DA2, and have Legacy, take Anders with you next time.  It won't matter which Warden you pick.  And regardless of your feelings about Anders, while he reveres Andraste, I can safely say he hated what the Chantry itself became.  Also, like Dorian, he was the first to dispute that story and came to doubt his own disbelief after meeting Cory.

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

Is stupid to let mages watch over other mages, would just end with them trying to create a new Tevinter

[o Ventus]

No? I'm pretty sure the entire plot of Inquisition can be summed up as "OMG mages are dangerous and have the potential to rend us from the universe! How do we deal with this in a safe and humane way?"

If that's what you think Inquisition can be summed up as, I'm convinced you haven't actually played Inquisition.

[o Ventus]

Is stupid to let mages watch over other mages, would just end with them trying to create a new Tevinter

Sure, except the multiple times non-Tevinter mages look after themselves and do nothing of the sort.

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

Sure, except the multiple times non-Tevinter mages look after themselves and do nothing of the sort.

Only takes a few blood mages with ambition to cause chaos, such as the situation at the Ferelden circle which would have been alot worse without templars

[o Ventus]

Only takes a few blood mages with ambition to cause chaos, such as the situation at the Ferelden circle which would have been alot worse without templars

And your point is...? In any group of people there's going to be idiots and a**holes. There are just as many bad Templars as there are bad mages, but I doubt you'd advocate firing all of them and turning them away.

 

The radicals and extremists of any group are always a minority, unless the group in question advocates extremism (which the mages certainly do not). As shown in the Dairsmuid Circle (before it was annulled) and the College of Magi founded after Divine-Leliana disbands the Circle, the southern mages only want to live out their lives as people. Even when they were still IN the Circle, they just wanted to live their lives as people.

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

And your point is...? In any group of people there's going to be idiots and a**holes. There are just as many bad Templars as there are bad mages, but I doubt you'd advocate firing all of them and turning them away.
 
The radicals and extremists of any group are always a minority, unless the group in question advocates extremism (which the mages certainly do not). As shown in the Dairsmuid Circle (before it was annulled) and the College of Magi founded after Divine-Leliana disbands the Circle, the southern mages only want to live out their lives as people. Even when they were still IN the Circle, they just wanted to live their lives as people.

Mages ain't normal people, they'll always be dangerous & letting them go do whatever they want while policing themselves with no Templar/Seeker involvement is a disaster waiting to happen, just 1 mage gone bad can cause far more destruction then any person using a sword

[o Ventus]

Mages ain't normal people, they'll always be dangerous & letting them go do whatever they want while policing themselves with no Templar/Seeker involvement is a disaster waiting to happen, just 1 mage gone bad can cause far more destruction then any person using a sword

 

If this is what you think, then I would hate to see your opinion on people with mental illness.

 

"He's not normal like the rest of us! He could snap and start shooting up his school!"

 

I also love the hilariously ignorant claim that someone who is trained in the use of an ability that is not inherently dangerous, is somehow more of a threat than someone who is wielding a weapon designed for the express purpose of killing people. By your awful logic, someone with a bow is also more dangerous than someone with a sword, so we should kill or arrest all the archers in the world, because hey, one of them might snap and kill everyone in his town.

[Jeffry]

do you people even read what I wrote? or do you just read first sentence and then reply with first thing that comes to your mind?

I never said mages shouldn't be watched over. But mages are better to watch over mages cos hey it's your friend who started to act weird so hmm maybe let him be inspected by comitee or something and when demon presence is detected well, grab some friends and let's kill that demon. At least mages can protect themselves against demons, while templars can't do a crap except try to kill it, but we saw in Circle tower how that works out for templars, plenty were corrupted by demons, actually more corrupted templars than mages so hmm they didn't do very good job, did they? They are only there to do one thing, nothing else and they fail so wohoo big fancy useless templars while all it takes is one old hag Wynne to keep demons at bay...

 

Sorry, I admit I have not read it all when I posted that, I just wanted to quickly chime in due to lack of time.

 

Your argumentation is seriously lacking in several points.

 

Some mages, like Irving would be better to watch over other mages, but some mages like Uldred "watching" over others would be catastrophic. You can't let the mages control and govern themselves without templars' supervision, you just can't trust them, since that would be just a disaster wating to happen. Everybody saw what happens when mages go nuts.

 

In the Ferelden Circle it was not just some demons and you know it. It was an army of demons, abominations and a very strong fraction of mages who sided with Uldred and were not afraid to use blood magic even against their friends. You can't fault the templars for being overrun, the good mages were as well. It was also not the demons who caused this nor it was the templars' failure, it was Uldred going nuts - a powerful mage who summoned a bloody pride demon and became an abomination. This really doesn't call for more freedom or even letting the mages handle the situation themselves. The issue here was not even freedom vs oppresion, it was supporing the traitor and tyrant Loghain or not.

 

The world of Thedas needs the templars, the mages themselves need the templars. You bring up Connor, but you are forgetting what was needed. Either a blood sacrifice or huge amounts of lyrium. And even then only one person could be sent into the Fade to rescue Connor. The mages don't have unlimited supplies of lyrium and the result of the attempted rescue is not certain. You were able to battle the demon easily 1 on 1 because of gameplay, but in "reality" it would be not so simple. You could send more people in by for example forcing blood sacrifices, but frankly that kind of s**t is one of the reasons mages need to be checked. So "grab some friends and let's go kill the demon" is not really viable almost all the time. The risks here are greater than the "gain" and that is why the templars are there to strike abominations and possessed mages down without hesitation. The mages could waver and hesitate in the same situation and I would not blame them, but that would cause even more death.

 

You also know Wynne was not able to battle the demons alone. While she is exceptionally skilled and experienced, a spirit helped her after the battle has almost killed her (well, it kinda did kill her, the spirit just bought her some extra years). Also Uldred wanted to send mages to light the fire in Ostagar, but it was decided against this and sending you instead.

 

And btw I don't know about you, but my epilogue in DAI kinda managed to broker a truce between mages and templars. Cassandra became the new Divine and I had the templars recruited into my allmighty Inquisition.

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

If this is what you think, then I would hate to see your opinion on people with mental illness.
 
"He's not normal like the rest of us! He could snap and start shooting up his school!"
 
I also love the hilariously ignorant claim that someone who is trained in the use of an ability that is not inherently dangerous, is somehow more of a threat than someone who is wielding a weapon designed for the express purpose of killing people. By your awful logic, someone with a bow is also more dangerous than someone with a sword, so we should kill or arrest all the archers in the world, because hey, one of them might snap and kill everyone in his town.

What does real life mental illness got to do with it? they can't exactly destroy entire towns after accidentally getting possessed & becoming a abomination, & the threat of possession is very real considering "normal" mages ain't protected by plot armour like the PC/companions mages are

[o Ventus]

What does real life mental illness got to do with it? they can't exactly destroy entire towns after accidentally getting possessed & becoming a abomination, & the threat of possession is very real considering "normal" mages ain't protected by plot armour like the PC/companions mages are

 

Learn how to think critically, please, and to understand how comparisons and analogies work. The correlation should have been patently clear.

 

Mental illness has to do with it because there are very clear parallels between mages' dilemma with possession and real-world mental illness. A mentally ill person 'snaps' and shoots up their school like how a mage becomes possessed and destroys a town. Never mind that there are many kinds of mental illnesses and only a small few could ever conceivably lead to someone committing mass murder, much in the same fashion that the heavy majority of mages are simply people who want to live without being harassed or killed.

 

The only non-player and non-companion mage in the entire trilogy of games who is fated to become possessed is Uldred, who is widely disliked by his fellow mages for his own radical beliefs.

[Jeffry]

The only non-player and non-companion mage in the entire trilogy of games who is fated to become possessed is Uldred, who is widely disliked by his fellow mages for his own radical beliefs.

 

Yet he amasses enough followers that the good mages and templars are completely overrun by demons, abominations and mages using blood magic. A mentally ill person can't sacrifice somebody to amplify his own powers, he can't mind control other people and do all these horrible stuff. Mentally ill person could go on a killing spree only with the same tools everybody else can. But in the world of Thedas only mages can destroy whole villages without preparation (bombs, gaatlock or what the word for qunari gunpowder is, etc). They don't even have to be possessed.

 

I don't like treating them all as potentionally dangerous, but it is for their own safety as well as others. There are also 2 other solutions in Thedas to this problem - the Tevinter one, where corrupt magisters rule unchecked or the Qunari one, where mages are treated worse than cattle, have their lips sewn together and when it looks like they might foster a single thought of their own, they are immediately killed. Both of these are wrong (the Qunari one more though), so you need to find a middle ground. Cassandra actually presents a solid solution when elected Divine.

 

The parallel between mages and mentally ill people does not really work btw.

[Dreamer]

If that's what you think Inquisition can be summed up as, I'm convinced you haven't actually played Inquisition.

 

I'm convinced you're only here to be argumentative and obtuse--as evidenced by your subsequent posts.

 

Spoiler

Given that the instigating action and subsequent resolution of Inquisition deals with Corypheus' attack at the Conclave, and given that Corypheus represents the absolute worst potential of mages, I'm pretty sure you could condense the plot into the statement I gave.

[o Ventus]

Yet he amasses enough followers that the good mages and templars are completely overrun by demons, abominations and mages using blood magic.

 

And yet he's still a part of a gross minority. The templars and other mages are overrun because there has to be a story to tell.

 

A mentally ill person can't sacrifice somebody to amplify his own powers, he can't mind control other people and do all these horrible stuff.

 

You've stated the obvious contrast between real life and fantasy. Congratulations.

 

Mentally ill person could go on a killing spree only with the same tools everybody else can. But in the world of Thedas only mages can destroy whole villages without preparation (bombs, gaatlock or what the word for qunari gunpowder is, etc). They don't even have to be possessed.

 

Reavers.

 

 

I don't like treating them all as potentionally dangerous, but it is for their own safety as well as others.

 

"I'm keeping them locked up for their own good!"

 

There are also 2 other solutions in Thedas to this problem - the Tevinter one, where corrupt magisters rule unchecked or the Qunari one, where mages are treated worse than cattle, have their lips sewn together and when it looks like they might foster a single thought of their own, they are immediately killed.

 

If you ignore Rivain and Nevarra, sure. The both of them have their own customs for mages and they're neither rife with corruption nor excessively cruel with their mages.

 

The parallel between mages and mentally ill people does not really work btw.

 

You saying it doesn't work doesn't make it so. Congratulations, you pointed out the obvious differences between a real-life issue and a parallel to a medieval fantasy series. Here's your gold star:

 

[o Ventus]

I'm convinced you're only here to be argumentative and obtuse--as evidenced by your subsequent posts.

 

Spoiler

Given that the instigating action and subsequent resolution of Inquisition deals with Corypheus' attack at the Conclave, and given that Corypheus represents the absolute worst potential of mages, I'm pretty sure you could condense the plot into the statement I gave.

 

Really? Because you said:

 

 

 

No? I'm pretty sure the entire plot of Inquisition can be summed up as "OMG mages are dangerous and have the potential to rend us from the universe! How do we deal with this in a safe and humane way?"

 

Anyone with even a minute shred of understanding to the main plot of DAI can tell you that mages are not the focus. 

[Dreamer]

Really? Because you said:

 

Anyone with even a minute shred of understanding to the main plot of DAI can tell you that mages are not the focus. 

 

Really? Yes. You're being overly-aggressive with everyone. Tone it down a notch.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

There is also the fact that we have been around a few possessed mages and they do perfectly fine. 

 

Flemeth, Wynne and Anders (mostly)

 

So the whole idea of abominations are evil and possession is bad is simplistic. 

 

To quote Solas :- "It's more complicated than that." 

[X Equestris]

There is also the fact that we have been around a few possessed mages and they do perfectly fine. 
 
Flemeth, Wynne and Anders (mostly)
 
So the whole idea of abominations are evil and possession is bad is simplistic. 
 
To quote Solas :- "It's more complicated than that."

Can you truly classify them as abominations? I think there's a conversation with Wynne that says it best: if you can retain the part of you that makes you the person that you are, you aren't an abomination. Wynne succeeds at that, but Anders ultimately fails. I'm not sure I would throw Flemeth in with that crowd, though. We don't really know what the piece of Mythal that she carries actually is.