119 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

Why do people forget he circles really were becomin prisons by the time asunder occurred

Because they weren't.

[Archdemon_Urthemiel]

Because they weren't.

You think assemblies being forbidden, never being able to leave he circles AT ALL , and being locked in your room most of the day isn't like a prison?

That is what happened to the white spire. Regardless of how circles were before, they had become essentially prisons by the time Asunder happened

[MisterJB]

Chantries blowing up, the Resolutionists murdering anyone they could get their hands into, assassinations attempts against the Divine, the Grand Enchanter calling for independence, research into Tranquility, etc.

The mages are not the only ones who can be forced to take drastic measure.s

[EmperorSahlertz]

You think assemblies being forbidden, never being able to leave he circles AT ALL , and being locked in your room most of the day isn't like a prison?

That is what happened to the white spire. Regardless of how circles were before, they had become essentially prisons by the time Asunder happened

As JB already said, there are perfectly reasonable reasons behind the mages of the White Spire being confiend, and the book even makes it perfectly clear that it was highly unusual for the mages to be confined in such a way.

[AtreiyaN7]

Hardly any codex entry actually witness the vaunted "brutality" and "inequality" that so many Circle Resolutionists on this forum imagine...
 
Sure, there were(/are) a few Templars who were abusing(/are abusing) their power. but that alone is not reason to revolt.
 
And in case you didn't notice the WoT letter, does NOT speak only of the Lucrosians. It speaks about how the Circles around the world gets visited by travelling circuses and theaters, and how they freely entertain themselves with their magic.

It doesn't speak entirely about the Lucrosians, and I never said that the letter only spoke of them. I did, however, address JB constantly insisting that the Lucrosians can buy freedom with money or gain political power and that they're really the most powerful threat (as if) amongst the mage fraternities.

As for evidence of abuse, there are letters, diary entries, and so forth in the various codices we've had indicating that templars have definitely abused their power in more than one Circle. Again, I am not saying that every templar is a brutish thug, but there seems to have been enough of a problem for it to be written about by those who have either direcly been physically abused or knew that it was going on. I remember reading one entry that definitely mentioned bruises on an individual, and it was easy enough to tell that there was actual physical abuse and intimidation going on.

Heck, all you have to do is talk to your researcher in Haven and ask about the Tranquil to understand that if normal mages can have it bad in some Circles, then the Tranquil generally have it even worse and are easier targets of abuse (like finding out the origins of the oculara wasn't bad enough...). On the issue of the White Spire, is everyone ignoring the existence of the dungeons and actual prisoners? That WoT entry I read earlier cites the presence of the dungeons and that there are hundreds of cell, along with describing the templar mausoleum, etc.

So no, not every inhabitant lives in luxury, and some people like Cole clearly have ended up unjustly imprisoned (and died in his case) in its dungeons. As for those who live in the tower proper, who cares how god----ed nice the rooms are? Is a minimum-security prison suddenly NOT a prison just because the cells there are nicer than the cells in a maximum-security prison or those of a supermax facility?

You might have nicer conditions if you're, say, a Martha Stewart instead of a serial killer. Maybe the conditions are veritably resort-like (compared to a supermax), but you're still in a prison. Was any normal mage in the Spire ever actually free to go out and do what they wanted whenever they wanted without getting permission or having a guard on them? I find that unlikely, but if they were, then lucky them - I expect that that much "freedom" (if you can call it that) was a rare thing for most mages. Additionally, the Spire was actually the repository for the leashes (aka phylacteries) of all the First Enchanters. It's not like this place was some sort of resort villa.

Now if everything in all the Circles was so wonderful, I rather doubt that the vote on the rebellion would have been so close. The fact that the vote was so close (along with the codex entries showing templar abuses) seems to indicate that there were some widespread problems and that more than a few mages weren't happy about the conditions they lived in. If the majority of Circles were great places to live, then hey, I guess no one would ever have voted for rebellion at all.

[Boost32]

I can use the same logic, if the conditions were so terrible why it almost didn't passes?

[Lady Artifice]

I can use the same logic, if the conditions were so terrible why it almost didn't passes?

 

Because it isn't terrible for everyone, and the alternative is war. Some people are willing to accept abuses rather than war, and some people aren't being abused. Different circles, different standards, different experiences. 

 

As you seem perfectly aware, that question goes one way just as easily as the other. If the general conditions weren't becoming increasingly corrupt and egregious, why did it pass? 

[AtreiyaN7]

I can use the same logic, if the conditions were so terrible why it almost didn't passes?

 

The fact that almost half of the mages wanted out indicates the presence of some kind of problem/issue - that's if you actually want to discuss this honestly instead of being completely silly about it. Yes, half the mages voted in favor of staying within the Circle system for reasons of their own.

 

Here's what I think it was probably like:

 

1. Some mages obviously did suffer at the hands of templars (or maybe witnessed abuse) and really wanted out.
2. Some mages may have suffered but still preferred the safety and security of the status quo because they were scared of the unknown and were willing to live with occasional abuse.
3. Some of the mages had a relatively comfortable/nice lives and liked things just fine.
4. Some mages just wanted their freedom because no human that I know of really enjoys being told what to do every hour of their life.

 

I expect that it was highly complicated and that each mage had different reasons for voting the way that he or she did - you know, kind of like how there are many different sides of an issue in real life.

 

Meanwhile, it seems to me that templar proponents just want to be totally binary about this whole thing as per usual. What I find most annoying is that some people really make it sound like the occasional bad behavior by templars is okay/acceptable because, gee whiz, it's not so bad for most of the mages. Who cares what happens to the mages who actually were beaten or raped (or worse) by templars?! It's fine because the others have such great lives.

 

Personally, I just find any beatings, rapes, or mistreatment to be unacceptable behavior that cannot be justified at all.

[MisterJB]

I don't really see the wisdow in judging the merits or lack thereof of something based on popular opinion.

People are not objective, they're not all intelligent, etc. Case in point, Sarkozy was president once.

 

 

 

 

[MisterJB]

were beaten or raped (or worse) by templars?! It's fine because the others have such great lives.

 

Personally, I just find any beatings, rapes, or mistreatment to be unacceptable behavior that cannot be justified at all.

The Templar position has never been that beatings or worse are acceptable or fine.

Rather, it's closer to "There needs to be greater accountability from the Templars but the Circles are actually nice places to live compared to most of Thedas. And the alternative is Tevinter."

[Boost32]

Because it isn't terrible for everyone, and the alternative is war. Some people are willing to accept abuses rather than war, and some people aren't being abused. Different circles, different standards, different experiences. 

 

As you seem perfectly aware, that question goes one way just as easily as the other. If the general conditions weren't becoming increasingly corrupt and egregious, why did it pass? 

Some people are willing to go to war for a false notion of freedom even if they have more confort than the majority of the population, some thought if they went back the templars would kill them, some rsented the sanctions after the events of Kirkwall and the attempt to murder the Divine, some suffered abuses, etc...

 

Saying the vote proves the condition werent good is false, if it had the huge majority I could agreem but if one vote decided the rebellion, how can you affirm it?

 

 

The fact that almost half of the mages wanted out indicates the presence of some kind of problem/issue - that's if you actually want to discuss this honestly instead of being completely silly about it. Yes, half the mages voted in favor of staying within the Circle system for reasons of their own.

 

Here's what I think it was probably like:

 

1. Some mages obviously did suffer at the hands of templars (or maybe witnessed abuse) and really wanted out.
2. Some mages may have suffered but still preferred the safety and security of the status quo because they were scared of the unknown and were willing to live with occasional abuse.
3. Some of the mages had a relatively comfortable/nice lives and liked things just fine.
4. Some mages just wanted their freedom because no human that I know of really enjoys being told what to do every hour of their life.

 

I expect that it was highly complicated and that each mage had different reasons for voting the way that he or she did - you know, kind of like how there are many different sides of an issue in real life.

 

Meanwhile, it seems to me that templar proponents just want to be totally binary about this whole thing as per usual. What I find most annoying is that some people really make it sound like the occasional bad behavior by templars is okay/acceptable because, gee whiz, it's not so bad for most of the mages. Who cares what happens to the mages who actually were beaten or raped (or worse) by templars?! It's fine because the others have such great lives.

 

Personally, I just find any beatings, rapes, or mistreatment to be unacceptable behavior that cannot be justified at all.

Seems to me its you who want to make it binary, please show me where someone said it was okay for the templars to abuse mages, and I always said the templars who abused their power should be punished.

You keep saying how templars raped mages, but besides Kirkwall, what Circle it happened? Or the beatings?

I have seeing enough example to say that the treatment of mages at Kirkwall was the exception not the rule.

Ferelden circle allowed Finn, Wynne and Ines to leave and they only needed to ask. Anders backstory in Wot2 show how lenient the Circle was (he was only punished after several scape attempts and he never received any beatings).

Ostwick was one of the most liberal, there was never any kind of complaint about that Circle.

Monstsmmard Circle had Vivienne as the First Enchanter and the templar who wrote the Hawke codex if he/she sided with the mages was the Knight-Commander, I doubt there was any abuse in this Circle.

In Wot2(pag 173) there is a Andersfel mage who express shock on how mages are treated at Kirkwall, I doubt they suffered abuses.

Hasmal templars stayed with the Circle mages to protect them, even if they left the Chantry (http://dragonage.wik...est_from_Hasmal)

 

Even the Cole case was a mistake from a recruit templar who misfiled him. He was suppose to be a new mage but he filed him as a criminal mage, the templar should be punished but it wasnt a case of power abuse.

[The Baconer]

Even the Cole case was a mistake from a recruit templar who misfiled him. He was suppose to be a new mage but he filed him as a criminal mage, the templar should be punished but it wasnt a case of power abuse.

 

Um, it turned into a case of power abuse/corruption when they summarily expunged every record of his existence there.

[Boost32]

Um, it turned into a case of power abuse/corruption when they summarily expunged every record of his existence there.

Yes, after Cole death it was, but I was talking about the mistake that led to Cole death.

[The Baconer]

Yes, after Cole death it was, but I was talking about the mistake that led to Cole death.

 

Thing is, leaving him to starve to death shouldn't have happened whether he was filed as a criminal mage or not.

[Lady Artifice]

Thing is, leaving him to starve to death shouldn't have happened whether he was filed as a criminal mage or not.

I was going to say. Forgetting about any prisoner until they starve to death is hardly more sympathetic because they were listed as a criminal.

Someone is still starving to death.

[Uccio]

 

The Templar position has never been that beatings or worse are acceptable or fine.

Rather, it's closer to "There needs to be greater accountability from the Templars but the Circles are actually nice places to live compared to most of Thedas. And the alternative is Tevinter."

 

 

Aah... but there is nothing wrong with Tevinter. 

[raging_monkey]

Aah... but there is nothing wrong with Tevinter.

it is a meritocracy

[AtreiyaN7]

Some people are willing to go to war for a false notion of freedom even if they have more confort than the majority of the population, some thought if they went back the templars would kill them, some rsented the sanctions after the events of Kirkwall and the attempt to murder the Divine, some suffered abuses, etc...

 

Saying the vote proves the condition werent good is false, if it had the huge majority I could agreem but if one vote decided the rebellion, how can you affirm it?

 

 

Seems to me its you who want to make it binary, please show me where someone said it was okay for the templars to abuse mages, and I always said the templars who abused their power should be punished.

You keep saying how templars raped mages, but besides Kirkwall, what Circle it happened? Or the beatings?

I have seeing enough example to say that the treatment of mages at Kirkwall was the exception not the rule.

Ferelden circle allowed Finn, Wynne and Ines to leave and they only needed to ask. Anders backstory in Wot2 show how lenient the Circle was (he was only punished after several scape attempts and he never received any beatings).

Ostwick was one of the most liberal, there was never any kind of complaint about that Circle.

Monstsmmard Circle had Vivienne as the First Enchanter and the templar who wrote the Hawke codex if he/she sided with the mages was the Knight-Commander, I doubt there was any abuse in this Circle.

In Wot2(pag 173) there is a Andersfel mage who express shock on how mages are treated at Kirkwall, I doubt they suffered abuses.

Hasmal templars stayed with the Circle mages to protect them, even if they left the Chantry (http://dragonage.wik...est_from_Hasmal)

 

Even the Cole case was a mistake from a recruit templar who misfiled him. He was suppose to be a new mage but he filed him as a criminal mage, the templar should be punished but it wasnt a case of power abuse.

 

Do you seriously think every rape/beating/general abuse of power by a templar was ever listed in the codex? There's no way of ever realistically finding out an exact count of how many crimes were committed, but the DA writers certainly wrote just enough about the mage-templar dynamic to give the player a general idea that there were mages who had been mistreated by their jailors and that templars abusing their power was something of a issue in Thedas. I think it was their intention that people understand that the templars' abuse of mages was an issue for mages (and was just one of the reasons that they tipped over into rebellion at long, long last) without going completely overboard on the subject. Of course, interpretations about how subtle or heavy-handed the writers have been is subjective. 

 

I honestly don't know what you or the other people who pretend that these things never happen - or that they happen so rarely that it shouldn't bother anyone - want. Maybe you should try nagging the DA writers into creating a comprehensive encyclopedia detailing the histories of every damned Circle in Thedas? Or maybe you could have them pen individual diaries entries by mages who directly suffered abuse? Wait, maybe you can get them to create notarized statements! In my opinion, you have a completely insane goalpost that has to be reached before you'll accept the evidence in front of you (if ever).

 

And no, I'm definitely not the one being binary, having acknowledged time and again that not all templars are bad and that not all mages suffered abuse. If I were being binary, I'd say all templars are bad and that their entire order ought to be eliminated - especially after the crap with the red templars. However,  because I tend to be forgiving, I'm not all "Off with their heads!" about it and even think that it should be possible for mages and templars to work together as equals after DA:I. In fact, I'd say that my views changed and became more nuanced over the years, seeing as I started out being pretty hardline about mage freedom and initially believed that templars ought to summarily be given the boot. I still want mages to be free and think they deserve a chance, but I also recognize that Circles weren't entirely bad and that all templars aren't bad.

 

Unlike you, I've actually paid attention to individual stories, actions, and behaviors - which is why I have ended up liking people like Cullen, Ser Barris, and some of the other templars I've run into who are clearly decent folk. Now all I have said is that A ) templar abuses have clearly happened (as proven by codex entries and everything that happened in DA2) and B )  that templar abuses had to have been a contributing factor to the vote, because - if one is being logical about it - there had to be a good reason for so many people to vote to break away.

 

Back in the real world for just a moment, how about we face facts? Like the fact that people don't vote to change things BECAUSE they're happy with an existing system. If an incumbent politician loses by an extremely narrow margin like 49% in favor of the candidate and 51% against, then it means that a substantial portion of their base is unhappy with them (even though almost half of the voters still think he or she is the greatest thing since sliced bread).

 

Obviously, the mage vote was something similar - around half the mages were unhappy with the existing system (templar abuses just being one factor in pushing things that way), while around half of the mages wanted to stick with the system. If you want to keep insisting on being completely silly about it, then feel free. I'll just go ahead and ignore you after this, because thanks to my job, I already have to deal with more than enough writers who aren't in touch with reality (would prefer not having to do that during what should be recreational time for me).

 

BTW, I hardly need you pointing out that Cole's death was a clerical error when I totally pointed out - myself - that Cole's death was the result of a clerical error. You know what the big problem was with that (besides them accidentally letting Cole suffer alone and starve to death)? The PROBLEM was that the templars went and tried to cover up their mistake after it happened, preferring to hide what they did at the time instead of being honest about it. How are you supposed to trust that people like that will ever get around to doing the right thing if the leadership is corrupt enough to believe that it's perfectly okay to cover up a tragic death? I'm sorry, but I consider that an example of extremely poor leadership.

 

P.S. Newflash: I myself pointed out that there were a wide variety of Circles, like when I said there were liberal Circles and strict Circles and ones in between the two extremes - or maybe you didn't bother reading that? So when I said liberal Circles, I rather thought it would be understood that I was referring to places like Montsimmard or Ostwick. Well, I guess it was my bad for thinking readers in here would be intelligent enough to figure that out on their own without me spelling it out - woops!

[raging_monkey]

Well now the party is getting started

[Boost32]

I was going to say. Forgetting about any prisoner until they starve to death is hardly more sympathetic because they were listed as a criminal.

Someone is still starving to death.

Yes they screwed up, still it was a exception instead of rule. The same White Spire allowed a lot of freedoms to mage, Rhys never suffered any abuses.

 

 

Well now the party is getting started

It will be one sided then, because I'm not going to waste my time responding her agressive post.

[raging_monkey]

Shame

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 See, it's precisely things like this that have detracted me from the "FREEDAHM!!!" bandwagon.

 

 

Information like this is just kind of handwaved as not always having been true of the Circle by those who want to see it gone, yet can the same not be said of abuses? To count one but not the other is just clear bias.

[Hellion Rex]

it is a meritocracy

Only if you're human, though, for the most part.

[TheJediSaint]

Only if you're human, though, for the most part.

Also, being a mage, from the right family, and knowing the right people help.

[Lady Artifice]

Saying the vote proves the condition werent good is false, if it had the huge majority I could agreem but if one vote decided the rebellion, how can you affirm it?

 

It has exactly as much merit as saying the reverse. When a vote is split down the middle, there's very little chance of successfully using the perspective of one half as evidence, because neither side has a popular opinion to submit.