I have cleaned this up once. I will lock it next time if users wish to no longer stay on-topic. Max21 (talk | contr) 06:15, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
So, there's a topic about Thedas society that I've been thinking about for some time now, and I've grown curious of other people's opinion on it. The topic is; The Chantry's views on magic. With this, I mean the chantry's belief that magic is apparently an evil to contain and keep on a tight leash (literally, in the Qunari's case). This is most evident in the case of blood magic; no matter the mage's intentions, any blood mage is automatically tranquiled or slain by the templars. Also, like Anders says in DAA, there's almost nothing mages can to do prove themselves, they always need to be kept away from others in order to protect them. Now, I personally think this is a very wrong belief for several reasons:
- If you think about it, it's as if the chantry/templars (and to some degree the common people) automatically assume that a mage will cause trouble simply for being a mage. And what makes a mage a mage is that they possess magic, right? So basically, they're accusing magic in and of itself to be evil, which is quite retarded. The weather doesn't have a will of its own, does it? So why would magic have one (seeing as it's confirmed that magic is just one of the world's natural forces)?
- While I can understand the fear of blood magic (and to some degree regular magic as well), the chantry goes about the hunt of evil mages wrong; they just sniff around around for the magic, they never care about what kind of people the mages actually are. Jowan, for example; he was clearly a good person, but since he was caught dabbling in "the unforgivably forbidden arts" Greagoir automatically declared him a danger and ordered tranquility upon him, which Irving of course was unable to refuse ("Templars merely guard and advice" my a**). Irving even tells the player that he don't really think Jowan deserves his fate, but can't go against Greagoir, because then the chantry might have done the same to him. This, I believe, is quite a bad approach to the problems with magic.
- Directly related to the two above is the quote; "Magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him" which the chantry uses to justify their abuse of the mages. If you look closely at it, you'll see how wrong it is; Magic has never, ever, ruled man, only other men. Think about it; magic is just a tool, and a tool doesn't use itself (but it would sure be good if we had hammers that worked on their own, no need to risk crushing our fingers then :P), it requires someone to control it in order to affect people. That someone is a mage. So, the magisters may have been bastards, but they weren't such because of the magic, only because that's the persons they were. Thus, the chantry's justifications is wrong, at least from my pov.
- Following up on Anders' point about mages unable to prove themselves, everyone apparently assumes that a mage can never do anything good because they're mages. What they forget is that mages are born the same way as everyone else is (aside from golems, but y'know what i mean), and that they're really people just like everyone else. Thus, they have different opinions, different appearance, different personalities; no one person is identical. Would it be okay to imprison, abuse and threaten random citizens in Denerim? Of course not! Yet it's justified to do so to mages because "they endanger everyone". Yet, any person can go on a murderous rampage with the talents they have if they want. Any person can chose to help people with what talents they have. Granted, a mass murderer mage could probably cause more damage than a regular person, but on the other hand, a mage healer could save so many more lives than a regular doctor. Really, it's a matter of what a person chooses to do with what he/she has been born with. Thus, isn't it realistic that a mage should be rewarded the same as other people for their good deeds, and punished the same as other people for their crimes?
My opinion of the matter is simple; the chantry (and the common folk of Thedas) are extremly biased about magic, out of fear for the magisters, the tevinter imperium and what they supposedly did (IE started the blight, as preached by the chantry), and that I hope you get to somehow remedy this in a sequel (plz let us uncover that Andraste made up the Chantry religion to unite the Avvar against Tevinter and that she really was just a very powerful mage, and then be given the option to spread that evidence to the rest of the world, causing the chantry's collapse, BioWare! muhaha)
So, what are everyone else's opinions on this? Don't be afraid to debate my points (and pray to whatever deity that's actually real in the DAO universe that the templars don't execute me for this blasphemous article XD).
Matt-256 19:45, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the Chantry as well, while a mage can be dangerous if they become possessed, there should be a point when a mage is deemed sufficently trained to go about there buisness on their own. Templars and their hostility towards mages, only encourage the mages to lash back against them (as happened at the Circle Tower). While I can understand wanting to watch over young and unproven mages, the Templars need to be friends and allies, not jailers and subjugators. --Aedan Cousland 22:11, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
Definitely disagree with the Chantry. Their religion makes them blind to any nuance when it comes to magic - all magic is evil and all apostate mages must die! It seems that any mage that disagrees with them is branded a blood mage without any evidence at all.
After playing the mage origin more than a few times (I love mages) I'm starting to come around to Morrigan's point of view on the mages though - they allow themselves to be locked up. Most of them seem to be brainwashed by the Chantry and the Templars.
Its a very nice in game example of an oppressive regime (a bit 1984 actually in that the Mages and Templars actually seem to believe the Mages have a say in their own fates).
I've love a chance to go to Tevinter and see how differently things are done over there. Rushka 04:36, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
I also disagree with the Chantry. However, by making the Chantry the way they are there are options for Bioware in the future. What about a civil war within the Chantry perhaps started by a Templar with some influence that has been "touched" by the needless slaughter of basically good mages such as Jowan? Rushka, your reference to 1984 is a very good one. I was also thinking of the distrust given "heretics" during the Spanish Inquisition and the fear the common man had toward them because of magic. In the world of Thedas there is room for imperfection since it mirrors the real world. The Chantry's attitude toward magic generates friction, stress and excitment which gives depth to the game. Dalnor IronhelmDalnor Ironhelm 13:14, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you as well, except for the "Magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him" where I believe you missed the point. What they meant with "rule over them" is that they become so addicted over the use of magic that they are heavily depedent on it, thus it "ruled" their lives.
A good example would be WoW. Like any game, it was meant to be an activity for your spare time, like going out or hiking. However, when a person becomes too addicted, it suddenly becomes the center of their universe, thus the game sucks the life out of him. You get my point?Sg c paulo 01:47, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
I can agree and disagree with the Chantry's viewpoints on magic. In Origins, misuse of magic caused massive slaughter of innocents on two occasions (Magi Tower, Redcliffe), but much like a sword or axe, rampant misuse of them can cause equally great slaughter. The chantry also has it right that there can be serious ramifications for using magic at all, as was proven on a few quests where inept mages became abominations and caused wholesale slaughter,but there are several groups, such as the Dalish, who seem to master magic with seemingly no threat of turning. This I believe is the result of there being fewer mages among the Dalish(two in the tribe: Keeper+First) and various apostate groups. Perhaps congregating so much raw power in one place is a bad idea.
I also think the actions of Chantry are extreme, but there is a reason for that I believe. Mages naturally attract fade demons who want to tap into the normal world. I reckon if part of mage's final test is to face a demon and succeed, having to face a demon is a big task with big chance of an untrained mage failing and succumbing to it(hence why child mages are most vulnerable). And if that happens, the mage becomes an abomination etc and thus a major threat to all others. In this context, I can see why they are so hell bent to ensure mages are kept in check! But of course this can lead to power abuse and we see examples of this during the game as well... fahdbaig
I think you guys are forgetting something. One little thing they say in the game that the Chant of Light says; the "Old Gods" taught the Tervinter magisters magic. The Chantry doesn't hate magic because of the fact that it is magic; they hate it because magic caused people to turn from the Maker, according to the Chant of Light.
Of course, that ignores the fact that elves could cast magic LONG before before the Tervinter Magus conquered Thedas, but the Chantry is nothing but hypocritical. Hitokiri Akins 23:12, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
I'm with fahbaig on this one. Yes, the Chantry oppress Mages quite a bit... but that's because Mages are walking demon manifestation zones. Letting the mages do their own thing is just asking for someone to accidentally tear a hole in reality (see: The Circle Tower). Add in Blood Magic to the mess, and unsupervised Mages can cause a whole lot of trouble, accidentally or on purpose (See: The Tevinter Imperium). It puts me in mind of psykers in the W40K universe. Oppressed, mindwiped, forced into pretty much complete slavery, and that's assuming they're not instantly executed... because if they're not they're a threat to themselves and everyone around them, willingly or no. Is the system the Chantry uses for dealing with Mages perfect? No. Is it better than the alternative? Yes. 86.162.178.117 02:49, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
Interestingly enough I think that the harsh measures the chantry inflicts on mages are not solely driven by the Chant of Light, but the common folk. There is such wide distrust and outright hostility towards mages in the commoner's eye. While this is understandable given the knowledge and history of mages, it is blown out of proportion by superstition. Its almost as if mages are locked into a tower and leashed in order to give the average person some peace of mind, and the Chantry is doing nothing to alter this public opinion. So the Chantry are the oppressors but are heavily backed by the public, from nobility to commoners. Clancrusher 04:21, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with a caveat, but it appears the mages do have some say in the leadership of the circle. The governing entity in the circle was the Senior Mage and the Templar Commander correct? In DAO there seemed to be a constant push and pull between the two for ultimate power and control. I think it would depend upon the individuals in those positions and how resonable they would be. At one point in history there could be an amicable relationship between the two with a sharing of power and an understanding, almost understanding attitude by the Templar Commander for the mages within the circle. At another time in history the Templar Commander could be a person ruling with an iron hand dispensing "justice" quickly and efficiently without regard to the humanity of the mages involved. Either way, the attitude of the leadership is going to be seen and effected all the way down the chain of command to the lowest templar recruit. Actually, I see the world of Thedas to be based upon views held by people in the middle ages in our world where the influence of the common man was not so strong compared to that of the elite leadership, whether that is the Noble class (Nobles), the Church (Chantry), or the Templar (Templar). It would be true that the leadership might be influenced by the common man, but probably not likely.Dalnor Ironhelm 12:13, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
We should note that they dont test all the little boys and girls for magic, so mages are only sent to the tower if they do things with their abilities like setting kids hair on fire (Wynne). A good person could refrain from using their power and live a life of prosperity. Also these people are living weapons, if someone here had weapons of mass destruction in their homes they would be arrested, no matter what good they intended to do with it. I know mages have no choice in their natural abilities, but thats why they dont go to jail, and they aren't executed, they just are made to live freely iin a single area where they can be monitored and they government can ensure the safety of their people. Theyre dangerous, zombies dont choose to be zombies, but you know we love to shoot them with shotguns anyways. ;) --User:CarloGrimaldi
The Tevinter Imperium is the best country of all DA world. Biggest territory ever, they stopped the first blight, without even knowning how to kill archdemon - they didn't killed him by accident like our warden, but destroyed it's body several times, with all other darkspawn army. And their mages do a lot to stop noobie mages from troubles with demons and fade. And even then the weeken Imperium could stop barbarian+elves alliance with loosing only some territories. The falling was from inside. My wardens first step was to give an independence to the circle, and then with Alister as a king will make a new Imperium, with no chantry power and forbitten magic. I think harden Alister will accept, he destroyed Andraste ashes with me, anyway. 91.192.191.221 (talk) 12:01, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
The bastards will use magic when it is useful to them, but condemn it when used without authorisation! Hypocritical pious bastards...--82.29.29.223 (talk) 15:52, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
The Chantry's, and general public's, view on magic goes back to the Imperium and the subjugation of the people by the mages who abused their powers and were corrupted by demonic possession and blood magic, because they didn't have any checks. A child can be "a good person" but children aren't known for temperance and control--Connor was a good child who meant to help his father, and looked what happened to Redcliffe. Without some form of education and watching, the magically gifted of Thedas would cause a lot of harm--even if they meant well. They don't know inherently that the nice-seeming spirit in the Fade is a demon, after all.
The Chantry's methods are extreme and harsh, but it's also backed by fear of what happened in the past, the reasons Andraste fought, and knowing exactly what even a good intentioned mage can do through ignorance and accident. Is it entirely necessary through their whole lives? Maybe, maybe not; a lot of the elder mages are still afraid of what may happen--after all, Uldred was a Senior Enchanter who was taken in by Loghain's promises of power and autonomy. As someone else said, the strict control of the Templars creates drama and tension, which is necessary for plot. A lot of the actions of mages and others--like Isolde--comes from the idea of locking mages in the tower under such draconian strictures. Agree with it or not--and it strikes me as a "realistic" idea for how a medieval, fearfully devout society would react to such a situation, really--it does help make the story move and opens up more possibilities for later.LynMars (talk) 16:31, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
Totally makes my main warden hate most templars, especially Greagor. Every time I talk to the knight-commander, I talk to him like either a superior (which technically I am given that the grey wardens are the only ones with balls enough to go into the tower to find out what's really going on.) or a comeplete ass.Ankaru (talk) 08:42, July 26, 2010 (UTC) Ankaru
Imagine that you lived in a world where some people had the power to kill you with but a thought and with one careless notion be consumed by a demon and become an avatar of destruction . Would you not fear them? Put your self in the role of a man, a common man, a man with no special talent and no experience in killing and fighting that just wants to go on with his life. Imagine that you are that man. Is that difficult, imagining yourself to be normal? I think not.
Now imagine that one of your know is a mage, he has the power to summon fire by command, to freeze your very bones, and make you unable to move for periods of time. A friend or a foe – knowing that you would be completely helpless if he should turn ageist you, that’s an unsettling thought isn’t it?
Imagine that he cast Paralyze on you, striped you naked, moved you to the town square, draw doodles on your face, and left you there for hours, right on marked day.
He’s just messing with of course, he didn’t really attack you and wasn’t in any physical danger, but still how would you fell if that happened? If it happened to me, and the authorities didn’t care, I would wait to he was a sleep, and then disembowel him
I may have anger issues but the point being that mages have a potential power that normal folk just don’t have, it is natural to feel fear and even hatred to people that has that kind of power.
The Paramount duty of any state is to guarantee the safety of its citizens. Everything else is secondary to that. There are countries around the world where it is still possible or even legal for ordinary people to acquire weapons. This is madness as any state, must prevent weapons, any weapon, to fall into the hands of a civilian. The armed civilian instantly gains an advantage over the unarmed, but for mages it is much worse. It is a talent that cannot be acquired or bought, but something that is part of you, that you either are or are not, you cannot prepare yourself against them, or protect yourself against them in an arm race.
The overall question is not about magic, it is about power. Power corrupts an old saying goes, no man should have to much power, but in their quest to protect the common man from mages, they forgot who should protect the common man from them.
Mages are dangerous, it is okay for them to concentrated in a tower, where they can properly be watched. But it shouldn’t be a prison. A harrowed mage should be allowed to leave the tower, to live outside it. Once he has proven himself capable of handling the fade, he should be granted the same right as any other citizen. His time in the tower should not only teach him to handle the magic, but also to learn the moral lessons. You are not superior. But the prospect of leaving the tower also gives him hope; also say “you are not inferior”. The rules should be clear and strict. “Any mage living outside the Tower are forbidden to use magic under any circumstances without explicit permission from the senior enchanters.”
This will ease the tension greatly. Many mages would be trilled to live outside the tower, and the constant scrutiny of the templars, they would accept their fate much more gracefully knowing that there is a way for them to live a normal life. The common folk would also have a better understanding of mages, and it would make mages feel more like a countryman and less like an alien. A mage Proprietor of Wonders of Thedas would make any buyer fell much more at easy as it would be a human being you were buying from instead of a robot speaking in a monotone voice with no emotions or interest in normal human relationship.
Just imagine it. The mages could send a hot young girl just harrowed over as the as a new Proprietor or a Proprietor assistant. She could gossip with her costumers about what goes on in the circle, who is sleeping with who, and why did Greagoir have no pants on when he left the Harrowing chamber the other night at two a clock? And this is noting to mention about whom the other townsfolk said she did the other night ;-)
Before long, people would feel like they knows them, and that’s the power of gossip. It’s what keeps people together. It is the fundamental force in society, and the birth giver of language itself. -rphb- (talk) 20:35, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
The chantry reminds me of the medieval Christian Church. Everyone should think equally... You even hear one of the Chant of Light saying "As there is but one world, one life, one death, one God and He is our Maker", "Foul and corrupt are those who oppose the Maker", and everyone believes that magic is a curse since the Magisters were all blood mages and, according to the Chantry, they were the ones who created the Blight. Magic is dangerous if it falls in the wrong hands, but not all mages are like the Magisters. "Magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him", the Chantry always uses the words of the prophet Andraste as an excuse to imprison the mages and treats them like worthless dogs. If there was a crime scene where the suspects were: A mage and an assassin, I bet the templars would all point in the mage because of his "curse". There are men who hearts are more dark then any tainted creature like Loghain and Rendon Howe, and they are not mages. Which means that a mage will never be a king/queen, even if it's royal blood because of that quote and everyone would think that the mage is using the magic to make people obey him/her. --Rocketai (talk) 20:59, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe the chantry fears that the magic may corrupt the world just like the magisters did to the Golden City. But that doesn't mean they should consider every mage as an evil threat, i'm not saying that all mages are innocent, because there are some evil mages(like Uldred) and they should be punished for using magic with bad intentions instead of doing something good with it. Perhaps the Rite of Tranquility is a good option to neutralize the evil inside the mages. --Hyron (talk) 22:35, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
It's not that the Chantry fears magic, though there are probably elements in it that does, to radical extents even, but the Chantry really gets their power from the fact that so many of the general population fears magic. This is worsened by the fact that people are born into magic rather than anyone who spends time training has the potential, making them indisputably different, and 'difference' is something people fear all too easily. And far worse is the risk of demonic possession, which mages admit themselves is a real concern. But the even more moderate priests and templars do nothing to dissuade fears, and some would even stoke them, for the simple fact that as long as that fear exists, the Chantry has more power. It's because of the power over the people that the Circle have to give in to the Chantry's authority, in spite of the fact that they would be best qualified to monitor and police their own. In that light, it's easy to see why Morrigan and tribal Keepers and others who develop magic independently would have such disdain for the organization. DokEnkephalin (talk) 01:19, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the Chantry they don't completley fear magic but looks what happens the mages make progress and then one like uldred make problems and then you have a little kid summon a demon at redcliff he did it with the intention of saving his father but ended up doing more harm then good. The Chantry is well in its rights to do what it does because it is what the people want and it is not like the mages have to stay purely in the tower just a majority of them have to they can allow mages to stay in other places because of the mages philactary and templars can catch them pretty easily, Because templars are really anoying when you go through the tower and have all those templars using that dam dispell every five seconds nocking out your mages better buffs the chantry has made a way that allows the mages to be usefull in a safe way out of harm stoping the mages from hurting citizens and vice versa.--Awar King (talk) 08:04, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
I feel Chantry is wrong and uses methods that are far too extreme. Magic can be dangerous, yes, but the way the Chantry treats it makes it more likely to be dangerous as the mages are terrified, and nature compels scared creatures to either lash out, like at the tower, or to run. But they're trapped. So the only option they have is to fight back. I also think the if Blood magic is evil, then Primal magic and Entropic magic should be evil as well, as they are the magics of destruction and war. After all, anything can be dangerous in the right hands- from a vial of poison to a kitchen knife- if someone has to use something to be free then they will. The Chantry has probably killed more people through Exalted Marches and the persectuion of the mages than magic has- and they've definitely ruined more lives, through the said Marches as well as the destruction of the Imperium, which was just an empire which used magic, which is why the Chantry fears it- what if more mages were freed like in the Imperium? What if they decide to build an empire. Fact of the matter is, anyone with something dangerous and enough of them can be dangerous. So the Chantry is, in itself, evil, and I personally believe that the Imperial Chantry is much better than the other Chantry. Down with the White Divine! Up with the Imperium! :P Ingenuity
If it were just about the potential danger, then I'd agree, banning Blood Magic mages as much sense as banning swords and axes. There are major differences though; anyone can pick up a sword, not just anyone can sling spells, and that makes them different. Also, it takes time and practice to master a sword, but magical talent can be as dangerous with or without practice. Also, a sword can be used to assassinate, but blood magic's ability to grab direct mental control of world leaders chills people far more. Blood magic may not be inherently evil, but it does tend to draw more than it's share of unstable individuals and outright scumbags. Then look at the most sympathetic example of a Blood Mage you can find, Jowan. His Blood Magic was just one of oh so many destructively poor judgment calls, that he shouldn't even be a mage, much less have such an easily abused power in his hands. He would've been better off Tranquilized. DokEnkephalin (talk) 14:29, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
Far better off? "They will take away my humanity, you got to save me" quote Jowan I believe he is right, being made tranquil is to lose your humanity. The ability to feel, to gossip, to dream, to think creative and new, and to share with other an intimate bond, is what makes human human. tranquils and frankly, it's a fate I wouldn't even condemn the worst criminals to take. I would execute them, which is a far better option, as you would at least die a man.
Okay, Jowan is a fool, he makes terrible decisions, and everything he does turns out wrong, but he has a good heart and he means well.
There are some few fundamental rights that is shared by all sentient creatures and is necessary for a just and free society.
1)All man are born equal, the status of anyone in society most come from their own actions, there is no right of blood.
2)All man are born free. No man has the right to enforce dominion over others against their will.
3) The laws of a nation must only be used to insure the maximum freedom and safety over all citizens. No laws must be passed that insure special people special rights, nor must any laws be passed that prevents people from doing actions that harms no one.
4) Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
The Chantry violates all of these rights regarding mages. It is okay to take young mages to the tower for study and training, but thair families should be allowed to visit and they should be allowed to leave on special occasions, I’m sure Thedas have an equivalent to Yule.
Once a mage have been through the Harrowing, and thereby proven that they can handle the temptations of the fade, they should be allowed to live outside the tower. They should be allowed to choose whether they want to become enchanters, teachers and researcher of the tower, or whether they would live a common life. They could be a shopkeeper, or seek employment with a noble or the king. Many nobles would love to have a mage at their side; many like Howe have so anyway employing apostates instead.
Remember that the templars still have their phylacteries so if they made trouble they could easily be brought in for questioning. This would not only be more just, but would also lessening the chances of mages turning rogue or maleficar. There is a lot more at stake practising the forbidden arts if you have the chance of living a perfectly normal life if you just cooperate.
This is not to mention the extra power and understanding the circle would get, by the power of “gossip”. You may think I am joking but gossip is really important, it’s the key ingredient in networking. Something that would benefit the circle greatly and help illuminate the general population.
The only organisation that would lose in all this, is the Chantry, the chantry would lose must of the power over mages and the general population, and allowing harrowed mages to live in town and villages along with ordinary people would make mages seem less alien, and threatening and more like “one of us”.
Of course if the templar want to arrest a mage in a village based on the suspicion that he is an maleficar, and some of the townsfolk resist it, possibly because they have become his friends and friends help each other, then that would just be proof in the templars eyes that he is a maleficar even if they acted on their own.
-rphb- (talk) 20:56, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
Jowan was a dipshit and he knew that well enough to admit it. His 'humanity' didn't do him many favors, and toward the end, he himself probably wonders if he would've been better off giving it away when he had the chance...yes, that means accepting what he was trying so hard to resist, becoming a Tranquil, might've saved himself and everyone around him grief. DokEnkephalin (talk) 01:12, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
Being made tranquil doesn't stop you from being human you are human by blood not mind but to say that someone isn't human because they feel things less so then you do is wrong. The chantry violates nothing it works well with in the law that was given to it by the King and the chantry only keeps them in the tower for there own good as well as the good of others if you pay attention the chantry didn't execute Sten because they frown upon killing it is the Templar who are trained to keep there eyes on the mages that have no problem dropping them like flies.--Awar King (talk) 05:50, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I'd wanted to make that point that humanity really isn't something you can lose. Tranquilization does appear to be ethically shaky, though; the results resemble lobotomy so certainly something seems to be damaged by it, and the process is irreversible AFAIK. It may be the only way to remove magical talent from someone whose personality suggests that they could spread serious harm with it, so it's a hatchet someone is going to have to swing, pleasant or not. It's probably better that the judgment to do that be left in the hands of an academic organization like the Circle, rather than world-wide religion that's a vestige for a fading empire struggling to hold onto power. DokEnkephalin (talk) 09:08, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
The Chantry is evil and corrupt to the core. First of all, they say the Magisters of the Tevinter Imperium caused the Blights, but it was the Maker. All they did was go to his house. If the Maker wasn't such an antisocial prick and turned them all into darkspawn, just imagine what the world would be like. Billions of people would not have been killed and tortured and tunred into Broodmothers were it not for the Maker. Bastard. SEcond, the Chantry makes Templars addicted to lyrium which destroys their minds. And since they control the lyrium supply, the Templars can't do anything about it. Then of course there's the fact that it is totally fascist and idiotic. "YOu don't believe in the Maker so you will die!" "You don't believe in the Maker sowe will take your homeland" Also the tranquilization IS a frontal lobotomy, something no one would want to happen to them if they were in their right mind (keili is a prime example of this). Ihope the Chantry and it's endless list of other crimes would just crawl into hole and die surrounded by it's own excrement even though it doesn't deserve a hole!
How can you say that humanity isn’t something you can lose? By definition being human means that you can be classified as both “Homo” and “Sapience”. Sapience means wise, intelligence or mastery of skills. It is to could think creatively, logically, to separate the object from the background, and do it all at a very advanced level.
It is to have self-awareness, being conscious, and classifying as everything it means to be sentient.
But there is more to being human then that. Being human also means to be social. To be able to feel, to love to hate, to hope to despair and to have faith. If you lose even one of these things you are not a human being, you are an animal, a beast, or a robot.
Tranquils are nonpersons, they are not human beings, the rite of tranquillity takes away their personhood. And this is not mere fiction. I have seen non-humans, I will not list the names of psychotics that disqualify one as a person here, these can always be disputed. But if being human is being something special it must mean that it can be lost.
Would you truly classify a man that has become a vegetable a human? A dog is capable of higher thought process then he, and deeper feelings.
If you think about humanity as merely a species just go ahead and say it, but if we want it to mean anything meaningful there needs to be criteria that any being have a theoretical chance of passing, that none but our species have yet to pass, that most of us can pass, but that the severely handicapped cannot.
Ps. to the last comment kudos.
-rphb- (talk) 10:32, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
Despite my previous points, I'll just say that Mages are protected from the outside world as well, as the people of Ferelden and indeed most of Thedas fear and hate mages. That said, this hatred is caused by the Chantry itself- think about it. The Chantry is totalitarian and racist, and they feel that they have to be in everyone's hearts and minds or the world is evil. Pathetic. Ingenuity
People who are by their nature feelers will believe that's what makes them human. There's possibly a bit of vanity combined in that, as they convince themselves that they're special because of their ability to feel specialness about themselves, and at the same time overrate their own ability to feel and imagine that feeling is the lynchpin of other human capacities (such as the ability to use social skills.) Quite a few thinkers think that's frankly bullshit. Perhaps those who feel that way need most of all to be protected from themselves, if not everyone around them. Tranquils are made so not because their ability to feel made them dangerous, but because they lacked the ability to manage their feelings well enough to mature them. They're no less human, they're simply less expressive at best and incapable of pretending to find a common ground with feelers at worst. DokEnkephalin (talk) 11:50, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
You are calling me a feller, I don’t know if I should be flattered or offended. Most of my kind is incapable of feeling which makes me stand out as something unique. (Let’s not go into a discussion about what I am)
Being a member of a, shall we say, “defiance” that is usually characterised as “pure reason” gives me a very unique perspective on this matter, feelings, and this I know beyond doubt, is essential. Thinking is important too, but what makes human human, is the duality of the two. Lets take an example. Sheldon Cooper, from “The Big Bang Theory” is he human?
-rphb- (talk) 12:14, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't seen it yet so I can't answer that question, but I'll take that as a recommendation. But back on topic, I think the Chantry has some very good reasons for the way they operate, they shouldn't necessarily be the ones to do it. Yes, abominations have to be put down, yes, those incapable of using their power responsibly have to be disabled before they become a menace. But the Chantry are far too quick to swing the hatchet, too quick to lay down the indictments, they're too quick to execute or lobotomize mages, and they aren't even qualified judges. The Circles should have the responsibility for policing their own. DokEnkephalin (talk) 11:33, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
A self governing circle, that is also always the boon I ask for in the post-coranitation. And yes you should really see that show, it's hilarious. Several of his "frinds"/roommates friends question his humanity themselves. They have the theory that Shelton reproduce asexual with "Binary fission". Dividing himself into two after eating a sufficiently large amount of junkfood, -rphb- (talk) 14:21, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
Magic is neither Good or Ebil..um excuse me (wrong game, this is DAO not DF) I mean Evil. Magic just is, it is what one does with Magic that makes it either Good or Evil and the Chantry knows this, but because they fear magic and know the hearts of men have the potential to be evil, so they propagate that fear into controlling those who are born with the ability to use Magic. Kind of like the Roman Catholic Church in the Dark Ages where they used the fear of God to bring people around to their way of thinking. The Chantry is the same way when it comes to Mages and they have the people of Thedas thinking that Mages are the root of all evil. Also they feel that the Maker is the way to get into Heaven and if you do not worship the Maker then you must be destroyed. Just look at what they did to the Dalish Elves the Chantry considered them heretics and marched on their Elven Homeland and enslaved them once again. Anya (talk)20:01, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
- That's not true, the chantry called the exalted march only after it became clear that Orlais would lose the war with the Dales without help. The elves was close to conquering Val Royeaux. Orlais could properly just have agreed to a peace treaty, with only minor territory loses, but they would rather enslave a race that had proven themselves their better in battle by using the chantry to obligate all the other nations to participate in their private war. -rphb- (talk) 22:34, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
No they called for the Exalted March or are the following wrong?
1)The Fall of the Dales
We could once again forget the incessant passage of time. Our people began the slow process of recovering the culture and traditions we had lost to slavery. But it was not to last. The Chantry first sent missionaries into the Dales, and then, when those were thrown out, templars. We were driven from Halamshiral, scattered. --From Codex Entry: The Dales
In their attempt to regain the lost glory of Elvhenan, the elves cut themselves off from their human neighbours. Throughout the Second Blight, which lasted for most of the Divine Age, the elves of the Dales remained neutral and unhelpful. When the city of Montsimmard was nearly destroyed by darkspawn in 1:25 Divine, it is alleged that the elven army simply watched from nearby. Partly because of this, the end of the Blight saw increasing hostility between the Dales and Orlais. Border skirmishes escalated into full-scale war after the elven forces attacked the Orlesian town of Red Crossing in 2:9 Glory. However, there is also reason to suspect the Chantry, which objected to the worship of the elven pantheon, of inciting fear and hatred of the elves by allegedly spreading false rumours of human sacrifice. By 2:10 Glory, elven forces had captured Montsimmard and were on the doorstep of Val Royeaux.
At this point, the Chantry called for a holy war against the elves that became known as the Exalted March of the Dales. While the elves eventually sacked Val Royeaux and pushed well into human lands, Halamshiral was conquered and the elves were completely crushed by 2:20 Glory. The Dales were appropriated by the Orlesians, who uprooted elven settlements and forbade worship of the elven gods[3]. Elves who accepted the Chantry's offered truce were required to accept the Maker and live in ghettos, known as Alienages, within human settlements, becoming the City Elves. Some elves, however, refused to give up their worship or their dream of their own homeland. These became the Dalish, retaining the name of their second lost homeland and vowing to keep elven language, lore and religion alive.
2)Against the Dales Exalted Marches The taking of the Dales was a struggle with several possible causes. The Dalish claim it was simple racist persecution. The Chantry holds that it was triggered by the elves practicing dark magic and offering human sacrifices to their pagan gods. The human settlements near the Dales believe it was set by a series of Dalish raids on their towns while many historians say that it was due to the Dales refusing to help humanity during the Second Blight. Originally, only the Orlesian Empire went to battle, and the Dalish elves responded with a fury that the Empire couldn't deal with. The elves made serious gains until the other Andrastian nations joined the March.
So, as you can see the Chantry lied about the Dalish Elves and thus caused the downfall of their second home. Anya (talk)14:45, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
- The text in 1) was double, I deleted one hope you don't mind, but yea I agree with you, and can't really see how this contradics what I said earlier.-rphb- (talk) 16:41, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
Magic ain't evil, Chantry is. You don't do what they say and they exalt-march you. Soooooooo fair! If they believe so much in the love of the Maker, they wouldn't do the things they do (letting Sten starve in a cage, without even knowing why he slaughtered the family, for exemple. His culture was vastly different in this case). They're way better than Catholic Church in Middle Ages, but a far shot from Good and Righteous. That said... Freedom to Mages (and Anders)! The Bard From Hell (talk) 16:55, August 12, 2010 (UTC) The Bard From Hell
I don't agree with the Templars, but I can understand their reasoning. With just a few out of control Mages they populated the Tower with demons. If Mages were always allowed to run unchecked they might get everyone killed, or try to enslave everyone.
That said, the Templars are out of control witch-hunters, shoot first ask later. They really need some regulation to keep them in check, or some consequences if they get reckless. Adam weiler (talk) 17:23, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
Everyone needs some checks and balance in order to prevent them from being abusive. Remember the old saying: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely -rphb- (talk) 18:12, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
-rphb- I do not mind the editing, no one is perfect and my net connection is not that great. Anya (talk)22:58, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
I don't usually do it, it was just because you had two identical passages -rphb- (talk) 06:38, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Tis ok, my female feelings were not hurt......excuse my wiles I shapen my Sword as I cry(sobsobsobsob). HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE. Now, if everyone needs checks & balances, then where are the Chantries? Who or what are their checks & balances? The Maker? I think not, I think if the Chantry wanted to they could dethrone every Ruler in every place there is a Chantry. I am quite sure they have this contingency in place and are just waiting for the right moment to set it in motion. Anya (talk)22:54, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Before I address the main topic, I want to bring up Jowan. Several different people referenced him as, clearly good, basically good, a good person at heart; alternately he's called a fool or similar things, but no one thinks he's bad.
Really? This guy took a side job that included murder by poison. It's not like someone was threatening to kill one of his own loved ones if he didn't do it... It was for money. None of the halfway decent behavior he otherwise exhibits makes him anything other than a would-be murderer. Am I the only one that thinks he only had enough of a conscience to be contrite and helpful after being caught?
Not ending up an abomination after taking up blood magic doesn't make him good. It probably just means he has decent willpower and is not easily fooled.
Back on the main topic: Mages are incredibly dangerous. They don't even need to take up forbidden arts to end up abominations - that just makes it easier. Imagine you're the leader of a nation. Imagine you have people walking around who could explode suddenly with enough force to level a city block. That's basically what a mage is. As a leader, your job is to make sure one way or another that doesn't happen. As a human bomb, it's also your responsibility to make sure you don't explode.
What the Chantry/Templar are doing to the mages is somewhat like medical quarantine. If you happen to be the carrier of the next black plague, no one is going to be happy if you're out walking around. This becomes a rather philisophical argument, but your rights as a human being end just at the point they begin to threaten the rights of another person, and that becomes more and more clearly defined the more severe the violation. Accidental killing that may continue is unacceptable.
My wardens have only gone two paths with Connor: Let his mom die for him, or run upstairs and put him down. How many people died in Redcliffe? It doesn't matter if that's not Connor's fault. If one more person died after the Warden leaves to go get outside help, that death is on the Warden's hands.
Similarly, imagine yourself a resident of Redcliffe with the power to go back in time to the night Connor turned Abomination-y, and kill him dead. You can't stop him any other way. Do you do it? Darn right you do. Anyone who was in that position and wouldn't do it is a murderer of dozens rather than one.
It's a clear moral choice, and the entire Chantry/Templar/Mage relationship stands in the face of the constant threat of having to make that choice at any moment. Sure, there are probably better ways to do it (and I think Tranquiling is definitely worse than death - which probably makes it a fitting punishment for some people who became abominations willingly, if not for the average failed mage). But if the choice is let mages run around Thedas unchecked, or put them in what amounts to a somewhat well furnished internment camp, the latter is, again, the clearly correct moral choice. --Cael Aurion (talk) 06:47, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
- Jowan didn't take the job to poison Eamon for the money, he took the job because Loghain said he would square everything between Jowan and the Templars. I wouldn't be surprised if Lily's freedom played a part in the deal as well (Loghain really had no such power over the Templars, but that's beside the point). Loghain, a man Jowan had no reason not to trust, assured him that Eamon was a threat to Ferelden that had to be eliminated. I doubt that statement would come up if Jowan had no qualms about killing him in the first place. Jowan took the job to survive, in the hopes that he would be reunited with his true love Lily. I don't recall if Jowan knew, but Lily was imprisoned in the Aeonar (the mages prison), and would be in great danger unless someone managed to rescue her. So technically a loved one was being threatened, and his survival was the only true chance for hers. He was a fool certainly, he never should have trusted Loghain, but he certainly wasn't evil.
- As far as taking the time to go to The Circle to save Connor, I'd assume someone was standing over him with a sword while you were gone (continued killings shouldn't be an issue in that case). The difference between a villager killing him and the Warden doing it is that the villager wouldn't have any other options, the Warden does. The whole situation is Isolde's fault anyway, Connor shouldn't have to pay for his mother's crimes. Isolde should have faced High Justice, Eamon should have had no say in the matter of what happens to Isolde. The Arl of Redcliff is a vassal directly under the the Throne of Fereldan it should have been brought to the attention of the Landsmeet or whoever became the next Monarch.
- The danger mages can pose to the general populace is clear, as are the Chantry's motives, they just handle the situation entirely wrong. A better soulution is not hard to figure out, many have been propesed here and elsewhere. --Aedan Cousland (talk) 07:54, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
- I stand corrected about Jowan; I had forgotten the part about Loghain offering to clear him, I thought Loghain had just paid him off. Even so, murdering a stranger for self-profit (even if not monetary) is less than morally ambiguous. Also, a man who asks you to take his word that assassinating another is for the greater good is clearly not to be trusted on the face of things, and Loghain reeks of un-trustworthiness to begin with. Believing him without very compelling evidence is foolhardy at best, and a self-serving rationalization at worst. Any other aspect of Jowan's motive is speculation.
- Having a conscience about a failed murder attempt, his partial responsibility for what happened with Connor (he wouldn't have been imprisoned, allowing the kid access to his extremely dangerous books unsupervised, if he hadn't been caught trying to murder someone), and generally being human and caring about certain people that are close to him (Lily), doesn't make him 'good' by any means, if not evil either. Though evil is a relative term that can usually only be unequivocally and accurately applied to mentally unstable or unhinged people, or in the context of fantasy, to non-human creatures and forces. It does make it more believable that he may have honest remorse and a desire to atone, but to me, he still comes across as very much not a sympathetic character.
- As to the situation with the Warden leaving to get help from the Circle, it seemed very clear to me that no one else in Redcliffe had the power to stop Connor's rampage. Connor's remaining humanity and the nature of his bargain with the desire demon was the only reason anyone inside the castle remained alive. I see it as an oversight/limitation of the story that there's no consequence for taking too long, wherein everyone in the Castle but Connor dies while you're out, Connor included (Everyone combined might have been able to fight the demon to a standstill).
- I agree with you about Isolde, though. Connor is fundamentally innocent, all the real blame is on Isolde and Jowan. --Cael Aurion (talk) 08:36, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
- Aside from how obviously twisted Loghain seems in person, I'm not sure how crazy it would be for Jowan to take his word on something. The man was the Hero of River Dane, the Teyrn of Gwaren, King Maric's closest advisor, and the general of King Cailan's army. Loghain was a living legend in Fereldan just as much as Maric was, if a person can't take his word on national security whose can they? Proof is not always immediately available, sometimes you just have to trust people and hope it's the right thing to do.
- I'm also not sure any magic books Jowan may or may not have played any part in what Connor did. If you recall Jowan was imprisoned for the demon's appearance, not for poisoning Arl Eamon. He didn't find out there even was a demon until Isolde accused him of releasing one. The Desire Demon likely approached Connor in The Fade while he was sleeping and struck the deal with him there. While clearly no one in Redcliff had the power to kill of the army of undead commoners the demon made, once those were dispatched they just had to keep the demon away from dead bodies and under heavy guard.
- Considering Jowan was working in the employ of Loghain (the exact reasons aside), he was for all intents and purposes one of Loghain's soldiers, therefor his poisoning of Arl Eamon would not be murder. Loghain was not only part of the nobility, he was a military general. Jowan was acting as an assassin in a overthrow of the government (a Coup d'état). Eamon's death would count as an assassination (the killing of a public figure for political purposes). Who he was working for and his belief that he was doing the right thing raises him above an ordinary hitman. --Aedan Cousland (talk) 10:31, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure on the matter of Jowan's books playing a part in what happens to Connor. On that point I clearly remember it being confirmed by Connor himself when he lives. He was looking for a way to save his father (within Jowan's books). Jowan also said that Connor should not normally have become an abomination with his minimal skills (normal dreaming by an untrained mage is not enough), and that the only reason he could think of for it to have happened was if Connor got into his blood magic books.
- On the subject of killing Arl Eamon, I disagree. A civilian contacted to perform a political assassination of one respected leader for another respected leader, even if the latter is ostensibly superior in position and the more respected of the two, still should require proof. Resorting to assassination is normally the forte of the morally questionable, and that should be clear to anyone. Exceptions to the rule should also be clear to anyone; when a tyrant needs assassinating, most of the people in his country know it. He is not loved. This is doubly so in the case of an internal political conflict. At the risk of flagging this page to the FBI by keywords, I'll make a modern hypothetical example. If you happened to be American, and say the vice president asked you to assassinate a popular senator because he was a bad man, planning a Coup d'etat, aiding terrorists, etc. - you're not going to take his word on that and do it without clear evidence. I hope! And as it's an internal conflict without armies on the field, one cannot consider oneself a soldier simply because you're acting on the request of a political leader.
- We've gone somewhat off topic though, so I'm going to stop responding here on the Jowan subject. You have the final word if you want!--Cael Aurion (talk) 16:23, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
As I have said before Magic is neither Good or Evil, Magic just is. It is what the Mages do with Magic that makes it Good or Evil. Also, the Dalish Elves have not the concerns that the Humans seem to do about Mages and Magic. And, lets not forget Flemeth and Morrigan both who are Apostate Mages, neither of them seem to be that bad nor an Abomination. So, clearly it is the Chantry who has brainwashed the populace into believing that Mages are evil period and must be killed if they do not do as the Chantry says.
And, before you spout off about the Circle and what happens when Uldred turned a lot of them into Abominations, well lets look at that, Uldred and those Mages that followed him wanted to be free of the Chantry and Uldred was promised by Loghain that he would free them from the Chantry once he was on the throne. Granted things went wrong, as it seems they always do when Loghain has a hand in them of late.
So, you see it is the Chantry who propagates all the HATRED towards Mages and only because they want dominance over the people, from Kings to commoners. It is how they make sure they get the money they need to support themselves. Anya (talk)12:59, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think you can write off all the hatred of mages in Thedas to the Chantry. Clearly in the world of DA magic is a very real thing. As others have said, someone who has the power to kill you with a thought is scary enough. Someone who also has a relatively high odds of being possessed by an evil demon bent on slaughter is much more frightening. Hatred is the flipside of that fear.
- I'm not agreeing with the Templar's methods by any means, but I think the history of Thedas gives a lot of reasons for common people to fear/hate mages. A large portion of history where most of the world was ruled by a mageocracy. The occasional murderous abomination on a rampage. I mean, clearly the knowledge that everyone has of abominations is not fairy tales or hearsay. We see it happen in the course of the game, multiple times. And while the exact "how" of the matter is unknown and unknowable, I think that the designers intended it as a matter of historical fact, that Tevinter Imperium mages were somehow responsible for, or even became, the original Darkspawn - which have threatened the very existence of life on Thedas.
- And the matter seems much closer to the common person than history. If modern events are a fair example, it's not unlikely that everyone in Ferelden has a relative that had a loved one that was killed by a rampant abomination.
- I think the Chantry's ideas on mages are as much a reflection of the common opinion, as the common opinion is ingrained by the Chantry... and that there's reason for it.--Cael Aurion (talk) 16:23, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
Let me pose this to you and think about it before you answer;
Lets say the Common People started to think that Warriors were bad and no longer needed and ran at the mere sight of them or threw stones or whatever at them. So, the Chantry started to take steps to keep these Warriors under control because after all they are truly evil and must be put under some sort of control or be destroyed for the good of all, after all they could become enraged, berserk or insane and go on a killing spree.
That said, this is exactly the views of the Chantry on both Magic and Mages. The Chantry saw an opening to control both Mages and the Common Folk as well as those in power and took full advantage of it. Anya (talk)19:13, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm suddenly thinking of gun control laws and the way civilian militia groups are treated by the general public... or even soldiers for that matter. Every time I here the phrase "Soldiers are murderers", I die a little inside. I believe in the right to bear arms btw... not everyone should have guns but they shouldn't be held by the government alone. This makes me wonder about people on this sites beliefs on gun control and the disarmament of the general public by the government. --Aedan Cousland (talk) 19:53, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
Aedan Cousland gun control are essential for any modern nation and the fact that American have none is the proof that you are not one. Provocative statement, lets discuss it on my blog I wanted to create one for some time anyway.
There are however one critical difference between DA's mages and guns and other forms of arms. That is that mages are born mages, they can not chose to become one. Everyone can chose to be a warrior or a rogue but it takes dedication and years of training to be good enough to be an actual treat to the conman man, that can always defend himself with his fist to a certain extent (but everyone can take up a gun and be a treat to even a skilled soldier). In this regard mages a different. They are a minority and everyone hates minorities. Now understand where I am going with this, a country like America don't have minorities, or have nothing but minorities depending on how you look at it. But if you live in a country where one ethnic group makes op say 99% of the total population then anyone not a member would clearly stand out, and like all animals we don't like individuels that are different. The Pied Raven of Iceland became extinct not so much because of human hunting but by the intentional and maleficent attack of black ravens, hating their white feathered brethren, true story.-rphb- (talk) 20:23, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
- First off the US does have gun control laws, they just aren't that strong in a lot of places. Moving on though, there is a difference between gun control and civil disarmament. Gun control is deciding that some people shouldn't have guns, people with mental illness, a history of violent crime, etc. Civil disarmament is when the government takes away a certain type of, or all weapons from it's populace. Everyone on Earth should know the dangers of a government that goes unchecked. People need to be able to fight back if their government goes out of control. Governments don't always do what their people want them to and if only the government is armed then not a lot can be done about it. There is also the fact that illegal guns aren't to hard to come by no matter what country you happen to be in. Makeshift guns aren't to hard to build either.
- I'm entirely for gun control, and it should be far stricter than it is now. I also think the ATF should have a lot more funding to stop the trade of illegal firearms, but civilians should be allowed to legally own guns. I think you've said you're from Belgium? Despite the fact that Belgium has stronger gun control laws, if I were to go to Belgium, I know I can arrange to have a gun waiting for me when I get there. I could have an illegal AK-47 in six hours if I had the money to waste and an inclination to have one (I don't though, illegal guns invite trouble).
- Also did you mean your DA Wiki blog or do you have a different one? We can move this discussion there, I just want some clarity on that point. --Aedan Cousland (talk) 21:11, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
This is a response to both Anya and -rhpb-'s most recent posts above (mostly Anya). I stopped to give it some serious thought, and even after, I find the idea of equating of warriors to mages somewhat absurd. It's not simply a societal whim that mages are dangerous, which is what it would be if society decided that warriors were and then dogmatized it in religious form. It would have little to no basis in factual reality, while the common position on and fear of mages has a clear basis.
I don't think that the majority of Fereldans think Mages are evil. The Chantry doesn't even teach that. It teaches that mages are dangerous and that magic should never rule over men (which they interpret to mean mages themselves should never be in positions of leadership). That basic premise is reasonable. My walking bomb metaphor earlier was more relevant. Some fair percentage of mages do, by all implications, become demon-possessed abominations and go on killing sprees (You don't want that guy to be your leader). When this happens, without Templar around, other mages willing to fight back, or other measures... Loads of people die. Guaranteed.
Mages are born with the power to be weapons with the destructive potential of tactical bombs. You can only take that away by killing or lobotomizing them. The same power makes them easy targets for possession by evil supernatural beings.
A warrior has to make a reasoned decision to go on a murderous rampage, or go insane. Both highly unlikely. A mage has only to let down his guard against insidious evil trying to trick him constantly throughout his life. Or have less than an iron will. Which is why it seems very clear that abominations pop up practically all the time. Not just mages who use blood magic, but serious, possessed-by-evil abominations like Uldred.
I'm sorry, but if I hypothetically knew of a "real" DA mage, I would move hundreds of miles to be nowhere near him, just in case. That level of fear is reasonable and justified. I might feel differently if I knew him personally, and knew he had the will and moral fortitude to remain uncorrupted. But within the bounds of the fictional world of DA, the possibility of mages going rogue killer is a very real, visceral, and unpredictable threat. The sentiment that the Chantry's control over mages is nothing but propaganda, "The Man" keeping them down baselessly, is totally wrong.
Of course, the Chantry shouldn't be the ones keeping Mages in check. A religion shouldn't have that kind of power either. But that's a whole different topic.
I think the whole continuing thread of "the Chantry is using fear and dogma to maintain tyrannical power over the populace!" is conspiracy theory. The idea that they "saw an opening" to jump in and take control of mages and the general populace through planned religious propaganda is fairly preposterous. I won't delve into it, but I feel it could be rooted in real-life dislike of Chantry-like religion(s). Not that anyone isn't entitled to that opinion, but I think it's hogwash that the Chantry is planning and/or re-interpreting their religion around socio-political empowerment of its leadership and subjugation of the common man through religious propaganda. Not that there isn't some of that going on, but it happens without intent - it's the nature of humans.--Cael Aurion (talk) 00:09, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
I was not equating Warriors to Mages, I was using them as an example to show how the Chantry could use fear to get the populace under control. But, I guess the example did not work. I am not bashing the Chantry as you say without merit. I have read what is here on the Chantry and have come to my conclusion of their being control freaks. Just look at how they treat the Elves and Dwarves, especially when they tell a Priest they don't want to hear about the Maker.
Also, the Chantry should not be the ones to govern the Mages, but they do and if the Rulers of the Nations the Chantry is in tried to force the Chantry and the Templars to cease their oppression of the Mages. The Chantry would order the Templars to overthrow whatever Ruler was trying to take away their Power. Why do you think it has not been tried before? Sure Loghain told Uldred he would have the Chantry withdraw the Templars if he and the Mages would back him as King. Of course Uldred went about it wrong and it did not end so well for Uldred and those Mages who sided with him. And, even if they had of succeeded in gaining their freedom from the Chantry and Loghain faild to become King as he had planned, then that would have been an entirely different mess altogether. Anya (talk)02:10, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
- So you meant to demonstrate that the Chantry could, theoretically, use religion to change public opinion and demonize warriors, and use this to affect control of warriors in society and influence public opinion, even though there's no truth in portraying warriors as extremely dangerous just because they're warriors.
- With that in mind, I would then have to interpret your first point as being that they could have done this to mages as well. Except, clearly, mages factually do have the possibility of becoming severely dangerous just by virtue of being mages in the world of DA, and all it takes for that to happen is the mage in question failing to prevent it.
- The lack of a basic falsehood in the premise somewhat takes away from the plausibility of the scenario that they could or would have done it just to control the populace. The religion of the Chantry has rules about mages. It follows naturally that followers of the religion would want to see those rules enforced. It doesn't necessarily follow that the Chantry as a political force in Thedas plotted the tenets of their own religion with this control as the end goal, or are interested in control for it's own sake. Both things seem largely implausible.
- I agree that the Chantry would and could declare an Exalted March on a country that tried to wrest control of the Circle of Magi from the Chantry and the Templar. But I don't agree that they'd do it because they're power-loving despots, but rather that simply they have a deep seated religious belief that it's better for the safety of both the mages and the rest of the world for their system to be in place. The Chantry is like the Medieval Catholic Church, a military power as well as a religion.
- And though I myself said the Chantry as a religion shouldn't, from my perspective, actually be the ones in charge of the mages (because a religion with military power is a dangerous thing)... Clearly someone should be besides the mages themselves. I definitely agree with one tenet of the Chantry about mages: no mage should ever be a ruler. Both their power and their unique liabilities would make that dangerous. --Cael Aurion (talk) 02:49, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
You all make some very interesting arguments and very uncharacteristically I actually agree with most of them.
- To Cael Aurion. The Chantry is not a religion, it’s a church. The three conceptions “church”, “religion” and “denomination”, must not be confused. A religion is a belief, it can be anything and everything and mean just as much or little. A church can’t exist in a modern nation, unlike an denomination so it’s concept is a little alien. Both are institution, which means they have a power structure and a hierarchy, but a church claim universal fellowship, no one is officially not a member, or non members are not tolerated being excommunicated or worse (Islam in a middle-eastern country could be an example of a church.
- Anya. The Chantry is like the old Catholic church, this also means the rule by the two swords: The sword of faith held by the Chantry to ensure good god-fearing people, and the sword of might, held by the kings to protect the faith and to conquer the infidels. The kings have exercise power, the Chantry only nominal power. Yes they are powerful, but they don’t hold the power to ‘’’command’’’ and exalted march, only to ‘’’request’’’ it.
- If the warden was a mage and asked that the circle gains independence as their boon from the new regent of Ferelden (for that is one of the possible endings of DA:O) And the Divine in Orlais wanted to prevent this by starting and exalted march against Ferelden, then it becomes a question about how many of the nations of Thedas want’s to participate in it. (Which is their kings sole decision). A king could nominally participate in the march by sending a few dozen reserve troops in their fifties, while sending a few hundred strong veterans to fight for Ferelden as independent mercenaries, or he could openly send his army to stand with Ferelden. It depends about how good political connection Anora or Alastair have. Starting an exalted march ageist Ferelden in an attempt to show their strength and beat an obstinacy king back in line, could backfire terribly with severel nation witdrawing from the Orlisiean Chantry and naming their own Divine, one whose loyalty to their king is unconquerable.
- I also agree with your observation about the Chantry, they honestly belive in what they do, or else they couldn’t do it. A few people could lie and manipulates peoples religious belief like Cartman in “South Park S04E10 Probably", but thankfully the majority of people on Earth and Thedas are not like Cartman. Power is a side effect, but it properly have a larger effect on the Divine, her Grand Clerics and everyone else in the Chantry then they would ever admit, even to themselves.
-rphb- (talk) 20:51, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
- Right, I did somewhat confuse the terms "religion" and "church" in my last posting. I understand the difference, but I couldn't (and still can't) think of the proper name for the religion the Chantry follows. Maker-ism? I imagine there is a name, and it's used throughout the game, and it's just slipped my mind...--Cael Aurion (talk) 03:24, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
I know the Chantry is akin to what the old Catholic church, my point is even though the Chantry did not initiate the hate towards Mages, they do propagate it and very strongly and only because of Teventer being ran by Mages and what they did, but to hold someone guilty because they were born with an ability you do not possess and to subjugate them the way the Chantry does is just asking for those that are oppressed to rise up and wrest control of their lives from the ones who are trying to control them. To me what the Chantry does like what the old Catholic church did with the inquisition against those who were not Christian. If you think about it the Chantry would wipe out everyone who has Magical abilities and not bat an eye. What gets me is the Templars follow the Chantry's orders without question and this tells me that through Lyrium is used to brainwash them. Not that most need brainwashing because of the innate hate of Mages most humans have in Thedas. Anya (talk)20:30, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
- I think you make the mistake of thinking about the whole situation in real world terms, Anya. You seem to easily see the unfairness inherent in the way the mages are controlled by the Chantry and Templars, and are quick to vilify those groups as power-mongers, and to vilify the common person in DA who fears and/or hates mages, as well. But I think you're so hung up on that, that you've got blinders on regarding the "reality" of the situation in the fictional world of Thedas. If you really wrap your head around the idea of what mages can do, and how clearly easy it is for them to be corrupted and possessed by demons, it's a much deeper moral conundrum.
- At the risk of being repetitive, it's clearly fact in the DA universe that poor moral fortitude, lack of will, or simply not being smart, can quickly lead a otherwise decent mage to become an evil killing machine. If the Circle of Magi didn't exist or wasn't subject to Templar/Chantry rules, there would be no organized preparation of young mages, no Harrowing to cull the weak, and no Tranquiling to stop the transformation into Abominations. Without this sort of culling of incapable mages, a significant percentage of people born with magic would seriously end up possessed, evil, killing machines.
- You can take the position... Oh, the humanity! How terrible, what they put these mages through... Its unfair, it's xenophobia. It's subjugation, they're practically slaves!
- I think that's easy to do when you can look at the situation from the safety of a computer screen. Yet if Thedas was real, and you were transported there, I think just being in the same room as a mage would scare the BEJEESUS out of you. Mages scare themselves. A fair number of them think that they should be subject to Chantry rule. Abominations on killing rampages happen a lot.
- According to Codex Entry: The Rite of Annulment In the 700 years since they came up with it, the Rite of Annulment, wiping out an entire Circle, has been done 17 times. And I don't think that any of the Templar have ever been blase about doing that. Killing a couple hundred people, so what, they're mages? No, it's not because they just hate them that much. It's because something so terrible happened that a Circle, as a whole group, was lost to demons.
- Bottom line... The Chantry perspective on mages is not propaganda, nor subjugation for power. I seriously doubt that the Templar are brainwashed (especially with lyrium. It's addictive, but nothing in the game I know of suggests it can be used as a brainwashing tool...). It's rooted in fear, and the fear has a basis in reality. It's true that what happens isn't fair to the mages. But what happens when a mage goes all abomination-y isn't fair to anyone who dies in the resulting rampage, either. Not a clear cut moral issue either way, because real-world rules don't apply. People don't become deadly death machines, entirely by accident and without warning, in the real world. --Cael Aurion (talk) 22:18, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
No I get it and I know every Mage has the potential of becoming an Abomination. But, these people are born with as they put it in the game so many times the CURSE of MAGIC. Now look at Morrigan, she was born with it and was taught how to use her GIFT and has not become and Abomination and she uses Magic all the time in one fashion or another. Then there are the Dalish Elves, who also use Magic quite a lot and as far as we know do not become Abominations. So, it is out of fear the Chantry is controlling Mages and I have said as much. If you play the Mage Origin and as you are helping Jowan and Lilly, if just before you go into the basement you head out to where the big doors are that lead out to the world of Fereldan and talk to the Templars there you get told that a Mage can only leave on Official Circle business. Now that is wrong and if you stop and think about it, it would be beneficial for the Mages to get out and mingle with the locals so that fear of Mages would subside. But, since they cannot the fear of both Magic and Mages persists and that is the Chantry's doing. Also, we do not know what the full effects of Lyrium addiction does to a person. We do know that is alters a person like any drug does and if they do not get it on a regular bases they go into withdraws, but what else does it do? Does it cause one to be paranoid? Hallucinations? or even a Suicidal/Homicidal rage? We do not know as of yet, but I bet it does one if not all I have mentioned and quite possibly more side affects. Anya (talk)13:21, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
- Both of you are partly right but are also exaggerating in different direction. Cael Aurion yes the mages are dangerous for themselves and others for their very nature of being mages, and yes Anya keeping mages traped like that is wrong.
- Mages needs to be controlled, but the don't need to be controlled by a religios organization. A circle would work fine as an autonomies or semi autonomies organization. The templars are nessesary to guard against rogue mages, but the knight commander could be a subject for the First Enchanter instead of his superior.
- Second as I have said already but have apperently been overheard, a harrowed mage, a mage that have proven to posses a certain amount of will, should be allowed not only to leave the tower, but also to live outside of it. And if it where meges and not tranquils that run places like Wonders of Thedas people would get to know mages on a daily basis. Gossip is the glue of society and by introducing a real person as a propertier instead of a talking machine (for what else can the tranquils be decribed as) people would get to know mages as humens.
- They need control and they need restrictions, but they don't need Chantry control, and they don't need inhuman restriction. As we have seen in the game, the most dangerous mages are the untested apprentices like Connor and frustrated liberitatians like Uldred.
- Frustration, and unexperience, these are the dangers. The later can be dealt with by looking all the apprentices op in the tower where they can be watched and trained, the later by allowing the fully trained mages the freedom to live their own lives.-rphb- (talk) 21:55, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the Chantry should not be in control of the Mages or Circle, but they wont give up that control without a fight, they want to perpetuate the hate of both Magic and Mages. Remember there is no prison for Apostates only death Morrigan tells you this, even Alister mentions this, now this sounds like the Chantry wants complete control over Mages. They do not care for the emotions or feelings these people have control over and view them as monsters. And, you can see the hate they have for Mages, when at Ostagar as Cailain is going over the battle plan and the Beacon in the Tower of Ishal is to be lit and Uldred is attempting to explain that the Tower and Beacon are not needed and the Revered Mother cuts him off. No wonder Uldred sided with Loghain, of course Loghain could not deliver on the promises he made to Uldred and those Mages who he got to follow him.
So, lets say that somehow the Chantry lost its control over the Mages and the Circle, who would be the ones to watch over them? Would they be like the Mages Collective? or like a Police force who has Internal Affairs? One can only speculate.
I am also surprised that more young Mages have not sought out Flemeth to get her to teach them, now that would be a kicker and would infuriate the Chantry. Anya (talk)01:40, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Let's just speculate on that for a minute. What if your warden was a mage, and what if he or she asked the king or queen at the post-coronication that the mages be given their independence, for that is one of possible outcomes of DA:O, then very simply the tower would just function as it does now, exempt that the first enchanter will have a much greater say, limited only by the senior enchanters say. He will of course not have absolute power, as the "chairman and CEO" of the Circle tower he would have to swear fealty to the king, but will serve him directly, and not thorough the Chantry. As I have also explained elsewhere, this is a boon not only for the mages but also for the king himself, as it places a powerful force in the kingdom directly under his command, which is always better then if he has to ask permission from the templars and the chantry to use them. The mages will be more happy and content and be less likely to turn rogue, which in turn is also a boon for the general population.
The chantry will of course not be happy. But the Divine in Orlais will simply not have the power to call for an exalted march aginst Ferelden for that reason alone. When she calls an exalted march against anyone she have to convince the kings and queens all over Thedas that the march is justified, she cannot merely demand it, because they are independent nations and she is not their sovereign. It would be like if USA demanded that all nato nations participated in a war against neverneverland without even trying to justify why.-rphb- (talk) 10:53, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
And, you think the Chantry is beyond lying to get the troops they need for such an Exalted March? If you do then you are truly naive. Just look at how they got their Exalted March against the Dales. Below is a quote from the Dales;
"However, there is also reason to suspect the Chantry, which objected to the worship of the elven pantheon, of inciting fear and hatred of the elves by allegedly spreading false rumours of human sacrifice."
This of course was an out right lie of the Chantry's to impose their God the Maker on those who did not want to worship the Maker. And, this led to the following;
"At this point, the Chantry called for a holy war against the elves that became known as the Exalted March of the Dales. While the elves eventually sacked Val Royeaux and pushed well into human lands, Halamshiral was conquered and the elves were completely crushed by 2:20 Glory. The Dales were appropriated by the Orlesians, who uprooted elven settlements and forbade worship of the elven gods[3]. Elves who accepted the Chantry's offered truce were required to accept the Maker and live in ghettos, known as Alienages, within human settlements, becoming the City Elves. Some elves, however, refused to give up their worship or their dream of their own homeland. These became the Dalish, retaining the name of their second lost homeland and vowing to keep elven language, lore and religion alive."
If not for the Chantry's lies none of this would have happened. So, you still think the Chantry could not get the troops they need for an Exalted March? Anya (talk)03:32, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I do, because this isn't about truth, it is about politic and power. The Dales had isolated themselves and had therefore not a voice in the human lands, making the chantry's point of view the only one heard. This is not so for Fereldan. We know the are friends with the dwarves and severel other nations may also be swayed by their arguments, not at least Antiva and Rivain. The Anderfells, practically ruled by the wardens, would properly also head Fereldens call, should Orlais want to make a march against them. It is speculation of course, anything could happen, but the Ferelden King and Queen would not let an Excalted march be called against them, whitout letting their view be heard. No matter how good a lie, it will always be less convincing if it has a powerful rebuttal.
- Why do you think that the first order of buisness for any demagogue that seizes power is to take control of the media and out-rule any that speaks against them.
- The dwarves and the Anderfells would almost certainly stand with Ferelden. Did it come to war the Tevinter Imperium would most likely also be counted on as an ally, after all, if Ferelden gains independence from the Orlesian chantry it would be a boon to them, if the orlesian chantry is cleaved in twine, so much the better.
- Do you truly think that the Chantry could get all these allies on their side, isolating Fereldan completely as the Dales already were, before the war?-rphb- (talk) 08:14, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Yes I do, because if you spread lies about someone long enough then those lies become truths to those hearing the lies and the ones who are being lied about though they would protest and deny the lies, they would look guilty anyway, especially for protesting every single time. It does not matter if you defend yourself or not eventually those telling the lies get what they want.
Also remember in the game the Circle is moved to Orzammar and becomes autonomous and then you read that the Chantry is calling for an Exalted March on the Dwarven People because the Chantry does not have Templars there.
Now lets take Politics it is not about what is truth, but about power and each candidate spreads lies about the other. Now each candidate tries to deny the lies told on them, but it does no good because the lies are out there and it is too late. Because the lies will always follow them no matter what they say.
So, the Chantry would get there Exalted March because of lies and because the Exalted March is about Power and Control. Anya (talk)13:43, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
But lies will only take you so far. Ultimately the only thing rulers care about is power. You can make up the most fantastic tale possible, but why should a ruler in a far away land care if it dosn't threaten him an his people and if he have noting to gain from going to war? An exalted march is like any coalition, a bunch of armies fighting together for a conmen end.
You must understand, that the Dales-Orlesian war threatened the very existence of Orlais, that much was apparent for any observes. the elves sacked Val Royeaux. I don't think that most of the other nations that participated believed in the lies or even cared. What they believed in was the truth. that they helped a country they had prosperous trading agreements with against another, from which they had none. Everything else is irrelevant.
This can't happen with Ferelden because of all I have previously mentioned. It might happen with the dwarves but only if the Chantry can make a convincing argument for that: The cost of invading Orzammar is less then the benefit from holding it. Remember that Orzammar gives a valuable service in the form of Lyrium trade and quality weaponry, and that it serves as a bastion between them and the darkspawn most of the time.
There have never been talk about anything other then a "consideration". That alone can be considered a political tool, a treat to the dwarves to behave. Most war is ended before they begin by that sort of treats. A full blown invasion won't happen, the Dwarves know this, and the Chantry knows this, they need each other.
If the dwarves were to retreat into their caves, cut of the diplomatic ties, and possibly even diminish their trade, then all the rules would change; then they would be a Dales, an isolated kingdom that don't care about its neighbours. The truth of the matter is: the elves brought it upon themselves, they failed to establish an interdependence with their neighbours in the form of trade. Whitout that, war is the only option.-rphb- (talk) 14:18, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
So, the Elven People by not having trade with the surrounding Kingdoms, not helping with a blight, wanting to be left alone to reclaim their old beliefs and defending themselves from the Teventer Imperium, who clearly attacked them first because once a slave always a slave. I can see how you would side with the Chantry and the Teventer Imperium. Because remember Elves are EVIL and should be wiped out of existence. But, you know all it takes is the wrong word in the right ear and "POOF!!" instant Exalted March. This could happen to both Fereldan and Orzammar, all it would take is for the Chantry to say that either Kingdom was planning on invading the Kingdoms they needed to side with them in their Exalted March, sure they might not believe it at first, but all it would take is for the Chantry to stage an assault to look like Fereldan or Orzammar attacked a village or town and again "POOF!!" Exalted March. And, if you think the Chantry is not above doing just that then you are truly blind. Anya (talk)17:13, August 27, 2010 (UTC) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Simply put, people fear what they don't understand. Firebat11 (talk) 17:20, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Anya you are starting to not make sense. Didn't you listen to any of my arguments? If you do not agree with them, then explain what you find wrong with them, how exactly they are faulty.
- 1) I never claimed the Chantry wasn't above cheeting or lying
- 2) I claimed that the Chantry will and have tried all the political power they have to get what they want.
- 3) 2 implies that they will cheat and lie if it serves their purpose.
- 4) The Chantry is not all powerful. They are dependent of getting help from kings and queens.
- 5) If they cannot convinse a ruler to join in an Excalted March he will not.
- 6) Rulers are as a rule not idiots and fairly selfish, if it does not serve them or their nations interest to perticipate in a war, they will not
- 7) Ferelden have many trade agreements with other nations and close ties to Orzemmar and the Anderfells though the wardens
- 8) The Chantry cannot afford to antagonise the wardens
- 9) The Excalted March against the Dales was only possible because the Dales had failed to secure good diplomatic relations with their neighbours.
- 10) No one knew the truth of what happened in the Dales because the elves chose to be so isolated.
- 11) A lie is always more convincing then silence
- 12) A half truth is always more convincing then a complete lie.
- 13) What the Chantry said was at least a half true, as they did treated Orlais.
- 14) The EX against the Dales was the result of a nation that were good at diplomacy to serve their interest and and another that were not.
- 15) I did not say that the elves were evil, just that their foreign policy was a failure
If you disagree, tell me which point and why. If you one more time rebuff everything I have said without offering any arguments against me, then I refuse to discus this with you any more.-rphb- (talk) 21:03, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this but magic isn’t a skill it’s a fundamental difference. Either you are a mage or you are not a mage, and there is nothing you can do about either. It is this fundamental difference that gives the Chantry their legitimacy in the eyes of the people. If anyone could potentially become a mage if they just invested enough recourse even if everything else about being a mage still applied, then everything would be different.
- Man are by it’s very nature Envious. They covert what others have. As long as at least the theoretical possibility of them accruing the same exists, their envy can be controlled. But if it becomes impossible, then there is no longer anything that can stop the envy from growing into full blown hatred.
-rphb- (talk) 22:11, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
Heres my opinion. In the end the Chantry cant get anyone into the Fade. Somewhere I readthat Old God worship rose higher than Maker worship in Tevinter, what I really think is that the Chantry (though a great thing) is terrified that if a mage is in the Fade too long that they will discover that the Maker doesn't exist (dont get mad just my theory) and they will spread it through out Thedas. This would be a DEVASTATING blow to the Chantry and eventually the'd fizzle out of existance. The templars I think are a necessary evil and could be like a special service in towns like neighborhood watch things. I disagree with the Chantry's choice of containing the mages but hey when you can lose power, you'll do anything to keep it.- Luciferious Cousland III
Really, I really, really, REALLY dislike how you people relate in-game subjects to real-life on-goings. My only comment on the health care stupidity is that if you give it to everyone for free, everyone waits longer. Take that as you will. Now, to remain on subject... Magic is dangerous, but extremely useful if in the right hands. Should anyone who is born a mage be locked up in a tower and forced to live there forever? No. But just think what would happen if wasn't that way: Blood Magi would run rampant sacrificing farmers for enhanced abilities, young magi children would burn down whole villages, and many may go insane if they become too addicted to lyrium. Now, of course there would be many who would live peaceful lives, and I believe those who cannot cope with the ever watchful eyes of the templars should have some sort of escape, other than becoming a tranquil. Perhaps some sort of system where the templars come to visit you to make sure you're not causing any trouble every month or two? I could see that working, but it could be very complicated with more than a handful of magi. City Elves like myself are in the same boat, but instead of the chantry oppressing us, it's humans. Unless they're humans with an elf fetish... DeltaEcho (talk) 01:23, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
There are really interesting arguments here, but let me just add my two cents to the debate: As far as I recall, there ARE concessions given to mages to roam the land. We know because Teyrna Eleanor says in human noble origin "we can get you a healer" when convincing Bryce to escape with them. Then we see a healer in Arl Eamon's estate after we've gotten the Sacred Ashes. So yes, it does seem that mages ARE allowed to leave the circle tower. The issue then is whether these mages are apostates (I highly doubt so, nobles wouldn't likely risk such things unless desperate) and whether the Chantry should extend this to ALL mages who have gone through their Harrowing. This poses another problem in itself - just because the mage has gone through a Harrowing doesn't make him any less susceptible to demons. It only proves the mage is capable of resiting the temptation and fight off the demons. We know that since our mage Warden CAN still make a deal with the Desire Demon in Connor, and Uldred still manages to get possessed by a pride demon (though you could argue the demon was in him all along). Knowing this, is it still acceptable to let mages out into society? Where they would firstly have to make a living for themselves and secondly, deal with a distrustful society? Combine the two and we have a major recipe for more demonic possessions rather than less.
Granted, loosening the leash would help lower the chances that the mages feel the need to rebel, and even mages like Anders agree that breaking entirely from the Chantry would be disastrous. Treat this as the science and religion rivalry if you will. Mages are always going to want to study their talents and see how far their magic can be utilised, just like scientific advancements. The Chantry, like the church in today's society (of any religion!) is the body which argues the ethical side of this research. Can the use of blood be justified, like Stem Cell Research in real life, consider the case of Isolde and sacrificing to save Connor. Which is better alternative? With something that is seemingly omnipotent like magic, it isn't hard to see why the Chantry feels a need to keep a tight leash on mages - all it takes is a mage Branka to do insurmountable damage to humanity. There needs to be some form of restriction on how far mages can be allowed to utilise their magic and there should be a code of morality/ethics/behaviour that all mages should adhere to, but what about those mages who are unable or unwilling to control/restrain their abilities? It's the same reason why we have law. If everyone just did what they wanted, society would crumble. If mages aren't kept in check, so does their potential to cause apocalyptic scale threats.
Back to the case of healers. In their case, it seems the Chantry does in fact allow their freedom in exchange for the good they do for society. I'd reckon that these healers are mages who have "earned" the "trust" to be outside of the Circle (likely devout Andrastians in the Circle), but then there is a good point raised here - who among the mages deserve the right to leave the tower? Healers are obviously much needed, and considering travel in those days it is impractical to have them leave the tower for Denerim should the king fall deathly ill. Then again, letting any mage run free of the Tower runs the risk that they use their talents for less noble means. Take the Harry Potter universe, for example. While wizards are free to live among the Muggles, there hasn't been any way to prevent "Dark Lords" or anti-Muggle actions from occuring, and the organisation in charge of keeping magic in check simply isn't competent enough to combat people without a moral code. The Chantry may rule over mages with an iron fist, and I do admit they could be a little more lax in their methods, but all in all, it is a necessity in a society like Thedas. ReaperZ (talk) 15:49, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
I would just like to give my view - I agree that Magic should not rule man and those things, BUT have you seen what the game shows us? Every fight you do in the game that has a game, it will probably be a Blood Mage, and they are all evil. There are only a few Healers in the game, no Arcane Warrior or Shapeshifters. OK, you may argue that if they are fighting they are escaping from the Circle and they may end up blood mages, but I still think most of the blood mages are evil or the mages that become evil are blood mages. Alessandro de Abreu (talk) 16:17, September 6, 2010 (UTC)