Mage freedom sounds good in theory, but what will the freedom of the magi cost in the end. Will it drive the mages into blood magic. What would you do in their shoes, what would you risk? Can you think of any option for the magi to gain their freedom without war or are they doomed? 203.45.127.20 (talk) 00:36, July 12, 2012 (UTC)Darkside

I think it's been suggested, on this site if not in-game, to simply make the Circles schools instead of prisons - instead of treating mages like dangerous criminals, scrutinizing their every move and giving their Templar jailers absolute power over them (argue all you want on that, but the fact is that there are far too many Templars who abuse their positions without punishment to say they don't), make it more like a boarding school - mages wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with having to stay at the Circles if they got to visit their families every now and then, were allowed to go outside more, weren't discouraged from marrying and having children, didn't have what children they did have taken away at birth, and basically were treated like human beings with rights instead of convicts. It's obvious the prison approach doesn't work - mage gets sick of being treated like a hardened criminal because of circumstances outside his control, flees the Circle, Templars corner him, doesn't want to go back, turns to Blood Magic. Rinse, repeat, endless cycle of persecution and death. --UrLeingod (talk) 00:58, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

All very viable points, however we *are* talking about people who, on a whim, can cause lightning storms and make people explode like pinatas. I'd fear in a system like that that the templars would become so relegated from having to watch their charges that they'd lose the ability to objectively react when something goes wrong (i.e. kill a possible blood mage before they can cause harm) EzzyD (talk) 15:26, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

There is a tale about an old martial master who was refused entry to a town, because he was able to kill people with his bare hands. The townspeople were terrified, fearing that the master would kill the guards they had posted outside the town to turn him away, as were the guards. The leader of the guards approached the old master, and explained why they could not let him enter town. The master simply smiled, nodded and indicated that this was not the first time he had been turned away from a town. The master smiled again and told the guard he had spent his life studying martial arts and sought out the greatest masters to learn from, and it was true that he could kill a man with his hands. But during his life he had learned control and that while he could kill, he was also incredibly disciplined. He smiled again, wished blessings on the guards and the town and left.

The point is, if control is forced upon someone, they will rebel against it, rather than those who seek it out for themselves. Yes, mages can summon storms and throw fireballs at people, they can be dangerous. But then again, you could say the same for everyone in Thedas, as much as a mage could kill a person with a spell, another "normal" person could easily pick up a knife and stab someone.

The idea of a school for mages, rather than a prison, is only half the solution. Ideally, there would be some sort of registration for identified mages, not for hunting them down, but rather to help them identify what branch of magic they might be suited to (if that) and to also make sure they were protected by the law of the Chantry or the country they were based in. The Templars shouldn't so much be mage hunters as the group monitoring unregistered mages and making sure the registered ones were protected or as a watchdog group (i.e. "a person or group of persons that acts as a protector or guardian against inefficiency, illegal practices", like lyrium trafficking or the murder of a mage). A school system would also help train mages and try to make sure they aren't made Tranquil just because they aren't quite "strong" enough to be a mage.

Is that a perfect solution? Probably not, but it's a far better one than the current system. Any system where they don't perform a lobotomy with a burning lyrium brand is better than the current system. --Madasamadthing (talk) 19:53, July 15, 2012 (UTC)

Any person could stab someone with a knife. But no ordinary person can level whole towns to ashes, or summon demons for that matter. I remember reading about a time where a certain minority in society had to be "registered" so as to be identified and treated as such. I hope you know what I'm referring to? I agree with the point on Templars, they are *supposed* to be guardians and sentinels against dark magics. However, I don't think that rules out them having to be ruthless hunters when it's called for. And sadly, the Rite of Tranquility is a brutal but necessary process when you're dealing with someone who perhaps does not have the talent or willpower to use magic, but should they become possessed have their full potential horrifically unleashed upon others. EzzyD (talk) 15:49, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

Depends, a person given time and planning could burn a town to the ground with a torch, or change the world with an arrow or a crossbow bolt. And I hope you did not just go Godwin's Law. Keep that kind of talk off this wiki, please.

Various people can register with the government nowadays, usually for reserve military service or as a part of conscription. Depending on the country where such a registration exists, those eligible have to do so or face imprisonment. In the case of Mages, registering could be as simple as "Healing mage? There's a village in southern Orlais that needs a mage." or "Fire mage? If we go to war, we'll need your abilities, but otherwise we believe you could help at a foundry or a smithy."

The Rite of Tranquility isn't necessary though, the same way that lobotomies weren't the magical cure-all people thought they were in the early part of the 20th century. Its mutilating someone against their wishes. The whole point of a school system is to help train young mages to have the strength and skill to defend themselves. But there is nothing that justifies a burning brand to the forehead, or worse, throwing a mage to the demonic wolves to see if they can survive. Its the same thing as the old dunking stool to see if a person was a witch during the witch trials. Dunk a person in a chair into a freezing river and if they drowned, well, oops, guess they weren't a witch. If they held their breath they were witches and had to be killed. Only in Thedas its either you take the Harrowing and are possibly killed, or you become Tranquil.--Madasamadthing (talk) 16:13, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

Those who are in the circle know that blood magic is a death sentence. And it has been proven that Circle mages only resort to blood magic when they feel they have no other choice. It is the same thing if they become abominations. I like the boarding school idea. Give them freedom to a point. That is pretty much what a boarding school does. Teach them how to master their abilities and drive home toe point of what could happen if they resort to blood magic and if they decided to become an abomination. Let them stay within the walls there they can be watched, but not controlled. Educated, but not taught to believe that they are cursed. There can be a middle ground. Both sides though are just too damn stubborn to look for it.GreyWolf84 (talk) 22:07, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Do not assume Blood Magick is an evil...Mages do not need the circle, the hedge-women of Korcari Wilds are a testament to this. Chantry oppression leads only to war, a war that mages would not have instigated had they not been persecuted. --Elshiro (talk) 23:37, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

I assume the above ignores this theory: Anders + Justice + Kirkwall = Bad Things happening. Not bad things, but Bad Things. You can practically feel the capitalization.Sure, I'll admit that it's off topic, so here's something that's somewhat on your topic. In the Korcari Wilds, we have Flemeth, who I have money saying is the ACTUAL antagonist of this series, who has had centuries to build power(magic wise). However, templar abilities could kill her(eventually(hell, the Warden killed her(I think. Stupid Retconn(?)))) Anyway, to the origional topic: Mage freedom, on paper, is a good idea. However, we must take into account certain persons(*cough*Lambert*cough*) who will just take a sword and have at the mages, a few centuries of the main religion of Thedas pretty much saying mages are evil(or at least thats how the idiots in charge of the Chantry interpret it), and the whole Tevinter thing. The bording school Circles seems to be an idea that could work, but then again, one cannot account for human(or elven, dwarven, or whatever the -en for Kossith is) stupidity. Avg Man (talk) 23:49, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

As cruel as it sounds, the rights of the few should be sacrificed for the safety of the many. I'm not saying we should simply hunt them down, but I see multiple simply saying "Let them be free, and they'll stop having to use blood magic!" Well, they're free in Tevinter... We have to remember that even if 99% of mages are responsible and peaceful in their freedom, 1% turning to demons for help could and would cause horrid damage. Were I a mage I'd not like it, but I would understand it. RomeoReject (talk) 06:22, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

Mage Freedom: A good idea on paper, not so good in practice. Avg Man (talk) 15:15, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

No, they rule in Tevinter, there's a difference. The Magisters are depraved, corrupt nobles who happen to have tremendous power, which is always a recipe for disaster, magic or not. And so what if 1% of mages abuse their power/turn to blood magic, there's a lot more than 1% doing exactly that because of the current system of locking them up with a bunch of Templars (who suck at their jobs anyway). If the mages were empowered and educated correctly, there would be a lot more of them with the discipline and morality to use their powers responsibly and for a good cause, instead of running away and terrorizing innocents out of bitterness or moldering away in a Circle and doing jack-all with their gifts outside making an enchanted item or two or writing a few books. In fact, if the Templars were willing to recruit mages from pious, promising students, you might have mage-hunters who were much more effective at catching and neutralizing rogue maleficars.

--UrLeingod (talk) 03:52, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

The best idea I can think of is dump all mages on an island and leave them alone, their families can visit and the mages rule themselves, if they turn to blood magic then the only ones they harm is themselves--Halisme (talk) 19:55, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

Shapeshifters could simply turn in to a bird and flee. Remember how Flemeth saves Alistair and the Warden in Dragon Age. Or turns in to a dragon in both games. Or how Morrigan, Wynne and a mage Warden can turn in to a swarm of insects and flee that way. RomeoReject (talk) 21:41, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

There is a very indepth discussion on this topic here: http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Templars_and_Mages?t=20120414144348 Rathian Warrior (talk) 22:16, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

I dunno but as insane as Anders reasoning is, hes sorta right and i fully agree with one of his quotes : "Mage after mage in kirkwall turning to blood magic because its easy" it is easy but the cost is super high to pay, Maybe if mages were more free then they wouldnt turn to blood magic, why cant they just make like a boarding school for them or something, let them have a family. Maybe thatll reduce mages rebelling and turning to blood magic or demons. Templars are just bat shite crazy(i didnt spell it wrong its a reference to what Bethany says in mark of the assassin) T_T --TheNightTwins (talk) 07:08, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

Freedom sounds all good of course, but think about this. If I was a mage, you'd all be licking my boots. And I'm basically a good person, yet I know with that kind of power....yeah...Earth would be mine. Haha. And I'm sure I would not be alone. So food for thought. The Grey Unknown (talk) 13:59, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

Power corrupts, as they say. Even the most loyal and upstanding are not immune to the sweet pitch of its siren, it just requires the proper tune depending on the individual. EzzyD (talk) 14:11, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

From the topic I already posted:

Imprisoning someone because they have a talent for magic is immoral. In accordance with my liberal, 21st century education, every person has a right to their life, their liberty, and their pursuit of happiness. Whether or not mages did do anything bad in the past is not up for debate: you cannot punish today's mages for the mistakes of their forefathers. That mindset of shared responsibility led to WWII here, and it has led to the Mage Templar war in the DA universe. If you were being oppressed, yes, oppressed is the correct word to use here, then of course you'd want to secure your rights. And after having tried dialogue for a thousand years, the mages finally decided that enough was enough.

Further, any time you give one group of people rights over another, oppression occurs. Look at Zimmer's prison experiment as an example. I'll give you the short version. Even the college students selected to play the roles of guards in the mock prison began displaying signs of aggression, condescension, and contempt toward their mock prisoners. The experiment was so successful that Zimmer had to shut it down early because of how bad things were becoming. This is no longer about someone having magic or not: it is about a group of people who have yet to do anything wrong being punished for offenses they did not commit, and oppressed, raped, tortured, and persecuted just because of how they were born. Every innocent person harmed by the Templars is one too many, and they have long ago stepped past their mandate and ceased to be protectors of the mages.

Finally, about the possible dangers of magic: I have long stated that, in the interest of subverting demon possession, wouldn't the mage be better off surrounded by understanding, kindness, and acceptance, instead of hostility, suspicion, and condemnation? Having a community of people who value their talents will make mages much more likely to become part of society and use their power for the greater good, instead of seeking to escape their miserable (yes, miserable) lot in life by making a pact with a demon. There will always be a few bad eggs, yes. But if mages would be allowed to police their own, then they could provide a more than adequate defense of the common man. Rathian Warrior (talk) 15:17, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

Rathian, Tevinter stands as a firm example of how wrong such a statement is. Just because one removes the "threat" of being a Mage, doesn't suddenly mean they become immune to the call of demons and power. Every Mage is free in Tevinter, and it's an even worse case of abusing power than the Chantry could ever hope to be. Imagine if one out of every hundred people was born with a bomb inside them. If they got stressed, bomb would go off. Would you particularly care about the rights of the bomb-people? No, it is sad, but their liberties would have to be sacrificed to ensure the safety of the other 99%. Whether it's their fault or not is irrelevent, they're still a threat to those around them. Same as the Mages. RomeoReject (talk) 00:26, July 15, 2012 (UTC)

Actually Romeo, I refuted the Tevinter example in the previous thread as well. Here's how:

People continue to cite Tevinter as an example of what would happen if mages were freed. It annoys me, because Tevinter is a bad example. The truth of the matter is, mages have a history of ruling over others in Tevinter, as well as a history of using blood magic. Even while the circle was in place, the magisters were using blood magic and running Tevinter. Therefore, you can't blame the lack of a Circle in Tevinter as the reason for the onset of the magiesters. The fact is, they never went away, even while the Circle was in place.

Why does everyone always use the Tevinter example? That's a very bad example of mages ruling themselves. Besides dealing with the precedent of pervasive and ignored blood-magic that was going on in the Imperium even during the time when Templars controlled the Circle, we must remember that the Magisters were always ruling over the people. Thus, blood magic was almost a necessity, in the purest sense of the word, when faced with political rivals who would stop at nothing to seize power.This would not happen in the rest of Thedas. First and foremost, the mages would not seek to rule over their fellow, non-mage comrades in a political way. This was never their objective, as it was in the Imperium. Instead, they simply want freedom from the oppression that you have already mentioned, and equal rights as human beings. That does not, in and of itself, translate into blood magic. If you want real proof of how mages and non-mages can coexist, look at the Dalish.

A much better example of how mages an nonmages can coexist are the Dalish and the Grey Wardens. In both cases, magic is accepted and valued and used for the betterment of the whole group. In the case of the Dalish, everyone, even non-mages, are educated about the dangers of possession, and there are contingencies in place to prevent a possible Keeper-Abomination running amok. And in all the cases of the Keepers running their clans, there is very little evidence of them abusing their power for personal gain. The same is true for the Grey Wardens. In fact, while in the Circle, Fiona admits that her gift is little more than tolerated, while in the Grey Wardens she is a valuable contributor who is accepted by her comrades.

Here is the crux of my argument: In the case of both the Dalish an the Grey Wardens, where mages are accepted for their talents and valued as members of the group, the rate of demonic possession is remarkably low. The Circle, by contrast, sees a very high number of possessions. In the cases of mages policing themselves, or mages being accepted as part of the larger group with everyone being aware of the dangers, there are very few possessions, and few instances of mages abusing their power for personal gain. By contrast, in the Chantry's perfect Circle world, there are many instances of possession, and there are a higher-than-normal number of maleficarum, or mages who resort to the dark arts in order to further their own agenda.

This evidence supports my original point: accepting the mages as part of Thedas as a whole, and valuing them as contributing members of the larger community, will lead to a sharp decrease in the number of abominations. This air of acceptance and understanding, combined with a concerted effort to school non-mages about the possible dangers of magic and how best to counteract them, will provide a means to effectively deal with the rare occurrences of magical abuse.

Before you want to tell me I'm wrong next time, do a bit of reading and try to come up with an argument I haven't already shot down. Rathian Warrior (talk) 05:32, July 15, 2012 (UTC)

Without magic there would not be life. Nobody wants to live under the rule of Imperial Order they are the death themselve. Chantry teaches death too the same way that Order does. Magic is life. Without it all dies. --Jak Darckner (talk) 11:04, July 15, 2012 (UTC)

Oh snap! I remember that thread... fun times! I strongly recommend that anyone trying to argue against freeing mages read through the arguments there. @Jak Darckner, while that may possibly be true in some other fantasy series, I do not recall this being a fact in the Dragon Age universe. What has led you to this conclusion? Ccg08 (talk) 18:45, July 15, 2012 (UTC)

There is no life without magic and thats that. Deny the truth but it dosnt make the truth go away. Your are as blind as the Imperial Order. --Jak Darckner (talk) 19:48, July 15, 2012 (UTC)

I thought magic was just a natural force within the world of Thedas that could be *manipulated* by life, but isn't responsible for it; like sunlight in a way, there are living things that can be sustained without UV radiation. I see no problem with magic following the same rules. I don't think anyone is denying any truths here, they just don't think that magic=life and that the former must come before the latter. Just my 2 cents. EzzyD (talk) 19:55, July 15, 2012 (UTC)

@Jak Darckner, you have provided no reasoning or evidence to support your claims. Why should anyone accept what you blatantly provide as a "brute fact"? Furthermore, your insults are very childish. You say I am the blind one, yet you are the one who refuses to even CONSIDER the possibility that your beliefs may be false. Not that I should even humour your dogmatic unsupported claims, but do you recall in Dragon Age: The Silent Grove that at one time in Thedas WHEN LIFE EXISTED there was no fade. As far as we know, the fade is essential for the possibility of magic. Since it would APPEAR that life CAN and HAS existed without magic, your claim APPEARS to be false. Can you provide any reasoning or evidence which may contradict or at the very least challenge my argument? Please, no SoT references because those are not satisfactory.

@EzzyD, your view does sound more plausable :) at least you state it as your 'thoughts' as opposed to being 'truth'. Ccg08 (talk) 20:28, July 15, 2012 (UTC)

As others have said, magic is not essential to support Theodosian life. Indeed, as mentioned above, the Fade (or the Taint) is the only thing necessary for mages to perform magical feats, since all magi cast spells by drawing on power from the Fade (aside from darkspawn, who use the Taint to fuel their magic). Since we can determine that the Fade (and the Taint) is younger than Thedas itself, there was once a time where magic did not exist. King Cousland | Talk   21:06, July 15, 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm right because I say so and you are wrong because I say so. I believe me not anyone else. --Jak Darckner (talk) 07:45, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

While you have the freedom to believe whatever you wish to believe, so do the rest of us, and there is no reason why any of us should believe what you say to be true. Please keep that in mind. - 07:48, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

Imperial Order and their delusional believes. You can destroy the deliverer of truth but you cant kill the truth it self. --Jak Darckner (talk) 07:58, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

@Jak Darckner, i find it very interesting that your post was off topic since when GabrielleduVent made a relavent yet slightly off topic post on your SoT DA thread, you flipped out. Hypocrite much? We're the one's with delusional beliefs? We have reasoning and evidence to refute your argument. You have nothing to support it. If anything, your dogmatic thinking is a bulwark against truth! --> [1] Ccg08 (talk) 08:08, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

No its all of you that are delusional. --Jak Darckner (talk) 09:32, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

Real Mage freedom is achieved only by and through the blood! 09:48, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

Certainly... Can you pass me another Magebane? The real one from patch 1.04, not the one previously sabotaged by the malifecarum. 4Ferelden (talk) 12:11, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

I like how mage freedom-supporters think that the mages will just go to live nice and in peace now that they've rebelled. But looking through history, revolutions have a bad tendency of creating a new order just as bad - if not worse - than the previous order. Look at the French Revolution; they fight to get rid of the monarchy, and then a nice republican man named Robespierre took over, initiating the Reign of Terror - during which up to 40,000 people were executed. Or the russian revolution; the imperial family's deposed, and what did we get in their place? The Soviet Union, with Stalin and his mass deportations and executions and lengthy cold war which indirectly may or may not have created Al-Qaida, the war in Afghanistan, several dictatorships in south america, North Korea etc.

This oppressed minority is suddenly finding themselves free of their shackles - literally, it doesn't matter what they do, they're being hunted anyway. And you don't think they're going to fight for their survival - no matter what it takes? How far will they go? Sacrificing innocents to power blood magic? Summon demons? No matter what, there's going to be mages craving revenge, power or both now that all their inhibitions are gone. And if those people are the only ones with the power to save the others from annihilation (or at least harsher punishment/imprisonment) at the hands of the templars, are the other mages going to be able to resist them? The russian communists were at first a minority - look what they managed to do. Now imagine what a similar group of walking weapons with the potential to summon otherworldly creatures or mind control anyone they choose could do. So, yeah, thanks Anders! Now we're either getting more mage tyrants, or you doomed almost anyone of your currently living kind, because you had a hissy fit and decided to play god with their lives, since you would rather die than live in the circle.

Then again, the "mages in Tevinter are free" isn't entirely correct, either. According to Fenris (who is a biased source, however) the magisters also enslave other mages, and even those who aren't apparently don't have it that great either, since it seems to be every self-respecting Tevinter mage's dream to become a magister's apprentice or a magister yourself (Varania was ready to sell out her own brother to become one - which raises an interesting question; can elves become magisters too? That would be interesting to see explored at some point). Errm, anyway, yeah, Tevinter isn't a perfect example of what would happen if mages became free or more autonomous - certain powerful mages on top is just a deeply ingrained part of their culture.

Ultimately, I don't particularly care either way, mostly because I find the mage-templar plot as concocted thus far by BW to be uninteresting and lacking, and I kinda wish they just continued the darkspawn storyline or did something new. In the hands of better writers, it could've made for a great plot, probably (if GRRM wrote it, for example), but as it is, the writers subconsciously clearly want you (or at least the character you play) to sympathize with the mages (I found flaws in their logic in the earlier paragraphs which makes it a bit more even between the groups, but those were clearly not intended by the writers, and even if you side with the templars you can't really use any of those arguments). Emotionally, I suppose I'd like the mages to be free, just as the writers want me to think, but logically, I'd probably still have to go with the circle - or more correctly, a modified version of it; they need some more failsafes against corruption among the templars. Matt-256 (talk) 22:04, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

When I talk about freeing mages, I never say do it through violence or rebellion. I would most definitely support a peaceful transition into an integrated mage-nonmage society. However, in terms of what is canon, I can't say I blame the mages for wanting to rebel. Is there a chance things could take a turn for the worse? Most definitely. Is this situation ideal? No, of course not. But considering what the mages had dealt with for hundreds of years prior, I can't say I don't understand why they're doing what they're doing. Rathian Warrior (talk) 23:30, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it's understandable for the mages to do what they're doing now, but that doesn't automatically make them right. After all, we also understand why the peoples of Thedas rebelled against Tevinter, but that didn't necessarily make the world a better place either: Orlais is pretty much just a color- and class-swap of Tevinter - complete with de facto slavery and influence all across the known world through the chantry. And guess what? The elves wound up conquered and oppressed by both world orders. Just saying, I don't think this mage revolution is a good thing at all.

Thing is, the whole mage-templar conflict has become a vicious cycle of revenge and hatred - a peaceful solution won't occur to either party over night, they simply harbor too much hatred toward the other. People all over Thedas lived in fear of the Magisters' rule, so when that rule fell, of course those same people would want to punish and contain people like the magisters to prevent such a thing from happening again. Acting on their hate and fear of the mages, they conceived the circles as their solution. They didn't think long-term, what might happen down the line if they treat other people like this, nor is it reasonable to assume they would. The oppressed often become the oppressors, history's shown that that's a part of human nature. And now, of course, the mages are free to act on their hatred because Anders and Adrian removed all their inhibitions.

If this were a conflict in real life, we would subsequently get this scenario: Even those who want a peaceful solution will probably be tempted to listen to the extremists, who will probably promise to keep them safe, if only they do as they say. And then, we first get attempts to sway commoners or even nobles to their cause, playing the "poor, innocent mage" card. Then comes killing people who don't want to support them, so they can't rat them out or support their enemies - whether directly or indirectly. Then comes sacrificing prisoners or total innocents (maybe even some of the people who helped them to begin with) to power blood magic, and probably mind control of important officials. Then starts "cleaning" of their own ranks, to root out "traitors" or "weaklings", who have begun to question the leaders' actions - or if the first leader was actually reasonable, he/she gets removed and replaced by an extremist. And then, when things are at their worst, they'll demand that the mages summon demons to destroy their enemies, "all for the greater good of mage-kind" - and then we have what happened in Kinloch Hold, with demons, abominations, walking corpses, arcane horrors, revenants and sylvans running amok, but on a larger scale and with no templars or enchanted circle gates to stop their advance. (actually, that would make for an interesting climax - having to fight a huge army of demonic creatures to prevent them from becoming a threat on par with the blight. I just might buy DA3 if this is the case)

The crux is, as the conflict has been established up to this point, it should be impossible to find a viable solution in as short a timespan as a single game. To solve the conflict would require a long, gradual process. So, either we get to engage in a conflict which we can't resolve (meaning another game with "futility" as its theme), or it gets miraculously resolved even if it shouldn't be possible. That's another problem I have with the M-T war - I'm convinced it's VERY difficult to turn that plot into a compelling game. If it was the story of a series of books/comic books, or a tv series, then yeah, absolutely. But not a game. Then again, with both DA2 and ME3, to a degree, it feels like the BW writers would rather be writing books/comics/tv series than games at this point. Just my two cents. Matt-256 (talk) 11:41, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

A little off topic, but I just thought it was funny that you mentioned comic books as an example. The X-Men fandom has been having this exact same discussion for 40-odd years. Marvel's fan forums are actually a really interesting source of pro- and anti-Mage freedom arguments. Kestrella (talk) 12:10, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

Uh, Rathian, before you assume that I haven't read your example, perhaps play the game another time. It is listed soooooo many times that the "Chantry" in Tevinter is a puppet organization. They're no more interested in taming and controlling the Mages than the magisters are - because they're run by the magisters. The reason I don't address your "point", is because it's entirely incorrect. RomeoReject (talk) 20:14, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

You cant kill all the mages, but you can kill all the templars. --188.67.129.138 (talk) 21:32, July 17, 2012 (UTC)Jak Darckner

Now those are words to live by. I like that. --Elshiro (talk) 22:33, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

Romeo, I'm really not sure what you just said refutes my point. You basically just proved what I said: the Circle in Tevinter did nothing to curb the blood magic of the Magisters. And on top of that, you completely neglected my other two points about Tevinter: First, that Tevinter has a rampant history of unashamed blood magic and slavery. Second, they also have a history of mages ruling over nonmages. I fail to see how your statement in any way refutes my points, which means my assertion that Tevinter is a bad example of how free mages would act still stands. And on top of that, you COMPLETELY neglected my points on how the Circle actually is a cause for blood magic, and how the Dalish and Grey Wardens are much better examples of how mages and nonmages can coexist. So again, before you say I'm incorrect, do some reading. Rathian Warrior (talk) 02:48, July 18, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we're misunderstanding eachother, or if you're not thinking about what you post, because your post seems very, very illogical. As I said, of course the "Chantry" in Tevinter has done nothing to curb Bloog Magic - it is a puppet organization there. It is not an example of a typical Chantry, not by a longshot. As for your next two points, you do recognize that provides more evidence against your point, not for it? Tevinter - the only example of Mages being given absolute freedom that we know of - is also a cesspool of slavery and Blood Magic. Sure, it had that historically as well, which just means it is a timeless issue, not just a recent one. I'm not sure how it is a bad example in any way, it is the ONLY example. What else would you use? That's like saying "Don't use Kia/Hyundai as an example of South Korean cars; Ignore it and pretend something else exists instead." Now, as to your Dalish example, we have only seen the Dalish twice. In the first game, Zathrian invoked a demon to curse humans, and ends up causing the deaths/transformations of dozens of innocents. In the second, the second-in-command is an open blood-mage, who's dealings with demons end up killing her superior. FANTASTIC examples to use, yes. And they Grey Wardens? Ignoring the PC, the only garaunteed Warden Mage we meet summons a small army of demons and experiments on humans in his spare time. Again, brilliant example of peaceful co-existence. Even if we ignore those examples and how awful they look, the simple fact remains that even if 99% of Mages would play nice with everyone, the 1% who might not could cause abhorrent levels of damage. RomeoReject (talk) 03:02, July 18, 2012 (UTC)

So, you're correct in saying we're not understanding each other. Unfortunately, I must say the misunderstanding is on your end. So I'll repeat myself. First and foremost, the Circles DO NOT WORK! Whether in Nevarra, Antiva, Tevinter, wherever, the Circles of Magi do not do what they intend: keep mages and nonmages safe from bloodmagic. This is irrefutable due to evidence from the games, books, comics, and Mr. Gaider himself.

Second, based on what we know of mages, MOST MAGES DO NOT SEEK TO RULE OVER NON MAGES. The ONLY exception to this rule is the Tevinter Imperium. That is to say, nowhere outside of the Tevinter Imperium do mages seek to rule over non mages. So saying the Tevinter Imperium is a good example of how free mages would act is just dumb, because mages in Tevinter are extremely atypical of the rest of Thedas. Point of fact, even mages are oppressed in Tevinter by the Magisters. So the problem in Tevinter really isn't one of mages vs. nonmages, it's a political matter. And, unfortunately, those with the most power currently happen to be mages. As I've repeated before, nowhere else in Thedas would mages seek to have political power over their nonmage compatriots, due to a difference of culture and the influence of the Chantry, Templars, and current political structures. Once again, this is all supported by ingame evidence, books, and Mr. Gaider himself.

As to Merril, she actually supports my argument. Once the Dalish discovered she was a blood mage, she was ostracized and cast out of her clan. So that shows how tolerant they are of "bad" forms of magic. As for Zathrian, here's a quote from an earlier thread:

Actually you're wrong about Avernus or Zathrian disproving my point about mages in Thedas. As far as Zathrian is concerned, he did what he did because of the abuse of humans (you couldn't tell me you wouldn't want revenge for your family in that situation) and so it's not that surprising that he snapped. Zathrian actually supports my argument that treating mages as part of the community will be beneficial to everyone. I'm not saying the humans killed/tortured his son and raped his daughter because Zathrian was a mage, but if they had not done so, thus perpetuating the cycle of hatred against the elves, then he would not have struck out at them. Thus, my point is proven. Thank you for bringing him up.

As for Avernus, you can't single him out without looking at the broader picture. All of the Fereldan Grey Wardens were plotting against King Arland, which went directly against their stated mandate of political neutrality. Avernus was not a rogue mage acting on his own, he had the express consent, no, the orders of his superiors to do whatever it took to win. Thus, he was not a rogue mage abusing his powers either. He was part of a group of seditious men and women trying to overthrow a monarch. As for the demon invasion, that supports my point as well. If King Arland's men had been properly schooled about the dangers of magic, they would have recognized the issue immediately and called upon the Circle to do something about it. Thus you've helped me prove, in several different ways, how right I am about freeing the mages. Not only will the number of abominations and other abuses decrease, but educating the general population about the harms and benefits of magic will go a very long way towards ensuring the safety of everyone. And I never said mages would be unsupervised, you're twisting my words. They should be supervised same as everyone: expected to adhere to the laws and norms of society. Having Templars as part of a city's guard force, or training guards in anti-magical combat, or having the Templars (or mages themselves) as a standing force that reports on and solves magical issues is perfectly acceptable, and even somewhat encouraged.

In closing, I must once again repeat: lrn2rread.Rathian Warrior (talk) 05:00, July 18, 2012 (UTC)

I was about to write out a full-length reply, but then questioned what the point of discussing something with someone who can honestly say Avernus was "only following orders" (Even after everyone was dead? Still following orders, huh?) and Zathrian invoking a curse, killing dozens, and then refusing to fix the situation is a clear example of "How Mages being part of the community helps everyone." Because, as we all know, people in a community never wrong eachother, thus an out-of-control Mage like Zathrian creating Werewolves IN A DENSE POPULATION would, of course, be beneficial.

I can only assume you're trolling at this point. RomeoReject (talk) 21:25, July 18, 2012 (UTC)

Avernus summoning the demons was him following orders, we actively see Sofia telling him to. Him torturing Wardens, yeah, that was him being his psychopathic self, but let's be honest here, even if he wasn't a mage Avernus would've been a serial killer in the name of science and alchemy.

What Rathian is trying to say regarding Zathrian is that when people are treated fairly and equally, they as a general rule will not turn on their fellow community members. You know this. You trust in this every time you leave your house and are surrounded by other people. The comparison Rathian is making is that if elves were treated equally, Zathrian would never have been in a position where he felt the need to cast that curse. By extension, if mages were treated equally, they wouldn't feel the need to turn to demons and killing. And yes, even in fully equal communities there's the occasional rotten apple. However the chance of a good person doing bad things is considerably lower if they're treated fairly throughout their life. Kestrella (talk) 07:48, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

Zathrian killing people, although with magic, does not suggest that its the fault of him being a mage. There are plenty of murderers in Thedas who do not need a single bit of magic to commit their crimes. Neither Zathrian nor Avernus were abominations. If abominations are the reason that mages need to be held captive, then it isn't seen in these instances. --Elshiro (talk) 23:33, July 18, 2012 (UTC)

To use Tevinter in the topic makes it funny, seeing how they never been oppressed before. We are talking about those in the circle of magi. Would it not be better to leave Tevinter out of this topic? Seeing how the Tevinter magi are free, not to mention that the chantry is also ruled by mages in Tevinter (the black divine). 203.45.127.20 (talk) 00:25, July 19, 2012 (UTC)Darkside

Kestrella and Elshiro, your posts made my day :D Rathian Warrior (talk) 17:59, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

Lolz! We already know where this discussion is going to go after that Mages vs Templars thread. The most plausable views were along the lines of mages governing themselves and being offered more freedoms as opposed to being given total freedom or remain under chantry control. As for what to do with the templars, if I recall, people were fairly divided... Use them in the same way Tevinter does? I imagine that they are like S.W.A.T for mages i.e. specialist anti mage forces who take down mages who have gone too far. Perhaps they should have somewhat higher standards than they had to have in Tevinter due to the culture of megalomania?

Anyway, another interesting suggestion was using the chantry to educate the populous about magic in a manner which is not tainted by prejudice in order to help create an understanding environment for mages. This would serve as a protective factor against possession and reduce the likelihood of demonic possession occuring. Additionally, Rathian Warrior mentioned something about moving mages away from the circle since such areas typically have tears in the fade which would serve as a risk factor for mage possesion.

People attacked the pro mages ideas but their arguments usually consisted of poorly thought out emotional outbursts and were ultimately unsuccessful in criticising them or providing a better alternative of an antimage nature. @RomeoReject, if you continue to argue against a pro mage stance the I wish you and any others who may join you, good luck. Ccg08 (talk) 18:39, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

You make it sound like I'm anti-mage. I'm not. ;)

Some of my favourite characters (See: Merrill, Valenna, Morrigan) were mages, and all three were Apostates at that. However, regardless of how I feel about a small group, that doesn't permit me to ignore the larger whole. When an average citizen goes nuts and tries to kill people, we have some guy with a knife or sword - not much of a threat to a community as a whole. When a Mage goes nuts and tries to kill people, we have a being who can call forth demons, control minds, abuse the elements, etc - much more of a threat. Going back to my example wth Zathrian, you mentioned his summoning of the Werewolves is not his fault. What if Zathrian had been a Rogue, or a Warrior? He'd have either hired assassins/mercenaries (Unlikely, being Dalish) or gone through and assassinated/attacked them himself. And that would've been the end of it. Instead, he curses them with lycanism and instead, dozens of innocent people get caught in the crossfire. Again, I find this to be evidence that while it is extremely unfortunate, the very existence of Mages is a danger. The Chantry is necessary to essentially provide a counter-point; Something that has a chance at actually taking on the few bad Mages and winning. I'm not saying psychopaths like Meredith are justified, but the Chantry as a whole makes complete sense. RomeoReject (talk) 22:25, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

@RomeoReject, my apologies for not being clear. By antimage, I mean that you are not arguing for a greater degree of freedom for mages or a more favourable change for mages in the status quo.

What Zathrian did was wrong, but he could have just as easily assassinated the bandits as a mage and it would have been over quickly eg. summon a storm of the century on their camp or something. I say this to point out that it is not unavoidable for a mage to cause a curse which lasts for generations and harms others etc.

I will expand on this point by pointing out that it was Zathrian's position of power coupled with his bitter and vengefulness which resulted in what transpired. What if the same thing happened to a nonmage Zathrian? Being a bitter, vengeful elven (nonmage) keeper in control of a small army of expert archers, he COULD have the bandits assassinated quickly ending things but since Zathrian is bitter and vengeful he would probably additionally do something like send scouting/ambushing teams out to kill any humans they encountered. Perhaps he would use Dalish propaganda to convince his people that humans are even MORE evil and dangerous than they already believe them to be. In truth though, he would be killing them as punishment for what those bandits did. You may even say "But this example requires a nonmage in a position in power, which is rare. ALL mages are in such a position which means any decent mage could have the power to do exactly what Zathrian did". To this possible response, I would like to point out that the knowledge required for the spell was passed to him as keeper (his position of power). Like in my nonmage example, his position of power together with this bitter and vengeful personality lead to what had transpired.

So how do you think a chantry controlled circle would be more advantageous over a mage controlled circle? Ccg08 (talk) 08:55, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Mages will always be slaves to Templars, mwahahahahahh So give them freedom? 1. They are to stupid to control their own powers or 2. They use their powers for Maleficarum I only saw crazy mages in the entire Dragon Age game, just like Anders. He was a nice dude in Awakening and baaaam hes a abomination in DAII. So name me exactly 1 mage that isnt crazy. Jowan? nope he used bloodmagic to get free from the circle and later he gets a good boy? nah Wynne? shes maybe a good person but she also have a ghost in herself. shes exactly a dead person who tricked out her death with a ghost. and the important part: Morrigan? She is a witch of the wilds and daughter of flemeth.. shes a cool character but she speaks the truth about circle mages. and i no wonder when after killing finally flemeth Morrigan takes flemeth's part in future DA games and in future games the protagonist must to kill her. and the witches of the wilds arent good believe me.. and she escaped with that god child, no one knows what will happen to him/her. MEVLUT COUSLAND (talk) 20 July 2012, 08:00 (UTC)

Pssht screw the oppressors :P You are quite the pessimist ay? Wynne and Bethany. Wynne didn't force the spirit to keep her alive, it decided to on it's own. Ccg08 (talk) 08:55, July 20, 2012 (UTC)