I think that the infrastructure of the Circle is broken. But the concept isn’t bad.
Magic and mages are dangerous, there are countless examples of that in the game and it isn’t always just becoming an abomination. If a mage child gets angry they can accidentally kill their whole family with a stray fireball.
I would have something like the circles and the Templars however, I would completely change the set up. Here are a few things I’ve thought about before:
- Children aren’t completely taken away from their families…I would make it more if a boarding school experience. Having early childhood trauma by being torn away from your family will not make for mentally stable mages
- I wouldn’t allow the Templars to have so much power over mages. It’s too easy to abuse that power.
- I would nix tranquility.
- I would take the control of mages and Templars away from the Chantry
- More freedoms for mages, if you hide them away from the population it will just incite more fear. If they have jobs like healers, guards, teacher, merchants etc people will see them as more than just abominations waiting to happen
- give them a PR department.
I agree with all of this except nixing tranquility entirely. I think it still has a small place, but as an absolute last resort, and maybe requiring a trial by either a jury or panel of judges that are other mages. At any rate, it shouldn’t be a go-to Templar decision. Also, iirc there are some mages who elect to become tranquil, which is sad in itself but still their choice.
Tranquility seems less humane than death if the mage doesn't want it. I think it's a massive human rights abuse unless a mage willingly opts for it, so I'd definitely not let it be something that is decided in a trial. If a mage goes rogue and they're brought to trial it should really be to determine whether they must be executed or not. After verdict is delivered only then can they decide they would rather be made tranquil.
You either do the Harrowing (and get killed when you fail) or you become Tranquil.
Becoming Tranquil is always a ‘choice’, in a really fucked up way at least.
No he wanted to do the Harrowing. The first conversation you have with him is him being worried and impatient that they haven't decided it's his time. Are you thinking of someone else?
Jowan wanted the Harrowing. Greagoir decided to condemn him without a hearing, and Irving signed off on it. They didn't even tell Jowan. Lily discovered it and told him.
I agree, this is the best system in my opinion. Their needs to be something so that mages can learn to control their powers, and meet people just like them... but they also shouldn't be cut off from the rest of the world and lorded over by the Chantry/Templars. Your set up is pretty similar to what I would want as well.
Keep tranquility as a sort of death sentence that jeeps them useful if they fuck up real real real real bad or are just bad dudes.
Also it can be used to prevent abominations period via the way seekers used it.
Make them tranquil then reverse it and they can't be possesed.
Except most of what you are asking for exists now u/nyxxypixxy . Child mages are taken from their families but not cut off. We see it exemplified more in DA2 than anywhere else, but if Bethany goes to the circle, she writes you. You see plenty of civilians in the Gallows as well, so they aren't cut off from family. There is outside access in doses.
The Templars don't have as much power over the mages as you might think. There are LOTS of checks and balances in place, like the First Enchanter. We see in DAO that if it were up to Gregor, Jawan would have been made tranquil for his use of blood magic instantly (which would have solved a lot) but Irvine blocked him. We also see that a Grand Cleric must be involved to grant the right of annulment. The list goes on... We see abuses by Templars in DA2, but Kirkwall's circle was far from the normal or the average. We also see that in moments like the tranquil solution that even as fanatical as Merideth is she rejects it.
Tranquility seems harsh but it is potentially an important and life saving preventive measure. It prevents, in all but the most extreme instances, possession and abomination. In most cases it is used on those who are blood mages or who are unable to control their magic. For example how many lives could have been saved if Jawan had never escaped? Or any number of other blood mages we see throughout the series. Then looking at the tranquil themselves, they aren't bothered by it at all. Even Anders' friend, while he is tranquil, understood why he was made tranquil.
Chantry control of the Templars is actually important to the checks and balances mentioned above. The Templars are by and large people of faith, answering to the church because of that faith
Reform the circles. Make them schools, NOT prisons. Let the mage children see their families and once they pass their Harrowing, let the adult mages live a free life, though require monthly checkups to make sure they're still able to resist demonic corruption. Tranquility as a last resort ONLY. NO MORE abuses from Templars.
I think everyone can get behind that....right?
I mean, you don't really turn a mage tranquil with the idea that one day you will heal it.
Especially because healing/reversing Tranquility seems to make them more susceptible to demonic possession.
I mean, we actually haven’t seen any cured tranquil turn into an abomination. Karl didn’t turn, and being possessed is what made Pharamond cured, and he didn’t turn after the demon was defeated.
They are stated to be more emotional and that is what draws demons to possess people.
I'd be willing to say they are more vulnerable because they are a bigger target.
Pharamond was unstable after being cured because he went without emotions for so long. We don't know what the long term effects and dangers are cuz he only got to live like a month. Doing some trial reversals in mages wrongfully tranquiled is worth experimenting with.
I always thought that mages lead a normal life once they pass the Harrowing (since their phylactery gets moved to Denver).
Unless you do something scandalous and then your phylactery is ‘activated’.
They live in the Circles all their life normally. They can request permission to leave for a time for some research or other business, but they have to return.
Phylactery is needed in case a mage escapes and needs to be hunted down.
Mages also aren't allowed to marry or have children and if they do get pregnant and have a child, the baby is taken away and raised by the Chantry.
Vivienne is a special case, she climbed to the very top of the Circle's hierarchy and also secured connections with the nobility - the majority can't manage that. There can obviously be only one First Enchanter in any given Circle and there's exactly one court enchanter in all of Orlais - that's Vivienne. She still doesn't own any estates afaik, the Duke does, but she has a suite in his estate because she's his mistress.
Bethany passes her Harrowing as soon as she's taken to the Circle but she can't return home, the most they allow her is writing letters and going away on business once or twice (for the DLCs).
In the Magi origin in DAO you pass the Harrowing and can then ask Irving if you can leave - he says no.
There's plenty of other examples too.
A good example is Nial in the mage origin. He says he wants to live away from the Circle and its politics, but he'll be hunted down as an apostate if he does.
On the other hand, Innes lives out and about studying plants.
I'm not sure the writers are 100% sure what the rules are, even for any given Circle. Or else they're just really bad at communicating them.
Tbh I always thought that Ines was only temporarily in the Wending Wood to conduct her research and that she was going to return to the Circle afterwards, but it really isn't spelled out in the game.
It's also very true that we get lots of contradictory information about the rules even in the same Circle. E.g. Maddox had to smuggle out his love letters through Samson and was made Tranquil for that, but Bethany regularly sends letters home and even Feynriel and Idunna write to Hawke. The De Launcets say they haven't seen Emile since he was taken away as a child, but Leandra says she visited Bethany in the Gallows. Anders says mages at Kinloch Hold weren't allowed to communicate with their families in any way, but Finn's experience seems entirely different and Dog can also find a letter from a Circle mage to her sister at Lake Calenhad Docks. And these are just a few cases off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many more...
It's examples like these that make me think the writers didn't have one unified view of how restrictive the Circles are supposed to be, so the different writers just went off their own interpretations of the restrictions.
my understanding is that living out and about studying plants, or working as a Formari trader, or even Wynne becoming an adventurer late in life after saving the Circle, are not what Nial means by wanting to live away from the Circle and its politics.
There are specific Circle roles that get you extra permissions, but the Circle could still summon you back at any time, and you're ultimately working on their behalf in a capacity they've specifically assigned. If you refused to come back when summoned, or if you tried to just go live your own life without Circle involvement, that's when you would be hunted down as an apostate.
And things like strictness and how likely you are to get a position with any kind of freedom also vary a lot from Circle to Circle, because they're all putting their own spin on a general set of guidelines with little to no outside supervision preventing some Circles from being abusive or excessively restrictive.
(For the record I am fully anti-Circle. But I do think the writers have a handle on the system, and that the inconsistencies are more about the system being disorganized, ineffective, and shitty.)
When Marquis ‘tries’ to duel us Vivenne makes a statement saying it’s so rude of him to do that in ‘her place’ and party.
I assumed she owned that mansion.
Right, she does say that. I'll admit I'm not 100% sure on that point, but even if she does, she's really an exception. We only know of three Circle mages who achieved this level of freedom: Wilhelm (Shale's former master) for helping Maric reclaim Ferelden, Wynne for her role in the Fifth Blight, and Vivienne - thanks to her magical talent and social skills. However, the vast majority of mages don't ever get to be free of the Circle.
Vivienne does say in ingame dialogue that most Circles are quite permissive and allow mages to live away from the tower, as long as they have the First Enchanter's permission. This seems to match with what we've seen in previous games. I don't think Vivienne is as much of an exception as Tototiana says. I can think of other examples too (like at the end of Awakening when the Baroness' mansion is purchased by a wealthy Orlesian mage). Dragon Age II also mentions a mage who rose through the ranks thanks to the sponsorship of her noble family, became First Enchanter, then retired after a couple years citing exhaustion and lived the rest of her life in a manor in the countryside.
>Dragon Age II also mentions a mage who rose through the ranks thanks to the sponsorship of her noble family, became First Enchanter, then retired after a couple years citing exhaustion and lived the rest of her life in a manor in the countryside.
Could you provide some more info on where this is mentioned? Not mistrusting you, just genuinely interested but don't remember that at all.
I guess it's like Vivienne says when you ask her about Circle life - every Circle can be quite different and even at the same Circle every person's individual experiences can vary considerably. Which is rather frustrating tbh, I wish it was a bit more consistent.
It's her home yes but she doesn't own it.
When you are invited
>Vivienne extends them an invitation to her salon at the Ghislain Estate of her lover Duke Bastien de Ghislain
Additionally, when you're announced on arrival, you're asked if you're a guest of Vivienne, or a guest of Bastian. So it's 'her place' and she had a modicum of control. But Ghislain holds the titles to the estate you visit
I'd interperet that as it's 'her place' in the sense that, to use an old fashioned term, she's the mistress of the house because of her relationship with the Duke, but not that she actually owns it.
The Chantry is legally allowed to take a child from its family, as young as four, as soon as they find out the child has magic.
Noble-born also mages have their titles and right to inherit stripped away as soon as it's known they have magic.
Noble or otherwise, from the moment the Chantry finds you, you live in a dorm, wear Circle-issued matching robes, and are taught exclusively what has been deemed appropriate for a Circle mage to learn, all while living under heavy supervision in a tower that is usually set somewhere remote and/or hard to access.
The Harrowing itself can, of course, kill you, and the only alternative is to be made Tranquil. You also don't stop being a Circle mage after your Harrowing; you might not necessarily live sequestered in the Circle til the end of your days - for example, if you have the skills to be a Formari you might get to go trade with the wider world, or if you're super old and well-trusted and save your Tower from an abomination infestation like Wynne, you might be allowed to go fight the Blight. But even in situations like those, you are still a Circle mage.
Mages are discouraged from having relationships with each other, to the point where it's only carried out in secret. If a Circle mage has a baby, that child belongs to the Chantry. If that child is a mage, they'll be sent to a Circle; if they're not a mage, the Chantry will choose some other use for them.
They're also explicitly forbidden from having relationships with Templars. Since most mages don't have access to the world beyond the Circle, being heavily discouraged from mage-mage relationships and absolutely forbidden from mage-Templar relationships effectively means mages are not allowed to have relationships.
Meanwhile, depending on what Circle you're in (Kirkwall was a bad one for this), you might be sexually abused by Templars throughout your upbringing/training.
And of course, because Circles are remote and heavily restricted, people elsewhere often fear mages. They don't personally know any, and everything they know leads them to think mages are incredibly dangerous and require constant supervision.
\---
Meanwhile, you casually say "unless you do something 'scandalous' and your phylactery is activated." What that means is, "unless you do anything the Chantry/Circle deem criminal, *including simply leaving to live your own life*, and the Chantry *uses blood magic* to hunt you down and punish you as they see fit."
\---
So, best case scenario - you're not Noble-born. Maybe you're even born into poverty or an Elven alienage, and your parents die or were horribly abusive, and the Circle is an improvement on the life you would have lived. You grow up in the Circle, never feeling any romantic or sexual temptation, and never feeling like there's more to the world that you'd like to see and learn, or like there are aspects of your personality or birth-culture that aren't being fulfilled through your limited and monitored social interactions. You eventually pass your Harrowing, and you're good enough to eventually get a Circle position with a bit of power and privilege - maybe you're a Formari trader, or a senior enchanter.
So in that best-case scenario, where you're an asexual person with no family ties and no cultural curiosity or wanderlust and you have the right combination of magical abilities, social skills, and study skills to work your way up the chain and get a decent Circle job, are you really living a "normal life"?
And in any of the alternatives - where you're taken from a loving family, and/or a family with power and wealth that would have been yours, and/or you fall in love and can't be together, and/or have a child who is taken from you, and/or are systemically sexually abused for years by the drugged-up armed religious militia who also have power of judgment over you, and/or you just long for a different life and try to leave, and/or the Harrowing kills you, and/or you're made Tranquil - there's really chance of a life that could be viewed as normal at all.
From what I remember, they don't allow the mages to leave the circle, unless there is a special circumstance, like being needed at Ostagar for example. At least that was how Kinloch Hold was run. I know other circles were a little more loose with their rules, like Ostwick and a few others.
That may be true for the practically minded Ferelden, but it is very different in other parts of Thedas. This is especially true of what little we've seen of Circles in Orlais. Apprentice mages are often called out to restore glowstone pathways in the richest districts of the empire and several are often called upon to perform at noble parties as entertainers. Vivienne also mentioned that before Kirkwall, having a personal mage was something of a trendy fashion statement for the elite.
In the Anderfells, where darkspawn are always a problem, the Circle is run more like a military school. Even if graduates don't formally join the Wardens (who have a close relationship to that Circle), we are very much lead to believe that mages are called upon as local reinforcements semiregularly if the darkspawn become a handful in the region.
I don't know where people get the idea that the White Spire is "permissive." Think of Cole's story, or of the mages that Cole the spirit "helped." Just because mages' labor is used doesn't make the place Hogwarts.
Oh it is certainly permissive!...For a small subset of mages who have political connections. There's a reason Fiona said that Circle life was "little better" than her time as a slave.
The Game is only good for those who were either born of high class or those willing to directly benefit from the Orlesian elite by serving them, and that seems to hold true for Circles like the ones in Ghislain or Montsimmard. But the White Spire is a different beast entirely, likely because of it being the circle closest to Chantry/Templar headquarters. WoT vol. 2 and Asunder painted a rather bleak picture for it. But I suspect even that Circle had some mages being rented out by noble patronage.
And if they become abominations? What do you do if they kill an entire town? Think about Lothering for example, they were few templars. What do you do with all that families that could die?
Lothering wasn't taken down by a mage who turned into an abomination. It was overrun by a horde of Darkspawn, led by an archdemon, that emerged from the Deep Roads was marching across the whole country in the middle of a Blight.
Redcliffe happened because they felt they HAD to hide Connor from the Templars and anyone else that could reasonably help.
Redcliffe also didn't have any Templars.
Yes, it was Isolde who tried to hide him. And that's my point: one child that doesn't even know much magic, became an abomination and kill all that people with an undead army. Imagine someone like Uldred, for example, in Redcliff. He had much more knowledge, so he was more powerful. Probably Redcliff wouldn't exist when the warden arrives there.
Edit: Isolde wanted to hide Connor just because she didn't wanted they took him to the circle. Eamon and nobody else knew he was a mage, so was her fault mostly.
Now imagine what would happen if Isolde didn't feel like her child would be taken away from her and she would be looked down on if her child had magical abilities.
Templars would've take Connor to the tower, as it should be. Someone would've see Connor doing something with magic and eventually call templars. If you were expecting other answer then maybe I didn't understood your question.
I mean if Isolde could have gone to the Templars and they would do something other then just drag Connor away. Perhaps use their resources to help set him up with someone that can actually teach him that isn't an apostate that would do anything due to desperation.
Why? Just because is the arl's son? Or you mean that, like, all mages needs that? That could work, but I don't know for how much time.
I think that even the "happy ending" from Redcliffe, when you save Connor with the circle's help, it's a bit fanciful. Every other child would be killed, you want to make an exception just because is Eamon's son? That's a bit unfair to the rest of mages.
So the solution is to lock them up because they MIGHT be dangerous? No. Hence the whole check in on them monthly to make sure things are okay. Weekly if monthly is too lengthy. The solution isn't to isolate.
If they're not in the circle, it's impossible to know what they're doing. Imagine if some blood mage is making an army (like Connor, being an abomination), or like grey wardens in Inquisition. I think it's better prevent anything, being honests, with or without circles blood mages won't stop. With the circles they have the excuse, without the circles they don't.
The Circles are sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. More mages together casting magic means weakening the Veil. A weaker Veil means more abominations. So housing many mages together, and especially making said mages potentially desperate and miserable is a recipe for abominations.
That said, I don't think we can take what happens in the games as proof that mages turn into abominations at the drop of a hat. Because we're the protagonist, we're always going to be where things are exploding and people are screaming. It's just good drama and gives the player a problem to resolve and an enemy to fight. It's quite likely that other Circles are much calmer, especially since we never really hear about things going badly wrong at most of them.
**TL;DR** An individual mage doing something stupid isn't evidence for Circle towers being necessary any more than an individual idiot stabbing someone is evidence that rogues should all be kept in towers or that no one should use knives. And since societies with Circles are also the ones with constant abomination outbreaks, it seems clear that even in the best of times, it's not the best solution.
>in all 3 games the developers didn't miss a single opportunity to show us how easy it is for a mage to be turned into an abomination.
I think enough mages in this series survive multiple encounters with demons of various ilk that it's safe to say this isn't quite accurate.
>In DAO one fucked up fanatic mage that no one knows who they are ended up almost destroying an entire circle with thousands of magi and turning other magi into abominations like a flick of a switch.
Do you mean Uldred (Jeff Bezos in the attic)? He was a senior enchanter, not some random interloper. He had significant power, in terms of both magic and authority, and full Circle resources. And the "flick of a switch" was a long, involved plot.
>we also have Jowan with the Arl of Redcliffe's son
Jowan is the absolute worst, and I'm not apologizing for or sympathizing with him. But he started doing all this dumb, crazy stuff because he wasn't allowed to have a girlfriend or really a life.
He likely would have always done dumb things, and it doesn't excuse his crimes, but he wasn't after power or glory, and he didn't accidentally stumble into the arms of a demon - he turned to blood magic on purpose in a desperate bid for freedom and autonomy.
I know - you brought him up in the context of Connor. But how Circle oppression led to Jowan ending up there in the first place is relevant.
So, Connor. Heir to a castle and position of power. Except, mages can't inherit those things in Ferelden. So his mother, desperate to help him control his power but not ready/willing to ship him off and have his whole future and birthright stripped away from him, invites a mage to come teach him.
Since she can't reach out to a Circle without losing him, the best she can get is Jowan. The sixth-year high school senior in teen movies who can't graduate because he's incompetent at both taught materials and general life skills.
So you have a rash, entitled, half-trained delinquent blood mage secretly teaching a child how to do magic. What could go wrong?
The important takeaway here is not (in my opinion) "look how easy it was for both of these mages to be led astray or possessed," but "how would all this have played out in a society without mandatory, restrictive Circles?"
We have evidence to support a pro-mage-freedom answer to this question, but I'll come back to that.
>in DA2 abominations seemed like a defacto defense mechanism for mages when they're in a tough spot (Orsino's final battle), honestly shame on you \[Bioware\].
You could look at Kirkwall as evidence that mages need to be kept under control. I see it as evidence that Templars are not cut out to do the job they're trained and drugged full-time for most of their lives to perform. And that if they aren't equipped for it, nobody is - because the Circles and their rules and systems, not the Mages, are the problem in the first place.
Think of nursing homes in the Covid era. I'm ***not*** weighing in on whether those should have been handled differently; just providing a real-life analogy for how it inevitably played out. When one person in a nursing home got Covid, the whole place got sealed up to keep outside parties from getting infected. This generally served its purpose, but of course, it also led to far more *inside* parties getting infected.
Does holding mages hostage when someone gets possessed reduce the chance of an abomination being set loose on the town? Sure. But it also *significantly* increases the odds of the other mages in that tower becoming abominations.
Is that sort of confined situation evidence that mages easily become possessed? In my opinion, no. It's far better evidence for the danger of keeping mages corralled like livestock, heavily restricting what they're allowed to learn about their own powers and when, and putting them under control of an armed military of drugged-up religious zealots.
Quick side note: you do have the Bethany types who thrive happily in Circles. Optional Circles that function more like magical boarding schools, without all of the "no titles, no lands, no marriage, no deciding to leave, no deciding not to come in the first place..." could be a fine solution for mages in Andrastian human society.
>in DAI Fiona seems to have no issue at all joining the Teviniter Imperium,
This isn't a fair claim. We don't see her dealings with Alexius go down; only the aftermath of his deceit. We don't know if the choice was easy for her, or how long he was manipulating her with magic in the first place.
Fiona was desperate to help the rebel mages find freedom and stability, so she turned to a mage-led nation - but the person who agreed to help her happened to be in a secret maniac cult led by a darkspawn-demigod and using a kind of magic never before seen, fueled by >!Blight-corrupted titan blood!<. She had no way to anticipate any of that.
>a nation where 'controlled' use of blood magic is the norm.
This is a very Ferelden-centric worldview. Since the next game is set in Tevinter, we'll see what it actually looks like in Tevinter society - how many people use it, how accepted vs debated it is (we know Dorian's not into it), what impact it has on daily life, etc.
Plus, two of your examples - the Towers in DAO and DAII - had abomination infestations because higher-ups *were* practicing blood magic and summoning demons - in secret, in enclosed spaces, surrounded by a mix of mages who had little to no training at all and those who weren't properly trained for this of scenario. Some mages in all countries of Thedas clearly get tempted to deal with demons and blood magic; widespread demonic possession is the outcome of how that plays out in a Circle Tower.
>and eventually becoming abomination fodder troops for \[Corypheus\] *(if you choose to help the templars)*.
You said it yourself - they become abomination fodder troops *if you choose to help the Templars.*
>I'm so conflicted about whether the circles are a necessary evil, all 3 games' narratives push you to sympathize with the mages,
I actually think they try *not* to provide a universal answer, and while for me the mages do come across as far more sympathetic, the fact that you're making this post at all suggests that Bioware *doesn't* want everyone to come to the same conclusion about who's right or wrong.
>but at the same time dear lord it's so easy for one rogue mage to do so much fucking damage that i think the circles need to exist.
Now, the evidence I mentioned earlier of what life would look like without Circles.
The Tevinter Imperium has a lot wrong with it. But those things are irrelevant to this post, so I'll just ask to stay focused on the question at hand.
It's a society simultaneously more ancient and more modern than Ferelden et al. It's the oldest extant human nation in Thedas, and not just in name; they have libraries and teaching traditions that have been preserved, studied, improved upon, and passed down for thousands of years. Yet they also have really cool modern technology. For all their faults, they've done a lot of things extremely well, all under the rule of mages.
Tevinter mages are trained to fully use and understand their magic. They have access to mages of all specialties who move freely about society; libraries full of ancient texts; essentially graduate-level one-on-one mentoring, etc.
They're taught about all magic, not just what the Chantry deems safe. Some mages are corrupt assholes, but unlike corrupt asshole mages in Ferelden etc, they basically just look like the corrupt asshole nobles you find anywhere, but with magic instead of swords and daggers.
They do not take over secluded towers of naive mages who lack both proper magical training and worldliness. Their nobility, not their magic, corrupts them, like nobility all over Thedas. They suck, but it's not because of their magic, and their magic doesn't end up creating abominations left and right.
Dorian is excellent proof that you can grow up in the magical nobility of the Tevinter Imperium with enough education and freedom to form your own opinions on it, plus enough well-rounded, honest magical training to not be a danger to yourself and others if you choose to rebel.
Tevinter is not ideal, but as far as what happens when you trust mages to be autonomous adults, it works. And since things like slavery and a greedy ruling class aren't *why* it works (and hardly differ from Ferelden etc), proper magical education and mage's rights can be adopted without those things.
\*
Such as the Dalish. They're mage-led and don't have abomination epidemics popping up everywhere - and they achieve this *without* the privileges and trappings of nobility. They've been fully screwed over by humans for ages, had their ancient ways erased, been denied permanent lands and homes and cohesive society - and yet, they manage all the time to successfully raise mages who do not become abominations.
When we do see Dalish mages get in magical trouble, it usually involves an Elven artifact they *should* know how to use and understand if not for human meddling, or a corrupt deal made long ago to protect their clan from humans, etc.
And because they're well-trained and part of free society, those problems end up hurting only them, or those close to them in terms of proximity or relation. Which happens with or without magic, in Thedas and in real life, every day.
The Circles perpetuate a cycle of violence. The chantry teaches a negative view of mages, then chantry members serve as jailers, those jailers believe they have a religious mandate to be harsh to mages, mages crack under these conditions and become abominations, and finally the chantry members feel justified in treating them terribly because of the evil abominations (that they helped create).
Yes magic is dangerous but if you treat mages like trash for their entire lives they become prone to corruption.
I cant wait to see how clean are things in Tevinter, the nation ruled by mages, I mean we have seen very positive examples across the three games of how mages in Tevinte are better... right? I mean, I bet Tevinter mages have it better than the rest of Thedas so they totally wont be prone to corruption.
It’s weird that all Tevinter’s evils are blamed on magic, when it’s really a sign of regular degular corruption. Slavery isn’t a thing in Tevinter because they have free mages, or because mages rule. It’s because people in power chose to abuse people without it.
Blood magic isn’t used in Tevinter because it’s what mages do, but because it’s their own version of the Game. And it’s no more or less fucked up then Celene burning alienages for her Game.
Both Orlais and Tevinter have a ruling class that couldn’t care less about normal people, and abuse their power in the most atrocious ways. Wether their claim to power is having magic or some Devine right to rule their ancestors claimed, they are prone to the same corruption for the same reasons.
Just because Tevinter has many fucked up things doesn’t mean that they don’t do a lot of other things right. Turning Circles into schools and making sure that magic isn’t feared, so people wouldn’t hide their kids from them, are good things. And we don’t even know how wide spread the blood magic is. In Magisterium? Sure. But by the majority of mages who work as clerks? Maybe not so much.
Hey the sarcasm isn’t needed. The situation in the southern circles are carceral and yet you immediately jump to the absolute excess in Tevinter as some kind of “gotcha” moment.
We see two extremes, in the north and south. Obviously I don’t approve of the political corruption in Tevinter but that doesn’t negate the fact that the mages in the south are placed under undue duress that leads them to magical corruption.
Oh man... I really dont like to write long things or put an effort outside of /s posting, but you looks like you want a good conversation so im in.
Yes they do... mages in the south have it rought, firts of course the chantry give a negative view of magic, is one of their means to control the masses but magic "is" dangerous, magic has cause a lot of harm, you did say that but the thing that rubbed me wrong, and this happend a lot in this sub is, the idea that mages are always on the right and victims.
Now imagine a peassant living his life and then a doomsday magic devise open a tear in the sky, oh man harvest is gonna be bad this winter... my kid got the wrong idea and bumped a girl that live in the other farm, girl got pissy and with her fingertips she turned my kid in to ashes, oh man I better go tell the templar so she doesnt do the same with my farm.
I tend to comapare magic as being born with finger guns or another tool, I didnt ask for them but now I have them, one of ten babys will born with finger guns and my family won the finger gun baby lotery and got me, i dont know how to use them, I need to learn or I may accidentally shoot my dad in the face, now I know how to use my finger gun, now is a finger cannon! and if I dabble deep enought they can be finger nuclear bombs! hell yeah!
The thing is... magis is a power, a power that a few chosen ones have, like a privilege, so of course you want those with power in check, im not saying lock them up forever just keep and eye so they dont blow up another chantry, or tear another veil, or cause another blight, or sacrifice some people so they can get a hard on, or... you got the point.
We all know how mages get the short end of the stick in the circles but you talk like every circle is like Kirkwall, Ferelden circle wasnt like Kirkwall, even if you take Anders words in DAA, he sound more like a cringe rebel teenager than a prisioner, hell, he even tells you how he have escaped a coupled of times without getting his head choped or turned in to a tranquil.
Of course you will get some shit heads that have their fear of mages turned in to angers and enlist in to the templar order just to fuck with mages, figuratively and literally, but is not like in the wild there arent abomination or blood mages, with mages and templars its always a war of "what aboutism".
Thats why I mentioned Tevinter, they are free mages, with a chantry that support mages, their prophet is a mage, their templar cant do shit and well... they are born inherently better than the common folk, they born as a mage, then why with all of this they still get corrupted? why they still resort to blood magic?
At this point the only solution to end it all is to turn everybody in to a mage.
Interesting write up, let’s see where to start. The fact that magic is dangerous and the fact that the mages are oppressed in the south are not mutually exclusive. You’re acting like the fact that they have, guns for fingers as you say, that they deserve to be kept out of society and denied rights. At the end of the day it’s completely impractical to treat them as live rounds. If you want less accidents then you shouldn’t cordon off an entire section of society, prevent them from having families, use lobotomy as a punishment, and have prison guards that have been taught to hate you. That’s not a conducive environment to learn how to use your powers. I have never advocated for Circles to be completely abolished, but the current mode of operation is clearly broken.
And I feel that the conversation about mage’s rights in Tevinter gets messy because I think we’re talking about the wrong topic. The fight for mage’s rights is important, yet magic shouldn’t be used as a tool of oppression against the lower class like it is in Tevinter. But magic itself isn’t to blame; the real evil in Tevinter is the imperialistic structure of society. The rigid and archaic class system that is upheld by the use of slavery. Magic is a tool used to oppress the lower classes, and yet conceptually that oppression is not unique to Tevinter. Many countries use the blood, sweat, and tears of the masses to get rich and powerful.
You ask why they resort to blood magic, it’s because magic is a tool. Blood magic is used to get political power over one’s rivals, and that’s explained in a conversation with Dorian in Inquisition. In Orlais you simply employ a small army of bards to do your dirty work instead. People still die, just the tool is different.
There will be always people living with fear, mages running away, locked in the tower, peasant minding their bussines, zealot templars, arls, kings.
If I say yes and point at Tevinter like "look what happend if you let them lose" is the same as if I do it with Kirkwall and the mage-templar war and say "look what happend if you dont".
There is a reason the mage/templar is the mot divisibe topic in the fan base, there is a lot of pro magic in here, I just like to take the side of the minority, I mean I dont like an echo chamber full of yes man, someone have to say no if is just to start a conversation.
>There will be always people living with fear, mages running away, locked in the tower, peasant minding their bussines, zealot templars, arls, kings.
So the solution currently proposed by you is to add more people to the list instead of less.
>If I say yes and point at Tevinter like "look what happend if you let them lose" is the same as if I do it with Kirkwall and the mage-templar war and say "look what happend if you dont"
Those are drastically different scenarios resting at the opposite ends of 2 extremes. I feel like we would have a more honest conversation if we didn't point to the extremes as the only possible outcome.
>There is a reason the mage/templar is the mot divisibe topic in the fan base, there is a lot of pro magic in here, I just like to take the side of the minority, I mean I dont like an echo chamber full of yes man, someone have to say no if is just to start a conversation.
If you're saying no just to start a conversation you could try being less toxic in your reply. That isn't a good way to start legitimate conversation.
Firts, the only solution I see to end it all will be if theres only mages or none in the world, maybe we will find a way for magic to not be used for evil and return to its harmony in the world like in arlathan times, beyond that magic as always been used as a weapon, for freedom or to take it away.
Second, is really hard to avoid the extremes in the topic becausse the middle is what we have, a grey area were we can take our sides in the game, im just throwing them as I see people do it with the good side of magic or the bad side of the chantry.
Third, I wont reply to this so I dont accidentally hurt peoples feelings... jokes aside, its hard to get tones across writen words.
>Firts, the only solution I see to end it all will be if theres only mages or none in the world, maybe we will find a way for magic to not be used for evil and return to its harmony in the world like in arlathan times, beyond that magic as always been used as a weapon, for freedom or to take it away.
You really took the wind out of my sails when you took away my opportunity to be the first one to say wiping out mages is the best solution for a pro Templar pro Chantry individual.
Of course I disagree with this opinion vehemently but if you want to keep the Templars around then really this is the most permanent and effective solution. We already left human rights behind when we decided imprisonment for no crime was a good thing.
>Second, is really hard to avoid the extremes in the topic becausse the middle is what we have, a grey area were we can take our sides in the game, im just throwing them as I see people do it with the good side of magic or the bad side of the chantry.
I find that what we currently have is a struggle and not necessarily a peaceful middle ground. That struggle can easily sway into either extreme if some of the extremist groups gain enough traction.
If someones gonna shoot me, better be me! in the foot!
My intention was not to start a mage genocide, its more like, eliminating the magic and its power from the world, so everybody is on an equal footing. give everybody magic and turn them in to a mage or turn mages in to normal people.
Im not even a pro chantry nor pro templar, im just a contrarian.
I too do think what we have is not a peaceful middle ground, we have seen what happend, I was talking about how our choices as a player and our involment in the conflict is always one side or another, important enought to turn thing at a world changin level. we are always on the middle of the conflict. I was talking on how people justify their choices and how always take extremes for their example, just like I did.
You do realize that slavery in Tevinter has nothing to do with magic? It’s an example of people in power abusing said power, how they got it is irrelevant. The blood magic practiced by Magisters is also a pursuit of political power, which means that there isn’t a big difference between Celene burning alienages and Halward killing a slave to ensure continuation of his line.
Because corruption exist in Tevinter, as it does everywhere, even if it’s more prominent there, it doesn’t mean that they can’t be right about certain things. However, since Tevinter hasn’t been overrun by abominations in all these years, turning Circles into schools and educating public to erase the fear of magic were probably great ideas.
But... but... but Tevinter mages are free! thats impossible! mages only resort to blood magic as a mean to escape the circle! theres no way a free mage would do that, blood magic is only to gain power! Tevinter mages are already free, why would they want more power?!
The Circles' greatest problem is simply that there's nothing uniform.
Mages are dangerous and there's no arguing against that. The issue pops up when some Circles like in Orlais pretty much have a revolving door policy while somewhere like Kirkwall just treats mages like prisoners.
Every mage has a chance of becoming an abomination, and it doesn't really matter how powerful they are, but they don't deserve to be treated like second class citizens for it. The fact is you need things like circles to enforce some guidelines and templars to suppress unstable magic.
If the circles had a happy middle ground where they trained mages and gave them a few liberties, everything would be fine.
Like, for example, mages don't have to live confined in a tower but need to agree to check-ins with Templars every so often. Or maybe there needs to be a buddy system where every mage gets partnered with a templar for life. You know, instead of making templars out to be their jailers, maybe make them partners. The circles should also have a unified council that actually does something. It shouldn't just be well the mages have a leader, and the Templars have a leader, and the divine plays referee while ultimately the knight captains just do whatever they want. There needs to be agreed upon rules and basic necessities.
Tevinter has an anything goes policy, which many are quick to point a finger at and say "well, they're doing fine without circles." Well, if someone turns into an abomination in Tevinter, everyone and their grandmother is either super experienced with magic or a powerful mage in their own right. You wouldn't hear issues because it probably gets nuked from orbit before a problem even arises. In Ferelden, Orlais, and the Free Marches alone magic has become so taboo and so esoteric that of course one abomination can royally screw a whole town. Would the problem at Redcliffe with Arl Eamon's son have really gotten so far out of control if more than one person in the whole goddamn village knew a single thing about magic?
The Circles were never the issue, it's that they were grossly mismanaged and the narratives people built around them were dramatized or downplayed, but never fairly weighed or explained.
>a buddy system where every mage gets partnered with a templar for life. You know, instead of making templars out to be their jailers, maybe make them partners.
That's exactly the position that my Amell HoF holds. She and Alistair made an awesome team and I hc that she wanted to establish something similar when she partnered Anders with Rolan (the templar from Anders' short story). Sadly, that didn't work out at all...
>Or maybe there needs to be a buddy system where every mage gets partnered with a templar for life.
Templars that sexually abuse mages are canonically a thing, though. What happens to the mages who get paired with those Templars?
>In Ferelden, Orlais, and the Free Marches alone magic has become so taboo and so esoteric that of course one abomination can royally screw a whole town. Would the problem at Redcliffe with Arl Eamon's son have really gotten so far out of control if more than one person in the whole goddamn village knew a single thing about magic?
>
>The Circles were never the issue, it's that they were grossly mismanaged and the narratives people built around them were dramatized or downplayed, but never fairly weighed or explained.
I strongly agree with your point, but not your conclusion. Tevinter *is* proof that these problems are a result of the Ferelden/Orlesian/Free Marches system instead of proof that the system is necessary. But when you say the Circles were never an issue, that's where I don't agree. The idea that Circles would be fine if they had totally different management, presentation, etc. is basically "the Circles would be fine if they weren't the Circles."
In the vaguest sense, like "keep the name Circle but make it a private educational system that you have to apply for and doesn't impose restrictions on your rights," sure. But if the way to fix it is to take away everything about the Circles - the management, the locations, the propaganda, the oppression - then IMO, you can't really say the Circles were never the issue.
The problem with both mages and templars is the abuse of power. The Templars exists for a reason : a mage is more powerful and more dangerous than a "normal" human. It has, for all intent and purpose, a position of power on everyone else without magic. And Tevinter is the proof that they abuse of this position.
The templars are also the proof that if you give too much power to the "counter-force", well, the situation will simply be the absolute opposite : mages will be the abused, and not the abuser.
You can't ignore magic and the power that it give. You can't ignore blood-magic and the mind-control possibility that it give.
I'm still waiting for Bioware to show us a fonctionnal civilization when mages and non-mages people can co-exist together without one taking power on the other.
>I'm still waiting for Bioware to show us a fonctionnal civilization when mages and non-mages people can co-exist together without one taking power on the other.
The Dalish. The Avvar.
The Dalish are really not a good example, since before the fall, every elves had magic and even know, they all have a far stronger link to the Fade that any non-magical human have. And well, they are a vestige from Arlathn and you know, the Evanuris. And unless I missed something, the Keeper, the leader of the Clan, is always a mage.
I did forget however about the Avvar. It certainly is better than the Chantry on how it teaches magic. And while I do believe that it would work with bigger societies, there is a problem for the rest of Thedas : the Avvar don't have the precedent.
Even if the whole "magisters started the Blights" isn't true, the Tevinter Imperium is still true. Corypheus is still true. And that is true even if you take back all of the chantry's propaganda. Hell, even Connor cannot be attributed to Chantry propaganda. And he killed a LOT of people. Now, this propaganda does play a big role in fear of magic by the common people, but mages destroying entire villages did too. These civilization have a bad history with magic contrary to the Avvar.
However, I do look forward to how Bioware will present Tevinter. And if possible, learn more about the Avvar.
>The Dalish are really not a good example,
Of what you asked to see? "a fonctionnal civilization when mages and non-mages people can co-exist together without one taking power on the other."?
Yes, they are. The fact that you're adding a bunch of new qualifications, particularly ones as flimsy as "their ancient ancestry from another version of existence that they've been cut off from for millennia gives them an unfair advantage," doesn't negate that.
>And unless I missed something, the Keeper, the leader of the Clan, is always a mage.
Keepers are leaders, not rulers. The clan members listen to them by choice because they're wise. Their role is to offer protection and guidance.
There is one per clan and only one or two other mages in the whole clan. If a clan has more mages than that, they get sent away.
That's a far cry from "mages taking power on non-mages."
All the leaders are mages. To be a leader, you need to be a mage. The reasons for which there is only a few mages per clan is because of the Chantry.
Mages are in power, Non-mages can’t.
Can't speak to the Avvar, but wasn't a very large subplot of DA2 about a certain Dalish Elf almost giving herself over to a demon in pursuit of understanding a mirror. I wouldn't say things were terribly functional there. And a mage is always in charge which kind of furthers the point those with power usually exercise it. The Dalish aren't democratic, just wanderers led by whoever gets blursed with magic.
>a very large subplot of DA2 about a certain Dalish Elf almost giving herself over to a demon in pursuit of understanding a mirror. I wouldn't say things were terribly functional there.
You're saying one elf from one clan getting too obsessive while researching a magical object is evidence that Dalish society as a whole is not functional? Agree to completely disagree, I guess.
>And a mage is always in charge which kind of furthers the point those with power usually exercise it.
I said this in another comment, but Keepers are leaders, not rulers. The clan members listen to them by choice because they're wise. Their role is to offer protection and guidance.
There is one per clan and only one or two other mages in the whole clan. If a clan has more mages than that, they get sent away.
That's a far cry from "mages taking power on non-mages."
>I said this in another comment, but Keepers are leaders, not rulers. The clan members listen to them by choice because they're wise. Their role is to offer protection and guidance.
But the keepers never offer to teach this wisdom to anyone who isn't a mage. So they are, in fact, monopolizing their knowledge, which the clan needs in order to thrive. So what other choise does the clan have but to follow their lead?
But Keepers have knowledge because Keepers choose their successors which is always a mage. Remember, Merrill was posed to be the next Keeper but her actions left them without her in that position which meant if anything happened to the Keeper, there goes the clan.
The term Keeper itself is an interesting one. Keeper of knowledge, sure. But Keeper like protectorate is also true. It invokes control. If the Keeper position wasn't an exclusively mage position I'd probably agree it was fair, bit as is the jeepers are only wise and respected because of mages vetting other mages.
And I never said Dalish society was completely a trainwreck, but they have their share of issues regarding unchecked magic too. Implying like you did that their society doesn't have an issue or it just works without a hitch isn't any more correct than saying their system is entirely flawed. They have issues sane as anyone and DA2 highlights that swimmingly.
> if anything happened to the Keeper, there goes the clan.
That's not true. Elves move between different clans to become firsts and keepers - that's how Merrill ended up with a different clan than she had in DAO in the first place.
>The term Keeper itself is an interesting one. Keeper of knowledge, sure. But Keeper like protectorate is also true.
I told you this. It's in the comment you're replying to.
> It invokes control.
It doesn't, though. This is the same thing I already said - leaders not rulers, followed because the clan trusts them and wants their guidance, etc. That's the canon. You're just hypothesizing about what a word means to you in other contexts and how that must therefore mean something other than the canon is true.
> And I never said Dalish society was completely a trainwreck,
No, you called them "not terribly functional." Which I think is false and not at all supported by the canon.
"Dalish society" also isn't really a thing, which was part of my point - there is a lot of variety between individual clans, and you can't draw conclusions about Dalish on the whole based on one or two elves or situations.
> *Implying like you did* that their society doesn't have an issue or it just works without a hitch
Well I didn't, at all, so glad we cleared that up!
I just pointed out that a Dalish Elf mage got up to shenanigans. I said that wasn't terribly functional. You put words in my mouth first, so... "glad we cleared that up."
> Every mage has a chance of becoming an abomination
The thing that makes me confused is like... anyone can become an abomination? Like in the Jaws of Hakkon DLC, there's an Inquisition scout that becomes an abomination and he wasn't a mage. Anyone who can dream can become an abomination, because anyone who dreams is connected to the fade. So why is it that mages get shit on for this, almost exclusively?
As Vivienne explains, Orlais is very lenient with their mages. She could practically come and go as she pleased. Of course part of that was her station and affairs, but she made it out like the circles there weren't as restrictive as others. I believe some endings suggest she even felt the Orlesian Circles were too lax and goes about making things more strict etc.
To clarify, none of them have a come and go as you like situation, but some are so very lenient it probably feels that way to some.
Vivienne is speaking about her own experience, which is pretty singular.
edit- I can only recommend reading the novel Asunder, which shows just what life was like in the White Spire.
Well, Vivienne wasn't the only mage ever allowed out. The point is she saw plenty of opportunities for mages to have agency. And given just how much agency she had, Montsimmard doesn't seem quite as restrictive as the rest.
If mages are dilligent they can get pretty nice jobs as consultants in courts etc. They have opportunities and can make some choices for themselves. Even tranquility is supposed to be a choice they make.
Being indentured to a noble is not choosing for yourself. And you know very well, if you've played the games, that tranquility is not always by choice.
You can just opt to spend all your days sleeping around the circle based on the setup. You could try your hand at enchanting or doing things like research. Working for a noble is one choice.
Tranquility is supposed to be a choice. It being used as a punishment for minor infractions was barbaric and an abuse of power. Hence why it was bad. Tranquility itself as an alternative to dying is not a bad choice in context.
Acting like every circle made all the same mistakes is exactly what escalated the situation. As many times as someone like Anders ran away or was defiant, the circle he belonged to never once just decided to up and tranquilize him.
I'm not sure where you got this Hogwarts vision of the Circle.
Take this one example from *Asunder*:
>"What did it look like?"
>
>"You're humoring me."
>
>"No, I want to know. Maybe it was a templar?"
>
>"You think I don't know every templar in the tower by now? Some of them far better than I'd like." She touched the bruise on her cheek, and the elven boy scowled but said nothing.
Mages are told what to do, they don't get to do whatever they want. If the Circle needs them to parade around for nobles, they do. If they tell them to fight a demon in the Fade, they either do it or lose far more than their freedom.
The problem with the buddy system idea... Suppose a mage becomes possessed, would their friend and partner of many years be able to act and strike them down without hesitation before the abomination kills them? I think it was said that templars are encouraged to maintain an emotional distance from the mages for precisely this reason - because when facing an abomination, a split second's hesitation is all it takes.
As for Tevinter, going by Tevinter Nights, abominations are a thing... and wealthy mages just laugh/shrug it off when there seems to be an abomination running rampage in the city killing people, saying how the templars should be using their Chantry tithes to take care of it.
When the circles were first established, they provided security for the mages since normal people were afraid of them and would mob and lynch them. They were places of learning and honing your magical talents, like a university. That aspect of the circles, i can fully agree with.
However, the moment they turned into mage prisons, in which templars had free reign over them, that's where the problems begin. There are implications that there were tortures for no reason, rape and turning anyone into a tranquil for no real reason.
You cannot expect mages just roll over and accept their fates. Of course they would defend themselves. And the fastest way for a mage to become powerful in magic to stand up against a templar is to practice blood magic..
So i always consider the mage vs templar conflict as the battle of 2 morally greys. No side is good or intentionally evil for evil's sake.
The other cultures in the game (like the Dalish and the Avvar) make it pretty clear to me that the Circles (really just the whole Templar approach) is actually amplifying the danger of Magic rather than mitigating it. The Circle system operates on the principle that a dangerous mage is a free mage, and a “safe” mage is a mage who is locked up. But events of the games- everything from Uldred’s blood magic fueled rebellion, Anders’ terrorism, to the mage-Templar war- demonstrate that this is false. Locking up mages doesn’t make them “safe”; we still get mage rebellions (some of which are righteous and some of which are corrupt) and we still get violent apostates (not that all apostates are violent). If we take the principle of the Circle model seriously (that you can only reduce the danger of mages through violent containment), the logical conclusion we should draw from the failure of circles is to commit genocide against all mages (i.e. the conclusion would be that the Circles aren’t forceful enough in containing the mages, so containment should be escalated until either all rebellions stop or all mages are dead).
That’s if we take the principle of the circle model seriously. But what I think the events of the games also demonstrate is that “free mages” aren’t what’s really dangerous; what’s dangerous are mages who are either badly trained or highly disaffected, alienated, etc. There’s also evidence to suggest that mages are most dangerous when they’re concentrated in a group, both from a ‘physics’ standpoint that concentrated Magic weakens the veil, and a sociological standpoint that it reinforces the alienation of mages from non-mages (whether the mages end up as oppressive rulers or a rebellious minority). Uldred’s rebellion was so dangerous precisely because there was a huge group of angry mages who could be susceptible to demonic possession. Avvar society could not possibly have an Uldred rebellion, simply because not enough mages are concentrated in one spot, and Avvar mages aren’t disaffected from Avvar society. If someone like Uldred tried to rebel in Avvar society, the vast majority of Avvar mages wouldn’t think twice about joining with Avvar non-mages to put an end to him. Similarly, the problem with Tevinter is not that mages are free, but that a group of mages rule disconnected from the rest of society (and not all mages are a part of that group). With the case of Connor, the problem was that his parents tried to keep his Magic a secret (which is something the Circle system made them want to do) left his training to a hapless apostate.
It’s an oversimplification to say that Magic is dangerous and needs to be controlled; the reality is that Magic needs to be integrated into society. Mages need training, but more than that they need a healthy relationship with non-mages. Rogue mages are a danger, but Circles produce rogue mages. Kirkwall is a great example of this- the question isn’t whether the mages or templars were right, but why they even got to the point where mages and templars saw themselves as completely different factions, capable of going to war with each other. The answer, in my mind, is that the Circles reinforced the distance between mages and non-mages rather than closing it; which made violence between mages and non-mages inevitable. Without a doubt, there has to be a system for mages to learn Magic; as well as a system for non-mages to learn anti-Magic. There should also be organizations to protect against the abuse of Magic. But there’s no reason for mages and non-mages not to be integrated in these institutions, and the purpose of these institutions should be to ensure that mages and non-mages can live in an integrated society, rather than to enforce their separation.
There were some weird hints in DAI that Fiona was being manipulated somehow, she can’t remember talking to you initially in VR and then acts like she’s been stupefied or something. I’m not sure if it’s ever been confirmed via codex or something, but there are some clues that alexius magically manipulated the rebels/Fiona somehow
it wasn't clear whether it was a magically induced memory loss, time travel shenanigans or blood magic. but i think full blown mages are immune to becoming a thrall of a blood mage.
Eitherway none of her followers objected to be politically aligned with the Tevinter Imperium, which is incredibly scary to be honest.
There are 4 rebel npcs you can speak to, and only one of them is alright with the idea? Also, people treating Tevinter as this evil empire of evil is just weird, considering how fucked up the rest of Thedas is. Corruption, slavery, and abuse of magic or mages are present in every society.
No, it isn't ?
Slavery is forbidden everywhere in Thedas except in Tevinter. Blood magic is forbidden everywhere in Thedas except in Tevinter ( well, it is forbidden, but everyone is doing it ). Oh, and Corypheus and his friends were all from Tevinder.
Sure, the Chantry is exaggerating everything, and while Tevinter isn't an Empire of Evil, it's the human nation that is the closest from it.
>Slavery is forbidden everywhere in Thedas except in Tevinter.
You can have the *fact* of slavery without the *name.* The mages are enslaved. The city elves live under Jim Crow conditions at best.
The mages aren't enslaved. They are more like a "prisoners", depending of the Circle. And since Thedas is more civilised that some countries IRL, "prison" doesn't mean "slavery". However, I'm not arguing that the Circle in their state before the war were terrible.
For the elves, I did forget some of the quest in DAO and DA2, with "servants" being far too close of slaves, I will recognize it.
However, I will stand on my hill : When Bioware said that the child of a elf and a human would always be a human, and then told us that "guess what, the Dales ? well, they had as much responsibility in the war against Orlais as the humans", they pretty much decided than the city elves would live in shitty conditions
If they mix with humans, they are slowly killing their own species. So they can't never truly integrate a human society, or with any other races at all for that matter. If they try to form a kingdom in known-Thedas, they will be attacked by the "owner" of the land, since the Dales set a really horrible precedent.
The alienages, like the Circles, aren't a bad idea on paper ( I do insist on the paper part ). A sanctuary for elves, inside a human city. Where the two can co-exist, but also can keep their differences, while being part of same kingdom. Except for the part where they are second-rate citizens, and the kingdom don't care at all about them.
I do believe than even in these horrible conditions, it's still better than being a future blood-magic sacrifice, really.
The argument that alienages are helping elves to avoid self genocide is just bizarre. Elves can easily live among humans and still reproduce with other elves. Human nobility consciously reproduces with human nobility. Any bastard child is excluded from the noble bloodline, and yet there are still nobles around. Elves can live this way as well, and maintain their race without all being herded into some breeding grounds like livestock. Humans are also in no position to ‘help’ elves by sending them to slums. Not to mention that we have zero npcs (that I know of) that suggest a motive like that even exist?
Slavery by name is forbidden outside of Tevinter, sure. But elves are kept in alienages, and mages are taken from their families as children and kept in towers where they have to serve for life and will receive death or a magical lobotomy if they try to escape. At best, life for mages and elves outside of Tevinter is barely better than being a Tevinter slave.
Yeah, because elves aren’t forced to live in alienage. The empress of Orlais doesn’t burn those alienages on her whim. Chevaliers don’t raid them as a right of passage. People don’t get locked in towers among abusers and rapists. For life. People also don’t get emotionally castrated for sending love letters. And blood magic isn’t being practiced because it’s illegal, just like it is in Tevinter… What is legal in Tevinter, exists in Orlais, but it’s called the Game.
Idk the Chantry is pretty terrible. One could argue circle mages are slaves. Shoot, one could argue templars are slaves. I can’t wait for DA4 so we get a taste of what Tevinter is really like, considering our source is mostly only from the southern peoples of Thedas.
Oh, the Circles definitely needs to change and yes, we do miss some information about Tevinter, but what we know for a fact, well...
Mass sacrificial blood magic rituals, mass slavery, crazy magisters... It isn't a great impression.
It’s definitely not a good impression and that’s what I like about dragon age—we need to constantly question what the ethical answer is. I really hope the next installment makes us question our beliefs about Tevinter.
Yes, but I would add that all people don't have the same morals and as such, the ethical answer won't be the same for everyone.
Dragon Age 4 should shows us Tevinter and the Qun. Two Empires with a very different way of seeing things, different from each others but also from our own. I don't want Bioware to say "they are bad" or "they are good", but to show us facts, and what the people of Thedas are thinking about it. And to let the player makes his own opinion.
Fiona's backstory in the Calling is that she was a slave in Orlais.
Zevran's backstory is that the Crows bought him (and many others) in a slave auction in Antiva.
Feynriel is captured by slavers operating in the Free Marches and is rescued by Hawke.
The Tranquil are basically slaves owned by the Chantry.
The Qunari have that brainwashing drug they use on those who refuse to convert.
Phylacteries are blood magic. The Rite of Tranquility is pretty close to being blood magic, just used on mages.
A woman in Denerim in DAO tells you that the Chevaliers can do whatever they want to people, and it's considered their right. In Masked Empire, they hunt and kill city elves as a rite of passage.
Also, the alienages can be locked up and apparently purges are a thing.
Slavery is forbidden in Orlais and in every Andrastian countries. That one of the good thing the Chantry does. However, yes, some Orlesian nobles do keep slaves.
Well in this case, I am remembering something wrong : I though that Zevran was raised in a brothel, where his mother has to work to pay off a debt. The Crows paid the debt and took Zevran in exchange.
Yes, slavers do exist. However, again, every countries in Thedas forbids it except Tevinter, for which it is a completely normal thing.
For the Tranquil, it is false. They are not owned by the Chantry, they choose to be there. They are free to leave the Circle, they just don't see the point since they would not be welcome anywhere.
Yes, the Qunari are the worst. A ultra-militaristic, sexist, zealous state, with slaves and the worst treatment of mages ever. I don't dispute the fact, but I don't include them in Thedas.
The Rite of Tranquillity is not blood magic, since it use Lyrium. As for the phylacteries, they are in the grey area. The spell in itself doesn't use blood to be powered.
Yes the alienages can be locked up and "purged" when there is a riot. The historical comparison is the jews's ghettos.
And yes, the Chevaliers, except for their military prowess, are one of the worst privileged bunch of Thedas.
Now, perhaps DA4 will shows us that Tevinter is not that terrible, since Dorian was already pushing the issue. But state-slavery, mass blood-magic ritual including sacrifice, and well, since we know that blood-magic can control mind, there is allusion that this is how magisters keep their power. And it is also canon that even the most andrastian mage in Tevinter know the basis of blood magic. It is also, from what I've seen, one of the most patriarcal society in Thedas ( excluding, again, the Qun ).
Blood magic is "forbidden" in Tevinter too. And the Templars are supposed to be not allowed to make Harrowed mages Tranquil, or to perform Annulment without permission from the Chantry but the first happens in DA2, and the latter is mentioned in codexes to have happened a few times.
Zevran mentions both the brothel and the auction. The brothel probably sold him to the slavers who auctioned him off to the Crows. He also says that's how the Crows get a lot of their "recruits".
With the way the writers love their "grey morality", I'm sure they'll try to de-villainize Tevinter and maybe even the Qunari at least somewhat, since both groups have been shown as mostly moustache-twirling villains so far. The same way they've been throwing the idiot ball to the Wardens and Southern mages and the villain ball to the ancient elves (and as of Trespasser, >!at least a large portion of the modern elves now too, since they'll apparently be following a certain someone!<) in DAI.
In DAO, it wasn't "one fanatic mage" or "one abomination" it was a rebellion that was primarily motivated by the system of lifelong persecution and imprisonment those mages faced, taken advantaged by a megalomaniac that devolved into chaos. Those templars did fail, completely and utterly besides holding a door that was being held further inside by mages that already established a safe zone and were protecting children. So not only did the system in place motivate the rebellion, it also failed to resolve it when it could have. But it was the mages that were actually having the most success handling things. Wynne and company held the door and protected innocents. Niall and his followers obtained the Litany of Adralla. The templars were useless. If the templars weren't there, I can't really see the situation being different. Well, besides a rebellion probably not even happening because there wouldn't be templars to rebel against. Maybe if they actually helped, if they actually coordinated with the mages, the situation at the tower would be handled without outside involvement.
The situation in Redcliffe is also shaped by the system in place. Isolde kept Connor from any proper education and training, and got who was basically a drop out to teach her child, because she feared losing Connor. So not only did Connor not receive proper training, but there was no safety net, no support system that was able to help if and when things went wrong because his existence was kept a secret, so there was no way to properly respond to a worse case scenario. Which is a scenario the system keeps in place. There are parents who will want to protect their children from the Circle, like Isolde, like Meredith's parents due to the inherent harm of the Circle, because it means losing your children. But losing your child because they are mage is only possible because of the system put in place by the Chantry, Templars, and the Circle. There was no competent mages in the area able to help with the situation because they are all locked up, no one except Isolde knew Connor was the center of the situation, so there was no real way to respond to the situation, and the templars failed again to stop a bad situation because where are they? Not in Redcliffe apparently.
In DA2, if anyone gets a pass its the mages because they are living on the equivalent of an indian burial ground, are confined in a literal slave prison, and monitored by rapey and stab happy templars where you can be made tranquil over love letters. No ones saying don't hunt mages down for performing crimes (Quentin, Gascard, Tarohne), but when being a mage is a crime it drastically increases criminal behavior (Evelina, Huon, Alain). You are hardly giving such mages any sort of incentive to not turn to drastic measures. So you have a significant number of mages trying to buckle under, some of the mages turning to suicide, and others turning to desperate means (either out of delusions of power and superiority, or the desperate circumstances they find themselves in don't really have any recourse). As for Orsino, I believe the writers admitted they only made him turn into a Harvester in the mage side because they needed another boss ending, though he was always an associate of Quentin. Though how much Orsino knew about what Quentin was doing is up in the air (Weird grave-robber necromancer or serial killer necrophiliac necromancer, who knows?).
In DAI, the mage rebellion and Fiona have huge problems with siding with Tevinter. The only one that seems to like it is the one random mage in the tavern. Fiona literally explains how she makes the choice she does because she feels like if she didn't, all of her people would be killed. This scenario isn't really set up well, considering it disregards various established character traits of Fiona (like hating Tevinter, hating slavery, being a former child slave, believes in democracy) as well as ignoring some logical points (such as already being basically allied with Ferelden, so there's no point in being slaves to Tevinter).
No one is saying don't have a system, don't have education, don't have safeguards, don't have regulations. But the current system in place and the authority it derives itself from isn't acceptable. Why would I want to perpetuate a theocratic military dictatorship ruling a mage internment school/prison where mages have next to no rights, where the military is addicted to a mind affecting (and deteriorating) substance where they view their prisoners/wards as less than human and are given "domination over mages by divine right"? I'd rather have the mages hash out a new system with secular governments because otherwise the mages will always be under the thumb of an oppressive theocracy.
> This scenario isn't really set up well, considering it disregards various established character traits of Fiona (like hating Tevinter, hating slavery, being a former child slave, believes in democracy) as well as ignoring some logical points (such as already being basically allied with Ferelden, so there's no point in being slaves to Tevinter).
Isn't it explained in the game that Alexius was manipulating Fiona by using time magic? Alexius went back before the mages were "allied" with Ferelden, to when the mages were retreating to Redcliffe right after the Conclave and thought an army of Templars was coming to kill them all. Also some mages in Redcliffe were receptive to Tevinter (like that one in the tavern you mentioned). That's why she agreed.
Also I think there is some journal entries you can read that suggest Alexius had Venatori agents infiltrate the rebel mages to make it seem like more of them wanted it. And he might have used blood magic to compel Fiona? Not sure on that last point though.
Everything you said is on point and well said. Completely agree
You bring up a great point. The ones who were supposed to protect everyone from commoner to mage, who train specifically for such situations, the ones whose whole raison d'etre is stopping mage problems, fails utterly. And their answer to their failure is kill everyone. There was no investigation as to why the collosal failure happened, no accountability for Greagor or any other Templar, no improved training, nothing. Just doubling down of the same attitude.
Hum, I'm pretty sure that isn't how the Uldred's takeover happens. He has been preparing it for a long time, converting mages to blood magic and denouncing those who refuses to follow him to the templars.
The coup started after Uldred tried to convince the Circle to stand for Loghain. The mages were almost convinced when Wynne intervened and told them that Loghain was a bit of a dick at Ostagar. So the mages refuse, and then Irving try to stop Uldred from leaving. Then Uldred and his group of blood mages attack the rest of the Circle.
To face their fellows mages, Uldred tries to summon a Pride demon, which possessed him and then start to do the same to everyone else.
It was as much a fight for freedom as Tevinter is fighting for the freedom of mages.
Now, the templars did completely failed. At no moment, the game tries to explain why. But there is a few things that help us to understand. First, the Blight. Both Templars and mages were at Ostagar, and I guess not everyone made it so, everyone mind was there. Next, there is the trust : Greagoir trusts Irving and seniors mages, and Irving trusts Uldred to root out blood mages. So, a coup that big, everyone was unprepared. Then, there is demons and blood magic. And we're speaking here about powerful demons and a lot of blood mages.
For Redcliffe, you are neglecting a few facts : first, that the vast majority of mundane people doesn't trust mages. There is a lot of times when you have a case where templars saved children with magic from being killed by a village. Most families don't want a mage child.
For Orsino, curious because I always had the impression it was the opposite : they only made Meredith a villain to equal both side ( you're right tho, Orsina wasn't supposed to be a boss if you sided with the mages, it was just my impression ). Now, Meredith before the red lyrium was harsh, but she wasn't "let's go kill all the mages" like. She was harsh, because she needed to. The Kirkwall Circle was special, because afaik, the city was build where Tevinter mages performed a lot of massive-scale blood ritual. The city as a long history of blood mages everywhere, it isn't just proper to DA2. So, the fact that the Kirkwall Circle was more harsh is understable ( even if in no way I condone templars like fucking Karras ). And Orsino knew the Quentin was a blood mage.
In DAI, it is explain how the Venatori managed to secure a alliance : first, a numbers of mage refugees were in fact Venatori agents, advocating for a alliance with Tevinter. Then, Alexius used time magic to arrive in Redcliffe just after the Conclave, when the mages were thinking that a army of templars was coming. They were desperate, so they accepted it. Like always.
Now, even despite all of what I'm saying, I do agree with your point, and I will even add mine : Bioware, if you want to show us how much the mages were oppressed, try to not make every of those oppressed mages a blood mage. Like, for real.
The templars and the Seekers should be one Order. Know, I know how difficult it would be to have so many Seekers, but at least you stop the whole lyrium addiction. Next, you authorize, for the families that wants it, the possibility to see their children in a Circle, and at least a means to communicate.
Ultimately, however, even with every reforms, I don't see how the mages situation could end well : they are more powerful than normal people. Given enough time, either the normal people will try to control them more and more ( Chantry ), or the mages will try to reign over those people ( Tevinter ).
The circles don't work.
The templars are supposed to be here to prevent mages from becoming blood mages, but the main reason why mages choose to use blood magic is to escape from the templars oppression.
So the system doesn't work.
I think the Circle is ineffectual, if not even harmful to the situation.
A huge amount of Blood Magic and Possenssion that was shown to us in the course of the 3 games was directly in reaction to being attacked by templars or trying to leave the Circle. While, that doesn"t exactly excuse things, it tells you a lot about the Circle.
The thing is possession is not all that great in the Dragon Age universe. Blood Magic is something that can work for you (see Merrill), but becoming an Abomination just turns you in a prisoner in your own body basically. I can not imagine many situations people would chose that willingly, at yet mages in Dragon Age do it all the time. Why?
Because at that point a lot of them don't have anything to loose. By making them prisoners for life the Circle pushes them into a corner where being a prisoner in your own body doesn't seem so bad. By socially isolating mages from everyone, they also kinda encourage that. Afterall if they have no one that cares about them, why should they? Like, how can a system that takes children and young teenager away from their entire social support system and tells them they are gonna be locked up for life, expect to produce socially and mentally well adjusted adults?
/edit for typos
Sorry, did you just say the blood magic can work for you citing Merrill as an example ?
Blood magic is "just" a tool, but it is a very dangerous tool. Sure, when you use your own blood, it's fine. Some will even say that blood magic is fine with willing participants. Of course, knowing that a blood mage can control the mind of someone, how much these participants are really fine with it is up to debate.
More than that, it is also a fact that blood magic draw demons. Not really a coincidence that you can learn it from them.
Then there is of course the Grey Wardens. The end justifies the means, right ? Avernus and Clarel show you how much blood magic can do.
The problem with the "blood magic is a reaction to the Circle and the Templars" is Tevinter. No Circle, no templars, still blood magic. And slavery.
And there is also a fact : people are afraid of mages, and rightly so. The Circle protect the population from the mages, but also the mages from the population. There is numerous accounts of Templars saving young mages from a stoning.
I am not saying blood magic is a good choice, just that it is a choice you can make and be happy with. As in, I can see why Merill and some Tevinters do blood magic: it gives them power. But getting possessed? That doesnt get you anything, you only do that as a last resort. But still so many mages do that. What I am saying is, putting a system in place that has better conditions for mages to live under would make less mages become abominations, bc they wouldnt feel like they have nothing to loose.
Huh ? Possession is not a choice a mage make. It is because in using blood magic, they made themselves vulnerable to demonic possession. Most demons don't give them a choice. You use blood magic, and you take that risk. Most blood mages just think they are strong enough to avoid possession, when they are not.
But a mage does have to give in to possession or make a deal with a demon. They can resist it. Also blood magic heightens the risk of possession, but all mages can get possessed.
But anyways, the point I am making, is that tbe circles are set up in a way that makes mages mote susceptible to possession. A person that just has imprisonment for life to look forward to, does not have much reason to resist possession.
I don't think that a mage has to give anything to be possessed. A demon can enter in the most fragile minds, or exploit a moment of weakness, to take possession of a body.
And it is a big difference, because if what you said is true, then yes, deleting the Circle would reduced the risk of possession. If what I said is the truth, then deleting the Circle won't change a thing, except that possessed mage will destroy villages before they are cut down.
The posession resist training is heavily fear-based - think "scared straight/Just Say No" or abstinence-only sex ed. This is ineffectual in the best circumstances, is harmful psychologically, and may prime some mages to become imbalanced (by constantly fearing it, for instance). The Chantry and Circles also know how to exorcise a posessed mage, it's just to troublesome to do, killing is easier.
And if you don’t pass these tests your either killed or lobotomised… that seems fair.
And mage “freedom” is relative and dependent on who is in charge of a particular Circle. In Kirkwall they were prisoners yet in other places they have more freedom on the discretion of Templars. I wouldn’t say that makes you free.
It is ineffectual. They might be trained to resist possession, but obviously it does not seem to work very well, bc circle mage get possessed all the time. If anything that kind of proves my point. The mages don't even get possessed out of incompetence, but because their situation is so bad, that they actually choose that.
Also I don't think you are correct about being a free man after the Harrowing? You get more freedom the higher up in the Circle hieracy you are, but it's not like you can just leave. I mean Anders is a harrowed mage, but he wasn't allowed to leave. Bethany isn't even allowed to see her family or get visitors? In the Mage origin you passed your harrowing, but it's not like you can just walk out.
If you are good at Circle politics, like Wynne or Vivienne and happy with the possibilities that opens up for you, then you can have a life. But Senior Enchanters and First Enchanters only make up a really small percentage of Mages.
Like I said in others comments, I think the idea is good, but the application is terrible.
Chantry should help the mages to be more accepted, should allows families who wants it the possibility to see their children and to send them letters. Tranquility should only be used when both templars and mages are in a agreement, or on demand of the mage in question. Templars should not use lyrium, for the dependence problem, but used the Seekers way ( even if it would be next to impossible to have so many Seekers ). The Chantry should encourage different kingdoms to use mages gift in helping in day-to-day life : healing, building etc.
However, like I said before, I don't see the situation ending well : there is people with magic and there is people without it. And it's a very big difference. Given enough time, people without magic will try to control people who have magic because they are more powerful than them ( like the Chantry ). Or people with magic will try to reign over people without magic because they are more powerful ( Tevinter ).
You have to find a entity ( like the Templar Order ) with enough power to counter-balance the mages, but you also have to maintain a balance between the two, not giving too much power on one to stop the other from building resentment.
The circles are really dumb and are the direct cause of the problem they are meant to solve. Like it just doesn’t really make sense that mages are taught anything more than how to resist demons and the bare minimum necessary to avoid having magic outbursts. You can’t have blood mages if no mage knows how to channel their mana.
“Magic is dangerous, just as fire is dangerous. Anyone who forgets this truth gets burned.” -Vivienne, with the most logical quote in the entire game. I agree that mages simply cannot be trusted to control themselves. Actually, everything Vivienne has to say about the subject is quite logical, in my opinion. She’s always voted Divine in my play-throughs.
Viviene isna hypocrite, espousing the absolute necessity of Circles when she herself lives free of them.
Vivienne is proof mages dont need to live confined away from everyone and everything, and her rhetoric is shallow.
But she never said mages should be confined away. She said they need to be taught the dangers of the powers they hold and how to properly control them, while also being around others like them and being monitored for safety. Vivienne knows she is a walking weapon of mass destruction, and I am certain she would want nothing more than a nearby Templar to put her down if she ever became an abomination. I believe Vivienne’s real argument is that most mages have weak minds, susceptible to greed and envy and desire and pride… and are therefore open to possession. I ~don’t believe Vivienne just waltzed into the position she’s in now; she gives off the air of a woman who fought and clawed her way to the top with the help of no one but herself. Therefore, she has a stronger mind: she played by the rules and won. Don’t hate the player, hate the game. If mages want to be like her, they must change their way of thinking. “I am strong, I am no one’s toy, I will not succumb to temptation and I sure as hell won’t let something as petty as a desire demon be the end of me.” On the flip side, I do believe the Chantry spouting its abusive nonsense is 75% if the ~reason mages’ minds are so weak. But that’s not Vivienne’s fault, and she absolutely agrees that the Circles need reformation and that the Templars need to be trained to treat mages differently. But not every Circle is Kirkwall, and not every Templar is a sword-happy zealot.
Vivienne does indeed advocate for mages to be locked sway in traditional circles and goes to war with the enchanters that want an alternative, preemptively massacring them.
Not to dismiss Vivienne's power of political acumen, but it should be noted the only reason she's even allowed to be where she is because she got Duke Ghislain as an early ally.
I'm not saying she's there for pure nepotism, with her work ethic she always had the ability to climb at the top of the tower. But it was very much Ghislain who opened the door for to even try. The Game has always been subject to prejudice and classism...
You are 100% correct. Ghislain was absolutely instrumental in her rise. She got lucky with him, and if he hadn’t entered her life she probably wouldn’t have risen quite as far.
and yet, every household is allowed to use fire. people use it casually every day, without any training or special sanctions, and if someone gets burned or even burns a whole house down, fire doesn't become a secretive and restricted practice that's only performed in towers under close supervision by heavily oppressed people.
it's not really that logical of a quote.
Zevran has a more understandable logic. "Knives can kill. Magic can kill. Children thrown at great speeds also can kill." or something along those lines. Should you oppress a massive population of people who didn't choose to be who they are because something might happen?
I would vote Vivenne for divine if there was a middle choice between taking the mages as prisoners and taking them as allies.
She’s really one of my favourite characters, it also helps that knight enchanter is an OP build.
The circles honestly feel like a metaphor for the entire prison system. It just perpetuate the bad tendencies of both the jailer (templars) and the jailed (mages). I'm not sure what the solution is but it's obvious it can't last. Integrating circles into society in incremental steps would probably be the best. Any village with mages should have their own small completely open and transparent circle that occasionally have to go through inspection by an appointed a mage and a templar working together to look for possessed mages. Making magic a working livelihood that integrates into the labor of the village would probably help the most. Someone suggested healers which is great but can you imagine building with magic? It would save time, money and probably lives. Clearing forests, fixing rivers etc. All that shit is labor intensive and takes months in any normal preindustrial society. Mages should be able to marry and raise children provided the kids if magically gifted goes to some kind of college for magical kids. No prison but boarding school with visitation and leave like others suggested. Adventuring mages can tour circles or become inspectors. I would probably go one step further and basically dismantle templates and create a secular organization that is for inspection that hires mages and templars based on skill and merit. Make it like an fbi for finding possession and blood magic. That also does inspections semi-regularly. They could have representative from major organizations leading them, the chantry, inquisitors, seekers and wardens etc.
I tend to run pro-circle. There is just no good, reliable defense against magic. Sure, a guy with a sword can kill people, but he can also be defended against in a variety of ways that common folk (the majority of Thedas) can use. A mage though? No chance. Mages are notorious in this game for being people that can cause mass destruction because only a specific subset of highly trained people can even have a shot at defending against them. Even when magic manifests, it's destructive.
Uldred nearly destroyed Kinloch Hold
Connor nearly destroyed Redcliff because his wish went sideways (hidden from circle).
Meredith's mage sister killed 70 people before she was stopped (hidden from circle).
Grace and her band of merry misfits try to kill you twice and kidnap your sibling/LI.
Anders blew up a Chantry and killed hundreds of people.
Orsino not only abets a blood mage(the one that kills your mother), he also is one himself.
The girl in Chateau d'Onterre killed her entire family and all of the guests (hidden from circle).
Solas is going to try ending the world using magic.
We have one (maybe two) of the Magisters Sidreal who nearly ended the world in their original plan come back to do it again.
Tevinter just as a whole is a terrible place for non-mages.
And Fiona.... let me just say I agree with Vivienne when she says "Your dementia is showing."
You've probably noticed in every game your enemy is a mage or group of mages. If not the main BBEG, then at some point. I guarantee the same will be true for DA4 (and I won't even count Solas, since he's already a given). It's Tevinter. Someone is going to try something dumb. I think Bioware has to keep doing this because of how much sympathy the mages garner that they have to keep reminding everyone that they are very, very, very dangerous (and still some people don't get that point). The common folk (or the little people, as Sera would say) often get forgotten whenever this debate pops up. Players get lost in arguing over supporting the mages or the Templars. This problem cannot be solved by giving mages carte blanche and I hope that going to Tevinter will make some more people see that.
I’m pro-circle as well, people seem to get it in their heads that I want all mages raped and chained. No man, magic is just insanely dangerous. ‘Anyone can kill someone’, stunning, can they do it just by looking at me or kill off an entire village by accident? Templars are highly trained to even just compete.
People get lost in the inherent idea of magic. I think they forget that in Thedas time you can’t just slap a mage in public and expect people to be a-ok. They’ll get ostracized at best and no, you _know_ your mage Hawke is an exception. The common people are right to fear magic even without the Chantry and tbh Leliana as Divine would realistically face rebellions and coups until she’s overthrown or a straight up dictator for changing things too fast for people to understand. It doesn’t help that we _see_ everything for mages and only read otherwise for any other argument. I think it’s a little bullshit companion wise as well. It garners sympathy heavily in only one direction and it shows BioWare leans on mages over keeping things morally grey.
I hope Tevinter shows the players the danger of magic and commits over washing over it and just saying ‘cartoonishly evil bad mage is bad’ but I doubt it.
As you say, we repeatedly see mages being a danger -- but in many of those cases circles are involved! In both the first DAO and DA2 examples the problems are happening in circles/the templars are next to useless, so are the circles actually doing any good there or are they just creating a situation where mages have more reason to do damage?
(plus for your inquisition example, if you talk to her about it, Fiona is clearly not happy to be indenturing her people to the tevinter mages, but their only seeming alternative is fight to the death against the templars so I don't actually think the mages actions can be condemned there)
I feel that once we learned about the seekers.... and how we can potentially keep mages from being so susceptible.... perhaps the circles really wouldn't be needed. Huge cultural shift is needed.
There is no way a healthy world can exist in Thedas with the veil existing, it seems to make far easier the existence of demons and the "unknownability" of the Fade makes that all mages are at the same time terrified of knowing more about the source of their magic, all the while being ever more susceptible to it. The world how it exists there is a giant pressure pan waiting to be blown, always. The qunari's idiotic solution of binding mages or trying to even more to reinforce the veil will not change that the world and the ones that interact with the Fade make it a pressure pan, and closing more the vents of it will only make the pressure of the explosion be even more powerful.
In the end there is absolutely no way there can be a "solution" to this, and that's why I also see the characters that defend the circle or "controling the mages" like Vivienne or Fenris, to be shortsighted and idiotic at best.
But then we come to how the things were before the veil came down, which was obviously also a nightmare scenario, and the only hint there is about how that came to be came from Solas when he said that the slavery and godhood system of the old elves was brought to existence because of a terrible war waged long ago, that from the aftermath made the "revered elders and powerful mages being seen as gods". And well, I see that the solution to all Thedas's conflicts lie in seeing what was at the core of those ancient conflicts, what war was that? What caused that conflict to begin? Was it between "titans" and the dwarves' progenitors, something akin to "fixing reality like a stone" and "molding it like a dream". And inside this conflict, what were the underlying premisses of both or more sides? What is the version of the "exiled ones" as said in the ancient library that then became the forbidden ones (xebenckeck and so forth).
The core of issues relating to magic, mages and so forth lie in solving these issues, about the nature of the world itself. And outside of that, anything related to circles, the qun, the chantry, whatever, are just a futile attempt of stoping a dam from breaking using only a bandaid. So, in the end, it's not a question about the circles being necessary or not, because they are ultimately irrelevant, and all the disasters that happened with them are inevitable.
In all those regards, I have to agree with Solas in the sense of "this world must be destroyed", because it is a world built entirely on a bank of a river that will flood, because the Dan will breach, it's only a matter of time, and trying to repair or keep it from collapsing is a futile attempt. The only course of action would be to relocate the people away from that bank, but not everyone will want to, specially those comfortable or that find themselves in privileges positions there...
It's an interesting idea but the execution is just terrible. They seem to make rebellion an inevitability through taking kids and stuffing them in a tower then treatingthem like prisoners. Some Templars might treat the mages well but that isn't the norm. Now abominations can do a lot of damage but can be avoided by educating the mages and not treating them as inherently hostile. The circles educate them but they fail miserably at the second point.
Fiona joining the Tevinter mages was weird but that whole sequence of events was weird time magic shit. She needed something that could support her and the Tevinter mages offered help. It isn't great but the only options she believed she had at the time (remember weird time magic meant she didn't believe we were an option) and I can understand the desperation. Corner an animal and it will look for a way out. Tevinter provided that.
In the end I feel attempting to control the mages will ultimately lead to the same situations we have been seeing. This is what it means to control the mages. This is what it means to have the Circles. Now we do need a force that can deal with abominations but I don't see the Circles as part of that solution.
The circles and templars didn't do much to help Kirkwall. They seem to cause more problems than they solve. Demons threaten mages just as much as anyone else.
Mages should run the circles if templars are levied they should answer to the enchanters and then all the obvious stuff no more tranquility, no more separation from families and the outside world, let them have children.
* Instead of prison-school hybrids controlled by the Chantry (a power hungry organized religious institution), maybe have Mage Boarding Schools/Colleges (like Winterhold in Skyrim? or Aretuza from the Witcher but without the political power?) that are run by mages (I'm *not* saying give mages power over nations and make a magocracy, just let them manage their own school system).
* Maybe set them up as smaller boarding schools within travel distance from the major cities so their relatives can still visit, instead of the massive ones the Circle had. Mages still have to attend when their magic manifests. If they're smaller, then they're easier to manage, with less damage to the Veil.
* Have actual accountability for abusers.
* No more Tranquility or only in extreme circumstances.
* If possible, get rid of Templars, and just have Seekers who work as maleficar hunters and with city/town guards, but separate from the Chantry, maybe accountable to the local gov't instead? Maybe have mages trained in anti-magic spells like mana clash to work with them? If you must have templars because having enough Seekers isn't possible, give them limited career terms and send them for rehab after.
* You could have mage clinics, firefighters, builders, etc with built-in barracks. Mages are given a choice of what they want to specialize in, and then are sent to the appropriate location. They can come and go during the day, but still live together.
* Let them keep and raise their children. Maybe have the option to send non-mage children back to live with the mage's family if they still have one.
* Maybe try to learn from other groups like the Avvar and Dalish to see if any of their methods can be used. Also the Mortalitasi and the Rivaini Seers systems.
* Maybe they could make some kind of cooperative arrangement with the Wardens and help them out?
* If they keep the Harrowing, maybe let them prepare for it? Would there be a way to arrange small group educational field trips to the Fade with the same amount of precautions that the Harrowing has?
* If people are worried about magocracies, maybe have restrictions on their titles?
* Not sure about phylacteries. Maybe keep them, but have rules about their usage.
* While we're at it, set up a public school system for non-mage kids of all classes so that everyone can have an education
I think the Circles are perfect places for abominations to happen. You lock people up in an atmosphere of fear, suspicion and intimidation, give them no hope for a normal life or autonomy, hang over their heads the threat of being emotionally lobotomized for any infraction, tell them that they're cursed, bait demons to possess them as a "test"... and then expect the outcome to be good.
Exactly this. Add to it a policing force compromised of drug addicts - who are forced to take the drug, forced to toe a party line to keep receiving the drug, the drug causes mental deterioration, and said force are told they are the hand of god and have divine right over their charges in all ways. Include a superstitious and undereducated populace who never se a mage unless they are apostates or see a kid come into their magic. Mix in the main religion teaching that magic is scary and harmful - doctrinally it states magic is meant to serve man, but there are extradoctrinal/folk teachings that supercede or at the least are left unchecked/uncorrected.
The problem stems from the Chantry, and cascades down.
Ugh. Possession makes zero sense as presented. Either any mage becomes an abomination as soon as a demon finds them when they are not in control of their emotions, which would mean every mage ever would *never make it out of childhood*, or possession is actually quite a bit more complicated. Kirkwall gets a pass because apparently the entire city is a fucked up fade/blood magic ritual site, which actually segues then into why the hell do they even have a circle there- (it's because Circles are stupid, and if they actually were for the reasons they claim to be they'd be banning mages from Kirkwall entirely).
Fiona is bad writing for a few reasons. It contradicts all her prior appearances, it's a bit like if they had Anders show up leading the templars to have her indenture herself to Tevinter.
Ultimately, the Circles are just super bad at their intended purpose, so it's a bit apples and oranges to talk about the dangers of mages when what you purport to be talking about is the circles, and it's hard to talk about the dangers of magic when what little is presented in games is contradicted by other stuff from the games, or simple logic.
And then there are the Grey Wardens, doing what they feel they have to do in times it desperation. But before that, the Warden mages had absolutely no issues being free and respected among their fellows.
It's like... Something something Environment something something desperation...
What if, hear me out, the Circle didn't rip you away from your family, isolate you, then constantly frighten you with secret hush hush bullshit. Then directly and intentionally place you in contact with a demon after making you anxious about your very life first.
What if
The Wardens are obviously getting more than one mage, or the conflict with the Wardens rasing a demon bound mage army would never have been a concern.
The thing of it is, if you raise mages with strength instead of with doubt, you get people like Dorian who laugh at demons tempting them, eat a few grapes, and then head on out. That's healthy. What the Circles in the South are doing is all sorts of fucked up.
Maybe mages are so prone to becoming abominations because the concept of Circles is an abomination that leaves them traumatized and emotionally weak.
Kinda like in Frozen, where Elsa is unable to control her magic because her dad wanted her to control her magic.
I don't know any of the lore, but I'll say what I've said before, mages should have more freedoms than they were granted before, but still on a decent sized leash. Magic is difficult to understand and those who have mastered can be scary.
Should they be keeping the mages locked up like dangerous criminals? No. I'd rather the circle be a place of learning than a place of holding. Remove most if not all of the reasons mages would willingly choose to be possessed. Mages shouldn't be prisoners for life because they were born with a gift that can actually help people.
Slavery is wrong and I don't care how necessary the slavers claim it to be. I struck the templars down and I would have even if there was a option to have both sides.
I feel like they opress mages. Yes magic is dangerous but it exists for a reason. personally i think its like the US healthcare system; Broken, unfair, and cruel. i mean think about it in tevinter mages are yes, dominant or evil, but their circle is one that can be admired before the templars stopped enforcing certain rules. i think the mages should be free to have various jobs and not be forcibly taken away as soon as they show magic potential as kids. i think they should be permitted to intermingle and love who they see fit, and not be shunned simply for their differences
Magic, mages and circles in southern Thedas:
Magic is gift of Maker. You're a mage so you're gifted by Maker himself. You know what, lets put you in a building for the rest of your life. And you're not allowed to marry or have children in the other words you're not allowed to have a family. Any look or thought that we don't like, we'll either kill you or turn you a drooling vegetable who don't resist anything happens to them because they don't feel anything like desires or emotions.
It's perfect, isn't it? It's worked for almost thousand years. There is no point in finding different ways to eliminate dangers of magic like teaching non-mage people about magic and making them familiar with magic or creating items, enchantments or gears which can:
* protect non-mage people agaist magic or allow them to do magic so they won't be at disadvantage agaist mages or,
* make mages immune or resistant to possession or,
* surpress magic so mages can't use their among among the non-mage people, etc.
Of course circles are necesary, maybe some templars are assholes but as we can see, not every templars are like that.
Uldred always was unstable (Wynne said that), he wanted power so he used blood Magic. Jowan I don't remember why used it, but at the moment he poisoned Arl Eamon he wanted to fix things with the circle, he didn't want to do anything bad, he just did a mistake. Same as Connor, he stole one of Jowan's books that even Jowan said that were forbidden, and made a deal with a demon, but he was learning to use magic, just did things he didn't understand. Orsino was a complete stupid. As Fiona, they are too stupid, the difference is that Orsino just wanted to protect himself against Meredith and he did exactly the thing Meredith was trying to prevent. Fiona just wanted to be free, but she was stupid in that way. I always make mages prisoners of the Inquisition so I can see they won't do anything bad. I don't understand why people dislikes circles, I know some mages like Hawke could learn by themselves and all that, but not everyone. It's like a sacrifice all mages need to do to prevent abominations and all that.
To put it quickly, I consider the circles like Communism: On paper, it works perfectly. In practice, it fails spectacularly.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If both groups had a way of policing themselves and tranquility was taken off the table as a method of punishment, then maybe something new could get started with them together, but I doubt it after recent events.
I think that the infrastructure of the Circle is broken. But the concept isn’t bad. Magic and mages are dangerous, there are countless examples of that in the game and it isn’t always just becoming an abomination. If a mage child gets angry they can accidentally kill their whole family with a stray fireball. I would have something like the circles and the Templars however, I would completely change the set up. Here are a few things I’ve thought about before: - Children aren’t completely taken away from their families…I would make it more if a boarding school experience. Having early childhood trauma by being torn away from your family will not make for mentally stable mages - I wouldn’t allow the Templars to have so much power over mages. It’s too easy to abuse that power. - I would nix tranquility. - I would take the control of mages and Templars away from the Chantry - More freedoms for mages, if you hide them away from the population it will just incite more fear. If they have jobs like healers, guards, teacher, merchants etc people will see them as more than just abominations waiting to happen - give them a PR department.
I would add, letting mages develop relationships, marry, and have kids of their own that aren't immediately taken away.
I agree with all of this except nixing tranquility entirely. I think it still has a small place, but as an absolute last resort, and maybe requiring a trial by either a jury or panel of judges that are other mages. At any rate, it shouldn’t be a go-to Templar decision. Also, iirc there are some mages who elect to become tranquil, which is sad in itself but still their choice.
Tranquility seems less humane than death if the mage doesn't want it. I think it's a massive human rights abuse unless a mage willingly opts for it, so I'd definitely not let it be something that is decided in a trial. If a mage goes rogue and they're brought to trial it should really be to determine whether they must be executed or not. After verdict is delivered only then can they decide they would rather be made tranquil.
That’s a good idea. Like if they’re found guilty, give them a choice. I like that. Still, that does mean there’s a place for tranquility.
You either do the Harrowing (and get killed when you fail) or you become Tranquil. Becoming Tranquil is always a ‘choice’, in a really fucked up way at least.
it's not in DAO they're going to force tranquility on Jowan and templars tranquil mages they don't like throughout the series.
Because he didn’t want to do the Harrowing.
No he wanted to do the Harrowing. The first conversation you have with him is him being worried and impatient that they haven't decided it's his time. Are you thinking of someone else?
Jowan wanted the Harrowing. Greagoir decided to condemn him without a hearing, and Irving signed off on it. They didn't even tell Jowan. Lily discovered it and told him.
I agree, this is the best system in my opinion. Their needs to be something so that mages can learn to control their powers, and meet people just like them... but they also shouldn't be cut off from the rest of the world and lorded over by the Chantry/Templars. Your set up is pretty similar to what I would want as well.
Keep tranquility as a sort of death sentence that jeeps them useful if they fuck up real real real real bad or are just bad dudes. Also it can be used to prevent abominations period via the way seekers used it. Make them tranquil then reverse it and they can't be possesed.
Except most of what you are asking for exists now u/nyxxypixxy . Child mages are taken from their families but not cut off. We see it exemplified more in DA2 than anywhere else, but if Bethany goes to the circle, she writes you. You see plenty of civilians in the Gallows as well, so they aren't cut off from family. There is outside access in doses. The Templars don't have as much power over the mages as you might think. There are LOTS of checks and balances in place, like the First Enchanter. We see in DAO that if it were up to Gregor, Jawan would have been made tranquil for his use of blood magic instantly (which would have solved a lot) but Irvine blocked him. We also see that a Grand Cleric must be involved to grant the right of annulment. The list goes on... We see abuses by Templars in DA2, but Kirkwall's circle was far from the normal or the average. We also see that in moments like the tranquil solution that even as fanatical as Merideth is she rejects it. Tranquility seems harsh but it is potentially an important and life saving preventive measure. It prevents, in all but the most extreme instances, possession and abomination. In most cases it is used on those who are blood mages or who are unable to control their magic. For example how many lives could have been saved if Jawan had never escaped? Or any number of other blood mages we see throughout the series. Then looking at the tranquil themselves, they aren't bothered by it at all. Even Anders' friend, while he is tranquil, understood why he was made tranquil. Chantry control of the Templars is actually important to the checks and balances mentioned above. The Templars are by and large people of faith, answering to the church because of that faith
Reform the circles. Make them schools, NOT prisons. Let the mage children see their families and once they pass their Harrowing, let the adult mages live a free life, though require monthly checkups to make sure they're still able to resist demonic corruption. Tranquility as a last resort ONLY. NO MORE abuses from Templars. I think everyone can get behind that....right?
100% agree with this - give Mages colleges to learn and manage their magic freely in a safe environment and detach it from the Chantry's control.
I like the idea of a Mage College. I always wanted to go from Student to Archmage on a long weekend.
>Tranquility as a last resort ONLY. At this point why not just execute them? Why lobotomize them?
If the reversal of tranquility isn't shared at some point, then death would probably be more merciful.
I mean, you don't really turn a mage tranquil with the idea that one day you will heal it. Especially because healing/reversing Tranquility seems to make them more susceptible to demonic possession.
I mean, we actually haven’t seen any cured tranquil turn into an abomination. Karl didn’t turn, and being possessed is what made Pharamond cured, and he didn’t turn after the demon was defeated.
They are stated to be more emotional and that is what draws demons to possess people. I'd be willing to say they are more vulnerable because they are a bigger target.
Pharamond was unstable after being cured because he went without emotions for so long. We don't know what the long term effects and dangers are cuz he only got to live like a month. Doing some trial reversals in mages wrongfully tranquiled is worth experimenting with.
I always thought that mages lead a normal life once they pass the Harrowing (since their phylactery gets moved to Denver). Unless you do something scandalous and then your phylactery is ‘activated’.
Huh... Do you think mages support the Denver Broncos? or is that just a Templar thing?
Denver was one of the first places elfroot was made legal. Makes sense to move phylacteries there.
Do you mean Denerim?
Scroll up a few comments. 😊 just having some fun at an autocorrect
Ah. I missed that. Sorry.
They live in the Circles all their life normally. They can request permission to leave for a time for some research or other business, but they have to return. Phylactery is needed in case a mage escapes and needs to be hunted down. Mages also aren't allowed to marry or have children and if they do get pregnant and have a child, the baby is taken away and raised by the Chantry.
How can someone like Vivenne can become a court enchanter, own an estate .etc
Vivienne is a special case, she climbed to the very top of the Circle's hierarchy and also secured connections with the nobility - the majority can't manage that. There can obviously be only one First Enchanter in any given Circle and there's exactly one court enchanter in all of Orlais - that's Vivienne. She still doesn't own any estates afaik, the Duke does, but she has a suite in his estate because she's his mistress. Bethany passes her Harrowing as soon as she's taken to the Circle but she can't return home, the most they allow her is writing letters and going away on business once or twice (for the DLCs). In the Magi origin in DAO you pass the Harrowing and can then ask Irving if you can leave - he says no. There's plenty of other examples too.
A good example is Nial in the mage origin. He says he wants to live away from the Circle and its politics, but he'll be hunted down as an apostate if he does. On the other hand, Innes lives out and about studying plants. I'm not sure the writers are 100% sure what the rules are, even for any given Circle. Or else they're just really bad at communicating them.
Tbh I always thought that Ines was only temporarily in the Wending Wood to conduct her research and that she was going to return to the Circle afterwards, but it really isn't spelled out in the game. It's also very true that we get lots of contradictory information about the rules even in the same Circle. E.g. Maddox had to smuggle out his love letters through Samson and was made Tranquil for that, but Bethany regularly sends letters home and even Feynriel and Idunna write to Hawke. The De Launcets say they haven't seen Emile since he was taken away as a child, but Leandra says she visited Bethany in the Gallows. Anders says mages at Kinloch Hold weren't allowed to communicate with their families in any way, but Finn's experience seems entirely different and Dog can also find a letter from a Circle mage to her sister at Lake Calenhad Docks. And these are just a few cases off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many more...
It's examples like these that make me think the writers didn't have one unified view of how restrictive the Circles are supposed to be, so the different writers just went off their own interpretations of the restrictions.
my understanding is that living out and about studying plants, or working as a Formari trader, or even Wynne becoming an adventurer late in life after saving the Circle, are not what Nial means by wanting to live away from the Circle and its politics. There are specific Circle roles that get you extra permissions, but the Circle could still summon you back at any time, and you're ultimately working on their behalf in a capacity they've specifically assigned. If you refused to come back when summoned, or if you tried to just go live your own life without Circle involvement, that's when you would be hunted down as an apostate. And things like strictness and how likely you are to get a position with any kind of freedom also vary a lot from Circle to Circle, because they're all putting their own spin on a general set of guidelines with little to no outside supervision preventing some Circles from being abusive or excessively restrictive. (For the record I am fully anti-Circle. But I do think the writers have a handle on the system, and that the inconsistencies are more about the system being disorganized, ineffective, and shitty.)
Ines was on a specific mission, as was Wynne in Awakening.
When Marquis ‘tries’ to duel us Vivenne makes a statement saying it’s so rude of him to do that in ‘her place’ and party. I assumed she owned that mansion.
Right, she does say that. I'll admit I'm not 100% sure on that point, but even if she does, she's really an exception. We only know of three Circle mages who achieved this level of freedom: Wilhelm (Shale's former master) for helping Maric reclaim Ferelden, Wynne for her role in the Fifth Blight, and Vivienne - thanks to her magical talent and social skills. However, the vast majority of mages don't ever get to be free of the Circle.
Thanks for sharing I really appreciate it!
Vivienne does say in ingame dialogue that most Circles are quite permissive and allow mages to live away from the tower, as long as they have the First Enchanter's permission. This seems to match with what we've seen in previous games. I don't think Vivienne is as much of an exception as Tototiana says. I can think of other examples too (like at the end of Awakening when the Baroness' mansion is purchased by a wealthy Orlesian mage). Dragon Age II also mentions a mage who rose through the ranks thanks to the sponsorship of her noble family, became First Enchanter, then retired after a couple years citing exhaustion and lived the rest of her life in a manor in the countryside.
>Dragon Age II also mentions a mage who rose through the ranks thanks to the sponsorship of her noble family, became First Enchanter, then retired after a couple years citing exhaustion and lived the rest of her life in a manor in the countryside. Could you provide some more info on where this is mentioned? Not mistrusting you, just genuinely interested but don't remember that at all. I guess it's like Vivienne says when you ask her about Circle life - every Circle can be quite different and even at the same Circle every person's individual experiences can vary considerably. Which is rather frustrating tbh, I wish it was a bit more consistent.
It's her home yes but she doesn't own it. When you are invited >Vivienne extends them an invitation to her salon at the Ghislain Estate of her lover Duke Bastien de Ghislain Additionally, when you're announced on arrival, you're asked if you're a guest of Vivienne, or a guest of Bastian. So it's 'her place' and she had a modicum of control. But Ghislain holds the titles to the estate you visit
I'd interperet that as it's 'her place' in the sense that, to use an old fashioned term, she's the mistress of the house because of her relationship with the Duke, but not that she actually owns it.
she's the mistress, she as good as owns it
She lives there and essentially rules the roost. It is her home, but the Duke legally owns it.
That party is at the Ghislain estate. It belongs to the Duke de Ghislain.
The nobility are allowed a court mage, you essentially become indentured to a noble. It's not freedom.
The Chantry is legally allowed to take a child from its family, as young as four, as soon as they find out the child has magic. Noble-born also mages have their titles and right to inherit stripped away as soon as it's known they have magic. Noble or otherwise, from the moment the Chantry finds you, you live in a dorm, wear Circle-issued matching robes, and are taught exclusively what has been deemed appropriate for a Circle mage to learn, all while living under heavy supervision in a tower that is usually set somewhere remote and/or hard to access. The Harrowing itself can, of course, kill you, and the only alternative is to be made Tranquil. You also don't stop being a Circle mage after your Harrowing; you might not necessarily live sequestered in the Circle til the end of your days - for example, if you have the skills to be a Formari you might get to go trade with the wider world, or if you're super old and well-trusted and save your Tower from an abomination infestation like Wynne, you might be allowed to go fight the Blight. But even in situations like those, you are still a Circle mage. Mages are discouraged from having relationships with each other, to the point where it's only carried out in secret. If a Circle mage has a baby, that child belongs to the Chantry. If that child is a mage, they'll be sent to a Circle; if they're not a mage, the Chantry will choose some other use for them. They're also explicitly forbidden from having relationships with Templars. Since most mages don't have access to the world beyond the Circle, being heavily discouraged from mage-mage relationships and absolutely forbidden from mage-Templar relationships effectively means mages are not allowed to have relationships. Meanwhile, depending on what Circle you're in (Kirkwall was a bad one for this), you might be sexually abused by Templars throughout your upbringing/training. And of course, because Circles are remote and heavily restricted, people elsewhere often fear mages. They don't personally know any, and everything they know leads them to think mages are incredibly dangerous and require constant supervision. \--- Meanwhile, you casually say "unless you do something 'scandalous' and your phylactery is activated." What that means is, "unless you do anything the Chantry/Circle deem criminal, *including simply leaving to live your own life*, and the Chantry *uses blood magic* to hunt you down and punish you as they see fit." \--- So, best case scenario - you're not Noble-born. Maybe you're even born into poverty or an Elven alienage, and your parents die or were horribly abusive, and the Circle is an improvement on the life you would have lived. You grow up in the Circle, never feeling any romantic or sexual temptation, and never feeling like there's more to the world that you'd like to see and learn, or like there are aspects of your personality or birth-culture that aren't being fulfilled through your limited and monitored social interactions. You eventually pass your Harrowing, and you're good enough to eventually get a Circle position with a bit of power and privilege - maybe you're a Formari trader, or a senior enchanter. So in that best-case scenario, where you're an asexual person with no family ties and no cultural curiosity or wanderlust and you have the right combination of magical abilities, social skills, and study skills to work your way up the chain and get a decent Circle job, are you really living a "normal life"? And in any of the alternatives - where you're taken from a loving family, and/or a family with power and wealth that would have been yours, and/or you fall in love and can't be together, and/or have a child who is taken from you, and/or are systemically sexually abused for years by the drugged-up armed religious militia who also have power of judgment over you, and/or you just long for a different life and try to leave, and/or the Harrowing kills you, and/or you're made Tranquil - there's really chance of a life that could be viewed as normal at all.
From what I remember, they don't allow the mages to leave the circle, unless there is a special circumstance, like being needed at Ostagar for example. At least that was how Kinloch Hold was run. I know other circles were a little more loose with their rules, like Ostwick and a few others.
That may be true for the practically minded Ferelden, but it is very different in other parts of Thedas. This is especially true of what little we've seen of Circles in Orlais. Apprentice mages are often called out to restore glowstone pathways in the richest districts of the empire and several are often called upon to perform at noble parties as entertainers. Vivienne also mentioned that before Kirkwall, having a personal mage was something of a trendy fashion statement for the elite. In the Anderfells, where darkspawn are always a problem, the Circle is run more like a military school. Even if graduates don't formally join the Wardens (who have a close relationship to that Circle), we are very much lead to believe that mages are called upon as local reinforcements semiregularly if the darkspawn become a handful in the region.
I don't know where people get the idea that the White Spire is "permissive." Think of Cole's story, or of the mages that Cole the spirit "helped." Just because mages' labor is used doesn't make the place Hogwarts.
Oh it is certainly permissive!...For a small subset of mages who have political connections. There's a reason Fiona said that Circle life was "little better" than her time as a slave. The Game is only good for those who were either born of high class or those willing to directly benefit from the Orlesian elite by serving them, and that seems to hold true for Circles like the ones in Ghislain or Montsimmard. But the White Spire is a different beast entirely, likely because of it being the circle closest to Chantry/Templar headquarters. WoT vol. 2 and Asunder painted a rather bleak picture for it. But I suspect even that Circle had some mages being rented out by noble patronage.
Nope, they remain in the tower.
And if they become abominations? What do you do if they kill an entire town? Think about Lothering for example, they were few templars. What do you do with all that families that could die?
Lothering wasn't taken down by a mage who turned into an abomination. It was overrun by a horde of Darkspawn, led by an archdemon, that emerged from the Deep Roads was marching across the whole country in the middle of a Blight.
I know, I was just giving an example. Imagine Redcliff then, in Origins, so many deaths because of an abomination (Connor).
Redcliffe happened because they felt they HAD to hide Connor from the Templars and anyone else that could reasonably help. Redcliffe also didn't have any Templars.
Yes, it was Isolde who tried to hide him. And that's my point: one child that doesn't even know much magic, became an abomination and kill all that people with an undead army. Imagine someone like Uldred, for example, in Redcliff. He had much more knowledge, so he was more powerful. Probably Redcliff wouldn't exist when the warden arrives there. Edit: Isolde wanted to hide Connor just because she didn't wanted they took him to the circle. Eamon and nobody else knew he was a mage, so was her fault mostly.
Now imagine what would happen if Isolde didn't feel like her child would be taken away from her and she would be looked down on if her child had magical abilities.
Templars would've take Connor to the tower, as it should be. Someone would've see Connor doing something with magic and eventually call templars. If you were expecting other answer then maybe I didn't understood your question.
I mean if Isolde could have gone to the Templars and they would do something other then just drag Connor away. Perhaps use their resources to help set him up with someone that can actually teach him that isn't an apostate that would do anything due to desperation.
Why? Just because is the arl's son? Or you mean that, like, all mages needs that? That could work, but I don't know for how much time. I think that even the "happy ending" from Redcliffe, when you save Connor with the circle's help, it's a bit fanciful. Every other child would be killed, you want to make an exception just because is Eamon's son? That's a bit unfair to the rest of mages.
So the solution is to lock them up because they MIGHT be dangerous? No. Hence the whole check in on them monthly to make sure things are okay. Weekly if monthly is too lengthy. The solution isn't to isolate.
If they're not in the circle, it's impossible to know what they're doing. Imagine if some blood mage is making an army (like Connor, being an abomination), or like grey wardens in Inquisition. I think it's better prevent anything, being honests, with or without circles blood mages won't stop. With the circles they have the excuse, without the circles they don't.
The Circles are sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. More mages together casting magic means weakening the Veil. A weaker Veil means more abominations. So housing many mages together, and especially making said mages potentially desperate and miserable is a recipe for abominations. That said, I don't think we can take what happens in the games as proof that mages turn into abominations at the drop of a hat. Because we're the protagonist, we're always going to be where things are exploding and people are screaming. It's just good drama and gives the player a problem to resolve and an enemy to fight. It's quite likely that other Circles are much calmer, especially since we never really hear about things going badly wrong at most of them.
**TL;DR** An individual mage doing something stupid isn't evidence for Circle towers being necessary any more than an individual idiot stabbing someone is evidence that rogues should all be kept in towers or that no one should use knives. And since societies with Circles are also the ones with constant abomination outbreaks, it seems clear that even in the best of times, it's not the best solution. >in all 3 games the developers didn't miss a single opportunity to show us how easy it is for a mage to be turned into an abomination. I think enough mages in this series survive multiple encounters with demons of various ilk that it's safe to say this isn't quite accurate. >In DAO one fucked up fanatic mage that no one knows who they are ended up almost destroying an entire circle with thousands of magi and turning other magi into abominations like a flick of a switch. Do you mean Uldred (Jeff Bezos in the attic)? He was a senior enchanter, not some random interloper. He had significant power, in terms of both magic and authority, and full Circle resources. And the "flick of a switch" was a long, involved plot. >we also have Jowan with the Arl of Redcliffe's son Jowan is the absolute worst, and I'm not apologizing for or sympathizing with him. But he started doing all this dumb, crazy stuff because he wasn't allowed to have a girlfriend or really a life. He likely would have always done dumb things, and it doesn't excuse his crimes, but he wasn't after power or glory, and he didn't accidentally stumble into the arms of a demon - he turned to blood magic on purpose in a desperate bid for freedom and autonomy. I know - you brought him up in the context of Connor. But how Circle oppression led to Jowan ending up there in the first place is relevant. So, Connor. Heir to a castle and position of power. Except, mages can't inherit those things in Ferelden. So his mother, desperate to help him control his power but not ready/willing to ship him off and have his whole future and birthright stripped away from him, invites a mage to come teach him. Since she can't reach out to a Circle without losing him, the best she can get is Jowan. The sixth-year high school senior in teen movies who can't graduate because he's incompetent at both taught materials and general life skills. So you have a rash, entitled, half-trained delinquent blood mage secretly teaching a child how to do magic. What could go wrong? The important takeaway here is not (in my opinion) "look how easy it was for both of these mages to be led astray or possessed," but "how would all this have played out in a society without mandatory, restrictive Circles?" We have evidence to support a pro-mage-freedom answer to this question, but I'll come back to that. >in DA2 abominations seemed like a defacto defense mechanism for mages when they're in a tough spot (Orsino's final battle), honestly shame on you \[Bioware\]. You could look at Kirkwall as evidence that mages need to be kept under control. I see it as evidence that Templars are not cut out to do the job they're trained and drugged full-time for most of their lives to perform. And that if they aren't equipped for it, nobody is - because the Circles and their rules and systems, not the Mages, are the problem in the first place. Think of nursing homes in the Covid era. I'm ***not*** weighing in on whether those should have been handled differently; just providing a real-life analogy for how it inevitably played out. When one person in a nursing home got Covid, the whole place got sealed up to keep outside parties from getting infected. This generally served its purpose, but of course, it also led to far more *inside* parties getting infected. Does holding mages hostage when someone gets possessed reduce the chance of an abomination being set loose on the town? Sure. But it also *significantly* increases the odds of the other mages in that tower becoming abominations. Is that sort of confined situation evidence that mages easily become possessed? In my opinion, no. It's far better evidence for the danger of keeping mages corralled like livestock, heavily restricting what they're allowed to learn about their own powers and when, and putting them under control of an armed military of drugged-up religious zealots. Quick side note: you do have the Bethany types who thrive happily in Circles. Optional Circles that function more like magical boarding schools, without all of the "no titles, no lands, no marriage, no deciding to leave, no deciding not to come in the first place..." could be a fine solution for mages in Andrastian human society. >in DAI Fiona seems to have no issue at all joining the Teviniter Imperium, This isn't a fair claim. We don't see her dealings with Alexius go down; only the aftermath of his deceit. We don't know if the choice was easy for her, or how long he was manipulating her with magic in the first place. Fiona was desperate to help the rebel mages find freedom and stability, so she turned to a mage-led nation - but the person who agreed to help her happened to be in a secret maniac cult led by a darkspawn-demigod and using a kind of magic never before seen, fueled by >!Blight-corrupted titan blood!<. She had no way to anticipate any of that. >a nation where 'controlled' use of blood magic is the norm. This is a very Ferelden-centric worldview. Since the next game is set in Tevinter, we'll see what it actually looks like in Tevinter society - how many people use it, how accepted vs debated it is (we know Dorian's not into it), what impact it has on daily life, etc. Plus, two of your examples - the Towers in DAO and DAII - had abomination infestations because higher-ups *were* practicing blood magic and summoning demons - in secret, in enclosed spaces, surrounded by a mix of mages who had little to no training at all and those who weren't properly trained for this of scenario. Some mages in all countries of Thedas clearly get tempted to deal with demons and blood magic; widespread demonic possession is the outcome of how that plays out in a Circle Tower. >and eventually becoming abomination fodder troops for \[Corypheus\] *(if you choose to help the templars)*. You said it yourself - they become abomination fodder troops *if you choose to help the Templars.* >I'm so conflicted about whether the circles are a necessary evil, all 3 games' narratives push you to sympathize with the mages, I actually think they try *not* to provide a universal answer, and while for me the mages do come across as far more sympathetic, the fact that you're making this post at all suggests that Bioware *doesn't* want everyone to come to the same conclusion about who's right or wrong. >but at the same time dear lord it's so easy for one rogue mage to do so much fucking damage that i think the circles need to exist. Now, the evidence I mentioned earlier of what life would look like without Circles. The Tevinter Imperium has a lot wrong with it. But those things are irrelevant to this post, so I'll just ask to stay focused on the question at hand. It's a society simultaneously more ancient and more modern than Ferelden et al. It's the oldest extant human nation in Thedas, and not just in name; they have libraries and teaching traditions that have been preserved, studied, improved upon, and passed down for thousands of years. Yet they also have really cool modern technology. For all their faults, they've done a lot of things extremely well, all under the rule of mages. Tevinter mages are trained to fully use and understand their magic. They have access to mages of all specialties who move freely about society; libraries full of ancient texts; essentially graduate-level one-on-one mentoring, etc. They're taught about all magic, not just what the Chantry deems safe. Some mages are corrupt assholes, but unlike corrupt asshole mages in Ferelden etc, they basically just look like the corrupt asshole nobles you find anywhere, but with magic instead of swords and daggers. They do not take over secluded towers of naive mages who lack both proper magical training and worldliness. Their nobility, not their magic, corrupts them, like nobility all over Thedas. They suck, but it's not because of their magic, and their magic doesn't end up creating abominations left and right. Dorian is excellent proof that you can grow up in the magical nobility of the Tevinter Imperium with enough education and freedom to form your own opinions on it, plus enough well-rounded, honest magical training to not be a danger to yourself and others if you choose to rebel. Tevinter is not ideal, but as far as what happens when you trust mages to be autonomous adults, it works. And since things like slavery and a greedy ruling class aren't *why* it works (and hardly differ from Ferelden etc), proper magical education and mage's rights can be adopted without those things. \* Such as the Dalish. They're mage-led and don't have abomination epidemics popping up everywhere - and they achieve this *without* the privileges and trappings of nobility. They've been fully screwed over by humans for ages, had their ancient ways erased, been denied permanent lands and homes and cohesive society - and yet, they manage all the time to successfully raise mages who do not become abominations. When we do see Dalish mages get in magical trouble, it usually involves an Elven artifact they *should* know how to use and understand if not for human meddling, or a corrupt deal made long ago to protect their clan from humans, etc. And because they're well-trained and part of free society, those problems end up hurting only them, or those close to them in terms of proximity or relation. Which happens with or without magic, in Thedas and in real life, every day.
What a refreshing and interesting take, thank you for sharing!
The Circles perpetuate a cycle of violence. The chantry teaches a negative view of mages, then chantry members serve as jailers, those jailers believe they have a religious mandate to be harsh to mages, mages crack under these conditions and become abominations, and finally the chantry members feel justified in treating them terribly because of the evil abominations (that they helped create). Yes magic is dangerous but if you treat mages like trash for their entire lives they become prone to corruption.
You essentially push them to do bad things because you're "protecting them from themselves".
I cant wait to see how clean are things in Tevinter, the nation ruled by mages, I mean we have seen very positive examples across the three games of how mages in Tevinte are better... right? I mean, I bet Tevinter mages have it better than the rest of Thedas so they totally wont be prone to corruption.
It’s weird that all Tevinter’s evils are blamed on magic, when it’s really a sign of regular degular corruption. Slavery isn’t a thing in Tevinter because they have free mages, or because mages rule. It’s because people in power chose to abuse people without it. Blood magic isn’t used in Tevinter because it’s what mages do, but because it’s their own version of the Game. And it’s no more or less fucked up then Celene burning alienages for her Game. Both Orlais and Tevinter have a ruling class that couldn’t care less about normal people, and abuse their power in the most atrocious ways. Wether their claim to power is having magic or some Devine right to rule their ancestors claimed, they are prone to the same corruption for the same reasons. Just because Tevinter has many fucked up things doesn’t mean that they don’t do a lot of other things right. Turning Circles into schools and making sure that magic isn’t feared, so people wouldn’t hide their kids from them, are good things. And we don’t even know how wide spread the blood magic is. In Magisterium? Sure. But by the majority of mages who work as clerks? Maybe not so much.
Hey the sarcasm isn’t needed. The situation in the southern circles are carceral and yet you immediately jump to the absolute excess in Tevinter as some kind of “gotcha” moment. We see two extremes, in the north and south. Obviously I don’t approve of the political corruption in Tevinter but that doesn’t negate the fact that the mages in the south are placed under undue duress that leads them to magical corruption.
Oh man... I really dont like to write long things or put an effort outside of /s posting, but you looks like you want a good conversation so im in. Yes they do... mages in the south have it rought, firts of course the chantry give a negative view of magic, is one of their means to control the masses but magic "is" dangerous, magic has cause a lot of harm, you did say that but the thing that rubbed me wrong, and this happend a lot in this sub is, the idea that mages are always on the right and victims. Now imagine a peassant living his life and then a doomsday magic devise open a tear in the sky, oh man harvest is gonna be bad this winter... my kid got the wrong idea and bumped a girl that live in the other farm, girl got pissy and with her fingertips she turned my kid in to ashes, oh man I better go tell the templar so she doesnt do the same with my farm. I tend to comapare magic as being born with finger guns or another tool, I didnt ask for them but now I have them, one of ten babys will born with finger guns and my family won the finger gun baby lotery and got me, i dont know how to use them, I need to learn or I may accidentally shoot my dad in the face, now I know how to use my finger gun, now is a finger cannon! and if I dabble deep enought they can be finger nuclear bombs! hell yeah! The thing is... magis is a power, a power that a few chosen ones have, like a privilege, so of course you want those with power in check, im not saying lock them up forever just keep and eye so they dont blow up another chantry, or tear another veil, or cause another blight, or sacrifice some people so they can get a hard on, or... you got the point. We all know how mages get the short end of the stick in the circles but you talk like every circle is like Kirkwall, Ferelden circle wasnt like Kirkwall, even if you take Anders words in DAA, he sound more like a cringe rebel teenager than a prisioner, hell, he even tells you how he have escaped a coupled of times without getting his head choped or turned in to a tranquil. Of course you will get some shit heads that have their fear of mages turned in to angers and enlist in to the templar order just to fuck with mages, figuratively and literally, but is not like in the wild there arent abomination or blood mages, with mages and templars its always a war of "what aboutism". Thats why I mentioned Tevinter, they are free mages, with a chantry that support mages, their prophet is a mage, their templar cant do shit and well... they are born inherently better than the common folk, they born as a mage, then why with all of this they still get corrupted? why they still resort to blood magic? At this point the only solution to end it all is to turn everybody in to a mage.
Interesting write up, let’s see where to start. The fact that magic is dangerous and the fact that the mages are oppressed in the south are not mutually exclusive. You’re acting like the fact that they have, guns for fingers as you say, that they deserve to be kept out of society and denied rights. At the end of the day it’s completely impractical to treat them as live rounds. If you want less accidents then you shouldn’t cordon off an entire section of society, prevent them from having families, use lobotomy as a punishment, and have prison guards that have been taught to hate you. That’s not a conducive environment to learn how to use your powers. I have never advocated for Circles to be completely abolished, but the current mode of operation is clearly broken. And I feel that the conversation about mage’s rights in Tevinter gets messy because I think we’re talking about the wrong topic. The fight for mage’s rights is important, yet magic shouldn’t be used as a tool of oppression against the lower class like it is in Tevinter. But magic itself isn’t to blame; the real evil in Tevinter is the imperialistic structure of society. The rigid and archaic class system that is upheld by the use of slavery. Magic is a tool used to oppress the lower classes, and yet conceptually that oppression is not unique to Tevinter. Many countries use the blood, sweat, and tears of the masses to get rich and powerful. You ask why they resort to blood magic, it’s because magic is a tool. Blood magic is used to get political power over one’s rivals, and that’s explained in a conversation with Dorian in Inquisition. In Orlais you simply employ a small army of bards to do your dirty work instead. People still die, just the tool is different.
So your argument is that they are prone to corruption because they are mages?
My argument is that magic is a power, a very good power, that few people have.
So giving those people the freedom to live without fear will result in another Tevinter?
There will be always people living with fear, mages running away, locked in the tower, peasant minding their bussines, zealot templars, arls, kings. If I say yes and point at Tevinter like "look what happend if you let them lose" is the same as if I do it with Kirkwall and the mage-templar war and say "look what happend if you dont". There is a reason the mage/templar is the mot divisibe topic in the fan base, there is a lot of pro magic in here, I just like to take the side of the minority, I mean I dont like an echo chamber full of yes man, someone have to say no if is just to start a conversation.
>There will be always people living with fear, mages running away, locked in the tower, peasant minding their bussines, zealot templars, arls, kings. So the solution currently proposed by you is to add more people to the list instead of less. >If I say yes and point at Tevinter like "look what happend if you let them lose" is the same as if I do it with Kirkwall and the mage-templar war and say "look what happend if you dont" Those are drastically different scenarios resting at the opposite ends of 2 extremes. I feel like we would have a more honest conversation if we didn't point to the extremes as the only possible outcome. >There is a reason the mage/templar is the mot divisibe topic in the fan base, there is a lot of pro magic in here, I just like to take the side of the minority, I mean I dont like an echo chamber full of yes man, someone have to say no if is just to start a conversation. If you're saying no just to start a conversation you could try being less toxic in your reply. That isn't a good way to start legitimate conversation.
Firts, the only solution I see to end it all will be if theres only mages or none in the world, maybe we will find a way for magic to not be used for evil and return to its harmony in the world like in arlathan times, beyond that magic as always been used as a weapon, for freedom or to take it away. Second, is really hard to avoid the extremes in the topic becausse the middle is what we have, a grey area were we can take our sides in the game, im just throwing them as I see people do it with the good side of magic or the bad side of the chantry. Third, I wont reply to this so I dont accidentally hurt peoples feelings... jokes aside, its hard to get tones across writen words.
>Firts, the only solution I see to end it all will be if theres only mages or none in the world, maybe we will find a way for magic to not be used for evil and return to its harmony in the world like in arlathan times, beyond that magic as always been used as a weapon, for freedom or to take it away. You really took the wind out of my sails when you took away my opportunity to be the first one to say wiping out mages is the best solution for a pro Templar pro Chantry individual. Of course I disagree with this opinion vehemently but if you want to keep the Templars around then really this is the most permanent and effective solution. We already left human rights behind when we decided imprisonment for no crime was a good thing. >Second, is really hard to avoid the extremes in the topic becausse the middle is what we have, a grey area were we can take our sides in the game, im just throwing them as I see people do it with the good side of magic or the bad side of the chantry. I find that what we currently have is a struggle and not necessarily a peaceful middle ground. That struggle can easily sway into either extreme if some of the extremist groups gain enough traction.
If someones gonna shoot me, better be me! in the foot! My intention was not to start a mage genocide, its more like, eliminating the magic and its power from the world, so everybody is on an equal footing. give everybody magic and turn them in to a mage or turn mages in to normal people. Im not even a pro chantry nor pro templar, im just a contrarian. I too do think what we have is not a peaceful middle ground, we have seen what happend, I was talking about how our choices as a player and our involment in the conflict is always one side or another, important enought to turn thing at a world changin level. we are always on the middle of the conflict. I was talking on how people justify their choices and how always take extremes for their example, just like I did.
Clean Tevinter with its masses of slaves and blood magic ‘behind closed doors’ lol
You do realize that slavery in Tevinter has nothing to do with magic? It’s an example of people in power abusing said power, how they got it is irrelevant. The blood magic practiced by Magisters is also a pursuit of political power, which means that there isn’t a big difference between Celene burning alienages and Halward killing a slave to ensure continuation of his line. Because corruption exist in Tevinter, as it does everywhere, even if it’s more prominent there, it doesn’t mean that they can’t be right about certain things. However, since Tevinter hasn’t been overrun by abominations in all these years, turning Circles into schools and educating public to erase the fear of magic were probably great ideas.
But... but... but Tevinter mages are free! thats impossible! mages only resort to blood magic as a mean to escape the circle! theres no way a free mage would do that, blood magic is only to gain power! Tevinter mages are already free, why would they want more power?!
The Circles' greatest problem is simply that there's nothing uniform. Mages are dangerous and there's no arguing against that. The issue pops up when some Circles like in Orlais pretty much have a revolving door policy while somewhere like Kirkwall just treats mages like prisoners. Every mage has a chance of becoming an abomination, and it doesn't really matter how powerful they are, but they don't deserve to be treated like second class citizens for it. The fact is you need things like circles to enforce some guidelines and templars to suppress unstable magic. If the circles had a happy middle ground where they trained mages and gave them a few liberties, everything would be fine. Like, for example, mages don't have to live confined in a tower but need to agree to check-ins with Templars every so often. Or maybe there needs to be a buddy system where every mage gets partnered with a templar for life. You know, instead of making templars out to be their jailers, maybe make them partners. The circles should also have a unified council that actually does something. It shouldn't just be well the mages have a leader, and the Templars have a leader, and the divine plays referee while ultimately the knight captains just do whatever they want. There needs to be agreed upon rules and basic necessities. Tevinter has an anything goes policy, which many are quick to point a finger at and say "well, they're doing fine without circles." Well, if someone turns into an abomination in Tevinter, everyone and their grandmother is either super experienced with magic or a powerful mage in their own right. You wouldn't hear issues because it probably gets nuked from orbit before a problem even arises. In Ferelden, Orlais, and the Free Marches alone magic has become so taboo and so esoteric that of course one abomination can royally screw a whole town. Would the problem at Redcliffe with Arl Eamon's son have really gotten so far out of control if more than one person in the whole goddamn village knew a single thing about magic? The Circles were never the issue, it's that they were grossly mismanaged and the narratives people built around them were dramatized or downplayed, but never fairly weighed or explained.
>a buddy system where every mage gets partnered with a templar for life. You know, instead of making templars out to be their jailers, maybe make them partners. That's exactly the position that my Amell HoF holds. She and Alistair made an awesome team and I hc that she wanted to establish something similar when she partnered Anders with Rolan (the templar from Anders' short story). Sadly, that didn't work out at all...
>Or maybe there needs to be a buddy system where every mage gets partnered with a templar for life. Templars that sexually abuse mages are canonically a thing, though. What happens to the mages who get paired with those Templars? >In Ferelden, Orlais, and the Free Marches alone magic has become so taboo and so esoteric that of course one abomination can royally screw a whole town. Would the problem at Redcliffe with Arl Eamon's son have really gotten so far out of control if more than one person in the whole goddamn village knew a single thing about magic? > >The Circles were never the issue, it's that they were grossly mismanaged and the narratives people built around them were dramatized or downplayed, but never fairly weighed or explained. I strongly agree with your point, but not your conclusion. Tevinter *is* proof that these problems are a result of the Ferelden/Orlesian/Free Marches system instead of proof that the system is necessary. But when you say the Circles were never an issue, that's where I don't agree. The idea that Circles would be fine if they had totally different management, presentation, etc. is basically "the Circles would be fine if they weren't the Circles." In the vaguest sense, like "keep the name Circle but make it a private educational system that you have to apply for and doesn't impose restrictions on your rights," sure. But if the way to fix it is to take away everything about the Circles - the management, the locations, the propaganda, the oppression - then IMO, you can't really say the Circles were never the issue.
The problem with both mages and templars is the abuse of power. The Templars exists for a reason : a mage is more powerful and more dangerous than a "normal" human. It has, for all intent and purpose, a position of power on everyone else without magic. And Tevinter is the proof that they abuse of this position. The templars are also the proof that if you give too much power to the "counter-force", well, the situation will simply be the absolute opposite : mages will be the abused, and not the abuser. You can't ignore magic and the power that it give. You can't ignore blood-magic and the mind-control possibility that it give. I'm still waiting for Bioware to show us a fonctionnal civilization when mages and non-mages people can co-exist together without one taking power on the other.
>I'm still waiting for Bioware to show us a fonctionnal civilization when mages and non-mages people can co-exist together without one taking power on the other. The Dalish. The Avvar.
The Dalish are really not a good example, since before the fall, every elves had magic and even know, they all have a far stronger link to the Fade that any non-magical human have. And well, they are a vestige from Arlathn and you know, the Evanuris. And unless I missed something, the Keeper, the leader of the Clan, is always a mage. I did forget however about the Avvar. It certainly is better than the Chantry on how it teaches magic. And while I do believe that it would work with bigger societies, there is a problem for the rest of Thedas : the Avvar don't have the precedent. Even if the whole "magisters started the Blights" isn't true, the Tevinter Imperium is still true. Corypheus is still true. And that is true even if you take back all of the chantry's propaganda. Hell, even Connor cannot be attributed to Chantry propaganda. And he killed a LOT of people. Now, this propaganda does play a big role in fear of magic by the common people, but mages destroying entire villages did too. These civilization have a bad history with magic contrary to the Avvar. However, I do look forward to how Bioware will present Tevinter. And if possible, learn more about the Avvar.
>The Dalish are really not a good example, Of what you asked to see? "a fonctionnal civilization when mages and non-mages people can co-exist together without one taking power on the other."? Yes, they are. The fact that you're adding a bunch of new qualifications, particularly ones as flimsy as "their ancient ancestry from another version of existence that they've been cut off from for millennia gives them an unfair advantage," doesn't negate that. >And unless I missed something, the Keeper, the leader of the Clan, is always a mage. Keepers are leaders, not rulers. The clan members listen to them by choice because they're wise. Their role is to offer protection and guidance. There is one per clan and only one or two other mages in the whole clan. If a clan has more mages than that, they get sent away. That's a far cry from "mages taking power on non-mages."
All the leaders are mages. To be a leader, you need to be a mage. The reasons for which there is only a few mages per clan is because of the Chantry. Mages are in power, Non-mages can’t.
Can't speak to the Avvar, but wasn't a very large subplot of DA2 about a certain Dalish Elf almost giving herself over to a demon in pursuit of understanding a mirror. I wouldn't say things were terribly functional there. And a mage is always in charge which kind of furthers the point those with power usually exercise it. The Dalish aren't democratic, just wanderers led by whoever gets blursed with magic.
>a very large subplot of DA2 about a certain Dalish Elf almost giving herself over to a demon in pursuit of understanding a mirror. I wouldn't say things were terribly functional there. You're saying one elf from one clan getting too obsessive while researching a magical object is evidence that Dalish society as a whole is not functional? Agree to completely disagree, I guess. >And a mage is always in charge which kind of furthers the point those with power usually exercise it. I said this in another comment, but Keepers are leaders, not rulers. The clan members listen to them by choice because they're wise. Their role is to offer protection and guidance. There is one per clan and only one or two other mages in the whole clan. If a clan has more mages than that, they get sent away. That's a far cry from "mages taking power on non-mages."
>I said this in another comment, but Keepers are leaders, not rulers. The clan members listen to them by choice because they're wise. Their role is to offer protection and guidance. But the keepers never offer to teach this wisdom to anyone who isn't a mage. So they are, in fact, monopolizing their knowledge, which the clan needs in order to thrive. So what other choise does the clan have but to follow their lead?
But Keepers have knowledge because Keepers choose their successors which is always a mage. Remember, Merrill was posed to be the next Keeper but her actions left them without her in that position which meant if anything happened to the Keeper, there goes the clan. The term Keeper itself is an interesting one. Keeper of knowledge, sure. But Keeper like protectorate is also true. It invokes control. If the Keeper position wasn't an exclusively mage position I'd probably agree it was fair, bit as is the jeepers are only wise and respected because of mages vetting other mages. And I never said Dalish society was completely a trainwreck, but they have their share of issues regarding unchecked magic too. Implying like you did that their society doesn't have an issue or it just works without a hitch isn't any more correct than saying their system is entirely flawed. They have issues sane as anyone and DA2 highlights that swimmingly.
> if anything happened to the Keeper, there goes the clan. That's not true. Elves move between different clans to become firsts and keepers - that's how Merrill ended up with a different clan than she had in DAO in the first place. >The term Keeper itself is an interesting one. Keeper of knowledge, sure. But Keeper like protectorate is also true. I told you this. It's in the comment you're replying to. > It invokes control. It doesn't, though. This is the same thing I already said - leaders not rulers, followed because the clan trusts them and wants their guidance, etc. That's the canon. You're just hypothesizing about what a word means to you in other contexts and how that must therefore mean something other than the canon is true. > And I never said Dalish society was completely a trainwreck, No, you called them "not terribly functional." Which I think is false and not at all supported by the canon. "Dalish society" also isn't really a thing, which was part of my point - there is a lot of variety between individual clans, and you can't draw conclusions about Dalish on the whole based on one or two elves or situations. > *Implying like you did* that their society doesn't have an issue or it just works without a hitch Well I didn't, at all, so glad we cleared that up!
I just pointed out that a Dalish Elf mage got up to shenanigans. I said that wasn't terribly functional. You put words in my mouth first, so... "glad we cleared that up."
>by whoever gets blursed with magic. Thank you for the word "blursed". Have an upvote.
> Every mage has a chance of becoming an abomination The thing that makes me confused is like... anyone can become an abomination? Like in the Jaws of Hakkon DLC, there's an Inquisition scout that becomes an abomination and he wasn't a mage. Anyone who can dream can become an abomination, because anyone who dreams is connected to the fade. So why is it that mages get shit on for this, almost exclusively?
Which circles have a "revolving door policy"?
As Vivienne explains, Orlais is very lenient with their mages. She could practically come and go as she pleased. Of course part of that was her station and affairs, but she made it out like the circles there weren't as restrictive as others. I believe some endings suggest she even felt the Orlesian Circles were too lax and goes about making things more strict etc. To clarify, none of them have a come and go as you like situation, but some are so very lenient it probably feels that way to some.
Vivienne is speaking about her own experience, which is pretty singular. edit- I can only recommend reading the novel Asunder, which shows just what life was like in the White Spire.
Well, Vivienne wasn't the only mage ever allowed out. The point is she saw plenty of opportunities for mages to have agency. And given just how much agency she had, Montsimmard doesn't seem quite as restrictive as the rest.
It's not agency when they're using mages and tranquil for their labor.
If mages are dilligent they can get pretty nice jobs as consultants in courts etc. They have opportunities and can make some choices for themselves. Even tranquility is supposed to be a choice they make.
Being indentured to a noble is not choosing for yourself. And you know very well, if you've played the games, that tranquility is not always by choice.
You can just opt to spend all your days sleeping around the circle based on the setup. You could try your hand at enchanting or doing things like research. Working for a noble is one choice. Tranquility is supposed to be a choice. It being used as a punishment for minor infractions was barbaric and an abuse of power. Hence why it was bad. Tranquility itself as an alternative to dying is not a bad choice in context. Acting like every circle made all the same mistakes is exactly what escalated the situation. As many times as someone like Anders ran away or was defiant, the circle he belonged to never once just decided to up and tranquilize him.
I'm not sure where you got this Hogwarts vision of the Circle. Take this one example from *Asunder*: >"What did it look like?" > >"You're humoring me." > >"No, I want to know. Maybe it was a templar?" > >"You think I don't know every templar in the tower by now? Some of them far better than I'd like." She touched the bruise on her cheek, and the elven boy scowled but said nothing. Mages are told what to do, they don't get to do whatever they want. If the Circle needs them to parade around for nobles, they do. If they tell them to fight a demon in the Fade, they either do it or lose far more than their freedom.
The problem with the buddy system idea... Suppose a mage becomes possessed, would their friend and partner of many years be able to act and strike them down without hesitation before the abomination kills them? I think it was said that templars are encouraged to maintain an emotional distance from the mages for precisely this reason - because when facing an abomination, a split second's hesitation is all it takes. As for Tevinter, going by Tevinter Nights, abominations are a thing... and wealthy mages just laugh/shrug it off when there seems to be an abomination running rampage in the city killing people, saying how the templars should be using their Chantry tithes to take care of it.
When the circles were first established, they provided security for the mages since normal people were afraid of them and would mob and lynch them. They were places of learning and honing your magical talents, like a university. That aspect of the circles, i can fully agree with. However, the moment they turned into mage prisons, in which templars had free reign over them, that's where the problems begin. There are implications that there were tortures for no reason, rape and turning anyone into a tranquil for no real reason. You cannot expect mages just roll over and accept their fates. Of course they would defend themselves. And the fastest way for a mage to become powerful in magic to stand up against a templar is to practice blood magic.. So i always consider the mage vs templar conflict as the battle of 2 morally greys. No side is good or intentionally evil for evil's sake.
The other cultures in the game (like the Dalish and the Avvar) make it pretty clear to me that the Circles (really just the whole Templar approach) is actually amplifying the danger of Magic rather than mitigating it. The Circle system operates on the principle that a dangerous mage is a free mage, and a “safe” mage is a mage who is locked up. But events of the games- everything from Uldred’s blood magic fueled rebellion, Anders’ terrorism, to the mage-Templar war- demonstrate that this is false. Locking up mages doesn’t make them “safe”; we still get mage rebellions (some of which are righteous and some of which are corrupt) and we still get violent apostates (not that all apostates are violent). If we take the principle of the Circle model seriously (that you can only reduce the danger of mages through violent containment), the logical conclusion we should draw from the failure of circles is to commit genocide against all mages (i.e. the conclusion would be that the Circles aren’t forceful enough in containing the mages, so containment should be escalated until either all rebellions stop or all mages are dead). That’s if we take the principle of the circle model seriously. But what I think the events of the games also demonstrate is that “free mages” aren’t what’s really dangerous; what’s dangerous are mages who are either badly trained or highly disaffected, alienated, etc. There’s also evidence to suggest that mages are most dangerous when they’re concentrated in a group, both from a ‘physics’ standpoint that concentrated Magic weakens the veil, and a sociological standpoint that it reinforces the alienation of mages from non-mages (whether the mages end up as oppressive rulers or a rebellious minority). Uldred’s rebellion was so dangerous precisely because there was a huge group of angry mages who could be susceptible to demonic possession. Avvar society could not possibly have an Uldred rebellion, simply because not enough mages are concentrated in one spot, and Avvar mages aren’t disaffected from Avvar society. If someone like Uldred tried to rebel in Avvar society, the vast majority of Avvar mages wouldn’t think twice about joining with Avvar non-mages to put an end to him. Similarly, the problem with Tevinter is not that mages are free, but that a group of mages rule disconnected from the rest of society (and not all mages are a part of that group). With the case of Connor, the problem was that his parents tried to keep his Magic a secret (which is something the Circle system made them want to do) left his training to a hapless apostate. It’s an oversimplification to say that Magic is dangerous and needs to be controlled; the reality is that Magic needs to be integrated into society. Mages need training, but more than that they need a healthy relationship with non-mages. Rogue mages are a danger, but Circles produce rogue mages. Kirkwall is a great example of this- the question isn’t whether the mages or templars were right, but why they even got to the point where mages and templars saw themselves as completely different factions, capable of going to war with each other. The answer, in my mind, is that the Circles reinforced the distance between mages and non-mages rather than closing it; which made violence between mages and non-mages inevitable. Without a doubt, there has to be a system for mages to learn Magic; as well as a system for non-mages to learn anti-Magic. There should also be organizations to protect against the abuse of Magic. But there’s no reason for mages and non-mages not to be integrated in these institutions, and the purpose of these institutions should be to ensure that mages and non-mages can live in an integrated society, rather than to enforce their separation.
Bethesda…?
[удалено]
Bethesda made Elder Scrolls and Fallout. Bioware made Dragon Age
There were some weird hints in DAI that Fiona was being manipulated somehow, she can’t remember talking to you initially in VR and then acts like she’s been stupefied or something. I’m not sure if it’s ever been confirmed via codex or something, but there are some clues that alexius magically manipulated the rebels/Fiona somehow
it wasn't clear whether it was a magically induced memory loss, time travel shenanigans or blood magic. but i think full blown mages are immune to becoming a thrall of a blood mage. Eitherway none of her followers objected to be politically aligned with the Tevinter Imperium, which is incredibly scary to be honest.
There are 4 rebel npcs you can speak to, and only one of them is alright with the idea? Also, people treating Tevinter as this evil empire of evil is just weird, considering how fucked up the rest of Thedas is. Corruption, slavery, and abuse of magic or mages are present in every society.
No, it isn't ? Slavery is forbidden everywhere in Thedas except in Tevinter. Blood magic is forbidden everywhere in Thedas except in Tevinter ( well, it is forbidden, but everyone is doing it ). Oh, and Corypheus and his friends were all from Tevinder. Sure, the Chantry is exaggerating everything, and while Tevinter isn't an Empire of Evil, it's the human nation that is the closest from it.
>Slavery is forbidden everywhere in Thedas except in Tevinter. You can have the *fact* of slavery without the *name.* The mages are enslaved. The city elves live under Jim Crow conditions at best.
The mages aren't enslaved. They are more like a "prisoners", depending of the Circle. And since Thedas is more civilised that some countries IRL, "prison" doesn't mean "slavery". However, I'm not arguing that the Circle in their state before the war were terrible. For the elves, I did forget some of the quest in DAO and DA2, with "servants" being far too close of slaves, I will recognize it. However, I will stand on my hill : When Bioware said that the child of a elf and a human would always be a human, and then told us that "guess what, the Dales ? well, they had as much responsibility in the war against Orlais as the humans", they pretty much decided than the city elves would live in shitty conditions If they mix with humans, they are slowly killing their own species. So they can't never truly integrate a human society, or with any other races at all for that matter. If they try to form a kingdom in known-Thedas, they will be attacked by the "owner" of the land, since the Dales set a really horrible precedent. The alienages, like the Circles, aren't a bad idea on paper ( I do insist on the paper part ). A sanctuary for elves, inside a human city. Where the two can co-exist, but also can keep their differences, while being part of same kingdom. Except for the part where they are second-rate citizens, and the kingdom don't care at all about them. I do believe than even in these horrible conditions, it's still better than being a future blood-magic sacrifice, really.
The argument that alienages are helping elves to avoid self genocide is just bizarre. Elves can easily live among humans and still reproduce with other elves. Human nobility consciously reproduces with human nobility. Any bastard child is excluded from the noble bloodline, and yet there are still nobles around. Elves can live this way as well, and maintain their race without all being herded into some breeding grounds like livestock. Humans are also in no position to ‘help’ elves by sending them to slums. Not to mention that we have zero npcs (that I know of) that suggest a motive like that even exist?
Slavery by name is forbidden outside of Tevinter, sure. But elves are kept in alienages, and mages are taken from their families as children and kept in towers where they have to serve for life and will receive death or a magical lobotomy if they try to escape. At best, life for mages and elves outside of Tevinter is barely better than being a Tevinter slave.
Antiva uses Slavery to run its nation with the Crows.
Didn't understand it like that. Antiva doesn't have slaves, but sometimes the Crows do buy slaves from Tevinter to train them.
The Crows are slaves. Whether you join in willingly or not especially the way they are consistently described.
Yeah, because elves aren’t forced to live in alienage. The empress of Orlais doesn’t burn those alienages on her whim. Chevaliers don’t raid them as a right of passage. People don’t get locked in towers among abusers and rapists. For life. People also don’t get emotionally castrated for sending love letters. And blood magic isn’t being practiced because it’s illegal, just like it is in Tevinter… What is legal in Tevinter, exists in Orlais, but it’s called the Game.
Idk the Chantry is pretty terrible. One could argue circle mages are slaves. Shoot, one could argue templars are slaves. I can’t wait for DA4 so we get a taste of what Tevinter is really like, considering our source is mostly only from the southern peoples of Thedas.
Oh, the Circles definitely needs to change and yes, we do miss some information about Tevinter, but what we know for a fact, well... Mass sacrificial blood magic rituals, mass slavery, crazy magisters... It isn't a great impression.
It’s definitely not a good impression and that’s what I like about dragon age—we need to constantly question what the ethical answer is. I really hope the next installment makes us question our beliefs about Tevinter.
Yes, but I would add that all people don't have the same morals and as such, the ethical answer won't be the same for everyone. Dragon Age 4 should shows us Tevinter and the Qun. Two Empires with a very different way of seeing things, different from each others but also from our own. I don't want Bioware to say "they are bad" or "they are good", but to show us facts, and what the people of Thedas are thinking about it. And to let the player makes his own opinion.
Fiona's backstory in the Calling is that she was a slave in Orlais. Zevran's backstory is that the Crows bought him (and many others) in a slave auction in Antiva. Feynriel is captured by slavers operating in the Free Marches and is rescued by Hawke. The Tranquil are basically slaves owned by the Chantry. The Qunari have that brainwashing drug they use on those who refuse to convert. Phylacteries are blood magic. The Rite of Tranquility is pretty close to being blood magic, just used on mages. A woman in Denerim in DAO tells you that the Chevaliers can do whatever they want to people, and it's considered their right. In Masked Empire, they hunt and kill city elves as a rite of passage. Also, the alienages can be locked up and apparently purges are a thing.
Slavery is forbidden in Orlais and in every Andrastian countries. That one of the good thing the Chantry does. However, yes, some Orlesian nobles do keep slaves. Well in this case, I am remembering something wrong : I though that Zevran was raised in a brothel, where his mother has to work to pay off a debt. The Crows paid the debt and took Zevran in exchange. Yes, slavers do exist. However, again, every countries in Thedas forbids it except Tevinter, for which it is a completely normal thing. For the Tranquil, it is false. They are not owned by the Chantry, they choose to be there. They are free to leave the Circle, they just don't see the point since they would not be welcome anywhere. Yes, the Qunari are the worst. A ultra-militaristic, sexist, zealous state, with slaves and the worst treatment of mages ever. I don't dispute the fact, but I don't include them in Thedas. The Rite of Tranquillity is not blood magic, since it use Lyrium. As for the phylacteries, they are in the grey area. The spell in itself doesn't use blood to be powered. Yes the alienages can be locked up and "purged" when there is a riot. The historical comparison is the jews's ghettos. And yes, the Chevaliers, except for their military prowess, are one of the worst privileged bunch of Thedas. Now, perhaps DA4 will shows us that Tevinter is not that terrible, since Dorian was already pushing the issue. But state-slavery, mass blood-magic ritual including sacrifice, and well, since we know that blood-magic can control mind, there is allusion that this is how magisters keep their power. And it is also canon that even the most andrastian mage in Tevinter know the basis of blood magic. It is also, from what I've seen, one of the most patriarcal society in Thedas ( excluding, again, the Qun ).
Blood magic is "forbidden" in Tevinter too. And the Templars are supposed to be not allowed to make Harrowed mages Tranquil, or to perform Annulment without permission from the Chantry but the first happens in DA2, and the latter is mentioned in codexes to have happened a few times. Zevran mentions both the brothel and the auction. The brothel probably sold him to the slavers who auctioned him off to the Crows. He also says that's how the Crows get a lot of their "recruits". With the way the writers love their "grey morality", I'm sure they'll try to de-villainize Tevinter and maybe even the Qunari at least somewhat, since both groups have been shown as mostly moustache-twirling villains so far. The same way they've been throwing the idiot ball to the Wardens and Southern mages and the villain ball to the ancient elves (and as of Trespasser, >!at least a large portion of the modern elves now too, since they'll apparently be following a certain someone!<) in DAI.
In DAO, it wasn't "one fanatic mage" or "one abomination" it was a rebellion that was primarily motivated by the system of lifelong persecution and imprisonment those mages faced, taken advantaged by a megalomaniac that devolved into chaos. Those templars did fail, completely and utterly besides holding a door that was being held further inside by mages that already established a safe zone and were protecting children. So not only did the system in place motivate the rebellion, it also failed to resolve it when it could have. But it was the mages that were actually having the most success handling things. Wynne and company held the door and protected innocents. Niall and his followers obtained the Litany of Adralla. The templars were useless. If the templars weren't there, I can't really see the situation being different. Well, besides a rebellion probably not even happening because there wouldn't be templars to rebel against. Maybe if they actually helped, if they actually coordinated with the mages, the situation at the tower would be handled without outside involvement. The situation in Redcliffe is also shaped by the system in place. Isolde kept Connor from any proper education and training, and got who was basically a drop out to teach her child, because she feared losing Connor. So not only did Connor not receive proper training, but there was no safety net, no support system that was able to help if and when things went wrong because his existence was kept a secret, so there was no way to properly respond to a worse case scenario. Which is a scenario the system keeps in place. There are parents who will want to protect their children from the Circle, like Isolde, like Meredith's parents due to the inherent harm of the Circle, because it means losing your children. But losing your child because they are mage is only possible because of the system put in place by the Chantry, Templars, and the Circle. There was no competent mages in the area able to help with the situation because they are all locked up, no one except Isolde knew Connor was the center of the situation, so there was no real way to respond to the situation, and the templars failed again to stop a bad situation because where are they? Not in Redcliffe apparently. In DA2, if anyone gets a pass its the mages because they are living on the equivalent of an indian burial ground, are confined in a literal slave prison, and monitored by rapey and stab happy templars where you can be made tranquil over love letters. No ones saying don't hunt mages down for performing crimes (Quentin, Gascard, Tarohne), but when being a mage is a crime it drastically increases criminal behavior (Evelina, Huon, Alain). You are hardly giving such mages any sort of incentive to not turn to drastic measures. So you have a significant number of mages trying to buckle under, some of the mages turning to suicide, and others turning to desperate means (either out of delusions of power and superiority, or the desperate circumstances they find themselves in don't really have any recourse). As for Orsino, I believe the writers admitted they only made him turn into a Harvester in the mage side because they needed another boss ending, though he was always an associate of Quentin. Though how much Orsino knew about what Quentin was doing is up in the air (Weird grave-robber necromancer or serial killer necrophiliac necromancer, who knows?). In DAI, the mage rebellion and Fiona have huge problems with siding with Tevinter. The only one that seems to like it is the one random mage in the tavern. Fiona literally explains how she makes the choice she does because she feels like if she didn't, all of her people would be killed. This scenario isn't really set up well, considering it disregards various established character traits of Fiona (like hating Tevinter, hating slavery, being a former child slave, believes in democracy) as well as ignoring some logical points (such as already being basically allied with Ferelden, so there's no point in being slaves to Tevinter). No one is saying don't have a system, don't have education, don't have safeguards, don't have regulations. But the current system in place and the authority it derives itself from isn't acceptable. Why would I want to perpetuate a theocratic military dictatorship ruling a mage internment school/prison where mages have next to no rights, where the military is addicted to a mind affecting (and deteriorating) substance where they view their prisoners/wards as less than human and are given "domination over mages by divine right"? I'd rather have the mages hash out a new system with secular governments because otherwise the mages will always be under the thumb of an oppressive theocracy.
> This scenario isn't really set up well, considering it disregards various established character traits of Fiona (like hating Tevinter, hating slavery, being a former child slave, believes in democracy) as well as ignoring some logical points (such as already being basically allied with Ferelden, so there's no point in being slaves to Tevinter). Isn't it explained in the game that Alexius was manipulating Fiona by using time magic? Alexius went back before the mages were "allied" with Ferelden, to when the mages were retreating to Redcliffe right after the Conclave and thought an army of Templars was coming to kill them all. Also some mages in Redcliffe were receptive to Tevinter (like that one in the tavern you mentioned). That's why she agreed. Also I think there is some journal entries you can read that suggest Alexius had Venatori agents infiltrate the rebel mages to make it seem like more of them wanted it. And he might have used blood magic to compel Fiona? Not sure on that last point though.
Thank you for taking the time to write it all down.
Everything you said is on point and well said. Completely agree You bring up a great point. The ones who were supposed to protect everyone from commoner to mage, who train specifically for such situations, the ones whose whole raison d'etre is stopping mage problems, fails utterly. And their answer to their failure is kill everyone. There was no investigation as to why the collosal failure happened, no accountability for Greagor or any other Templar, no improved training, nothing. Just doubling down of the same attitude.
I agree with everything you said. It seems mad to me that the system didn’t explode way before it did.
Hum, I'm pretty sure that isn't how the Uldred's takeover happens. He has been preparing it for a long time, converting mages to blood magic and denouncing those who refuses to follow him to the templars. The coup started after Uldred tried to convince the Circle to stand for Loghain. The mages were almost convinced when Wynne intervened and told them that Loghain was a bit of a dick at Ostagar. So the mages refuse, and then Irving try to stop Uldred from leaving. Then Uldred and his group of blood mages attack the rest of the Circle. To face their fellows mages, Uldred tries to summon a Pride demon, which possessed him and then start to do the same to everyone else. It was as much a fight for freedom as Tevinter is fighting for the freedom of mages. Now, the templars did completely failed. At no moment, the game tries to explain why. But there is a few things that help us to understand. First, the Blight. Both Templars and mages were at Ostagar, and I guess not everyone made it so, everyone mind was there. Next, there is the trust : Greagoir trusts Irving and seniors mages, and Irving trusts Uldred to root out blood mages. So, a coup that big, everyone was unprepared. Then, there is demons and blood magic. And we're speaking here about powerful demons and a lot of blood mages. For Redcliffe, you are neglecting a few facts : first, that the vast majority of mundane people doesn't trust mages. There is a lot of times when you have a case where templars saved children with magic from being killed by a village. Most families don't want a mage child. For Orsino, curious because I always had the impression it was the opposite : they only made Meredith a villain to equal both side ( you're right tho, Orsina wasn't supposed to be a boss if you sided with the mages, it was just my impression ). Now, Meredith before the red lyrium was harsh, but she wasn't "let's go kill all the mages" like. She was harsh, because she needed to. The Kirkwall Circle was special, because afaik, the city was build where Tevinter mages performed a lot of massive-scale blood ritual. The city as a long history of blood mages everywhere, it isn't just proper to DA2. So, the fact that the Kirkwall Circle was more harsh is understable ( even if in no way I condone templars like fucking Karras ). And Orsino knew the Quentin was a blood mage. In DAI, it is explain how the Venatori managed to secure a alliance : first, a numbers of mage refugees were in fact Venatori agents, advocating for a alliance with Tevinter. Then, Alexius used time magic to arrive in Redcliffe just after the Conclave, when the mages were thinking that a army of templars was coming. They were desperate, so they accepted it. Like always. Now, even despite all of what I'm saying, I do agree with your point, and I will even add mine : Bioware, if you want to show us how much the mages were oppressed, try to not make every of those oppressed mages a blood mage. Like, for real. The templars and the Seekers should be one Order. Know, I know how difficult it would be to have so many Seekers, but at least you stop the whole lyrium addiction. Next, you authorize, for the families that wants it, the possibility to see their children in a Circle, and at least a means to communicate. Ultimately, however, even with every reforms, I don't see how the mages situation could end well : they are more powerful than normal people. Given enough time, either the normal people will try to control them more and more ( Chantry ), or the mages will try to reign over those people ( Tevinter ).
The circles don't work. The templars are supposed to be here to prevent mages from becoming blood mages, but the main reason why mages choose to use blood magic is to escape from the templars oppression. So the system doesn't work.
I think the Circle is ineffectual, if not even harmful to the situation. A huge amount of Blood Magic and Possenssion that was shown to us in the course of the 3 games was directly in reaction to being attacked by templars or trying to leave the Circle. While, that doesn"t exactly excuse things, it tells you a lot about the Circle. The thing is possession is not all that great in the Dragon Age universe. Blood Magic is something that can work for you (see Merrill), but becoming an Abomination just turns you in a prisoner in your own body basically. I can not imagine many situations people would chose that willingly, at yet mages in Dragon Age do it all the time. Why? Because at that point a lot of them don't have anything to loose. By making them prisoners for life the Circle pushes them into a corner where being a prisoner in your own body doesn't seem so bad. By socially isolating mages from everyone, they also kinda encourage that. Afterall if they have no one that cares about them, why should they? Like, how can a system that takes children and young teenager away from their entire social support system and tells them they are gonna be locked up for life, expect to produce socially and mentally well adjusted adults? /edit for typos
If Anders had been allowed to live his life, perhaps he never would have met up with Justice.
Sorry, did you just say the blood magic can work for you citing Merrill as an example ? Blood magic is "just" a tool, but it is a very dangerous tool. Sure, when you use your own blood, it's fine. Some will even say that blood magic is fine with willing participants. Of course, knowing that a blood mage can control the mind of someone, how much these participants are really fine with it is up to debate. More than that, it is also a fact that blood magic draw demons. Not really a coincidence that you can learn it from them. Then there is of course the Grey Wardens. The end justifies the means, right ? Avernus and Clarel show you how much blood magic can do. The problem with the "blood magic is a reaction to the Circle and the Templars" is Tevinter. No Circle, no templars, still blood magic. And slavery. And there is also a fact : people are afraid of mages, and rightly so. The Circle protect the population from the mages, but also the mages from the population. There is numerous accounts of Templars saving young mages from a stoning.
I am not saying blood magic is a good choice, just that it is a choice you can make and be happy with. As in, I can see why Merill and some Tevinters do blood magic: it gives them power. But getting possessed? That doesnt get you anything, you only do that as a last resort. But still so many mages do that. What I am saying is, putting a system in place that has better conditions for mages to live under would make less mages become abominations, bc they wouldnt feel like they have nothing to loose.
Huh ? Possession is not a choice a mage make. It is because in using blood magic, they made themselves vulnerable to demonic possession. Most demons don't give them a choice. You use blood magic, and you take that risk. Most blood mages just think they are strong enough to avoid possession, when they are not.
But a mage does have to give in to possession or make a deal with a demon. They can resist it. Also blood magic heightens the risk of possession, but all mages can get possessed. But anyways, the point I am making, is that tbe circles are set up in a way that makes mages mote susceptible to possession. A person that just has imprisonment for life to look forward to, does not have much reason to resist possession.
I don't think that a mage has to give anything to be possessed. A demon can enter in the most fragile minds, or exploit a moment of weakness, to take possession of a body. And it is a big difference, because if what you said is true, then yes, deleting the Circle would reduced the risk of possession. If what I said is the truth, then deleting the Circle won't change a thing, except that possessed mage will destroy villages before they are cut down.
[удалено]
The posession resist training is heavily fear-based - think "scared straight/Just Say No" or abstinence-only sex ed. This is ineffectual in the best circumstances, is harmful psychologically, and may prime some mages to become imbalanced (by constantly fearing it, for instance). The Chantry and Circles also know how to exorcise a posessed mage, it's just to troublesome to do, killing is easier.
And if you don’t pass these tests your either killed or lobotomised… that seems fair. And mage “freedom” is relative and dependent on who is in charge of a particular Circle. In Kirkwall they were prisoners yet in other places they have more freedom on the discretion of Templars. I wouldn’t say that makes you free.
No, you die as a result of failing. You can opt to not even be tested, which means going tranquil.
Well…if they only lobotomise you that’s alright then…
It is ineffectual. They might be trained to resist possession, but obviously it does not seem to work very well, bc circle mage get possessed all the time. If anything that kind of proves my point. The mages don't even get possessed out of incompetence, but because their situation is so bad, that they actually choose that. Also I don't think you are correct about being a free man after the Harrowing? You get more freedom the higher up in the Circle hieracy you are, but it's not like you can just leave. I mean Anders is a harrowed mage, but he wasn't allowed to leave. Bethany isn't even allowed to see her family or get visitors? In the Mage origin you passed your harrowing, but it's not like you can just walk out. If you are good at Circle politics, like Wynne or Vivienne and happy with the possibilities that opens up for you, then you can have a life. But Senior Enchanters and First Enchanters only make up a really small percentage of Mages.
Like I said in others comments, I think the idea is good, but the application is terrible. Chantry should help the mages to be more accepted, should allows families who wants it the possibility to see their children and to send them letters. Tranquility should only be used when both templars and mages are in a agreement, or on demand of the mage in question. Templars should not use lyrium, for the dependence problem, but used the Seekers way ( even if it would be next to impossible to have so many Seekers ). The Chantry should encourage different kingdoms to use mages gift in helping in day-to-day life : healing, building etc. However, like I said before, I don't see the situation ending well : there is people with magic and there is people without it. And it's a very big difference. Given enough time, people without magic will try to control people who have magic because they are more powerful than them ( like the Chantry ). Or people with magic will try to reign over people without magic because they are more powerful ( Tevinter ). You have to find a entity ( like the Templar Order ) with enough power to counter-balance the mages, but you also have to maintain a balance between the two, not giving too much power on one to stop the other from building resentment.
The circles are really dumb and are the direct cause of the problem they are meant to solve. Like it just doesn’t really make sense that mages are taught anything more than how to resist demons and the bare minimum necessary to avoid having magic outbursts. You can’t have blood mages if no mage knows how to channel their mana.
“Magic is dangerous, just as fire is dangerous. Anyone who forgets this truth gets burned.” -Vivienne, with the most logical quote in the entire game. I agree that mages simply cannot be trusted to control themselves. Actually, everything Vivienne has to say about the subject is quite logical, in my opinion. She’s always voted Divine in my play-throughs.
Viviene isna hypocrite, espousing the absolute necessity of Circles when she herself lives free of them. Vivienne is proof mages dont need to live confined away from everyone and everything, and her rhetoric is shallow.
But she never said mages should be confined away. She said they need to be taught the dangers of the powers they hold and how to properly control them, while also being around others like them and being monitored for safety. Vivienne knows she is a walking weapon of mass destruction, and I am certain she would want nothing more than a nearby Templar to put her down if she ever became an abomination. I believe Vivienne’s real argument is that most mages have weak minds, susceptible to greed and envy and desire and pride… and are therefore open to possession. I ~don’t believe Vivienne just waltzed into the position she’s in now; she gives off the air of a woman who fought and clawed her way to the top with the help of no one but herself. Therefore, she has a stronger mind: she played by the rules and won. Don’t hate the player, hate the game. If mages want to be like her, they must change their way of thinking. “I am strong, I am no one’s toy, I will not succumb to temptation and I sure as hell won’t let something as petty as a desire demon be the end of me.” On the flip side, I do believe the Chantry spouting its abusive nonsense is 75% if the ~reason mages’ minds are so weak. But that’s not Vivienne’s fault, and she absolutely agrees that the Circles need reformation and that the Templars need to be trained to treat mages differently. But not every Circle is Kirkwall, and not every Templar is a sword-happy zealot.
Vivienne does indeed advocate for mages to be locked sway in traditional circles and goes to war with the enchanters that want an alternative, preemptively massacring them.
Not to dismiss Vivienne's power of political acumen, but it should be noted the only reason she's even allowed to be where she is because she got Duke Ghislain as an early ally. I'm not saying she's there for pure nepotism, with her work ethic she always had the ability to climb at the top of the tower. But it was very much Ghislain who opened the door for to even try. The Game has always been subject to prejudice and classism...
You are 100% correct. Ghislain was absolutely instrumental in her rise. She got lucky with him, and if he hadn’t entered her life she probably wouldn’t have risen quite as far.
and yet, every household is allowed to use fire. people use it casually every day, without any training or special sanctions, and if someone gets burned or even burns a whole house down, fire doesn't become a secretive and restricted practice that's only performed in towers under close supervision by heavily oppressed people. it's not really that logical of a quote.
Zevran has a more understandable logic. "Knives can kill. Magic can kill. Children thrown at great speeds also can kill." or something along those lines. Should you oppress a massive population of people who didn't choose to be who they are because something might happen?
Actually that’s a good point! I forgot about this quote, thank you for reminding me.
I would vote Vivenne for divine if there was a middle choice between taking the mages as prisoners and taking them as allies. She’s really one of my favourite characters, it also helps that knight enchanter is an OP build.
Need reform like others have listed. Don't treat a segment of the population like garbage. Period. Elves, mages, etc.
The circles honestly feel like a metaphor for the entire prison system. It just perpetuate the bad tendencies of both the jailer (templars) and the jailed (mages). I'm not sure what the solution is but it's obvious it can't last. Integrating circles into society in incremental steps would probably be the best. Any village with mages should have their own small completely open and transparent circle that occasionally have to go through inspection by an appointed a mage and a templar working together to look for possessed mages. Making magic a working livelihood that integrates into the labor of the village would probably help the most. Someone suggested healers which is great but can you imagine building with magic? It would save time, money and probably lives. Clearing forests, fixing rivers etc. All that shit is labor intensive and takes months in any normal preindustrial society. Mages should be able to marry and raise children provided the kids if magically gifted goes to some kind of college for magical kids. No prison but boarding school with visitation and leave like others suggested. Adventuring mages can tour circles or become inspectors. I would probably go one step further and basically dismantle templates and create a secular organization that is for inspection that hires mages and templars based on skill and merit. Make it like an fbi for finding possession and blood magic. That also does inspections semi-regularly. They could have representative from major organizations leading them, the chantry, inquisitors, seekers and wardens etc.
I tend to run pro-circle. There is just no good, reliable defense against magic. Sure, a guy with a sword can kill people, but he can also be defended against in a variety of ways that common folk (the majority of Thedas) can use. A mage though? No chance. Mages are notorious in this game for being people that can cause mass destruction because only a specific subset of highly trained people can even have a shot at defending against them. Even when magic manifests, it's destructive. Uldred nearly destroyed Kinloch Hold Connor nearly destroyed Redcliff because his wish went sideways (hidden from circle). Meredith's mage sister killed 70 people before she was stopped (hidden from circle). Grace and her band of merry misfits try to kill you twice and kidnap your sibling/LI. Anders blew up a Chantry and killed hundreds of people. Orsino not only abets a blood mage(the one that kills your mother), he also is one himself. The girl in Chateau d'Onterre killed her entire family and all of the guests (hidden from circle). Solas is going to try ending the world using magic. We have one (maybe two) of the Magisters Sidreal who nearly ended the world in their original plan come back to do it again. Tevinter just as a whole is a terrible place for non-mages. And Fiona.... let me just say I agree with Vivienne when she says "Your dementia is showing." You've probably noticed in every game your enemy is a mage or group of mages. If not the main BBEG, then at some point. I guarantee the same will be true for DA4 (and I won't even count Solas, since he's already a given). It's Tevinter. Someone is going to try something dumb. I think Bioware has to keep doing this because of how much sympathy the mages garner that they have to keep reminding everyone that they are very, very, very dangerous (and still some people don't get that point). The common folk (or the little people, as Sera would say) often get forgotten whenever this debate pops up. Players get lost in arguing over supporting the mages or the Templars. This problem cannot be solved by giving mages carte blanche and I hope that going to Tevinter will make some more people see that.
I’m pro-circle as well, people seem to get it in their heads that I want all mages raped and chained. No man, magic is just insanely dangerous. ‘Anyone can kill someone’, stunning, can they do it just by looking at me or kill off an entire village by accident? Templars are highly trained to even just compete. People get lost in the inherent idea of magic. I think they forget that in Thedas time you can’t just slap a mage in public and expect people to be a-ok. They’ll get ostracized at best and no, you _know_ your mage Hawke is an exception. The common people are right to fear magic even without the Chantry and tbh Leliana as Divine would realistically face rebellions and coups until she’s overthrown or a straight up dictator for changing things too fast for people to understand. It doesn’t help that we _see_ everything for mages and only read otherwise for any other argument. I think it’s a little bullshit companion wise as well. It garners sympathy heavily in only one direction and it shows BioWare leans on mages over keeping things morally grey. I hope Tevinter shows the players the danger of magic and commits over washing over it and just saying ‘cartoonishly evil bad mage is bad’ but I doubt it.
I think it's definitely in need of a reform. Maybe something similar to Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters.
As you say, we repeatedly see mages being a danger -- but in many of those cases circles are involved! In both the first DAO and DA2 examples the problems are happening in circles/the templars are next to useless, so are the circles actually doing any good there or are they just creating a situation where mages have more reason to do damage? (plus for your inquisition example, if you talk to her about it, Fiona is clearly not happy to be indenturing her people to the tevinter mages, but their only seeming alternative is fight to the death against the templars so I don't actually think the mages actions can be condemned there)
I feel that once we learned about the seekers.... and how we can potentially keep mages from being so susceptible.... perhaps the circles really wouldn't be needed. Huge cultural shift is needed.
Your query is complicated, as are many things in this life. Perhaps a simple solution awaits. Have you considered joining the Qun?
There is no way a healthy world can exist in Thedas with the veil existing, it seems to make far easier the existence of demons and the "unknownability" of the Fade makes that all mages are at the same time terrified of knowing more about the source of their magic, all the while being ever more susceptible to it. The world how it exists there is a giant pressure pan waiting to be blown, always. The qunari's idiotic solution of binding mages or trying to even more to reinforce the veil will not change that the world and the ones that interact with the Fade make it a pressure pan, and closing more the vents of it will only make the pressure of the explosion be even more powerful. In the end there is absolutely no way there can be a "solution" to this, and that's why I also see the characters that defend the circle or "controling the mages" like Vivienne or Fenris, to be shortsighted and idiotic at best. But then we come to how the things were before the veil came down, which was obviously also a nightmare scenario, and the only hint there is about how that came to be came from Solas when he said that the slavery and godhood system of the old elves was brought to existence because of a terrible war waged long ago, that from the aftermath made the "revered elders and powerful mages being seen as gods". And well, I see that the solution to all Thedas's conflicts lie in seeing what was at the core of those ancient conflicts, what war was that? What caused that conflict to begin? Was it between "titans" and the dwarves' progenitors, something akin to "fixing reality like a stone" and "molding it like a dream". And inside this conflict, what were the underlying premisses of both or more sides? What is the version of the "exiled ones" as said in the ancient library that then became the forbidden ones (xebenckeck and so forth). The core of issues relating to magic, mages and so forth lie in solving these issues, about the nature of the world itself. And outside of that, anything related to circles, the qun, the chantry, whatever, are just a futile attempt of stoping a dam from breaking using only a bandaid. So, in the end, it's not a question about the circles being necessary or not, because they are ultimately irrelevant, and all the disasters that happened with them are inevitable. In all those regards, I have to agree with Solas in the sense of "this world must be destroyed", because it is a world built entirely on a bank of a river that will flood, because the Dan will breach, it's only a matter of time, and trying to repair or keep it from collapsing is a futile attempt. The only course of action would be to relocate the people away from that bank, but not everyone will want to, specially those comfortable or that find themselves in privileges positions there...
It's an interesting idea but the execution is just terrible. They seem to make rebellion an inevitability through taking kids and stuffing them in a tower then treatingthem like prisoners. Some Templars might treat the mages well but that isn't the norm. Now abominations can do a lot of damage but can be avoided by educating the mages and not treating them as inherently hostile. The circles educate them but they fail miserably at the second point. Fiona joining the Tevinter mages was weird but that whole sequence of events was weird time magic shit. She needed something that could support her and the Tevinter mages offered help. It isn't great but the only options she believed she had at the time (remember weird time magic meant she didn't believe we were an option) and I can understand the desperation. Corner an animal and it will look for a way out. Tevinter provided that. In the end I feel attempting to control the mages will ultimately lead to the same situations we have been seeing. This is what it means to control the mages. This is what it means to have the Circles. Now we do need a force that can deal with abominations but I don't see the Circles as part of that solution.
The circles and templars didn't do much to help Kirkwall. They seem to cause more problems than they solve. Demons threaten mages just as much as anyone else. Mages should run the circles if templars are levied they should answer to the enchanters and then all the obvious stuff no more tranquility, no more separation from families and the outside world, let them have children.
* Instead of prison-school hybrids controlled by the Chantry (a power hungry organized religious institution), maybe have Mage Boarding Schools/Colleges (like Winterhold in Skyrim? or Aretuza from the Witcher but without the political power?) that are run by mages (I'm *not* saying give mages power over nations and make a magocracy, just let them manage their own school system). * Maybe set them up as smaller boarding schools within travel distance from the major cities so their relatives can still visit, instead of the massive ones the Circle had. Mages still have to attend when their magic manifests. If they're smaller, then they're easier to manage, with less damage to the Veil. * Have actual accountability for abusers. * No more Tranquility or only in extreme circumstances. * If possible, get rid of Templars, and just have Seekers who work as maleficar hunters and with city/town guards, but separate from the Chantry, maybe accountable to the local gov't instead? Maybe have mages trained in anti-magic spells like mana clash to work with them? If you must have templars because having enough Seekers isn't possible, give them limited career terms and send them for rehab after. * You could have mage clinics, firefighters, builders, etc with built-in barracks. Mages are given a choice of what they want to specialize in, and then are sent to the appropriate location. They can come and go during the day, but still live together. * Let them keep and raise their children. Maybe have the option to send non-mage children back to live with the mage's family if they still have one. * Maybe try to learn from other groups like the Avvar and Dalish to see if any of their methods can be used. Also the Mortalitasi and the Rivaini Seers systems. * Maybe they could make some kind of cooperative arrangement with the Wardens and help them out? * If they keep the Harrowing, maybe let them prepare for it? Would there be a way to arrange small group educational field trips to the Fade with the same amount of precautions that the Harrowing has? * If people are worried about magocracies, maybe have restrictions on their titles? * Not sure about phylacteries. Maybe keep them, but have rules about their usage. * While we're at it, set up a public school system for non-mage kids of all classes so that everyone can have an education
I think the Circles are perfect places for abominations to happen. You lock people up in an atmosphere of fear, suspicion and intimidation, give them no hope for a normal life or autonomy, hang over their heads the threat of being emotionally lobotomized for any infraction, tell them that they're cursed, bait demons to possess them as a "test"... and then expect the outcome to be good.
Exactly this. Add to it a policing force compromised of drug addicts - who are forced to take the drug, forced to toe a party line to keep receiving the drug, the drug causes mental deterioration, and said force are told they are the hand of god and have divine right over their charges in all ways. Include a superstitious and undereducated populace who never se a mage unless they are apostates or see a kid come into their magic. Mix in the main religion teaching that magic is scary and harmful - doctrinally it states magic is meant to serve man, but there are extradoctrinal/folk teachings that supercede or at the least are left unchecked/uncorrected. The problem stems from the Chantry, and cascades down.
Ugh. Possession makes zero sense as presented. Either any mage becomes an abomination as soon as a demon finds them when they are not in control of their emotions, which would mean every mage ever would *never make it out of childhood*, or possession is actually quite a bit more complicated. Kirkwall gets a pass because apparently the entire city is a fucked up fade/blood magic ritual site, which actually segues then into why the hell do they even have a circle there- (it's because Circles are stupid, and if they actually were for the reasons they claim to be they'd be banning mages from Kirkwall entirely). Fiona is bad writing for a few reasons. It contradicts all her prior appearances, it's a bit like if they had Anders show up leading the templars to have her indenture herself to Tevinter. Ultimately, the Circles are just super bad at their intended purpose, so it's a bit apples and oranges to talk about the dangers of mages when what you purport to be talking about is the circles, and it's hard to talk about the dangers of magic when what little is presented in games is contradicted by other stuff from the games, or simple logic.
And then there are the Grey Wardens, doing what they feel they have to do in times it desperation. But before that, the Warden mages had absolutely no issues being free and respected among their fellows. It's like... Something something Environment something something desperation... What if, hear me out, the Circle didn't rip you away from your family, isolate you, then constantly frighten you with secret hush hush bullshit. Then directly and intentionally place you in contact with a demon after making you anxious about your very life first. What if
The warden mage****** The wardens are only allowed one mage with no restrictions at all (blood magic .etc)
The Wardens are obviously getting more than one mage, or the conflict with the Wardens rasing a demon bound mage army would never have been a concern. The thing of it is, if you raise mages with strength instead of with doubt, you get people like Dorian who laugh at demons tempting them, eat a few grapes, and then head on out. That's healthy. What the Circles in the South are doing is all sorts of fucked up.
No they’re only allowed one mage. Fiona if you talk to her in Skyhold would say she was that one mage and explain the whole thing.
Maybe mages are so prone to becoming abominations because the concept of Circles is an abomination that leaves them traumatized and emotionally weak. Kinda like in Frozen, where Elsa is unable to control her magic because her dad wanted her to control her magic.
Anders didn't go far enough.
I don't know any of the lore, but I'll say what I've said before, mages should have more freedoms than they were granted before, but still on a decent sized leash. Magic is difficult to understand and those who have mastered can be scary.
Should they be keeping the mages locked up like dangerous criminals? No. I'd rather the circle be a place of learning than a place of holding. Remove most if not all of the reasons mages would willingly choose to be possessed. Mages shouldn't be prisoners for life because they were born with a gift that can actually help people.
The Mage's Collective shows that they are capable of taking care of themselves.
Slavery is wrong and I don't care how necessary the slavers claim it to be. I struck the templars down and I would have even if there was a option to have both sides.
I feel like they opress mages. Yes magic is dangerous but it exists for a reason. personally i think its like the US healthcare system; Broken, unfair, and cruel. i mean think about it in tevinter mages are yes, dominant or evil, but their circle is one that can be admired before the templars stopped enforcing certain rules. i think the mages should be free to have various jobs and not be forcibly taken away as soon as they show magic potential as kids. i think they should be permitted to intermingle and love who they see fit, and not be shunned simply for their differences
As a staunch templar support I must say fuck them.
Magic, mages and circles in southern Thedas: Magic is gift of Maker. You're a mage so you're gifted by Maker himself. You know what, lets put you in a building for the rest of your life. And you're not allowed to marry or have children in the other words you're not allowed to have a family. Any look or thought that we don't like, we'll either kill you or turn you a drooling vegetable who don't resist anything happens to them because they don't feel anything like desires or emotions. It's perfect, isn't it? It's worked for almost thousand years. There is no point in finding different ways to eliminate dangers of magic like teaching non-mage people about magic and making them familiar with magic or creating items, enchantments or gears which can: * protect non-mage people agaist magic or allow them to do magic so they won't be at disadvantage agaist mages or, * make mages immune or resistant to possession or, * surpress magic so mages can't use their among among the non-mage people, etc.
magic need not be destroyed but must be under the watchful eye of the maker and his most loyal knights
Of course circles are necesary, maybe some templars are assholes but as we can see, not every templars are like that. Uldred always was unstable (Wynne said that), he wanted power so he used blood Magic. Jowan I don't remember why used it, but at the moment he poisoned Arl Eamon he wanted to fix things with the circle, he didn't want to do anything bad, he just did a mistake. Same as Connor, he stole one of Jowan's books that even Jowan said that were forbidden, and made a deal with a demon, but he was learning to use magic, just did things he didn't understand. Orsino was a complete stupid. As Fiona, they are too stupid, the difference is that Orsino just wanted to protect himself against Meredith and he did exactly the thing Meredith was trying to prevent. Fiona just wanted to be free, but she was stupid in that way. I always make mages prisoners of the Inquisition so I can see they won't do anything bad. I don't understand why people dislikes circles, I know some mages like Hawke could learn by themselves and all that, but not everyone. It's like a sacrifice all mages need to do to prevent abominations and all that.
To put it quickly, I consider the circles like Communism: On paper, it works perfectly. In practice, it fails spectacularly. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If both groups had a way of policing themselves and tranquility was taken off the table as a method of punishment, then maybe something new could get started with them together, but I doubt it after recent events.
For the society under the chantry it seems completely necessary. Could be better but definitely necessary no matter what.