162 réponses à ce sujet

[LdyShayna]

shepard_lives wrote...
 Do you seriously think there would be so many maleficar and blood mages if mages were raised in a more friendly environment?

Yes.  Hence, I think, the basis of our differing views of the Templars, I believe.

[Dave of Canada]

The Chantry must burn.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Grommash94 wrote...
I don't know. There is nothing on Thedas that can compare to the power of the Circle. What if someone like Uldred came along to try and take control, and managed to convince other greedy mages to assist him/her in said power grab? A mage civil war like that would probably end with Thedas screwed over, as their mages are too busy bickering with themselves while the Qunari invade and take everything.

The mages need some freedom, sure. But there need to be non mages to police them, in order to keep balance imo.

Well, they wouldn't be entirely without oversight.  I likened them to doctors and surgeons in the real world, and I suppose the analogy could extend to third party oversight too.  I'm sure each country has an interest in keeping its own Circle of Magi strong, responsible, and happy.  

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 29 juillet 2010 - 10:57 .

[Shepard Lives]

Kerridan Kaiba wrote...

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

jjbens wrote...

since his sister is a mage maybe he fight the chantry because they have taken her or maybe he is sent by the chantry tofind his sister and bring her back to them

"Oh, hi, Imoen!  I mean--look, let's just call you Imoen."

Yeah...I hope it's not another rescue sis thing.  Especially since my Hawke erm...wouldn't do it.  And as for the Chantry, while I admit to harboring strong dislike bordering on homicidal stabbiness for the templars and the Chantry as a whole, I did quite like a lot of them in DA:O.  I think it's more that I dislike the organization than the people that make it up.

I would but would grumble the whole way. I’m always annoyed when I hate to save women in games.

I trust Bioware won't have us save Bethany. Seriously, the distressed damsel is the second worst thing in RPGs, right behind the escort mission. Unless they play it right by managing to make her a great character that we'd go any lenghts to rescue... they may very well succed in that. They managed to make me feel nothing but affection for the Couslands in five minutes. Let's see if they've acccomplished building a better, longer-lasting version of such a bond.

[Grommash94]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Grommash94 wrote...
I don't know. There is nothing on Thedas that can compare to the power of the Circle. What if someone like Uldred came along to try and take control, and managed to convince other greedy mages to assist him/her in said power grab? A mage civil war like that would probably end with Thedas screwed over, as their mages are too busy bickering with themselves while the Qunari invade and take everything.

The mages need some freedom, sure. But there need to be non mages to police them, in order to keep balance imo.

Well, they wouldn't be entirely without oversight.  I likened them to doctors and surgeons in the real world, and I suppose the analogy could extend to third party oversight too.  I'm sure each country has an interest in keeping its own Circle of Magi strong, responsible, and happy.  

The one thing the Chantry effectively does though by controlling the entire Circle is that it makes sure that countries can't take advantage of them, and it makes sure that the Circle stays one single establishment. If the Chantry was to withdraw its Templars, and hand the 'reins' to each individual nation...that would have some serious repercussions. Like, if Orlais was to invade the Anders, then those Circles would be turned against eachother, and if other nations were to join the combat, they would have their own Circles fight too.

Unless, I am just misunderstanding you, heh.

[andar91]

I think the mages should be governed by a mixture of their own and a third party. What I DON'T like is the religious involvement that says all magic is a sin and all of that. But I do agree there needs to be oversight. I might feel differently with another system of magic, but the existence of demons changes things a lot.

[Shepard Lives]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...
 KILLING IS THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING! 

Actually, I have always been in favor of kneecapping people and then harshly scolding them for their idiocy.

[Malanek]

Grommash94 wrote...
The mages need some freedom, sure. But there need to be non mages to police them, in order to keep balance imo.

Why have non-mages doing the policing? Have you ever heard of peer reviews? In real life, would you have a priest pass judgement on a surgeon? If you deny people freedom and treat them like criminals when they are not, you overtly encourage the very behaviour you are trying to prevent. The opressed suffer hatred and rebel.

It would definately be an interesting theme to explore in more detail in DA2. This is just speculation though, I think the thread title should finish with a question mark, as it stands, it is quite misleading.

[Grommash94]

Malanek999 wrote...

Grommash94 wrote...
The mages need some freedom, sure. But there need to be non mages to police them, in order to keep balance imo.

Why have non-mages doing the policing? Have you ever heard of peer reviews? In real life, would you have a priest pass judgement on a surgeon? If you deny people freedom and treat them like criminals when they are not, you overtly encourage the very behaviour you are trying to prevent. The opressed suffer hatred and rebel.

It would definately be an interesting theme to explore in more detail in DA2. This is just speculation though, I think the thread title should finish with a question mark, as it stands, it is quite misleading.

The problem with mages governing themselves lies with the fact that greed is a powerful thing. Like I said, what if a mage wanted to become the 'head' of the Circle, to have its power in his hands alone? And he initiates an uprising against the Senior Enchanters? That sort of thing could initiate a civil war of sorts in the Circle. That would be very bad, considering that the mages are the only advantage Thedas has against the Qunari.

I am not saying that the way the Chantry treats them is right; no, it needs to allow the Circle to have more autonomy, like about sending mages to wars, or about them leaving the Circle to travel etc. But to give them full control over themselves would probably not end well for anyone.

Modifié par Grommash94, 29 juillet 2010 - 11:11 .

[Shepard Lives]

Grommash94 wrote...

The problem with mages governing themselves lies with the fact that greed is a powerful thing. Like I said, what if a mage wanted to become the 'head' of the Circle, to have its power in his hands alone? And he initiates an uprising against the Senior Enchanters? That sort of thing could initiate a civil war of sorts in the Circle. That would be very bad, considering that the mages are the only advantage Thedas has against the Qunari.

I am not saying that the way the Chantry treats them is right; no, it needs to allow the Circle to have more autonomy, like about sending mages to wars, or about them leaving the Circle to travel etc. But to give them full control over themselves would probably not end well for anyone.

I agree. They need some form of external watch, just not as intrusive as the Templars.

[Dave of Canada]

Capt. Obvious wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

The Chantry must burn.

Long live the Qun!

We will all grow horns and become Qunari!

[Shepard Lives]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Capt. Obvious wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

The Chantry must burn.

Long live the Qun!

We will all grow horns and become Qunari!

Horny qunari.

[Malanek]

Grommash94 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Grommash94 wrote...
The mages need some freedom, sure. But there need to be non mages to police them, in order to keep balance imo.

Why have non-mages doing the policing? Have you ever heard of peer reviews? In real life, would you have a priest pass judgement on a surgeon? If you deny people freedom and treat them like criminals when they are not, you overtly encourage the very behaviour you are trying to prevent. The opressed suffer hatred and rebel.

It would definately be an interesting theme to explore in more detail in DA2. This is just speculation though, I think the thread title should finish with a question mark, as it stands, it is quite misleading.

The problem with mages governing themselves lies with the fact that greed is a powerful thing. Like I said, what if a mage wanted to become the 'head' of the Circle, to have its power in his hands alone? And he initiates an uprising against the Senior Enchanters? That sort of thing could initiate a civil war of sorts in the Circle. That would be very bad, considering that the mages are the only advantage Thedas has against the Qunari.

I am not saying that the way the Chantry treats them is right; no, it needs to allow the Circle to have more autonomy, like about sending mages to wars, or about them leaving the Circle to travel etc. But to give them full control over themselves would probably not end well for anyone.

I don't think the senior enchanter should have absolute power. The senior enchanters should jointly vote on decisions. The circle itself should report to the head of state (king or queen). Templars should work with the senior enchanters council to help with policing but underneath or alongside, they should not have any power to form policy. They would report to the King, and any changes they wanted instigated would have to go through them.

[Grommash94]

Malanek999 wrote...

Grommash94 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Grommash94 wrote...
The mages need some freedom, sure. But there need to be non mages to police them, in order to keep balance imo.

Why have non-mages doing the policing? Have you ever heard of peer reviews? In real life, would you have a priest pass judgement on a surgeon? If you deny people freedom and treat them like criminals when they are not, you overtly encourage the very behaviour you are trying to prevent. The opressed suffer hatred and rebel.

It would definately be an interesting theme to explore in more detail in DA2. This is just speculation though, I think the thread title should finish with a question mark, as it stands, it is quite misleading.

The problem with mages governing themselves lies with the fact that greed is a powerful thing. Like I said, what if a mage wanted to become the 'head' of the Circle, to have its power in his hands alone? And he initiates an uprising against the Senior Enchanters? That sort of thing could initiate a civil war of sorts in the Circle. That would be very bad, considering that the mages are the only advantage Thedas has against the Qunari.

I am not saying that the way the Chantry treats them is right; no, it needs to allow the Circle to have more autonomy, like about sending mages to wars, or about them leaving the Circle to travel etc. But to give them full control over themselves would probably not end well for anyone.

I don't think the senior enchanter should have absolute power. The senior enchanters should jointly vote on decisions. The circle itself should report to the head of state (king or queen). Templars should work with the senior enchanters council to help with policing but underneath or alongside, they should not have any power to form policy. They would report to the King, and any changes they wanted instigated would have to go through them.

But, what if someone wants to have power all for himself? A guy like Uldred, but more ambitious and greedy. Such a man would want the Circle to bend a knee towards him, and him alone, and would probably be cunning enough to gain supporters. That would lead to civil war.

And, if each circle were to align itself towards a king or queen, wouldn't it just end up with those leaders taking advantage of the circle? And, if they should go to war with another nation with its own Circle, wouldn't the Circles then go to war with eachother? A mage war would be really, really destructive.

I think the Chantry is right to control them, but they should ease their grip, and become less intrusive.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Malanek999 wrote...

Grommash94 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Grommash94 wrote...
The mages need some freedom, sure. But there need to be non mages to police them, in order to keep balance imo.

Why have non-mages doing the policing? Have you ever heard of peer reviews? In real life, would you have a priest pass judgement on a surgeon? If you deny people freedom and treat them like criminals when they are not, you overtly encourage the very behaviour you are trying to prevent. The opressed suffer hatred and rebel.

It would definately be an interesting theme to explore in more detail in DA2. This is just speculation though, I think the thread title should finish with a question mark, as it stands, it is quite misleading.

The problem with mages governing themselves lies with the fact that greed is a powerful thing. Like I said, what if a mage wanted to become the 'head' of the Circle, to have its power in his hands alone? And he initiates an uprising against the Senior Enchanters? That sort of thing could initiate a civil war of sorts in the Circle. That would be very bad, considering that the mages are the only advantage Thedas has against the Qunari.

I am not saying that the way the Chantry treats them is right; no, it needs to allow the Circle to have more autonomy, like about sending mages to wars, or about them leaving the Circle to travel etc. But to give them full control over themselves would probably not end well for anyone.

I don't think the senior enchanter should have absolute power. The senior enchanters should jointly vote on decisions. The circle itself should report to the head of state (king or queen). Templars should work with the senior enchanters council to help with policing but underneath or alongside, they should not have any power to form policy. They would report to the King, and any changes they wanted instigated would have to go through them.

Hmm.  My thinking is that country oversight is sufficient, combined with cooperation between the various Circles.  Doctors are doctors, no matter where they live.  The same goes for mages.

The unique thing about mages is that when they are dangerous, they are indiscriminately so.  An abomination does not distinguish between countries, individuals, or clans.  It simply destroys.  Every nation has a vested interested in making sure that its own mages are well-educated and responsible, for the sake of its own citizens.  And no nation wants abominations running amok.

As for wars between countries, there are two ways to get around the problem.  The first would be deterrence.  If you call up your mages, you can be as sure as hell that your opponents will do so too.  As insane and depressing as it is, that kind of mutually assured destruction kept the Cold War cold for a half century.  The other method would be to designate mages non-combatants in wars between countries.  They can fight if attacked, but never on behalf of a political entity.  Though that too carries oodles of political pitfalls.

[Grommash94]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Grommash94 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Grommash94 wrote...
The mages need some freedom, sure. But there need to be non mages to police them, in order to keep balance imo.

Why have non-mages doing the policing? Have you ever heard of peer reviews? In real life, would you have a priest pass judgement on a surgeon? If you deny people freedom and treat them like criminals when they are not, you overtly encourage the very behaviour you are trying to prevent. The opressed suffer hatred and rebel.

It would definately be an interesting theme to explore in more detail in DA2. This is just speculation though, I think the thread title should finish with a question mark, as it stands, it is quite misleading.

The problem with mages governing themselves lies with the fact that greed is a powerful thing. Like I said, what if a mage wanted to become the 'head' of the Circle, to have its power in his hands alone? And he initiates an uprising against the Senior Enchanters? That sort of thing could initiate a civil war of sorts in the Circle. That would be very bad, considering that the mages are the only advantage Thedas has against the Qunari.

I am not saying that the way the Chantry treats them is right; no, it needs to allow the Circle to have more autonomy, like about sending mages to wars, or about them leaving the Circle to travel etc. But to give them full control over themselves would probably not end well for anyone.

I don't think the senior enchanter should have absolute power. The senior enchanters should jointly vote on decisions. The circle itself should report to the head of state (king or queen). Templars should work with the senior enchanters council to help with policing but underneath or alongside, they should not have any power to form policy. They would report to the King, and any changes they wanted instigated would have to go through them.

Hmm.  My thinking is that country oversight is sufficient, combined with cooperation between the various Circles.  Doctors are doctors, no matter where they live.  The same goes for mages.

The unique thing about mages is that when they are dangerous, they are indiscriminately so.  An abomination does not distinguish between countries, individuals, or clans.  It simply destroys.  Every nation has a vested interested in making sure that its own mages are well-educated and responsible, for the sake of its own citizens.  And no nation wants abominations running amok.

As for wars between countries, there are two ways to get around the problem.  The first would be deterrence.  If you call up your mages, you can be as sure as hell that your opponents will do so too.  As insane and depressing as it is, that kind of mutually assured destruction kept the Cold War cold for a half century.  The other method would be to designate mages non-combatants in wars between countries.  They can fight if attacked, but never on behalf of a political entity.  Though that too carries oodles of political pitfalls.

I suppose what could work would be some sort of 'Thedosian War Council' or some sort, making a treaty that makes sure that Mages cannot fight eachother, and are only to be used in war against the Qunari and Darkspawn. 

I really don't think the doctor analogy really works though. Doctors are needed, most people adore them, and they are neutral in conflicts, only there to help the victims. To many people, mages are weapons, and diabolical, and they should be controlled by the Chantry, which they feel can do no wrong. The rulers of the nations would have to go out of their way to assure their people that the Mages are safe, and that they will still be under the control of the War Council.

[Malanek]

Grommash94 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...
I don't think the senior enchanter should have absolute power. The senior enchanters should jointly vote on decisions. The circle itself should report to the head of state (king or queen). Templars should work with the senior enchanters council to help with policing but underneath or alongside, they should not have any power to form policy. They would report to the King, and any changes they wanted instigated would have to go through them.

But, what if someone wants to have power all for himself? A guy like Uldred, but more ambitious and greedy. Such a man would want the Circle to bend a knee towards him, and him alone, and would probably be cunning enough to gain supporters. That would lead to civil war.

Why would he be cunnin g enough to gain that? Why would the other senior enchanters support such a man or woman losing their own power in the process. In DA Origins, Uldred gained the traction he did among the other mages by appealing to the lack of justice they have suffered. Remove that lack of justice and you remove the reason they have of rebelling.

Grommash94 wrote...
And, if each circle were to align itself towards a king or queen, wouldn't it just end up with those leaders taking advantage of the circle? And, if they should go to war with another nation with its own Circle, wouldn't the Circles then go to war with eachother? A mage war would be really, really destructive.

They already are alinged with the king or queen. At the end of Origins as a mage you can request autonomy for the circle and Alistair or Anora have the power to grant it. This is not ideal but more because the concept of a monarchy and heridtary rule is terribly outdated. This is a medieval fantasy setting though.

Grommash94 wrote...
I think the Chantry is right to control them, but they should ease their grip, and become less intrusive.

The Chantry is the single worst entity in the setting to control them. There is a history of mistrust both ways. Too many members of the chantry hate and fear mages. This system of governance will never work. The only beneift they bring is their unique powers that are useful against mages. Thus they make good policeman but terrible rulers.

[Grommash94]

Malanek999 wrote...

Grommash94 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...
I don't think the senior enchanter should have absolute power. The senior enchanters should jointly vote on decisions. The circle itself should report to the head of state (king or queen). Templars should work with the senior enchanters council to help with policing but underneath or alongside, they should not have any power to form policy. They would report to the King, and any changes they wanted instigated would have to go through them.

But, what if someone wants to have power all for himself? A guy like Uldred, but more ambitious and greedy. Such a man would want the Circle to bend a knee towards him, and him alone, and would probably be cunning enough to gain supporters. That would lead to civil war.

Why would he be cunnin g enough to gain that? Why would the other senior enchanters support such a man or woman losing their own power in the process. In DA Origins, Uldred gained the traction he did among the other mages by appealing to the lack of justice they have suffered. Remove that lack of justice and you remove the reason they have of rebelling.

People will always complain. I am sure there will be some mages who feel that they should be in control, and that the senior enchanters don't care. There will always be dissenters, and there won't be anyone to put a stop to them either. There will also always be blood mages, because of greed, and they will probably be against the senior enchanters as well, since they will be persecuted.

Grommash94 wrote...
And, if each circle were to align itself towards a king or queen, wouldn't it just end up with those leaders taking advantage of the circle? And, if they should go to war with another nation with its own Circle, wouldn't the Circles then go to war with eachother? A mage war would be really, really destructive.

They already are alinged with the king or queen. At the end of Origins as a mage you can request autonomy for the circle and Alistair or Anora have the power to grant it. This is not ideal but more because the concept of a monarchy and heridtary rule is terribly outdated. This is a medieval fantasy setting though.

We don't know the extent of their power though, or just how much autonomy is given.

Grommash94 wrote...
I think the Chantry is right to control them, but they should ease their grip, and become less intrusive.

The Chantry is the single worst entity in the setting to control them. There is a history of mistrust both ways. Too many members of the chantry hate and fear mages. This system of governance will never work. The only beneift they bring is their unique powers that are useful against mages. Thus they make good policeman but terrible rulers.
The problem is, it isn't only the Chantry that feels that way. Most of the populace fear the mages; and they do have a good reason to. Blood magic, abominations; all those things won't simply cease to exist.

Dunno how to multi quote whatsoever, so answers are in bold.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Grommash94 wrote...
I suppose what could work would be some sort of 'Thedosian War Council' or some sort, making a treaty that makes sure that Mages cannot fight eachother, and are only to be used in war against the Qunari and Darkspawn. 

I really don't think the doctor analogy really works though. Doctors are needed, most people adore them, and they are neutral in conflicts, only there to help the victims. To many people, mages are weapons, and diabolical, and they should be controlled by the Chantry, which they feel can do no wrong. The rulers of the nations would have to go out of their way to assure their people that the Mages are safe, and that they will still be under the control of the War Council.

Western doctors are hated and feared in some developing and third world countries, as is Western medicine.  Not because the doctors are actively malicious, but because their equipment and practices appear terrifying.  And to be honest, if I'd never seen a syringe or a defibrilator in my life, I doubt I'd let anyone, no matter how trustworthy they appear, with those contraptions near my loved ones.  I would argue that the same goes for mages; to a certain degree, I agree with Wynne.  Mages themselves have to be well-behaved to convince others that they're there for good rather than evil.

Think of what a respected, accepted Circle of Magi harnessed for benevolence could do.  It would be like lightning out of a clear sky.  Yes, it would require political capital on the parts of the leaders, but the benefits could be extraordinary.  Also, keep in mind that I'm talking about an ideal state of treatment for mages, NOT how to reform their current predicament.  That's...much more complicated, and I agree that reforming the Circle given present circumstances would require involvement on the Chantry's part.

[Grommash94]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Grommash94 wrote...
I suppose what could work would be some sort of 'Thedosian War Council' or some sort, making a treaty that makes sure that Mages cannot fight eachother, and are only to be used in war against the Qunari and Darkspawn. 

I really don't think the doctor analogy really works though. Doctors are needed, most people adore them, and they are neutral in conflicts, only there to help the victims. To many people, mages are weapons, and diabolical, and they should be controlled by the Chantry, which they feel can do no wrong. The rulers of the nations would have to go out of their way to assure their people that the Mages are safe, and that they will still be under the control of the War Council.

Think of what a respected, accepted Circle of Magi harnessed for benevolence could do.  It would be like lightning out of a clear sky.  Yes, it would require political capital on the parts of the leaders, but the benefits could be extraordinary.  Also, keep in mind that I'm talking about an ideal state of treatment for mages, NOT how to reform their current predicament.  That's...much more complicated, and I agree that reforming the Circle given present circumstances would require involvement on the Chantry's part.

Well, who knows, maybe one day a Divine will rise up and have a much more lenient view than her predecessors (Leliana comes to mind, though I am not sure what she has to say about mages). Maybe this Divine will agree to completely change the Circle system. I am sure some of this all will be addressed in DA2.

[Malanek]

Grommash94 wrote...
People will always complain. I am sure there will be some mages who feel that they should be in control, and that the senior enchanters don't care. There will always be dissenters, and there won't be anyone to put a stop to them either. There will also always be blood mages, because of greed, and they will probably be against the senior enchanters as well, since they will be persecuted.

In Origins, you could argue that every single blood mage you encounter that came from the circle was driven to it because of their persecution. Much more so than greed IMO. By removing the morally legitimate reason for their pursuit of power you lessen the numbers of people who pursue it. And hey, the Templars have already been proven to be completely inadequate.

Grommash94 wrote...
The problem is, it isn't only the Chantry that feels that way. Most of the populace fear the mages; and they do have a good reason to. Blood magic, abominations; all those things won't simply cease to exist.

Mages don't fear or distrust mages. They are the only group who understands them which is why they are the only group that can govern them. Although perhaps the Tranquil could be involved as well , not sure about that.

Grommash94 wrote...
Dunno how to multi quote whatsoever, so answers are in bold.

Just get all your quotes and /quotes (in square brackets) lined up.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Malanek999 wrote...
Mages don't fear or distrust mages. They are the only group who understands them which is why they are the only group that can govern them. Although perhaps the Tranquil could be involved as well , not sure about that.

Now that's an interesting thought.  But do you think the Tranquil are up to the task?  More to the point, if the mages were governed in a less draconian manner, do you think there would even need to be Tranquil?  As much as I dislike Jowan, I have to agree with him that Tranquility might be a fate worse than death--it seems to cut out the very thing that makes a mage a living, breathing, laughing person.

[Grommash94]

Malanek999 wrote...
In Origins, you could argue that every single blood mage you encounter that came from the circle was driven to it because of their persecution. Much more so than greed IMO. By removing the morally legitimate reason for their pursuit of power you lessen the numbers of people who pursue it. And hey, the Templars have already been proven to be completely inadequate.

But, blood mages existed long before the Chantry as well. Tevinter only went that way because they felt it opened up more doors for them, and was simply an easier path to power. There probably won't be as many blood mages as there were once, but they will still exist.

Mages don't fear or distrust mages. They are the only group who understands them which is why they are the only group that can govern them. Although perhaps the Tranquil could be involved as well , not sure about that.

They need to have some sort of group that makes sure they don't go too far though imo, and that the senior enchanters who make the decisions do not have ulterior motives, or make decisions that would be detrimental to the safety of Thedas. Not necessarily rule the mages, but not let the mages rule themselves entirely either. I mean, what if the mages suddenly decided "Ok, you know what, lets take the 'insert country here' throne for ourselves. No one would be able to stop them.