1503 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Belief in the religion does not remove the desire to reform it. Especially considering how all the system was not put in place by Andraste, but by Orlais.

Which would make it that much harder to reform it. The Chantry is a strong political tool for Orlais, in a sense through it they control the whole of the Andrastian nations. I cannot see Orlais allowing the Chantry to lose it's power.

You assume that Orlais controls the Chantry which I don't think its true. It certainly influences it and right now, it is a good foreign policy tool.  But it supercedes Orlesian interests, otherwise there wouldn't be a Chantry in Nevarra and the Chantry would not have supported Maric (relunctantly and at the last minute, I know, but still).
To say that the Chantry is only an Orlesian tool is false.

France was the traditional Catholic power and had used it as a foreign policy leverage and it didn't care about it anymore eventually (and no, it's not only revolutionaries, even Napoleon though improved relations didn't care about it).
Rise of "modern" ideals, new political and economic concepts, would be favorable to even Orlais being less dependent on the Chantry.

[ShrinkingFish]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yes it's always tempting to shout "reviolution! Freedom!".
What history taught me however is that moderation is the parth to real sustainable and durable change and radicalism like you espouse will generally lead to disaster.

You've read an interesting version of history then as the greatest moments of great change to dominant and oppressive social structures have always been through radical revolution of some form or another.

The trend is even reflected in Dragon Age. The great and powerful oppressive government of blood mages was overthrown by an army, to be replaced by an equally dominant and abusive Templars and Chantry.

[KnightofPhoenix]

LobselVith8 wrote...
It'll accomplish the mages emancipating themselves from the Chantry. A war against the templars and the Chantry would likely follow, but if a mage Hawke could secure the Free Marches, it's possible for victory to transpire. And revolution is better than living under the heel of a tyranny seeking to expand to every corner of the world.

Even if the mages secure a free state, what do you think the other nations would think? They would become paranoid of their own mages and all I see is it becoming worse for everyone.

And that is assuming that those mages don't resort to blood magic and other horrific spells in their quest for freedom that will make people hate them even more. 

Revolution leads to tyranny. That is almost always what happens. And that is why revolutions are so fascinating. So tempting and yet so self-contradictory. 

[Giggles_Manically]

The Chantry wont fall to swords and armies, it will only create a schism like the Protestant/Catholic wars the engulfed Europe for a century and killed hundred of thousands over dogma.



Violence is not the solution, in time modernization, secularism, the creation of a market, and nationalism will make the chantry crumble. They rely on nations and leaders for power, but when said leaders start to cut ties and move apart the chantry will shrink into something pathetic and miniscule.



History does show that violence and revolution can change things. The things they change though are bought with mounatins of bodies, and oceans of blood.

[KnightofPhoenix]

ShrinkingFish wrote...
You've read an interesting version of history then as the greatest moments of great change to dominant and oppressive social structures have always been through radical revolution of some form or another.

The trend is even reflected in Dragon Age. The great and powerful oppressive government of blood mages was overthrown by an army, to be replaced by an equally dominant and abusive Templars and Chantry.

Examples?
Social and ideological revolution is one thing. Actual armed and violent revoilutions however almost never succeeded or end up becoming self-contradictory.

And exactly, Andraste's revolution led to another tyranny. That's my point.

[KnightofPhoenix]

MariSkep wrote...
First of all, I see nothing wrong with Blood Magic. It sounds very helpful in combat, medicine and just about everything. No reason why a capable mage shouldn't study it or mages not have some understanding of the Theory behind it.

And,as I said last time this argument came up, I'm willing to hurt even the people I'm trying to help if there's a payoff at the end of the tunnel. Am I worried about turning into a paranoid tyrant or failing everyone, yes. But if it's something that needs to be done, someone has to at least try.

I don't mind blood magic either, I think it's established that I am one of the most pragmatic and some would say ruthless posters here.

However, there is a clear stigma and fear, almost terror, of blood magic amongst not only the Chantry, but the average people. Mages using it en masse in a revolution will only serve to increase that fear and will give the Chantry exactly what it needs. Propaganda ammo and jsutification to be even more oppressive.

I can guarantee that you will end up just like the Chantry, assuming you succeed.  
And little mage kids murdered by mobs in other countries will have you to thank.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 septembre 2010 - 02:29 .

[Giggles_Manically]

MariSkep wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
It'll accomplish the mages emancipating themselves from the Chantry. A war against the templars and the Chantry would likely follow, but if a mage Hawke could secure the Free Marches, it's possible for victory to transpire. And revolution is better than living under the heel of a tyranny seeking to expand to every corner of the world.

Even if the mages secure a free state, what do you think the other nations would think? They would become paranoid of their own mages and all I see is it becoming worse for everyone.

And that is assuming that those mages don't resort to blood magic and other horrific spells in their quest for freedom that will make people hate them even more. 

First of all, I see nothing wrong with Blood Magic. It sounds very helpful in combat, medicine and just about everything. No reason why a capable mage shouldn't study it or mages not have some understanding of the Theory behind it.

And,as I said last time this argument came up, I'm willing to hurt even the people I'm trying to help if there's a payoff at the end of the tunnel. Am I worried about turning into a paranoid tyrant or failing everyone, yes. But if it's something that needs to be done, someone has to at least try.

Simply because there is a POSSIBILITY of building a utopia, does not mean you should do it.
If you fail you can makes things worse for future mages, and/or be left with a Thedas that has been divided and damaged due to your War to Free the Mages.

You have no right to decide the future for mages, or how to decide the religion of thousands. Its their choice, and newsflash alot of mages you meet arent that unhappy about being in the Circle.

[KnightofPhoenix]

MariSkep wrote...

History does show that violence and revolution can change things. The things they change though are bought with mounatins of bodies, and oceans of blood.

As opposed to the bodies and blood that would be shed waiting for some kind of reform? Does the immediacy of the death toll make it more 'bad?'

Of course, if only because populations can re-populate over a long period.
1 million deaths in a year is not like 1 million deaths in 100 years. It obviously doesn't have the same shock value either (see why the atomic bombs were so shocking even when the conventional bombing of Tokyo had more casualties)

[Giggles_Manically]

MariSkep wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

The Chantry wont fall to swords and armies, it will only create a schism like the Protestant/Catholic wars the engulfed Europe for a century and killed hundred of thousands over dogma.

Violence is not the solution, in time modernization, secularism, the creation of a market, and nationalism will make the chantry crumble. They rely on nations and leaders for power, but when said leaders start to cut ties and move apart the chantry will shrink into something pathetic and miniscule.

But none of those things worked for the Qunari and the Qunari are ten times as bad. What happens when it's the Qunari demanding you convert to the Qun?

History does show that violence and revolution can change things. The things they change though are bought with mounatins of bodies, and oceans of blood.

As opposed to the bodies and blood that would be shed waiting for some kind of reform? Does the immediacy of the death toll make it more 'bad?'

So because the Templars kill a few mages that gives you the justification to wage open war on the Chantry and risk sparking off a World War. All over a couple of mages? When more people will die every day in Thedas due too starvation or bandits in one day, than mages will get killed in a year?

[ShrinkingFish]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Examples?
Social and ideological revolution is one thing. Actual armed and violent revoilutions however almost never succeeded or end up becoming self-contradictory.

And exactly, Andraste's revolution led to another tyranny. That's my point.

French Revolition, American Revolution, Soviet Revolution, Chinese Communist Revolution, The Revolution of Haiti, the list continues.

And every form of governmental power leads to tyranny. To speak of Government and Religion is to speak of oppression. Revolution ousts the dominant form and puts the oppressed in charge, allowing them to oppress their oppresssors, all gradual change does is change the game, not the players. Moderate reform keeps those in power in power and the oppressed oppressed and brings no real change.

The difference is that Revolution brings change in who holds the whip. Moderate reform brings new forms of oppression and the whip slowly becomes invisible, but it does not mean it is gone.

[Giggles_Manically]

MariSkep wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...
Simply because there is a POSSIBILITY of building a utopia, does not mean you should do it.
If you fail you can makes things worse for future mages, and/or be left with a Thedas that has been divided and damaged due to your War to Free the Mages.

You have no right to decide the future for mages, or how to decide the religion of thousands. Its their choice, and newsflash alot of mages you meet arent that unhappy about being in the Circle.

One the first point we are unlikely see eye to eye.

On the second point, I'm not deciding anyone's future or making their decisions for them. If you like the existing system by all means, feel free to assassinate me. I'll be dead. I won't mind. The point is to make the enviorment 'better' and if you don't think I can, you should do something. Help the existing power structure. Perhaps that will earn you the favor I couldn't.

I think that some thing the Chantry does is wrong, but do I want to implode it and risk open war? No.
Revolution is a very dangerous tool, and it can make things 100X as bad as before.

[Costin_Razvan]

If a military victory against the Chantry was possible ( let's just assume for a second here that it is, despite the fact you disagree ) then I would find it incredibly stupid to destroy the Chantry as an organization and destroy the Circle Towers.



Destroying the Chantry would result in wide scale destabilization in the Andrastian nations, while giving mages full freedom would be just disastrous.



What I would so is remove all their political power. No Exalted Marches, no control over Circle Towers and Templars. However I would not destroy the Circle Towers, but rather free them from Templar and Chantry control and allow ADULT mages the option to live within the general populate....with strict rules on magic use ( I would also allow more freedom to leave the Circle to explore the outside world for non-adults, supervised of course ). I also would not allow anyone to be forced into becoming Tranquil, and making sure that mages are trained better to take their Harrowing, though those that wish to become Tranquil may do so.



Blood Magic would remain illegal.



For the Templars, I would let them govern themselves but they would have to protect the Circle Towers ( though the ultimate authority would be the first Enchanter not Knight Commander ) and general populace, sorta like what they are doing today.

[Giggles_Manically]

I dont understand the need for the Harrowing really.

The best thing to do is: A mage who under goes it is given many more rights and freedoms, with trust.

Ones who dont wish to undergo it dont get as much freedom.



Tranquiling is terrible, but many you meet ask for the right to be done.

[LobselVith8]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
It'll accomplish the mages emancipating themselves from the Chantry. A war against the templars and the Chantry would likely follow, but if a mage Hawke could secure the Free Marches, it's possible for victory to transpire. And revolution is better than living under the heel of a tyranny seeking to expand to every corner of the world.

Even if the mages secure a free state, what do you think the other nations would think? They would become paranoid of their own mages and all I see is it becoming worse for everyone.

And that is assuming that those mages don't resort to blood magic and other horrific spells in their quest for freedom that will make people hate them even more. 

Revolution leads to tyranny. That is almost always what happens. And that is why revolutions are so fascinating. So tempting and yet so self-contradictory. 

If Hawke and his sister are apostates, and he comes into a position of power in the Free Marches, wouldn't this be a possibility? Maybe the other nations do decide to engage in a war with Hawke and his mage armies. If it's a revolution that's needed to liberate the mages, then there's no choice but to fight for their freedom.

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Simply because there is a POSSIBILITY of building a utopia, does not mean you should do it.
If you fail you can makes things worse for future mages, and/or be left with a Thedas that has been divided and damaged due to your War to Free the Mages.

You have no right to decide the future for mages, or how to decide the religion of thousands. Its their choice, and newsflash alot of mages you meet arent that unhappy about being in the Circle.

Better to try for a bastion of hope than continuing to live in servitude. And considering that the religious institution decided to force its views on all of Thedas, how can a person who wants to see change not decide to try to build a better future for people by fighting the Chantry and dismantling it?

[Costin_Razvan]

The NEED for Harrowing is for mages to show they are capable of resisting control from Demons. Abominations are real threats to Thedas.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 22 septembre 2010 - 02:44 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

ShrinkingFish wrote...
French Revolition, American Revolution, Soviet Revolution, Chinese Communist Revolution, The Revolution of Haiti, the list continues.

And those are supposed to be good examples of revolutions? Really?
French revolution was a disaster that led to a terror mass murdering state. Soviet revolution? Yea, I don't think I need to talk about that.
China? We all know what happened and thank goodness someone like Deng showed up and moderated it.

The american "revolutiuon" wasn't so much as revolution as a war for independence. That's like saying Maric and Loghain were revolutionaries. They weren't. They were resistance fighters / rebels.

ShrinkingFish wrote...
Moderate reform keeps those in power in power and the oppressed oppressed and brings no real change.

Except minorities and the working class in Europe andd other places would disagree with you there and I think most preferred to live West of the Berlin wall. Well except if you are a communist and believe so ardently that class struggle and oppression exists even today.

So long as there is inequality, the natural order of things, there will be those who have power and those who don't. That is inevitable. What I am arguing against is revolutions not really changing anything expect who gets to oppress who, and not really make things better in the long run. Moderation on the otherhand improves the situation for one side or both, without necessarily reversing the order.

You know the French saying: "Le plus ca change, le plus c'est la meme chose"?
That's what they use to say after their revolution of 1789 and 1848. They thought they were changing and all they were doing is the same thing.
Alexix De Tocqueville is an excellent read for that.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 septembre 2010 - 02:45 .

[Giggles_Manically]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

The NEED for Harrowing is for mages to show they are capable of resisting control from Demons. Abominations are real threats to Thedas.

There has to be a better way to test a mage though, a pass or DIE kinda test isint really a good one.

[Costin_Razvan]

I would better prepare them for it, and force First Enchanters to do so before forcing the mage into their Harrowing

But I would never change the test in itself.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 22 septembre 2010 - 02:57 .

[ObserverStatus]

Of course I want to help the Chantry: to the Chantry DIE!!! mwahahahaha

[KnightofPhoenix]

LobselVith8 wrote...
If Hawke and his sister are apostates, and he comes into a position of power in the Free Marches, wouldn't this be a possibility? Maybe the other nations do decide to engage in a war with Hawke and his mage armies. If it's a revolution that's needed to liberate the mages, then there's no choice but to fight for their freedom.

And cause severe politcal backlash, even more hatred towards the mages in other nations and more oppression. Assuming that Hawke can even fight off all Andrastian nations.

A revolution is rarely needed. IAll it ends up doing is switch between oppressed and oppressor and that is a vycious cycle leading nowhere.

Unless some extra-ordinary event comes along (aka whatever Morrigan is planing), I don't see armed revolution being the way at all.