1503 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ Costin. That's a far more rational plan.

[Daerog]

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.

For the first part, mages can learn about blood magic, as the tower in Fereldan did have books for any mage to look at, but were pulled from the shelves because of Templars getting reports of Jowan using blood magic. So, it's not like no one in the Circles have acces to reading about blood magic and such. Need to know one's enemy and such. Also, its more of the mind control thing that makes it illegal, not so much the stealing of one's lifeforce which is still pretty bad.

As for the second part, that seems like early signs of a tyrant. Can end up good or bad, but there will be bad in the mean time. And not a very favorable look in the history books. Such is the way with tyrants, forcing their view on the masses whether they agree or not.

What is nice is eventual change and acceptance being achieved on all or most sides. Not a bloodbath which lead to more force being used to keep the losers down, which will only draw more battle lines. Which is what the Collective is trying to do, change the view the populace has on magic, by stopping problems before they are noticed and helping people.

Also, once Nevarra becomes a more powerful economic and military nation than Orlais, things will certainly shift as long as they don't antagonize the Chantry. They could try to gain a lot of influence on the Chantry to where they could maintain their own Templar order, like the Spanish Inquisition, but the opposite of the Spanish Inquisition, more lenient on mages but make Nevarra look like a devout Andrastian faith at the same time. Maybe they could "encourage" the Divine to move to Nevarra instead. Who knows?

Currently I don't see the policy of the Circle as that big of a deal, would be nice if the paranoia was toned down. I mean, if I found myself living in Thedas, I wouldn't see myself having a problem with being a Circle mage.

Anyway, support the Collective, support the Circle, and support the Chantry but would like to see some reform in the sense of not constantly being hostile to mages. Not encourage the templars to be all unfriendly and such, encourage them like the one who gave Wynne sweets and such on her way to the Tower. I understand the necessity of the Circle and needing some outside oversight, but don't need to be an ass about it. Plenty of the templars in game seemed nice and reasonable, even through my mage canon playthrough.

Costin_Razvan wrote...

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.

Well, the enchanters don't let mages do the Harrowing if they think they can't do it. And why should the First Enchanter do it hundreds of times? The First Enchanter has already done it before, all enchanters have done it once. They train a mage and do everything they can to help make sure that they can pass the Harrowing. They don't let children try it out or anything, a mage is trained for years until the Harrowing can happen. The test seems proper enough anyway.

[Morroian]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

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.

I can agree with all that. I think mages should have more freedom and self determination but there still should clearly be some restrictions on them.

[ShrinkingFish]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

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.

The American Revolution was indeed a Revolution. It was a group of British Nationals rebelling against their own Government. Most Americans just don't like to think of it as a Revolution because "Revolution is bad"

Fact of the matter is that most of the founding fathers and many of the early U.S. Presidents advocated Revolution as a legitimate method of governmental change and the only viable option when the government becomes too powerful.

Many are even quoted as supporting the idea that if the governmental system that they established in America were to become too powerful and oppressive that it was the people's right and duty to arm themselve and overthrow said government.

And your opinion of other successful revolutions from across the world speak to a heavy capitalist bias.

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.

Okay. I see the issue. We're discussing different definitions of "change" and "oppression"

Truth is that minorities and low income workers are still oppressed and controlled by the upper classes in all Western and Eastern countries. The methods have simply changed. They have found ways of making them more docile and less likely to form an uprising. These are the effects of moderate reform. The standing abusive government changes slowely overtime until it finds what abuses the lower classes are willing to accept. Effectively keeping them in their positions as underlings.

You view the increase in livable conditions as acceptable change. I'm talking about change in terms of who holds the power. Whoever holds the power is just as bad as the people who came before, the power always remains the same, but those holding it change.

And, just fyi, I am not a communist.

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

[Costin_Razvan]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@ Costin. That's a far more rational plan.

Yeah...I can't figure how people believe they can just destroy the Chantry without causing a great deal of problems.

As for giving the mages full freedom....how the hell do people figure that a scenario like Redcliff won't be repeated many times over? Because that's what you are asking for.

A kick in the balls.

Also, regarding your comment on revolutions.

Wallachian Revolution of 1848, if you want a good example of one.

Yes, the revolution was crushed, but without it Romania as a country would not have been born, which it was almost 11 years later and led by former revolutionaries.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 22 septembre 2010 - 03:12 .

[Daerog]

If we are talking about the American Revolution, they did try to talk first. Again and again and again. The founding fathers did not want to go to war. Well, I guess some did, but it was seen as a last resort. And the Revolutionary War was a last resort because all the talks kept failing and more British troops were being sent over.

If armed revolution becomes necessary, okay, but no sane person would think that armed conflict should be first. The armed revolutions are easily recognized because of all the chaos caused and such, but not much is known of the less violent revolutions because they are not as interesting in the history books. War is interesting, Bunch of people talking in a room for over a month, not so much.

Edit: A really welcome revolution would be like the Renaissance or Enlightenment, a revolution of ideas that greatly changed the western world. Led to some wars I suppose, but that was later. Not an expert on either of those two events, so I could be wrong.

Modifié par DaerogTheDhampir, 22 septembre 2010 - 03:09 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

ShrinkingFish wrote...
And your opinion of other successful revolutions from across the world speak to a heavy capitalist bias.

I am not that much of a capitalist. But to tell me that the Soviet revolution brought *positive* change? No.
The Tsar regime was horrible. The Soviet revolution was just as bad if not worse. It brought change, that doens't make it desirable change. And it ended up faling.

The Chinese revolution only succeeded when it stopped being a revolution when Mao died (its Thermidor so to speak). And adopted a moderate approach.

And now you are going to argue that the French revolution was succesful? What it ended up doing was institutionalise State terror, lead to members killing themselves and finally being overthrown by a dictator who started a rollback.
The 1848 revolution had a stronger institutional success, and even then it eleceted the dictator who overthrew it. After only 3 years.   

You view the increase in livable conditions as acceptable change. I'm talking about change in terms of who holds the power. Whoever holds the power is just as bad as the people who came before, the power always remains the same, but those holding it change.

Ok, you're right I see the impass.

I'd argue however that the working class today is much much better off than those in 1850s. Because of gradual moderate reforms. And that's what I mean about change. Not a reversal of the order that only changes who oppresses who.

And given a choice between a change of who oppresses who, or an improvement that while may never reach full equality (a dream), would steadily improve and provide room for fairer and less unequal (to avoid saying equal) opportunity for upward mobility, I'd pick the latter.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 septembre 2010 - 03:08 .

[ShrinkingFish]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ok, you're right I see the impass.

I'd argue however that the working class today is much much better off than those in 1850s. Because of gradual moderate reforms. And that's what I mean about change. Not a reversal of the order that only changes who oppresses who.

And given a choice between a change of who oppresses who, or an improvement that while may never reach full equality (a dream), would steadily improve and provide room for fairer and less unequal (to avoid saying equal) opportunity for upward mobility, I'd pick the latter.

I agree with you.

However, your type of change takes hundreds of years, generations of people trying to affect change. Most are not content to sit and wait while conditions are as bad as they are in a setting like DA. Revolution is inevitable as long as conditions are unlivable and the revolutionary cycle will continue until one side comes to the position of employing livable oppression.

I also a noticed another disconnect. When discussing revolutions, we had different definitions for what we meant by "successful".

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
Wallachian Revolution of 1848, if you want a good example of one.

Yes, the revolution was crushed, but without it Romania was a country would not have been born, which it was almost 11 years later and led by former revolutionaries.

That's really more of an independence movement though, no?
"Revolution" is too broad a concept however, I know.
The kinds of revlutions I am thinking about is more along the lines of the French revolution. It wasn't for independence, it was to force change on the state.

[Daerog]

MariSkep wrote...

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

As for the second part, that seems like early signs of a tyrant. Can end up good or bad, but there will be bad in the mean time. And not a very favorable look in the history books. Such is the way with tyrants, forcing their view on the masses whether they agree or not.

Like I said earlier, no one is being forced to do anything. If you don't like my ideas or don't believe I could improve the sitution or would only make things worse, ignore me. Or off me in my sleep. Or put my a comic state. Or support the people I'm fighting. Maybe that will you the favor I couldn't. I;m not going to mind. I'll likely be dead.

I'm obviously in the minority here so I might as well just drop it.

Well, the enchanters don't let mages do the Harrowing if they think they can't do it. And why should the First Enchanter do it hundreds of times? The First Enchanter has already done it before, all enchanters have done it once.

Well what proof do we have that the Senior Mages can still perform? Maybe they barely escaped. If we're going to use the Harrowing test to determine who can call themselves a mage it should be required like rifle qual for Marines. Every year so everyone knows you can still do it.

For the first part, I get what you are saying, but certainly sounds very bloody. Maybe you could lead your revolution and hand it to a gorverning body. You being killed by someone who disagrees would be bad, as that silences your point of view and opinions.

As for the second part, I don't think marines are killed if they can't do that rifle thing. Once should mean that you are capable of fending off demons, not that you can always do such a thing, but you are capable of doing it. No one is completely immune to possession, as the Broken Circle shows, but those who pass the Harrowing show that they have enough ability to possibly be successful at resisting demons. You are given the test when you're an adult, prime of your life kind of thing. If you can't do it then, then one likely doesn't stand much of a chance ever. It's a test for the masses, obviously people are all different, so it's good for some and worse for others. Like state exams/tests. Doing it more than once is unnecessary, unless the Circle or Chantry gets REALLY paranoid (even more so than seen in origins).

[Costin_Razvan]

That's really more of an independence movement though, no?

"Revolution" is too broad a concept however, I know.

The kinds of revlutions I am thinking about is more along the lines of the French revolution. It wasn't for independence, it was to force change on the state.

Actually it was like the French Revolution. Certainly they had the desire for Independence from the Ottomans, and it was certainly a long term goal after they set themselves in power. But the goal of the actual revolution was to force a change of state.

[KnightofPhoenix]

ShrinkingFish wrote...
I agree with you.

However, your type of change takes hundreds of years, generations of people trying to affect change. Most are not content to sit and wait while conditions are as bad as they are in a setting like DA. Revolution is inevitable as long as conditions are unlivable and the revolutionary cycle will continue until one side comes to the position of employing livable oppression.

I also a noticed another disconnect. When discussing revolutions, we had different definitions for what we meant by "successful".

I know that temptation too well, once upon a time I was a communist.
IYes, I know reforms take a lot of time and many maynot have the patience to wait. But I think it's safer and leads to more durable and sustainable improvement (to avoid saying change as in a reversal of the order).

And yes I noticed that too.
Revolutions can and do succeed in the short run, in the sense of forcibly removing a government. It's what they usually do after that however, that I deem as a failure (ends up falling apart) or ends up being self-contradictory (as in setting up another oppressive system).

It could create an opportinity of reform however, but  it reqcuires it to reach its Thermidor and all revolutionaries die out. That's what the Abbasids did, backstab all revolutionaries who put them in power so they can reform slowly in peace.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 septembre 2010 - 03:26 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

That's really more of an independence movement though, no?
"Revolution" is too broad a concept however, I know.
The kinds of revlutions I am thinking about is more along the lines of the French revolution. It wasn't for independence, it was to force change on the state.

Actually it was like the French Revolution. Certainly they had the desire for Independence from the Ottomans, and it was certainly a long term goal after they set themselves in power. But the goal of the actual revolution was to force a change of state.

To acquire more regional autonomy. It's based on ethnicity / identity.
That's not what the French revolution was really.

I mean obbviously there are similarities. But I wouldn't put them in the same basket.

[ShrinkingFish]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I know that temptation too well, once upon a time I was a communist.
IYes, I know reforms take a lot of time and many maynot have the patience to wait. But I think it's safer and leads to more durable and sustainable improvement (to avoid saying change as in a reversal of the order).

And yes I noticed that too.
Revolutions can and do succeed in the short run, in the sense of forcibly removing a government. It's what they do after that however, that I deem as a failure (ends up falling apart) or ends up being self-contradictory (as in setting up another oppressive system).

It could create an opportiniuty of reform hwoever, but that means it has to reach its Thermidor and all revolutionaries die out. That's what the Abbasids did, backstab all revolutionaries who put them in pwoer so they can reform slowly in peace.

These are problems of government, which is directly anti-revolutionary. No wonder that revolutionaries are incapable of forming working governments, they spend their entire lives practicing to destroy them after all.

And the question of slow reform being safer is a question of "For whom is it safer?" For the oppressed in certain conditions living under the thumb of their rulers is just as dangerous as any revolution would be.

I agree that moderate change is the better path under certain conditions. But without revolution the chance for moderate change would never exist.

In this light the real question would be, in terms of this thread, "Is Revolution necessary for the reformation of the Chantry?"

Modifié par ShrinkingFish, 22 septembre 2010 - 03:29 .

[Costin_Razvan]

To acquire more regional autonomy. It's based on ethnicity / identity.
That's not what the French revolution was really.

I mean obbviously there are similarities. But I wouldn't put them in the same basket.

No....not like that.

They wanted to force a change of government ( state as I called it earlier ) due to massive internal issues which were faced at the time, and which the Revolution Leaders sought to resolve.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 22 septembre 2010 - 03:35 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

ShrinkingFish wrote...
These are problems of government, which is directly anti-revolutionary. No wonder that revolutionaries are incapable of forming working governments, they spend their entire lives practicing to destroy them after all.

And thats the great irony and what's fascinating about revolutions. Their inner contradictions. 

ShrinkingFish wrote...
And the question of slow reform being safer is a question of "For whom is it safer?" For the oppressed in certain conditions living under the thumb of their rulers is just as dangerous as any revolution would be.

I agree that moderate change is the better path under certain conditions. But without revolution the chance for moderate change would never exist.

In this light the real question would be, in terms of this thread, "Is Revolution necessary for the reformation of the Chantry?"

Safer for the ones profitting from the status quo, of course. But also for those who need that change. As I've argued, mages violently rising up (and might be very tempted to use blood magic or resort to demons like they did in the Warden revolution), will almost definately increase the already unbearable amount of paranoia in other countries and might even lead to violent mobs trying to kill mages, children and adults alike.

Certainly, revolutions have been useful not in and of themselves, but to make others recognise that maybe appeasing the populace is better than havign them revolt. That's the only positive effect of the French Revolution. Rulers and elites realised that maybe they need to be nicer to their people.
There is no doubt that the Communist revolution also forced change and reform on the West. No doubt.

But there is something very important to note here. All these revolutions were *populist* and had massive popular support. The working class or the urban populations could not be ignored by the state. 
Here on the otherhand, we are talking about a small minority that is hated and feared by the people in large. Something that rulers can ignore much easily, or retaliate much harder without fearing a backlash. 

That is why I think taht even if a mage revolution was succesful in removing a government somewhere, it will not have the same international / regional result as the French revolution or the Soviet one. It would rather, imo, increase fear, hatred and oppression.

@ Costin.
I don't know about that particular case, but I'll take your word over it. Certianly I never said that revolutions necessarily have to fail. It's usually what happens, but not always.
And what I wrote above about massive popular uprising vs minority uprising also deals with the issue.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 septembre 2010 - 03:40 .

[Daerog]

MariSkep wrote...

It's not like a regents or SAT. It doesn't really have a good paper exam analogy. It's a practical exam. Something you either can or can not do and as Broken Circle demonstrates not all mages can do it consistently which is a severe issue. I hope it's not to great a leap to say that if they had more exposure to the way different demons tempt you or with resisting blood magic, they'd have been more prepared for the Abominations. Anyway it doesn't matter. I don't really think much of the Harrowing or the way circle mages are taught. Compared to what other mages are capable of the Circle mages seem weak both in mind and magical ability.

Possibly. What I'm curious is if the Tevinter Circles are still tied with the Circle of Magi or not, and if yes, why such an experienced mage nation believes the Harrowing is the best way to go, or what keepers do. I think keepers don't hold as much of a risk (as well as apostate groups and such) because they are not confined to a single location with magic being HEAVILY used and concentrated at. I guess the Harrowing is necessary due to the down sides of gathering mages into one place, and not as necessary to other groups. Hopefully more is learned in DA2 with being apostate. Could change my current opinions.

[ShrinkingFish]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...
These are problems of government, which is directly anti-revolutionary. No wonder that revolutionaries are incapable of forming working governments, they spend their entire lives practicing to destroy them after all.

And thats the great irony and what's fascinating about revolutions. Their inner contradictions. 

ShrinkingFish wrote...
And the question of slow reform being safer is a question of "For whom is it safer?" For the oppressed in certain conditions living under the thumb of their rulers is just as dangerous as any revolution would be.

I agree that moderate change is the better path under certain conditions. But without revolution the chance for moderate change would never exist.

In this light the real question would be, in terms of this thread, "Is Revolution necessary for the reformation of the Chantry?"

Safer for the ones profitting from the status quo, of course. But also for those who need that change. As I've argued, mages violently rising up (and might be very tempted to use blood magic or resort to demons like they did in the Warden revolution), will almost definately increase the already unbearable amount of paranoia in other countries and might even lead to violent mobs trying to kill mages, children and adults alike.

Certainly, revolutions have been useful not in and of themselves, but to make others recognise that maybe appeasing the populace is better than havign them revolt. That's the only positive effect of the French Revolution. Rulers and elites realised that maybe they need to be nicer to their people.
There is no doubt that the Communist revolution also forced change and reform on the West. No doubt.

But there is something very important to note here. All these revolutions were *populist* and had massive popular support. The working class or the urban populations could not be ignored by the state. 
Here on the otherhand, we are talking about a small minority that is hated and feared by the people in large. Something that rulers can ignore much easily, or retaliate much harder without fearing a backlash. 

That is why I think taht even if a mage revolution was succesful in removing a government somewhere, it will not have the same international / regional result as the French revolution or the Soviet one. It would rather, imo, increase fear, hatred and oppression.

And this is where things get complicated and very particular to the DA setting. Since we're dealing with small groups who have such great power as to be able to defy the masses which is unprecedented in any real revolutions.

Regardless, it is an interesting and compelling question. I'm interested to see if the writers at Bioware are going to/ are willing to/ are able to address it.

Fun stuff  =D

[KnightofPhoenix]

ShrinkingFish wrote...
And this is where things get complicated and very particular to the DA setting. Since we're dealing with small groups who have such great power as to be able to defy the masses which is unprecedented in any real revolutions.

Regardless, it is an interesting and compelling question. I'm interested to see if the writers at Bioware are going to/ are willing to/ are able to address it.

Fun stuff  =D

But they can be countered by Templars. And are all conveniently locked up, making containement and "annulment" that much easier. I'd argue that those two things (coupled with popular fear and hatred of mages) balances out their enormous power.
There is also the very real and grave danger of mages succumbing to demons in the process, which makes things worse for both sides.

But yes, it is a very interesting question. I think that "change" is going to be delt with if what Morrigan said is any indication. Of course extra-ordinary elements and variables could bypass and stomp on my theory easily lol

[ShrinkingFish]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

But they can be countered by Templars. And are all conveniently locked up, making containement and "annulment" that much easier. I'd argue that those two things (coupled with popular fear and hatred of mages) balances out their enormous power.
There is also the very real and grave danger of mages succumbing to demons in the process, which makes things worse for both sides.

But yes, it is a very interesting question. I think that "change" is going to be delt with if what Morrigan said is any indication. Of course extra-ordinary elements and variables could bypass and stomp on my theory easily lol

I agree with you on this point. I think that as of the ending of the Dragon Age Origins story the mage "problem" (as it may be called) was very well contained and controlled by the Chantry.

However, throughout the games there were constant allusions to things that were about to change. Such as the growing Libertarian movement within the College of Magi. Morrigan's activities and plans and her vieled speech about the "change" that is to come. The change that many people will fight against even if it is that very change that sets them free. And, of course, good ol' Flemeth. *wistful-sigh* Flemeth...

I wouldn't be surprised if we are looking at a mage rebellion in the near future, a shifting of the status quo and an opening for the mages to strike out against their oppressors! Huzzah! =P

Also. In terms of the whole demonic possession and abominations schtick, it reads mostly like an excuse by the Chantry for their crimes against the mages. A fear mongering tool to keep the public backing them up. After all, it has been proven that most mages outside the Chantry are not at risk of becomming possessed at any given moment. Avernus avoided it, Morrigan avoids it, many of the Mage's Collective avoid it, the mages of Tevinter avoid it (both ancient and new), hundreds of apostate mages avoid it just as deftly as they avoid Templars.

Really it seems that the ones most likely to succumb to demonic influence are those who have not yet been fully trained, the apprentices, and the blood mages foolish enough to believe that they can control demons.

Fact of the matter is that the vast majority of mages know better than to screw around with demons. And it is not like abominations were a huge problem before the Chantry locked all mages up in towers. The Chantry's claim that they "solved the problem" is hardly true and they certainly do not possess the only method by which mages remain in possession of themselves.

Modifié par ShrinkingFish, 22 septembre 2010 - 04:04 .