57 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

The way I'd want to help the mages would be to try and create opportunities to use their healing abilities to actually help people. Make every chantry have a few mages - with appropriate templar guards - available to heal anyone willing to let them.

[Xilizhra]

Conner wasn't even a trained mage

Actually, this is why he was able to summon the demon in the first place, and also why he made a deal with one. Training is quite the significant factor.



One thing that I've noticed: the old, absurdly magocratic Tevinter Imperium doesn't seem to have had any significant abomination issues; at least, Tevinter and abominations are never mentioned at the same time. I wonder why this is?

[Wulfram]

Xilizhra wrote...

One thing that I've noticed: the old, absurdly magocratic Tevinter Imperium doesn't seem to have had any significant abomination issues; at least, Tevinter and abominations are never mentioned at the same time. I wonder why this is?

Because they squished all the abominations with blood magic powered by the deaths of thousands of slaves?

[Xilizhra]

That would mean a heck of a lot of slaves being on hand at all times to deal with abominations showing up... I suspect Tevinter's philosophy regarding demons is that they're servants, not business partners.

[Dean_the_Young]

So, in summary, no. The current system should not be abolished, not at this time and certainly not until there exists another system to replace it. The Chantry lockup is too tight, not unneeded.



Reform would be far better, and far more achievable. Curbing the excesses, rather than throwing the whole system to chance.



A number of the aspects of magic virtually demand regulation. Uniform and mandatory training of children up unto the Harrowing, at least: Connor is a modern case in point in which being well-intended, well-mannered, and entirely un-malevolent and untrained in no way prevented him from doing great harm. Untrained children are just as, if not more, dangerous, because they don't have a system to give them the skills they need to not be dangerous.



Being able to track mages is also good. Mages can do great harms, and those that do need to be able to be found as quickly as possible, both to bring them to justice and limit the harm a maleficar can do to others.



The existence of the Circle as a magi's enclave is also valuable. Yes, peasants do fear mages. And a lot of mages don't like the outside. A place where the mages can get away from non-magi is vital.





The reforms that are needed to make it all reasonable are much more mundane than most people think.



-Staying at the Circle should be an option, not mandetory. As long as those past their harrowing remain findable, report into their local chantry on a regular basis, and refrain from excessive use of magic (to be determined by role/life), they should be allowed to live where they wish... if they wish to.



-This would also leave the phylacteries to be used only when a crime has been suspected/committed, not a leash to force the mages in one location.



-They should be allowed to maintain and regain contact with their families and friends outside the Circle. Regulated, perhaps, and perhaps still can't inherit titles of nobility, but not beforced to leave past attachments.



-The Templar presence could be reduced in the Tower itself, lessened in the general areas and not all-invasive. (Though a garrison could remain below, in case of emergency.)

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

Conner wasn't even a trained mage

Actually, this is why he was able to summon the demon in the first place, and also why he made a deal with one. Training is quite the significant factor.

One thing that I've noticed: the old, absurdly magocratic Tevinter Imperium doesn't seem to have had any significant abomination issues; at least, Tevinter and abominations are never mentioned at the same time. I wonder why this is?

Tevinter doesn't have a significant role in the plot?

We don't hear about abomination issues in regard to any other nation besides Ferelden, butthat doesn't mean Ferelden is the abomination spot of the world.

The Tevinter Imperium certainly has its own method of finding, tracking, and training mages. Their limitations might be different, but certain aspects would be similar.

[Xilizhra]

These reforms are a decent idea, but there's no reason that the Chantry should be in charge of it. Templars are useful, but could be employed directly by the Circle, without attachment to the Chantry, if this severing could be accomplished.



I'd also allow them to inherit titles of nobility.

[Herr Uhl]

The old Tevinter empire is what she meant. The time before Andraste.

[LobselVith8]

Xilizhra wrote...

These reforms are a decent idea, but there's no reason that the Chantry should be in charge of it. Templars are useful, but could be employed directly by the Circle, without attachment to the Chantry, if this severing could be accomplished.

I'd also allow them to inherit titles of nobility.

There's no reason the mages shouldn't be able to watch over themselves; handing over their lives to armed and armored men and women who have been raised to view magic is a bad idea.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Racial discrimination in the US wasn't based on the fact that any given black person was capable of boiling anyone's blood at will or could on any given bad day or in bad straights might lose or trade control and become a WMD attacking the populace.

Conner wasn't even a trained mage, and certainly wasn't malevolent, and he nearly destroyed Redcliffe, and more.

I think the racial discimination would fit better with the treatment of the elves, but that's another discussion for another time. Using the Connor example is exactly why the Chantry's treatment of mages needs to be changed: they condition mages to gather as much power as possible in order to survive against the templars that are sent to hunt them down. If the Chantry didn't imprison people because of their magical ability and spread its view of magic as evil, then Isolde never would have feared for Connor or thought that there was something wrong with him. Nobody is saying mages shouldn't be properly trained; people are arguing against imprisoning them for being mages.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Everyone has very good basis for fearing mages in general. And mages have basis for fearing the public as well. Don't akin that to a system based on lesser measures due to skin color and assumed inferiority.

And there's also a reason to fear the Chantry as well - ask the Dalish. According to them, the Chantry sent the templars into the Dales because they kicked out their missionaries after refusing to convert to their religion. What happened after the Dales was taken over by Orlais? Their religion was outlawed. Should the lives of mages be placed with an institution that openly condemms them?

Dean_the_Young wrote...

So, in summary, no. The current system should not be abolished, not at this time and certainly not until there exists another system to replace it. The Chantry lockup is too tight, not unneeded.

Reform would be far better, and far more achievable. Curbing the excesses, rather than throwing the whole system to chance.

A number of the aspects of magic virtually demand regulation. Uniform and mandatory training of children up unto the Harrowing, at least: Connor is a modern case in point in which being well-intended, well-mannered, and entirely un-malevolent and untrained in no way prevented him from doing great harm. Untrained children are just as, if not more, dangerous, because they don't have a system to give them the skills they need to not be dangerous.

The Chantry lockup is entirely unnecessary. There are mages in Rivain with leadership positions, there were elven mages who were in leadership positions of Arlathan and the Dales (and their descendants are now the Keepers of the nomadic Dalish clans). Father Eirik was a mage and the head of the Haven Chantry, and Kolgrim may be a mage since he knew about the fate of the Urn. There's no reason mages shouldn't be permitted to govern themselves. It's been nearly a 900 years of the same system and nothing has changed, and nothing ever will unless someone does something to implement that change.

[ejoslin]

Father Erik was not exactly following in the Chantry in any way, shape or form. I'm not sure that bringing them up as a POSITIVE example is a good thing for your argument.

For one, the dragon cult maintained their autonomy by killing anyone who wandered into their town.

Modifié par ejoslin, 21 octobre 2010 - 04:50 .

[Maria13]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

So, in summary, no. The current system should not be abolished, not at this time and certainly not until there exists another system to replace it. The Chantry lockup is too tight, not unneeded.

Reform would be far better, and far more achievable. Curbing the excesses, rather than throwing the whole system to chance.

A number of the aspects of magic virtually demand regulation. Uniform and mandatory training of children up unto the Harrowing, at least: Connor is a modern case in point in which being well-intended, well-mannered, and entirely un-malevolent and untrained in no way prevented him from doing great harm. Untrained children are just as, if not more, dangerous, because they don't have a system to give them the skills they need to not be dangerous.

Being able to track mages is also good. Mages can do great harms, and those that do need to be able to be found as quickly as possible, both to bring them to justice and limit the harm a maleficar can do to others.

The existence of the Circle as a magi's enclave is also valuable. Yes, peasants do fear mages. And a lot of mages don't like the outside. A place where the mages can get away from non-magi is vital.


The reforms that are needed to make it all reasonable are much more mundane than most people think.

-Staying at the Circle should be an option, not mandetory. As long as those past their harrowing remain findable, report into their local chantry on a regular basis, and refrain from excessive use of magic (to be determined by role/life), they should be allowed to live where they wish... if they wish to.

-This would also leave the phylacteries to be used only when a crime has been suspected/committed, not a leash to force the mages in one location.

-They should be allowed to maintain and regain contact with their families and friends outside the Circle. Regulated, perhaps, and perhaps still can't inherit titles of nobility, but not beforced to leave past attachments.

-The Templar presence could be reduced in the Tower itself, lessened in the general areas and not all-invasive. (Though a garrison could remain below, in case of emergency.)

And what of the rite of tranquility?  I think it should be abolished for all but those, who, being in possession of their full faculties, wish to have it as an option.  Or used only in extreme circumstances as an alternative to a death sentence...

[LobselVith8]

ejoslin wrote...

Father Erik was not exactly following in the Chantry in any way, shape or form. I'm not sure that bringing them up as a POSITIVE example is a good thing for your argument.

For one, the dragon cult maintained their autonomy by killing anyone who wandered into their town.

Technically, he was the head of the Haven Chantry. (It's the name of the Chantry); I never meant that he was, in any way, associated with the Andrastian Chantry that arose from Kordillus Drakon I establishing a particular Cult of Andraste as a formal religion in Orlais, creating the Order of the Templars and the Circle of Magi, and declaring a number of Exalted Marches to secure that.

Regardless of their views on morality, the people of Haven lived without abominations destroying the town for likely 900 years. 900 years without Chantry and templar oversight. Mages and non-mages living together, as the example of Father Eirik proves, given his responsibility of presiding over the Haven Chantry.

And given the Epilogue showing that they get new recruits once the Dragon has been sighted on the countryside, it seems that their habit of killing people to keep the Urn a secret fades.

[Xilizhra]

Regardless of their views on morality, the people of Haven lived without abominations destroying the town for likely 900 years. 900 years without Chantry and templar oversight. Mages and non-mages living together, as the example of Father Eirik proves, given his responsibility of presiding over the Haven Chantry.

I'm on your side and I'm even sort of fond of Haven, but it might be worth pointing out that they probably do that by killing anyone who looks like they might be an abomination risk.

Or the mages are all too fanatical to ever deal with demons, but that sort of perfection seems less likely.

[jpdipity]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

These reforms are a decent idea, but there's no reason that the Chantry should be in charge of it. Templars are useful, but could be employed directly by the Circle, without attachment to the Chantry, if this severing could be accomplished.

I'd also allow them to inherit titles of nobility.

There's no reason the mages shouldn't be able to watch over themselves; handing over their lives to armed and armored men and women who have been raised to view magic is a bad idea.

I agree except that I also think that it is a bad idea to let mages police mages.  Just like you don't want a person with a negative bias against mages "watching" over them, it is a bad idea to have people with an overly sympathetic stand about mages doing the same - they may be too lenient. 

Ideally, I think that there needs to be a separate (supposedly) unbiased panel who regulates the mages.  Perhaps Templars could be employed as the policing agency to carry out the panel's disciplinary actions, but nothing more.

Mages wield a dangerous weapon with their magic.  They need to be trained and heavily regulated; however, having basic rights stripped and imprisonment imposed on them is way too extreme and unnecessary.

[LobselVith8]

Xilizhra wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Regardless of their views on morality, the people of Haven lived without abominations destroying the town for likely 900 years. 900 years without Chantry and templar oversight. Mages and non-mages living together, as the example of Father Eirik proves, given his responsibility of presiding over the Haven Chantry.

I'm on your side and I'm even sort of fond of Haven, but it might be worth pointing out that they probably do that by killing anyone who looks like they might be an abomination risk.
Or the mages are all too fanatical to ever deal with demons, but that sort of perfection seems less likely.

I see them as an alternative to the Andrastian Chantry; they're evidently pro-mage and don't demonize mages or magic, and still manage to thrive. Maybe the existance of an outsider as the "Knight-Champion of Andraste" is the reason why newcomers to Haven come new converts instead of getting killed by the previous intruders did (such as the knights of Redcliffe).

jpdipity wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

These reforms are a decent idea, but there's no reason that the Chantry should be in charge of it. Templars are useful, but could be employed directly by the Circle, without attachment to the Chantry, if this severing could be accomplished.

I'd also allow them to inherit titles of nobility.

There's no reason the mages shouldn't be able to watch over themselves; handing over their lives to armed and armored men and women who have been raised to view magic is a bad idea.

I agree except that I also think that it is a bad idea to let mages police mages.  Just like you don't want a person with a negative bias against mages "watching" over them, it is a bad idea to have people with an overly sympathetic stand about mages doing the same - they may be too lenient. 

Ideally, I think that there needs to be a separate (supposedly) unbiased panel who regulates the mages.  Perhaps Templars could be employed as the policing agency to carry out the panel's disciplinary actions, but nothing more.

Mages wield a dangerous weapon with their magic.  They need to be trained and heavily regulated; however, having basic rights stripped and imprisonment imposed on them is way too extreme and unnecessary.

I don't see why the nages shouldn't be permitted to govern themselves - there are examples of mages doing exactly that with no oversight from any form of templars. You either have mages governing themselves or an outside agency that has too much control over a powerless people have total authority over their lives, creating resentment and anger, and ultimately situations like Uldred's revolt, where mages will do anything to be free of their oppressors. The nations of Arlathan, the Dales, and Rivain proof that it can be done.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 21 octobre 2010 - 05:49 .

[ejoslin]

LobselVith8 wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

Father Erik was not exactly following in the Chantry in any way, shape or form. I'm not sure that bringing them up as a POSITIVE example is a good thing for your argument.

For one, the dragon cult maintained their autonomy by killing anyone who wandered into their town.

Technically, he was the head of the Haven Chantry. (It's the name of the Chantry); I never meant that he was, in any way, associated with the Andrastian Chantry that arose from Kordillus Drakon I establishing a particular Cult of Andraste as a formal religion in Orlais, creating the Order of the Templars and the Circle of Magi, and declaring a number of Exalted Marches to secure that.

Regardless of their views on morality, the people of Haven lived without abominations destroying the town for likely 900 years. 900 years without Chantry and templar oversight. Mages and non-mages living together, as the example of Father Eirik proves, given his responsibility of presiding over the Haven Chantry.

And given the Epilogue showing that they get new recruits once the Dragon has been sighted on the countryside, it seems that their habit of killing people to keep the Urn a secret fades.

You know this how?  Perhaps it has happened.  Perhaps they keep an even tighter leash on their mages.  Perhaps even demons don't like being around high dragons.

[Xilizhra]

Then again, it is a small village, and everyone probably at least knows of everyone else. Word of mouth for anyone acting suspiciously would probably spread quickly.

[maxernst]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I'd also allow them to inherit titles of nobility.

There's no reason the mages shouldn't be able to watch over themselves; handing over their lives to armed and armored men and women who have been raised to view magic is a bad idea.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And there's also a reason to fear the Chantry as well - ask the Dalish. According to them, the Chantry sent the templars into the Dales because they kicked out their missionaries after refusing to convert to their religion. What happened after the Dales was taken over by Orlais? Their religion was outlawed. Should the lives of mages be placed with an institution that openly condemms them?

Dean_the_Young wrote...

We don't really know how the Dalish elves control mages...and they may (like Tevinter) be ruled by mages..in fact, I'm skeptical that you can have a society with free mages where they are not the rulers, particularly if they use blood magic.  We do know that the Mages collective doesn't do a good enough job, for whatever reason, because there's the "missing mage quest" where you find out that he was murdered by his apprentice who turned into an abomination.

Plus, in addition to abominations, there's the issue of potential rogue mages.  While it's true that anyone can be a criminal, a mage criminal would be very difficult--perhaps impossible--for the authorities to bring to justice.  The best analogy in the modern world I can think of is that mages are like schizophrenics with assault rifles.  As long as they keep taking their medication, they're not a threat, but if they don't, they can murder a lot of people. 

As far as the Chantry--yes, from the perspective of non-believers, they're a threat.  But most humans in Ferelden appear to trust the Chantry, rightly or wrongly.  So I suspect most people in Ferelden see the existing situation as a good one.  It's obviously not good for mages.  Arguably, it doesn't even follow the Chant of Light--Andraste says magic is to serve mankind, and they don't serve mankind very well when locked up in a tower.  But to say that they should just be set free and allowed to police themselves assumes that they will be effective (questionable in view of the mages collective), AND that they will never be led by power-hungry people.  Because if that ever happens, they will take over the country, and people may not even realize it if they hide behind rulers rendered into puppets by blood magic.

[LobselVith8]

ejoslin wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

Father Erik was not exactly following in the Chantry in any way, shape or form. I'm not sure that bringing them up as a POSITIVE example is a good thing for your argument.

For one, the dragon cult maintained their autonomy by killing anyone who wandered into their town.

Technically, he was the head of the Haven Chantry. (It's the name of the Chantry); I never meant that he was, in any way, associated with the Andrastian Chantry that arose from Kordillus Drakon I establishing a particular Cult of Andraste as a formal religion in Orlais, creating the Order of the Templars and the Circle of Magi, and declaring a number of Exalted Marches to secure that.

Regardless of their views on morality, the people of Haven lived without abominations destroying the town for likely 900 years. 900 years without Chantry and templar oversight. Mages and non-mages living together, as the example of Father Eirik proves, given his responsibility of presiding over the Haven Chantry.

And given the Epilogue showing that they get new recruits once the Dragon has been sighted on the countryside, it seems that their habit of killing people to keep the Urn a secret fades.

You know this how?  Perhaps it has happened.  Perhaps they keep an even tighter leash on their mages.  Perhaps even demons don't like being around high dragons.

Haven is still standing; no abominations have destroyed it. So, obviously, it hasn't happened since there's a population of people currently living there.

And the fact that they're not anti-mage is evident: Father Eirik presides over the Haven Chantry, there are mages helping in combat, and Kolgrim admonishes the idea that they would forbid blood magic because a false Chantry declared it. Kolgrim himself may be a mage given his knowledge about the fate of the Urn.

[Xilizhra]

We do know that the Mages collective doesn't do a good enough job, for whatever reason, because there's the "missing mage quest" where you find out that he was murdered by his apprentice who turned into an abomination.

That's kind of like saying the templars don't do a good enough job because of Broken Circle.

[LobselVith8]

Xilizhra wrote...

maxernst wrote...

We do know that the Mages collective doesn't do a good enough job, for whatever reason, because there's the "missing mage quest" where you find out that he was murdered by his apprentice who turned into an abomination.

That's kind of like saying the templars don't do a good enough job because of Broken Circle.

That's an excellent point.

maxernst wrote...

We don't really know how the Dalish elves control mages...and they may (like Tevinter) be ruled by mages..in fact, I'm skeptical that you can have a society with free mages where they are not the rulers, particularly if they use blood magic.  We do know that the Mages collective doesn't do a good enough job, for whatever reason, because there's the "missing mage quest" where you find out that he was murdered by his apprentice who turned into an abomination.

Control? Dalish mages govern the Dalish clans as the Keepers, and many of the Keepers are descended from the leaders of the Dales and Arlathan. And there's no evidence any of the elven mages of Arlathan or the Dales used blood magic; in fact, it was used by the Tevinter mages to subjugate them and destroy their homeland.

The Mages Collective also requested the assistance of a member of the Grey Wardens, the order who stop the Blights and save the world from the brink of destruction.

maxernst wrote...

Plus, in addition to abominations, there's the issue of potential rogue mages.  While it's true that anyone can be a criminal, a mage criminal would be very difficult--perhaps impossible--for the authorities to bring to justice.  The best analogy in the modern world I can think of is that mages are like schizophrenics with assault rifles.  As long as they keep taking their medication, they're not a threat, but if they don't, they can murder a lot of people. 

And the current solution is that they should be feared, hated, and living under the tyranny of a system that abuses then, gives them no rights, and prevents them from having any life outside being a pawn of the Chantry. That led to the disaster with Uldred becoming an abomination in his attempt to free his people from the Chantry. There are nations that have had mages without templars - Arlathan and the Dales - and two societies that have mages with nonmages without destroying itself, as Haven, the Dalish clans, and Rivain attest to.

Mages can go rogue, so can nobles. Vaughan abducted women in daylight, and nobody did anything about it. Why assume that no mages would be used to curtail any rogue mage from abusing his or her powers? And mages aren't even alone in the possibility of possession: as Anders revealed, his cat Mr. Wiggums killed templars because it was possessed by a rage demon. Anyone can become possessed, even trees.

maxernst wrote...

As far as the Chantry--yes, from the perspective of non-believers, they're a threat.  But most humans in Ferelden appear to trust the Chantry, rightly or wrongly.  So I suspect most people in Ferelden see the existing situation as a good one.  It's obviously not good for mages.  Arguably, it doesn't even follow the Chant of Light--Andraste says magic is to serve mankind, and they don't serve mankind very well when locked up in a tower.  But to say that they should just be set free and allowed to police themselves assumes that they will be effective (questionable in view of the mages collective), AND that they will never be led by power-hungry people.  Because if that ever happens, they will take over the country, and people may not even realize it if they hide behind rulers rendered into puppets by blood magic.

And most people obviously didn't care when Vaughan abducted elven women to be gang raped, so I wouldn't really put too much emphasis on what the common man and woman thinks is right and right. They seem to view elves and mages in the same light of hatred and suspicion.

As for allowing mages to govern themselves, given the precedence of how it's actually worked in the past (Arlathan, the Dales, Haven, the Dalish clans, Rivain), why shouldn't it be permitted now? As long as mages are under the duress of a tyrannical system that abuses them, they will want freedom from it. Your assumption that there might be some people who abuse their authority can also be made for every single system of government, and any person who comes into any position of authority. Under that line of reasoning, we can't have any type of government or any person in a position of authority because they might abuse it.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 21 octobre 2010 - 06:26 .

[jpdipity]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I don't see why the nages shouldn't be permitted to govern themselves - there are examples of mages doing exactly that with no oversight from any form of templars. You either have mages governing themselves or an outside agency that has too much control over a powerless people have total authority over their lives, creating resentment and anger, and ultimately situations like Uldred's revolt, where mages will do anything to be free of their oppressors. The nations of Arlathan, the Dales, and Rivain proof that it can be done.

A strong bias whether in favor or opposing the party that is being governed is dangerous in my opinion. 

An unbiased panel should include mages, but would not be exclusively mages.  To be unbiased, the panel should be comprised of people who favor, oppose and are apathetic about mages and/or the use of magic.  It should also include members of the party they are governing, in this case, mages.

Resentment and anger is always an issue no matter who governs if the people being governed are not happy with the choices that are being made for them - it really wouldn't matter who is making those choices for them.  It is impossible for a ruling/governing body to please everyone.  Revolt typically only happens in extreme cases and the current state of the mages is extreme; so, "Uldred's revolt" is not surprising.

A capable and unbiased panel should be able to develop reasonable, fair regulations and make sound decisions that would not cause enough dissent for a revolution.

[ejoslin]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Haven is still standing; no abominations have destroyed it. So, obviously, it hasn't happened since there's a population of people currently living there.

And the fact that they're not anti-mage is evident: Father Eirik presides over the Haven Chantry, there are mages helping in combat, and Kolgrim admonishes the idea that they would forbid blood magic because a false Chantry declared it. Kolgrim himself may be a mage given his knowledge about the fate of the Urn.

900 years is a LONG time.  A lot can happen and a lot can be recovered from.  And for all you know, there are abominations among their ranks -- Eirik could be a pride demon!  You just do not have enough information to make sweeping statements like that.  You see them, you realize they're a bunch of loons who are killing all outsiders, what else do you really know?  Nothing of their history, or even of their current members besides their names.

Edit: I think the real question is, how much of a threat is magic really?  Was it mages that caused darkspawn to come into being to being with?  Do mages really possess that kind of power?  And if so, HOW do you protect people from that?

Really, whether the mage circle is just or unjust, it's actually very surprising to me, given the beliefs of Thedas, that mages are allowed to survive at all.

Modifié par ejoslin, 21 octobre 2010 - 06:45 .

[LobselVith8]

jpdipity wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I don't see why the nages shouldn't be permitted to govern themselves - there are examples of mages doing exactly that with no oversight from any form of templars. You either have mages governing themselves or an outside agency that has too much control over a powerless people have total authority over their lives, creating resentment and anger, and ultimately situations like Uldred's revolt, where mages will do anything to be free of their oppressors. The nations of Arlathan, the Dales, and Rivain proof that it can be done.

A strong bias whether in favor or opposing the party that is being governed is dangerous in my opinion. 

An unbiased panel should include mages, but would not be exclusively mages.  To be unbiased, the panel should be comprised of people who favor, oppose and are apathetic about mages and/or the use of magic.  It should also include members of the party they are governing, in this case, mages.

Resentment and anger is always an issue no matter who governs if the people being governed are not happy with the choices that are being made for them - it really wouldn't matter who is making those choices for them.  It is impossible for a ruling/governing body to please everyone.  Revolt typically only happens in extreme cases and the current state of the mages is extreme; so, "Uldred's revolt" is not surprising.

A capable and unbiased panel should be able to develop reasonable, fair regulations and make sound decisions that would not cause enough dissent for a revolution.

And given the thousand years of the Andrastian Chantry evoking the line about mages being cursed and causing the Blight, that's not a likely scenerio. Even the Magi boon is turned down by the Andrastian Chantry despite what the Magi Hero of Ferelden has accomplished. In theory, I see no reason why the mages shouldn't be permitted to govern themselves, but in actuality, it isn't likely to happen without a revolution.

ejoslin wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Haven is still standing; no abominations have destroyed it. So, obviously, it hasn't happened since there's a population of people currently living there.

And the fact that they're not anti-mage is evident: Father Eirik presides over the Haven Chantry, there are mages helping in combat, and Kolgrim admonishes the idea that they would forbid blood magic because a false Chantry declared it. Kolgrim himself may be a mage given his knowledge about the fate of the Urn.

900 years is a LONG time.  A lot can happen and a lot can be recovered from.  And for all you know, there are abominations among their ranks -- Eirik could be a pride demon!  You just do not have enough information to make sweeping statements like that.  You see them, you realize they're a bunch of loons who are killing all outsiders, what else do you really know?  Nothing of their history, or even of their current members besides their names.

Kolgrim reveals that they're not against blood magic, that they use magic to harness the power of a wyvern, and there's the possibility that he may be a mage given his knowledge of the fate of the Urn. As for abominations, we don't encounter any abominations with Kolgrim or defending the temple. Even the mages at his side are normal mages, not abominations. There are no abominations in their ranks; we only encounter mages among the Disciples of Andraste. The fact that Father Eirik can fall pretty easily is proof that he isn't an abomination. And since Haven is still standing and the populace is still around, there hasn't been anything that they couldn't handle - obviously, no abomination has destroyed Haven and the entire populace.

[ejoslin]

You cannot know what has happened in Haven's history, but I'm done arguing it. In 900 years so much can happen, you just don't know. An demon is not necessarily going to do what was done to the circle or Redcliff -- look at the desire demon in the circle giving that templar a bit of happiness.



You could also argue that abominations themselves aren't bad. After all, Wynne is an abomination.



It's not that things will necessarily be damaged, but the potential is SO great and the amount of destruction that can be done is so tremendous.