264 réponses à ce sujet

[Underoath]

Eveangaline wrote...

The mages don't really have a reason to enslave anyone. Yes, the tevinter imperium did, but that was more because their culture said that power meant you could rule other places, and magic was power. Orleis did the same thing, only without magic, when they controlled ferelden.

The dalish aren't enslaved by mages, despite not having the chantry. They do just fine. There's no reason their methods wouldn't work for humans as well.

Errr...if I was a mage in the chantry and became free, I'd want vengence on anyone who had anything to do with the chantry. I think they (the mages) have plenty of reason to be mad; however, as I said at the beginning that doesn't make it right for them to kill and enslave.

However maybe your right and nothing will happen, but that would also make for a boring story.

[My Avatar is a Lizard]

SnowHeart1 wrote...

My Avatar is a Lizard wrote...

What if the people don't have the force to lead a revolution?mages aren't push overs. And blood magic is more powerful than any other giving them the advantage over good mages.

What if in a last ditch effort the Mage overlords decide to summon demons to destroy everything rather than give up power?

100 enslaved mages>1000000 Enslaved innocents.

Except they did. Thedas history and the revolution against the Imperium shows that they did. 

only After the blood mages had been weakend by a blight.
The blood mages could very well do the same to the current regime after the next blight or even attack fereldan after denerim.

And who's to say the next mage regime won't be stronger than the last? Or that a revolution would work again? 


Edit: and also thousands of innocents would die in a revolution.

Modifié par My Avatar is a Lizard, 03 mars 2011 - 07:56 .

[the_one_54321]

Underoath wrote...
How would mages ruling would end any better than the chantry ruling?

The subjugation of the normal people to serve the rulling mage class. Sounds like quite the awesome setup for any mages. How is that not better? I mean, so long as you're not one of those "normal people" of course...

[SnowHeart1]

Taleroth wrote...

Iberius wrote...

I would agree with you about our world's history. However, our world has never had a magically oppressed people freed. Mage have lots of power. Call it fearmongering if you will but the poster is making a viable point.

They apparently don't even have enough power to free themselves.  Conquering the world is a bit harder.

The number one problem with this thinking is treating them as a coherent group.  The same things that can oppress a people can be used to keep them in line.  Freed mages does not mean that the knowledge to create Templars and that mages sympathetic to the needs of non-mages go extinct.

There are a lot of strawman arguments being floated by the anti-mage group. That they would be a coherent, organized whole; that they would not have differences of opinion; that they would inevitably want to lead if freed; that if freed they would not police themselves; that if they rule and were oppressive the people could not rebel (even though in-game history shows this has happened successfully in the past); etc. It's kind of a pointless argument, I'm thinking. In the end it boils down to, "Well, they're more powerful than me, so that means they'll want to enslave me, so that means I need to enslave them and not give them the chance." <_<

[SnowHeart1]

Underoath wrote...

Errr...if I was a mage in the chantry and became free, I'd want vengence on anyone who had anything to do with the chantry. I think they (the mages) have plenty of reason to be mad; however, as I said at the beginning that doesn't make it right for them to kill and enslave.

However maybe your right and nothing will happen, but that would also make for a boring story.

So the enslavement and oppression begins to justify itself. Brilliant. (Not criticising you personally, just the system this type of logic would create. Oppression should never become its own justification or excuse.)

Modifié par SnowHeart1, 03 mars 2011 - 08:01 .

[FellowerOfOdin]

dam0dred wrote...

Mages can police themselves. There will always be people like Irving and Wynne around to keep the trouble makers in order.

Oh, you mean the same Irving who does not immediately arrest a known blood mage and the same Wynee who has no problems being a blood mage herself?

Mages need to be ruled. With force.

[Cless Godhard]

Indeed, i prefer mages more, but at the moment they are more dangerous than the templars. What the mages need is a leader who knows right from wrong, one who will not fall from grace after tasting the thing that is called power.

To be fair, the only reason why mages are held in a camp(tower) is because they may or may not let their body be taken over or turn to blood magic.

On my Hawke, i will help the oppressed mages, but the moment i notice a mage has gone of the path, i will boil his blood and make him/her a example to the rest, afcourse this will happen after i have learned the Chantery something called civilrights.

[razzy1319]

superhero registration anyone? It was all fine until they started abusing their power. Im guessing its the same with the chantry. Get rid of the religious stuff that makes it all faith based and overly judgemental then separate the templars and make it into a simple policing force. Cant they make it a grey choice? Governments and organizations are supposed to have checks and balances.

[andar91]

You could have the mages governed by other mages and possibly templars-despite what the Chantry would have you believe, you don't actually have to be ordained by the church to be a templar. Look at Alistair. You don't even need Lyrium.

[Raygereio]

Taleroth wrote...
It's also historically absurd. Freeing the oppressed has pretty much never ended up turning the tables with the oppressed as the oppressive dictators.

The french and october revolutions would ike a word with you.

Honestly even when thinking from the position as a mage; while living inside a prison your entire life certainly is no picknick, I always fealt it might be better then the alternative.
The chantry currently provides a more importent function then simply making sure no bloodmage makes a puppet from the king. Then chantry is pretty much everywhere, this ensure that anywhere where a child with magical potential is discovered he or she can be picked up and brought to a circle for training.

What would happen if there wasn't such an ubiquitous network? Not every child is as fortunate as the Hawke siblings to have mage as a father who is around to train them. Chances are at some point the child will set someone's hair on fire. Cue angry mob armed with pitchforkes and torches. That or in extreme cases a repeat of the Conner incident probably isn't unthinkable.
Again; living in a prison isn't fun. But is being stoned by an angry mod or getting possesed by a demon because you were messing with powers you didn't understand and had no training in any better?

Modifié par Raygereio, 03 mars 2011 - 08:06 .

[SgtElias]

andar91 wrote...

You could have the mages governed by other mages and possibly templars-despite what the Chantry would have you believe, you don't actually have to be ordained by the church to be a templar. Look at Alistair. You don't even need Lyrium.

Agreed. I think a lot of people are uncomfortable with the Chantry ruling over mages when, as a whole, it really seems to despise them.

A secular force of templars would be a step in the right direction, anyway.

[Actua]

I'm not a lore-fiend, but assuming that there are religious parallels to real life, I'll make the point that mages originate from a diverse background of ideologies, views, and contrasting thoughts. If mages were to rule, there would be constant debate--just look at the Circle in Ferelden.

On the other end of the spectrum, the Chantry is united under the same belief wherein ideologies (as opposed to practices) are worshipped. While you could make the point that interpretation yields a variety of responses--they all (for the most part) follow the same line of thought. When you stick a bunch of people in a room with the same self-reinforcing ideology, you end up with ignorant extremes that do not yield to evolution or new-found thought.

[RolandX9]

Underoath wrote...

First thing,please stay civil.......you can go on a crusade against the chantry in the game it appears so relax and answer with temperance.

Now before you all start going off (which inevitably some of you will despite my plea for temperance) about how the chantry is full of religious zelots who persecute everyone, do not have the capacity to reason, and are unreasonable fools who should go die in a cold forgotten corner let me explain more fully what I'm asking.

I want to know what would keep the mages in check (not enslaved) from enslaving/killing just as many people as the chantry. You could of course just go with the mages b/c of an "anything has to better than the chantry" view, but that doesn't seem to be very, ahh, reasonable.

And as people ruled by reason surely we'd want to make the calm, cool, collected, logical, and reasonable choice despite our feelings if we are given such a choice in the game, yes?

Basically, I want to know what will keep the mages from ending up right where the chantry is. You may like mages better than the chantry (I know I certainly do), but that doesn't make the enslaving/killing any more right if that is what mages do.

Your request for temperance is amusing given that you're basically arguing for Project Wideawake (that's an X-Men reference, for the younger geeks in the audience *g*).

First of all, the Chantry *is* full of religious zealots, in the sense that there are a lot of them and they have a lot of the power. Is everyone in the Chantry evil? No, duh. That doesn't change the fact that the Chantry basically locks up mages and destroys the minds of any who get out of line (and get caught). Literally a fate worse than death in at least one instance.

Second of all, mages are not a monolithic group. Elves had mages for Creators only know how long (Arcane Warrior background, before anyone argues "we don't know that" -- yes, we do) before the Chantry came along. Yes, the Tevinter Imperium was (and probably still is) evil, and yes, powerful mages did bad things in it. We have at least one counter example of a society with mages in it that didn't have this problem, and still doesn't if the Dalish are anything to go by. "The Chantry" is a political/religious organization, and comparing them to a group of people who are born the way they are is a logical fallacy of epic proportions.

Finally, there's the minor detail that Templar training explicity does not require the Chantry. Ask Alistair about it in DA:O. You want a group of warriors to keep mages in check? Without the Chantry's interference, it would be easier to train counter-mage guard units (no socio-religious limitations on numbers, possibly no lyrium addiction). And that answers both your asked question about how you keep mages from curb-stomping Thedas and your unasked "is the Chantry right?" implied question. The Chantry does not need to be destroyed. It does need to be reformed. I have a very strong feeling that DA II is going to be a game-length object lesson in why.

Edit: minor spelling correction.

Modifié par RolandX9, 03 mars 2011 - 08:11 .

[Iberius]

Covi wrote...

They should be policed by an organization that doesn't see them as inherently evil for having magical talent. You can't ignore the danger, though.

Actually I was wondering if the chantry "hates" the mages or is just horrified they can be posessed and become abominations?? In DAO I realize at least part of the chantry hates them, but I got the impression it was more "enslavement b/c of fear" that had transformed over time into a more "enslavement b/c of hate" mentality.

Sort of a slippery slope to the extreme rather than just an immediate "we hate all mages and will take them over". It's not right either way but it's easier to understand why it happened if it's true.

[MKDAWUSS]

Either way will end in disaster.

[Russalka]

Taleroth wrote...
It's also historically absurd. Freeing the oppressed has pretty much never ended up turning the tables with the oppressed as the oppressive dictators.

Rwanda?

[SnowHeart1]

Raygereio wrote...

The chantry currently provides a more importent function then simply making sure no bloodmage makes a puppet from the king. Then chantry is pretty much everywhere, this ensure that anywhere where a child with magical potential is discovered he or she can be picked up and brought to a circle for training.

What would happen if there wasn't such an ubiquitous network?

Fair point, but your argument assumes nothing could step into take the role of the Chantry in that respect. If mages were allowed to travel, perhaps they could identify such children. As someone above suggested, perhaps if a secular order arose (or a non-oppressive version of the Chantry that worked with mages rather than against them), perhaps they could fill that role. I don't think anyone on the mage-side of this argument doesn't recognize the challenges that are presented by magic users in the dragon age setting.

And, again, it's a false dichotomy and by focusing only on the mages we ignore the exalted marches taken against the elves. The Chantry isn't all cookies and cream with only the welfare of non-magic users at its heart. Puhlease.

[Katana_Master]

Having a system in place to ensure that people as powerful and dangerous as mages don't abuse their power - meaning they don't use it against people who can't fight back - is a reasonable goal. What ISN'T reasonable is the Chantry's methods of maintaining that system. Give any one group more power than another group, and they WILL abuse that power, it's just the way things work.

If you want a reasonable solution, introduce a third party. The Chantry watches the Mages to ensure that they can't misuse their power. This hypothetical third party would watch the Chantry to ensure that they don't abuse the mages. Of course, you'd need someone to watch the watchers watching the watchers, but you can solve that by giving all three parties equal authority, so that if any one party gets out of hand the other two can put them back into line.

[SnowHeart1]

Katana_Master wrote...

*snip*

+1 for being reasonable. 

[bill4747bill]

Well, the last time the mages got too powerfull this happened.......

No matter their power, their triumphs,
The mage-lords of Tevinter were men
And doomed to die.
Then a voice whispered within their hearts,
Shall you surrender your power
To time like the beasts of the fields?
You are the Lords of the earth!
Go forth to claim the empty throne
Of Heaven and be gods.

In secret they worked
Magic upon magic
All their power and all their vanity
They turned against the Veil
Until at last, it gave way.

Above them, a river of Light,
Before them the throne of Heaven, waiting,
Beneath their feet
The footprints of the Maker,
And all around them echoed a vast
Silence.

But when they took a single step
Toward the empty throne
A great voice cried out
Shaking the very foundations
Of Heaven and earth:

And So is the Golden City blackened
With each step you take in my Hall.
Marvel at perfection, for it is fleeting.
You have brought Sin to Heaven
And doom upon all the world.

Violently were they cast down,
For no mortal may walk bodily
In the realm of dreams,
Bearing the mark of their Crime:
Bodies so maimed
And distorted that none should see them
And know them for men.

Deep into the earth they fled,
Away from the Light.
In Darkness eternal they searched
For those who had goaded them on,
Until at last they found their prize,
Their god, their betrayer:
The sleeping dragon Dumat. Their taint
Twisted even the false-god, and the whisperer
Awoke at last, in pain and horror, and led
Them to wreak havoc upon all the nations of the world:
The first Blight.

[TheCreeper]

SgtElias wrote...

andar91 wrote...

You could have the mages governed by other mages and possibly templars-despite what the Chantry would have you believe, you don't actually have to be ordained by the church to be a templar. Look at Alistair. You don't even need Lyrium.

Agreed. I think a lot of people are uncomfortable with the Chantry ruling over mages when, as a whole, it really seems to despise them.

A secular force of templars would be a step in the right direction, anyway.

The problem is a secular force of templars is not going to happen anytime soon. The Chantry has religious issues with magic (note what happened with Conner, his mother is a devot andrastian and was utterly ashamed that Conner had magic) and considering a divine almost declared an exalted march against a peaceful mage protest, Any attempt at secularizing the Templars would go down poorly.

[Syagre]

This thread makes me wonder how much DA2 will develop the Other Chantry, i.e. the one ruled from Tevinter by the Black Divine. This order does seem to mix the belief in the Maker with a lot of autonomy for the mages (I think the current black divine is also First Enchanter of Tevinter circle).
As much as the idea may appear as a good compromise, little is known about their practices and their zeal. It is also unknown if this lot would end up doing somthing similar as attempting to take over the Golden City.

[LobselVith8]

Underoath wrote...

Now before you all start going off (which inevitably some of you will despite my plea for temperance) about how the chantry is full of religious zelots who persecute everyone, do not have the capacity to reason, and are unreasonable fools who should go die in a cold forgotten corner let me explain more fully what I'm asking.

The argument isn't that the Chantry or the templars are evil, it's that some find what they do to the mages to be wrong.

Underoath wrote...

I want to know what would keep the mages in check (not enslaved) from enslaving/killing just as many people as the chantry. You could of course just go with the mages b/c of an "anything has to better than the chantry" view, but that doesn't seem to be very, ahh, reasonable.

Who kept the mages in check from taking over the nation of Rivain, the Chasind tribes, or the town of Haven? The absense of the Chantry or the templars doesn't mean a magocracy in those societies.

Underoath wrote...

Basically, I want to know what will keep the mages from ending up right where the chantry is. You may like mages better than the chantry (I know I certainly do), but that doesn't make the enslaving/killing any more right if that is what mages do.

Why would the absense of the Chantry or the templars mean a magocracy, though? In DA2, I'd like to see an apostate Hawke have the opportunity to come to power and change the balance of power in favor by becoming the new eastern power of Thedas. No more subjugation of mages. I'd like it if Hawke can establish Kirkwall as a mecca for mages, where they can live without fear of the templars with non-mages.

[Lord Gremlin]

Mages will turn all unpleasant and rude people into small piles of goo. And everybody will rejoice. Those who won't will be turned to goo.

And goo prices would drop significantly.

[TheCreeper]

Syagre wrote...

This thread makes me wonder how much DA2 will develop the Other Chantry, i.e. the one ruled from Tevinter by the Black Divine. This order does seem to mix the belief in the Maker with a lot of autonomy for the mages (I think the current black divine is also First Enchanter of Tevinter circle).
As much as the idea may appear as a good compromise, little is known about their practices and their zeal. It is also unknown if this lot would end up doing somthing similar as attempting to take over the Golden City.

The issue with the tevinters is that it's almost the exact reverse of the Chantry, ONLY mages can hold any real power (both poltical and religious)