264 réponses à ce sujet

[AnotherAD]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

The main problem with a mage rebellion is that they wouldn't be for anything, only against something. They'd have no underlying principles and no guiding purpose. In a rebellion of that kind, the scum always rise to the top--they are the most fervent and consistent.

A blind rebellion followed by a dictatorship of magic can have no good result. The only way to have a good result eventually come out of this mess is to have the various sides hammer out some principles and purpose. Then they can bicker and argue over how to achieve that purpose and how fast without resorting to bloodshed.

The mages are oppressed, but it's not the final type of no-discussion oppression undertaken by, say, the Qunari. While you still have the opportunity to attempt to convince your opponent, you have no excuse for attempting to short-circuit the discussion and seize what you want by force.

Oh, and you could only make Wynne a blood mage due to a weird game mechanic. Oh, and it's the Templars who didn't *arrest* Jowan. Irving was not the authority in that situation, the Knight-Commander was. Greagoir followed procedure and ordered Jowan be made tranquil, but Lily got word before the orders were carried out and told Jowan.

Greagoir had some interesting characterization in Origins. He put on a harsh front because it was his job to do so but it was pretty obvious that underneath he was more than a bit complacent about the mages under his jurisdiction, considering them fairly tame for the most part. Like a lion-tamer who has worked with the same beasts for years. If he's not careful, one of those "tame" mages may suddenly go rogue--which is precisely what happened. Yet he didn't let the experience make him paranoid; he was willing to accept Irving's word that order was restored.

Thing is though, Mages couldnt have a cause for being Independent.  If their cause is against the Chantry itself, they would lose as the Chantry is above the law and can over rule anyone including the Hero of Ferelden that gets in their way.  Dwarfs and Elves have a problem with the chantry but not enough to consider siding with the mages. 

 "Destroy a village with snap of their fingers"  Who are we talking about Mages or the Chantry... because I see both doing it/

[Nobuhide]

My Avatar is a Lizard wrote...

SnowHeart1 wrote...

dam0dred wrote...

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

Death to the chantry.

This is basically my feeling. Mages will police themselves and, if they fail (as did the Tevintir Imperium) the people will rise up in revolution. Thedas has basically gone from one extreme to another. Neither extreme is good and there's a false dichotomy that it has to be one or the other in terms of who is ruling. 

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.

Quoting a well known man  :

"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. "
and  "Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."
lastly "I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice."

Modifié par Nobuhide, 03 mars 2011 - 08:37 .

[PsychoBlonde]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Here is an important question that needs to be answered thoroughly before any claim of "fight for freedom" can be made:
Speaking as a "normal person," why do the mages deserve freedom? Keep in mind that I already have a counter argument prepared and this question is specifically intended to take the conversation along a particular line of thought. An important line of thought.

Mages deserve freedom for the same reason that any (potentially) rational person deserves freedom--it is necessary for their ultimate growth, success, and life.  Everyone in Thedas deserves freedom.  Currently, nobody has it--everybody is oppressing everybody.  Which is one of the central themes of the game.

There will be no liberty in Thedas until people begin to realize that freedom doesn't mean freedom to oppress other people, that oppression does not work no matter who is doing it or what their justification is or how badly they were treated.

[PsychoBlonde]

AnotherAD wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

The main problem with a mage rebellion is that they wouldn't be for anything, only against something. They'd have no underlying principles and no guiding purpose. In a rebellion of that kind, the scum always rise to the top--they are the most fervent and consistent.

A blind rebellion followed by a dictatorship of magic can have no good result. The only way to have a good result eventually come out of this mess is to have the various sides hammer out some principles and purpose. Then they can bicker and argue over how to achieve that purpose and how fast without resorting to bloodshed.

The mages are oppressed, but it's not the final type of no-discussion oppression undertaken by, say, the Qunari. While you still have the opportunity to attempt to convince your opponent, you have no excuse for attempting to short-circuit the discussion and seize what you want by force.

Oh, and you could only make Wynne a blood mage due to a weird game mechanic. Oh, and it's the Templars who didn't *arrest* Jowan. Irving was not the authority in that situation, the Knight-Commander was. Greagoir followed procedure and ordered Jowan be made tranquil, but Lily got word before the orders were carried out and told Jowan.

Greagoir had some interesting characterization in Origins. He put on a harsh front because it was his job to do so but it was pretty obvious that underneath he was more than a bit complacent about the mages under his jurisdiction, considering them fairly tame for the most part. Like a lion-tamer who has worked with the same beasts for years. If he's not careful, one of those "tame" mages may suddenly go rogue--which is precisely what happened. Yet he didn't let the experience make him paranoid; he was willing to accept Irving's word that order was restored.

Thing is though, Mages couldnt have a cause for being Independent.  If their cause is against the Chantry itself, they would lose as the Chantry is above the law and can over rule anyone including the Hero of Ferelden that gets in their way.  Dwarfs and Elves have a problem with the chantry but not enough to consider siding with the mages. 

 "Destroy a village with snap of their fingers"  Who are we talking about Mages or the Chantry... because I see both doing it/

Erm, I don't see how this is a response to anything I wrote in that post.  I'm not recommending the mages tackle the Chantry head on.  I'm recommending they discover some principles whereby they can eventually argue for their liberty because it is consistent with those principles.

[the_one_54321]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Here is an important question that needs to be answered thoroughly before any claim of "fight for freedom" can be made:
Speaking as a "normal person," why do the mages deserve freedom? Keep in mind that I already have a counter argument prepared and this question is specifically intended to take the conversation along a particular line of thought. An important line of thought.

Mages deserve freedom for the same reason that any (potentially) rational person deserves freedom--it is necessary for their ultimate growth, success, and life.  Everyone in Thedas deserves freedom.  Currently, nobody has it--everybody is oppressing everybody.  Which is one of the central themes of the game.

There will be no liberty in Thedas until people begin to realize that freedom doesn't mean freedom to oppress other people, that oppression does not work no matter who is doing it or what their justification is or how badly they were treated.

This is one of the best arguments for freedom for the mages, because it asserts that there is no ethical justification for their imprisonment. In most cases I would immediately agree with this. However...

Mages are demonstrably unequal to "normal people." I have before and will here again reference back to a historical document that verbalizes the concept of universal freedom quite aptly: "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal." It is this assertion that lends justifications to all the claims of freedom that then follow.

But mages are not equal. They are, in a manner of speaking, superior. And so, what other reason could there be to treat them with equality? 

[Vukodlak]

Raygereio wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Speaking as a "normal person," why do the mages deserve freedom?

I'll bite.
Because right now mages are being imprisoned for a crime they haven't committed yet and for which is no guarentee that they will commit it in the future.

Well said,

[TheCreeper]

The issue with any mage freedom is it would some pretty big things to happen. First It would require the mages to be united enough to avoid a magi civil war (which would almost automatically mean a templars win sooner or later) and it couldn't just be in one place, if the mages revoulted in Say Ferelden and installed a Magic friendly government the Chantry would just call an Exalted march which I imagine would be large enough to totally crush Ferelden. The rebellion would have to so large it forces the chantry to undergo massive reforms or drastically lose power.

[LobselVith8]

the_one_54321 wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Mages deserve freedom for the same reason that any (potentially) rational person deserves freedom--it is necessary for their ultimate growth, success, and life.  Everyone in Thedas deserves freedom.  Currently, nobody has it--everybody is oppressing everybody.  Which is one of the central themes of the game.

There will be no liberty in Thedas until people begin to realize that freedom doesn't mean freedom to oppress other people, that oppression does not work no matter who is doing it or what their justification is or how badly they were treated.

This is one of the best arguments for freedom for the mages, because it asserts that there is no ethical justification for their imprisonment. In most cases I would immediately agree with this. However...

Mages are demonstrably unequal to "normal people." I have before and will here again reference back to a historical document that verbalizes the concept of universal freedom quite aptly: "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal." It is this assertion that lends justifications to all the claims of freedom that then follow.

But mages are not equal. They are, in a manner of speaking, superior. And so, what other reason could there be to treat them with equality? 

It's doubtful there will be an agreement on the issue. Maybe an equally important question is why anyone would assume that mages won't stop fighting for their rights and their freedom since they live in subjugation to the Chantry and the templars. Would it be better to make an effort to change how mages are treated and prevent an onslaught, or should they do nothing and wait to see the bloodshed that will unfold among those who will fight to their last breath to be free from oppression?

[Kmead15]

the_one_54321 wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Here is an important question that needs to be answered thoroughly before any claim of "fight for freedom" can be made:
Speaking as a "normal person," why do the mages deserve freedom? Keep in mind that I already have a counter argument prepared and this question is specifically intended to take the conversation along a particular line of thought. An important line of thought.

Mages deserve freedom for the same reason that any (potentially) rational person deserves freedom--it is necessary for their ultimate growth, success, and life.  Everyone in Thedas deserves freedom.  Currently, nobody has it--everybody is oppressing everybody.  Which is one of the central themes of the game.

There will be no liberty in Thedas until people begin to realize that freedom doesn't mean freedom to oppress other people, that oppression does not work no matter who is doing it or what their justification is or how badly they were treated.

This is one of the best arguments for freedom for the mages, because it asserts that there is no ethical justification for their imprisonment. In most cases I would immediately agree with this. However...

Mages are demonstrably unequal to "normal people." I have before and will here again reference back to a historical document that verbalizes the concept of universal freedom quite aptly: "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal." It is this assertion that lends justifications to all the claims of freedom that then follow.

But mages are not equal. They are, in a manner of speaking, superior. And so, what other reason could there be to treat them with equality? 

Does this mean I can oppress the intelligent now too? What about the athletic? The attractive? They are, in a manner of speaking, superior. So why do they get rights?

[Raygereio]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Raygereio wrote...
for which is no guarentee that they will commit it in the future.

Elaborate, please. I think I may disagree with this claim.

Just like no one can pick a random non-mage child and say "this child going to commit a murder when he's 25", no one can pick a random mage child and say: "this child is going to use blood magic to control the mind of a cashier in order to get lot's of money when he's 25".

The crime I'm referring to is either abusing magic to kill innocents, control the king, etc. Or failing to protect oneself against demons and becomming an abomination. With that said being mage means that when you do commit a crime you can and probably will cause a lot of damage. But it does not mean it's inevitable that you will commit that crime.

Modifié par Raygereio, 03 mars 2011 - 08:49 .

[Katana_Master]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

AnotherAD wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

The main problem with a mage rebellion is that they wouldn't be for anything, only against something. They'd have no underlying principles and no guiding purpose. In a rebellion of that kind, the scum always rise to the top--they are the most fervent and consistent.

A blind rebellion followed by a dictatorship of magic can have no good result. The only way to have a good result eventually come out of this mess is to have the various sides hammer out some principles and purpose. Then they can bicker and argue over how to achieve that purpose and how fast without resorting to bloodshed.

The mages are oppressed, but it's not the final type of no-discussion oppression undertaken by, say, the Qunari. While you still have the opportunity to attempt to convince your opponent, you have no excuse for attempting to short-circuit the discussion and seize what you want by force.

Oh, and you could only make Wynne a blood mage due to a weird game mechanic. Oh, and it's the Templars who didn't *arrest* Jowan. Irving was not the authority in that situation, the Knight-Commander was. Greagoir followed procedure and ordered Jowan be made tranquil, but Lily got word before the orders were carried out and told Jowan.

Greagoir had some interesting characterization in Origins. He put on a harsh front because it was his job to do so but it was pretty obvious that underneath he was more than a bit complacent about the mages under his jurisdiction, considering them fairly tame for the most part. Like a lion-tamer who has worked with the same beasts for years. If he's not careful, one of those "tame" mages may suddenly go rogue--which is precisely what happened. Yet he didn't let the experience make him paranoid; he was willing to accept Irving's word that order was restored.

Thing is though, Mages couldnt have a cause for being Independent.  If their cause is against the Chantry itself, they would lose as the Chantry is above the law and can over rule anyone including the Hero of Ferelden that gets in their way.  Dwarfs and Elves have a problem with the chantry but not enough to consider siding with the mages. 

 "Destroy a village with snap of their fingers"  Who are we talking about Mages or the Chantry... because I see both doing it/

Erm, I don't see how this is a response to anything I wrote in that post.  I'm not recommending the mages tackle the Chantry head on.  I'm recommending they discover some principles whereby they can eventually argue for their liberty because it is consistent with those principles.

That's a nice theory, but unfortunately things don't work that way.  Currently, the Chantry serves a purpose by keeping the Mages in check, whether they are doing so in an effective OR moral manner is up for debate.  But nine times out of ten, when a group has that kind of excessive power, they aren't holding onto it because they think it's the right thing to do.  They're keeping the mages in check because the mages are the most powerful beings in the world, and they want to control that power for their own purposes.

If that is true, then no argument, however reasoned, impassioned or logical, is ever going to free the mages.  I'm not giving an opinion on the morality of whatever viewpoint, I'm just pointing out what is (to me) the obvious.

[Nobuhide]

the_one_54321 wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Here is an important question that needs to be answered thoroughly before any claim of "fight for freedom" can be made:
Speaking as a "normal person," why do the mages deserve freedom? Keep in mind that I already have a counter argument prepared and this question is specifically intended to take the conversation along a particular line of thought. An important line of thought.

Mages deserve freedom for the same reason that any (potentially) rational person deserves freedom--it is necessary for their ultimate growth, success, and life.  Everyone in Thedas deserves freedom.  Currently, nobody has it--everybody is oppressing everybody.  Which is one of the central themes of the game.

There will be no liberty in Thedas until people begin to realize that freedom doesn't mean freedom to oppress other people, that oppression does not work no matter who is doing it or what their justification is or how badly they were treated.

This is one of the best arguments for freedom for the mages, because it asserts that there is no ethical justification for their imprisonment. In most cases I would immediately agree with this. However...

Mages are demonstrably unequal to "normal people." I have before and will here again reference back to a historical document that verbalizes the concept of universal freedom quite aptly: "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal." It is this assertion that lends justifications to all the claims of freedom that then follow.

But mages are not equal. They are, in a manner of speaking, superior. And so, what other reason could there be to treat them with equality? 

True but by mother nature's rule shouldn't the strongest be the one ruling if you were to decide they are no humans?

[the_one_54321]

Kmead15 wrote...
Does this mean I can oppress the intelligent now too? What about the athletic? The attractive? They are, in a manner of speaking, superior. So why do they get rights?

Those example are all of people that are actually relatively equal. That's the distinction being made. "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal" holds because all men are indeed relatively equal to each other. No one can fire lazers from their eyes or hurl fireballs at people. At least not without weaponry created by other relatively equal people. But mages can.

[PsychoBlonde]

the_one_54321 wrote...

But mages are not equal. They are, in a manner of speaking, superior. And so, what other reason could there be to treat them with equality? 

Or inferior.  So what?  I'm rather a fat and unattractive woman.  Does this give me the right to treat thin, beautiful women, who are superior to me, as animals?

It is not a man's particular capabilities in a given area, not his strength, wit, skill, or magical prowess that fits him for liberty, but his rational faculty and the fact that it is his means of survival.  Mages are no different from other men in this respect.  They must use their rational faculty to enable them to use magic, to enable them to feed and clothe and shelter themselves, to survive.  Only if you can prove that mages are not rational, do not require rationality (that is, thought) to live, and are in fact, incapable of acting rationally does this argument hold any weight.  So what if a mage can level a city by waving his hands but it takes other men weeks and tons of explosives to do this?  I'm sure there are men out there who can perform feats undreamed of by most mages with similar facility.

[Katana_Master]

Kmead15 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Here is an important question that needs to be answered thoroughly before any claim of "fight for freedom" can be made:
Speaking as a "normal person," why do the mages deserve freedom? Keep in mind that I already have a counter argument prepared and this question is specifically intended to take the conversation along a particular line of thought. An important line of thought.

Mages deserve freedom for the same reason that any (potentially) rational person deserves freedom--it is necessary for their ultimate growth, success, and life.  Everyone in Thedas deserves freedom.  Currently, nobody has it--everybody is oppressing everybody.  Which is one of the central themes of the game.

There will be no liberty in Thedas until people begin to realize that freedom doesn't mean freedom to oppress other people, that oppression does not work no matter who is doing it or what their justification is or how badly they were treated.

This is one of the best arguments for freedom for the mages, because it asserts that there is no ethical justification for their imprisonment. In most cases I would immediately agree with this. However...

Mages are demonstrably unequal to "normal people." I have before and will here again reference back to a historical document that verbalizes the concept of universal freedom quite aptly: "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal." It is this assertion that lends justifications to all the claims of freedom that then follow.

But mages are not equal. They are, in a manner of speaking, superior. And so, what other reason could there be to treat them with equality? 

Does this mean I can oppress the intelligent now too? What about the athletic? The attractive? They are, in a manner of speaking, superior. So why do they get rights?

Because the intelligent aren't capable of roasting people to death with their minds.  The athletic aren't capable of stripping a person of their strength with a thought, and the attractive aren't (usually) capable of forcing people to submit to their will.  Granted, a person in the real world can still do all those things with technology if he's clever, but other people can fight back in that case.  There's no defense against a mage's abilities, unless you're a templar.

[the_one_54321]

Raygereio wrote...
Just like no one can pick a random non-mage child and say "this child going to commit a murder when he's 25", no one can pick a random mage child and say: "this child is going to use blood magic to control the mind of a cashier in order to get lot's of money when he's 25".

The crime I'm referring to is either abusing magic to kill innocents, control the king, etc. Or failing to protect oneself against demons and becomming an abomination. With that said being mage means that when you do commit a crime you can and probably will cause a lot of damage. But it does not mean it's inevitable that you will commit that crime.

Compelling, but it becomes an issue when you can say that this random mage child might become an abomination and kill a crowd of people withou even intending to.
I can agree to the notion that you can't punish for a crime that has not been commited. However, you can restrict where there is a potential for a crime being commited potentially by accident. All around the world laws of such restrictions are ennacted and enforced.

[The_mango55]

People are quick to point out how the Dalish are just fine with no Chantry, but keep in mind that the Dalish is a society RULED BY MAGES.

Without the Chantry, the same thing would probably happen to humans.

[Katana_Master]

Nobuhide wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Here is an important question that needs to be answered thoroughly before any claim of "fight for freedom" can be made:
Speaking as a "normal person," why do the mages deserve freedom? Keep in mind that I already have a counter argument prepared and this question is specifically intended to take the conversation along a particular line of thought. An important line of thought.

Mages deserve freedom for the same reason that any (potentially) rational person deserves freedom--it is necessary for their ultimate growth, success, and life.  Everyone in Thedas deserves freedom.  Currently, nobody has it--everybody is oppressing everybody.  Which is one of the central themes of the game.

There will be no liberty in Thedas until people begin to realize that freedom doesn't mean freedom to oppress other people, that oppression does not work no matter who is doing it or what their justification is or how badly they were treated.

This is one of the best arguments for freedom for the mages, because it asserts that there is no ethical justification for their imprisonment. In most cases I would immediately agree with this. However...

Mages are demonstrably unequal to "normal people." I have before and will here again reference back to a historical document that verbalizes the concept of universal freedom quite aptly: "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal." It is this assertion that lends justifications to all the claims of freedom that then follow.

But mages are not equal. They are, in a manner of speaking, superior. And so, what other reason could there be to treat them with equality? 

True but by mother nature's rule shouldn't the strongest be the one ruling if you were to decide they are no humans?

By Darwinian theory, you are quite correct.  Mages are superior, and they DO have the capability to do just that if they join together.  But Darwin's theories do not take morality into account, which is a fatal flaw when it is applied to humans, since morality is one of those things that makes us different from animals.

[the_one_54321]

PsychoBlonde wrote...
Only if you can prove that mages are not rational,

So you're going to base the argument for freedom on the idea the equal cognizance implies equal rights? Ok, that's also a good one. But what about the mage that has lost his mind to a demon? Also, what about the blood mages that can actively choose to take away your own rational cognizance. That's not something you can do to them or defend against.

[razzy1319]

PsychoBlonde wrote

the_one_54321 wrote...

But mages are not equal. They are, in a manner of speaking, superior. And so, what other reason could there be to treat them with equality? 

Or inferior.  So what?  I'm rather a fat and unattractive woman.  Does this give me the right to treat thin, beautiful women, who are superior to me, as animals?

It is not a man's particular capabilities in a given area, not his strength, wit, skill, or magical prowess that fits him for liberty, but his rational faculty and the fact that it is his means of survival.  Mages are no different from other men in this respect.  They must use their rational faculty to enable them to use magic, to enable them to feed and clothe and shelter themselves, to survive.  Only if you can prove that mages are not rational, do not require rationality (that is, thought) to live, and are in fact, incapable of acting rationally does this argument hold any weight.  So what if a mage can level a city by waving his hands but it takes other men weeks and tons of explosives to do this?  I'm sure there are men out there who can perform feats undreamed of by most mages with similar facilit

They are at very high risk of being highly irrational. Abomination and possesion more so than any man. Even more when they are children.

Modifié par razzy1319, 03 mars 2011 - 09:01 .

[LobselVith8]

The_mango55 wrote...

People are quick to point out how the Dalish are just fine with no Chantry, but keep in mind that the Dalish is a society RULED BY MAGES.

Without the Chantry, the same thing would probably happen to humans.

Lanaya addresses that they're governed by the Keepers who descend from the nobility who ruled the Dales; there's no mention they need to be mages in order to be leaders. We also know from the mage tolerant societies of the Chasind, Haven, and the nation of Rivain that aren't under the control of the Chantry and the templars doesn't mean a magocracy will happen.

[TheCreeper]

The_mango55 wrote...

People are quick to point out how the Dalish are just fine with no Chantry, but keep in mind that the Dalish is a society RULED BY MAGES.

Without the Chantry, the same thing would probably happen to humans.

Well there is Rivain, outside of the followers of the Qun there are hedge witches, which are respect but it sounds like they don't rule.

[PsychoBlonde]

Katana_Master wrote...

If that is true, then no argument, however reasoned, impassioned or logical, is ever going to free the mages.  I'm not giving an opinion on the morality of whatever viewpoint, I'm just pointing out what is (to me) the obvious.

Then prove that it is true.  Most of the people in the Chantry that you meet in Origins are pretty decent people.  They don't give your Mage Warden grief for being a mage.  The very worst of them, Cullen, who watched his friends being tortured to death and was tortured himself, gives you the benefit of the doubt because you weren't there.

The only person in the game, really, who is totally unreasonable toward you due to you being a mage . . . is Sten, and he's a weird case (and kind of a sad one, too.)  It's pretty obvious if you make friends with him on your mage warden, that he likes you personally, even trusts you.  But he still talks the official line--that you need a collar and harness.

There may be corrupt and power-mad people in the Chantry.  (In fact, I guarantee it.)  But when you treat them as if they are all this way because some of them are doubtless this way, you destroy any hope for eventual change.  Mages do have access to the more reasonable elements among the Chantry.  It is only if those reasonable elements become completely cut off--if the discussion is violently suppressed--that violent action on the part of the mages is justified.

Trying to shortcut the long and painful process of discussion before then, however, will only push the fanatical, violent mages into positions of leadership.  And then, all hell will be set loose.

[TheCreeper]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The_mango55 wrote...

People are quick to point out how the Dalish are just fine with no Chantry, but keep in mind that the Dalish is a society RULED BY MAGES.

Without the Chantry, the same thing would probably happen to humans.

Lanaya addresses that they're governed by the Keepers who descend from the nobility who ruled the Dales; there's no mention they need to be mages in order to be leaders. We also know from the mage tolerant societies of the Chasind, Haven, and the nation of Rivain that aren't under the control of the Chantry and the templars doesn't mean a magocracy will happen.

Problem is every Single Keeper  or Person destined to become Keeper we have seen has been a mage.

[the_one_54321]

My own opinion for solving the problem is that mages need to agree to some measure of oppression. They pose a real danger to people around them that is above the scope of normal people and sometimes above the scope of their own self control.

An actual agreement to some outside control or "oppression" can allow for a comfortable and considerate existence. It is the insistence by some mages to try to escape and to try to use their magic however they please that leads to intervention on the scale of The Chantry which leads to authoritarian forceful oppression.