264 réponses à ce sujet

[Raygereio]

the_one_54321 wrote...
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.

Yes, I agree with that. Even a mage with training can succumb to demons. Uldred was a senior mage who went through the harrowing and yet he still succumbed to that little voice of pride in the back of his head.
Which is why I view the chantry and the imprisoment of mages as a necessary evil. It isn't pretty, but most of the alternatives are plain ugly.

[Batfeets]

 Well,  people are arguing for the mages and a few have said that "well,  they don't even have the power to free themselves, so...."

But remember what happened at the Circle Tower?  Once the blood mages got loose,  they could kill the templars with ease.  They were barely held back and were only defeated with the help of the Warden and his group.  It could be argued that blood mages came to this because of the Templar's seeming oppression.  But the blood mages in the Tower were already there for more nefarious means.  These blood mages manipulated the younger and weaker ones to do their bidding.  Without any Templars or any type of containment...what would have happened?  

If there's no force at all to police mages,  then the general population is definitely in some danger.  We can argue about good mages all we want,  but isn't the truth that power will corrupt even the purest person?  There are good and bad mages,  just as there are good and bad Templars/Priests/etc. in the Chantry.  Perhaps it'd be better if mages weren't restricted about having families, and whatnot.  It'd be better if Templars didn't so often have such a bias (but for some of the Veterans, it makes sense.  Those blood mages are pretty terrible you know.)

Not that I'm saying it's right one way or another.  I don't think that either force would end up as better than the other, because both would work in about the same way.  I feel that eventually mages would behave as they did in Tevinter...and that Templars/The Chantry would still do the things we hate them for.  For now,  unless there's some other evidence,  perhaps Templars are the lesser evil.

[HTTP 404]

it wouldnt be any better. there's always going to be a few bad mages that can cause immense amount of havoc to the world. The only way I see the mages being "good" is if they self regulate themselves by being the first to put down bad mages. but who's going to make sure the mage organization behaves themselves? I don't know its another Tevinter Imperium in the making and they weren't so great themselves.

[PsychoBlonde]

razzy1319 wrote...

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

So is someone who is, say, raised by a rabid elf-hater.  This doesn't entitle you to have the children of rabid elf-haters rounded up and imprisoned, however.

The risk can't be that high--you encounter more mages in Origins than you do abominations, and you run across two of the worst outbreaks of abominations in, what, centuries?  (Three if you count Warden's Keep.)

I'd say Branka's behavior in the Deep Roads is rather worse than anything even the corrupt mages do in the circle tower, and with less justification.  She fed her own people to the Darkspawn in order to get subjects for her experiment with the traps.

[steelfire_dragon]

does keeper mean leader or historian as I get mixed vibes there... so until you can explain it, ditch the dalish being ruled by mages.


oh and I denounce your chantry, I uriniated on Andraste's ashes
You chant of light is a lie.

[Kmead15]

Katana_Master wrote...

Because the intelligent aren't capable of roasting people to death with their minds.

Tell that to Oppenheimer.

Katana_Master wrote...

The athletic aren't capable of stripping a person of their strength with a thought.

Okay, I'll admit they aren't as dangerous as intelligent people, but they can sure give you a heck of a beating.

Katana_Master wrote...

And the attractive aren't (usually) capable of forcing people to submit to their will.

No, but it sure helps.

Katana_Master wrote...
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.

Not everyone in the real world has access to the same technology that people can use to harm them. Should we then oppress people from more technological countries? That's beside the point, however. You can't punish someone because they happen to have inherited one allele of a gene and someone else got another.

Nobuhide wrote...

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

Sorry, off-topic, but this really bugs me. Fittest. Fittest.

Edit: fixed spacing issues to save room

Modifié par Kmead15, 03 mars 2011 - 09:12 .

[the_one_54321]

PsychoBlonde wrote...
So is someone who is, say, raised by a rabid elf-hater.  This doesn't entitle you to have the children of rabid elf-haters rounded up and imprisoned, however.

But it's not a matter of upbrinigng, study, decission, and in some cases not even free will. A mage is a mage inherently by his/her own body structure or chemestry or whatever it is that makes them that way. Simply by being, they are being a danger.

[Vukodlak]

Katana_Master wrote...
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.

Really? because I think a rogue archer hitting a mage from stealth using arrow of slaying is really effective, or simply decapitating them with an axe. I found archery a far better weapon against enemy casters then a templars abilities.
The Old Imperium was brought down by Andraste's rebellion of barbarians the templars didn't even exist yet.  So to say there is no defense against a mages abilities unless your a templar is ridiculous.

Modifié par Vukodlak, 03 mars 2011 - 09:21 .

[Raygereio]

steelfire_dragon wrote...
does keeper mean leader or historian as I get mixed vibes there... so until you can explain it, ditch the dalish being ruled by mages.

Keepers are the clan's historians, besides being mages. And while they aren't thought as the rulers of the clans, everyone just listens to them because it's tradition and because the keepers are thought of as wise.
So yeah, in practice the keepers are both leaders and historians of the Dalish.

Modifié par Raygereio, 03 mars 2011 - 09:15 .

[Tomark]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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. 

Self-control is indeed more important for mages, but it's not like 'normal' people can't do 'accidents' that are much worse than most mages can do without realizing what they do and so on.

The mages in ferelden do seem to be dangerous, but much less so than the nobles and the chantry.

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.

or you could argue that it is the oppression fo the chantry that leads mages to want to escape.

In fact, if we follow your logic that mages are differents, shouldn't it be nonmages that would need to prove their right to freedom?

[Katana_Master]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

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.

To clarify, when I refer to 'the Chantry', I am not speaking of every single sister and templar in the order.  I am referring to the people in charge, the ones at the top who make all the decisions.  And even then, I am referring just to the majority of those people in charge.  Take a look at, for instance, **** germany.  Obviously, you've got Hitler, Goering, and all the other butchers at the top.  But you've also got people like Oscar Schindler, who spent his entire fortune - not to mention risked his life - to save a thousand jews from the death camps.  But having one Schindler did not change the overall nature of **** Germany.

Obviously, the Chantry is nowhere near that evil, but the principle is the same.

[Katana_Master]

Kmead15 wrote...

Katana_Master wrote...

Because the intelligent aren't capable of roasting people to death with their minds.

Tell that to Oppenheimer.

Katana_Master wrote...

The athletic aren't capable of stripping a person of their strength with a thought.

Okay, I'll admit they aren't as dangerous as intelligent people, but they can sure give you a heck of a beating.

Katana_Master wrote...

And the attractive aren't (usually) capable of forcing people to submit to their will.

No, but it sure helps.

Katana_Master wrote...
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.

Not everyone in the real world has access to the same technology that people can use to harm them. Should we then oppress people from more technological countries? That's beside the point, however. You can't punish someone because they happen to have inherited one allele of a gene and someone else got another.

Nobuhide wrote...

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

Sorry, off-topic, but this really bugs me. Fittest. Fittest.

Edit: fixed spacing issues to save room

 
You've got a point.

[tobajas]

Well me being a bit anti-religous, atleast on the old ways were for example the christians would burn people who had the wrong faith, the wrong way of thinking or the wrong shoe size.

Still in this game one has to consider that even if in our world the opressed mostly dont turn to the opressor. It has happend though example the Jews gaining Israel and executing around 400 000 people who had lived there all their lives but because the FN gave them the land they could pretty much kill anyone and hey we were opressed for years so why cant we opress people?
Anyway back to the thread the difference is mostly that the opressed people in our world could not throw rockets from their hands or call down lighting with a snap of the finger. It's almost like haveing a person with a gun/bazooka while everyone else has rocks.

So if they were not opressed they would still have to be governed in someways the templars are in a way the best possible "police" force since they cant do magic themselves but they are resistant to it and can disrupt it to some degree. The harrowing is in a way a good thing as well as it is a way to test them against the demons, a bit harsh though throwing them into the fire like that but how should it otherwise be done?

Well my opinon is mostly that they should be freed but in someway they will have to be kept in some sort of check or under some sort of control since one bad mage can make the world a very bad place.

Modifié par tobajas, 03 mars 2011 - 09:19 .

[the_one_54321]

Tomark wrote...
or you could argue that it is the oppression fo the chantry that leads mages to want to escape.

I expected someone to bring that up. And from this point it becomes a circular argument. Who first wronged who? It doesn't even matter. What matters is finding a system that ends the wronging. And having an agreement between mages and "norms" that mages need to be regulated in some way is, to my mind, the only way to effectively accomplish this.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sarielle wrote...

Well...it depends on whether you're a mage or not, doesn't it?

This exactly.

[AlexXIV]

I don't know what can keep the mages in check tbh. But neither do I know what can keep the Chantry in check. They seem to do as they please and screw over everyone who doesn't instantly agree with everything they say. The chantry had ... a thousand years? ... to come up with a civil and humane solution to the problem, but to say it straight they just preferred to go the easy way and the one that lets them exploit mages as much as possible and in turn mages are not even treated like people, they are just considered 'something dangerous'.

So whether there is a new way to do things or not, whether it is a mistake to free the mages or not, they deserve a chance after the centuries of Chantry screwing. I just believe if someone is in power for such a long time they should at least produce something good. But it seems all the chantry can perform is a stand still in every respect of life. That's far less than acceptable and not really tolerable either. And it didn't make the Maker return either, after such a long time, and nobody wonders why. Of course because they are doing everything wrong, that's why.

[The_mango55]

Tomark wrote...

Self-control is indeed more important for mages, but it's not like 'normal' people can't do 'accidents' that are much worse than most mages can do without realizing what they do and so on.

The mages in ferelden do seem to be dangerous, but much less so than the nobles and the chantry.

You're going to have to give me some examples.

And keep in mind we are talking about accidents, not willful betrayals or greedy/power hungry corruption.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Tomark wrote...
or you could argue that it is the oppression fo the chantry that leads mages to want to escape.

I expected someone to bring that up. And from this point it becomes a circular argument. Who first wronged who? It doesn't even matter. What matters is finding a system that ends the wronging. And having an agreement between mages and "norms" that mages need to be regulated in some way is, to my mind, the only way to effectively accomplish this.

Though, this would be antithetical to the individual liberty of mages.  Any particular mage who didn't agree with the regulation would need to be oppressed.

[PsychoBlonde]

Raygereio wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
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.

Yes, I agree with that. Even a mage with training can succumb to demons. Uldred was a senior mage who went through the harrowing and yet he still succumbed to that little voice of pride in the back of his head.
Which is why I view the chantry and the imprisoment of mages as a necessary evil. It isn't pretty, but most of the alternatives are plain ugly.

Children are already "oppressed" in this manner by adults--regardless of whether they are mages or not.  Children lack the judgment and training for a lot of things, not just magic.  Extrapolating this to grown, trained mages is not appropriate, just as you don't keep adults perpetually tied to their parents.

There are no necessary evils--only necessities that can be taken advantage of by the evil.  So you do what you can to limit the scope of that necessity to its true purpose--keep it small and starved and inoffensive.  

Ultimately, there is no system out there that can prevent people from doing evil, and if you try, all you do is destroy the people who would do good.  It is not better to heave the baby out the window to smash to bits on the cobbles below--especially since you won't actually succeed in getting rid of that bathwater.  If you leave people free to do good, the evil gets minimized by the very people who would be promoting it if they weren't free.

If you want a good real-life example of this problem, look at the American border with Mexico.  So much effort to keep out immigrants who just want to work and find a better life for their families.  Does it keep them out?  No.  But the smuggling that takes place as a result also gets terrorists and drug-runners into the country, because the demand for smuggling is so high it reduces the cost end of the equation for those terrorists and drug-runners.  Kind of sad, really.  It'd be a lot easier to keep the true undesirables out if we just said "cmon in, the more the merrier!" to the rest.

[tobajas]

@AlexXIV: If you had power and lots of power would you want to change things so you lost that power?

[slumlord722]

Well, there has been a society ruled by mages before, and that was the ancient Tevinter Imperium, which was known for its horrible use of slavery.

So no, a ruling class of mages wouldn't be any better. People just like to dislike the chantry.

[AlexXIV]

tobajas wrote...

@AlexXIV: If you had power and lots of power would you want to change things so you lost that power?

If I had lots of power I'd at least try to make something good come from it. And if I failed I'd rather let someone else try instead of using the power to stay in power. Power doesn't really mean much to me unless I can use it for something worthwhile.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Tomark wrote...
or you could argue that it is the oppression fo the chantry that leads mages to want to escape.

I expected someone to bring that up. And from this point it becomes a circular argument. Who first wronged who? It doesn't even matter. What matters is finding a system that ends the wronging. And having an agreement between mages and "norms" that mages need to be regulated in some way is, to my mind, the only way to effectively accomplish this.

Though, this would be antithetical to the individual liberty of mages.  Any particular mage who didn't agree with the regulation would need to be oppressed.

Agreed. And as someone who is not a mage, what reason could you have for insisting on this person's freedom? 

[the_one_54321]

PsychoBlonde wrote...
Children are already "oppressed" in this manner by adults--regardless of whether they are mages or not.  Children lack the judgment and training for a lot of things, not just magic.  Extrapolating this to grown, trained mages is not appropriate, just as you don't keep adults perpetually tied to their parents.

A counter example comes in the form of a liscence to drive. Again, such pre-emptively restrictive laws are already in place and enforced all over the world.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlexXIV wrote...

If I had lots of power I'd at least try to make something good come from it. And if I failed I'd rather let someone else try instead of using the power to stay in power. Power doesn't really mean much to me unless I can use it for something worthwhile.

What's worthwhile?  What reason would you have to care about good or evil if you had that kind of power?