264 réponses à ce sujet

[PsychoBlonde]

Katana_Master wrote...

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

What principle would that be?  That it's impossible to deal with an objectionable group by any means other than force?  Doesn't fly.  It is the relative evilness of the Chantry TO **** Germany that makes the difference, so there's no principle to cover both instances.  The ****'s ruthlessly quelled any attempt at discussion/dissent.  Does the Chantry do that?  I'd say no, considering how Leliana was treated even though she disagreed with much of the official line.

If your Schindler's aren't risking death and torture by bucking the current, you have hope still for discussion.  When they are, discussion is pointless and it's time for all good men to take up arms to defend themselves.

[Tamcia]

Power always finds a place to rest.

Modifié par Tamcia, 03 mars 2011 - 09:28 .

[Thor Rand Al]

It's not so much the demon's that terrifies people, it's the fact that it's magic.  What a lot of people fear the most because it's so foreign to them n they don't understand it.  Take for instance in r/l the so called witch burnings. How many good n innocent people got burned at the stake because they could cure someone of a disease? 
It's not magic that's evil, it's the person controlling the magic that makes it good or evil.  It's what other people concieve it to be also. 
As for me on for or against the Chantry, enslaving someone because they use magic is wrong.  So much good can be done with freedom but then a lot of bad can be done also.  Let the mages govern themselves, not have a religious fanatical group control them.  The chantry has basically made their own laws about magic n forced people into believeing it, n if u don't believe their ways ur persecuted basically.  I seriously doubt even Andraste wanted it to go as far as it has.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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

I'm a big fan of individual liberty.

But you're correct, a non-mage would have no interest in ensuring the individual liberty of mages.

The mage/non-mage divide in Thedas will only be resolved through either oppression or bloodshed.  I can't imagine a happy ending.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 03 mars 2011 - 09:28 .

[tobajas]

AlexXIV wrote...

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.

True and I feel pretty much the same way but if, and this is a big if as I dont know if it really is this way. But if I was in charge of a religion I would want the person who belived in the religion and in MY way of doing things the most so as to keep the power as much as possible with the religion.

[Vukodlak]

slumlord722 wrote...

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. 

The templar's power does not extend across all of Thedas. The Dalish Clans get along fine without the Templar watching over there keepers, the Rivaini and the remnant of the Imperium aren't overrun with abominations. So I fail to see any evidence the templar do anything to make things better. Your police force doesn't have to oppress the people and encourage rebellion to maintain order.

You can cry a river about the oppression of the Imperium but there are quite a few oppressive and brutal monarchs in Ferelden Arl Howl and Vaughan spring to mind, and the Alienages themselves feel like only a small step above slavery. Is a man who takes power with a sword any different that one who does so with a spell? Is a brutal tyrant who rules like Caligula a better man then a benevolent king who wields magic?

Modifié par Vukodlak, 03 mars 2011 - 09:33 .

[Kmead15]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

Wouldn't that be an example of this, rather than a counterexample? Change "you don't keep adults perpetually tied to their parents," to "you don't permanently restrict the rights of adults," and you get the same thing. Besides, if we go along with the "not being allowed to drive" = "kept locked in a tower" idea, we'd be comparing a driving test to the Harrowing.  I think there'd be complaints if the instructors killed us when we failed. And if you don't think we can kill people at the snap of a finger when we get out on the road...

[AlexXIV]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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?

I guess the same reason I have now. Whenever I see something I hate or think is unfair or a crime. As someone said, there is nothing you can take with you if you leave this world one day, but there is something you can leave. The only thing that would give purpose to your life would be to make life better for everyone who comes after you. Of course you would need to have some ethic codex. I guess not all people have it.

I mean even now I just could think what do I care. But funny enough I don't feel like I have a choice, and I don't understand how people can actually not care about alot of things even if they could change them.

[Katana_Master]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

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.

I think you and I are actually thinking in much the same direction.

[PsychoBlonde]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

That doesn't make them just.  Slavery still exists all over the world, too.  Should we round up blacks and set them to work picking cotton because everyone's doing it?

I'm opposed to driver's licenses issued by the government in principle anyway, although this is an example of a less-onerous sort of law that can be complied with because it's not worth making yourself a martyr over it.  The whole system of having the roads be "publicly" owned and all the bizarreness that results from that is silly anyway.

Now, it's perfectly legitimate to say "I disagree with your particular determination for when mages are old enough/trained enough to be let loose".  The particular applications can be argued all day and all night.  But the principle that adults need a nanny?  No.  If you say that you have to do something "for my own good" because, as a falliable human, I'm not capable of doing it myself, you've contradicted yourself.  If I am literally *incapable* of policing myself, then how on earth are YOU capable of policing ME?  You're human too.  My failings are your failings.  To say that other people cannot be trusted to make their own decisions is to declare oneself unfit for making decisions.  How then, are any of us to survive?

The simple fact that any human beings at all still exist directly contravenes this sort of viewpoint and renders it absurd.

[AlexXIV]

tobajas wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

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.

True and I feel pretty much the same way but if, and this is a big if as I dont know if it really is this way. But if I was in charge of a religion I would want the person who belived in the religion and in MY way of doing things the most so as to keep the power as much as possible with the religion.

Well for a start I wouldn't be in charge of a religion unless I had some divine experience and god or whatever being would task me in person. I find it kind of hypocrite to preach about gods or divine laws if I never even had anything close to a divine experience. I mean, why would I try to convince people of things which I don't even know a first thing about?

Modifié par AlexXIV, 03 mars 2011 - 09:36 .

[BladeRunnerXL]

No, because the mages who would be ruling are still just people and people are endlessly corruptible. Also, being a mage does not seem to correlate with any propensity for honest leadership, nor does there seem to be any cultural superstructure asserting that with their greater power comes some sort of obligation to those who can't alter energy and matter with their mind.

Furthermore, I believe that the mage / Chantry comparison question represents a false dichotomy in that you are comparing an inborn gift distributed amongst a population randomly for all intents and purposes with a monolithic organization whose membership is open to any member of society. [Yes, I understand that magic has a genetic component to it, but Dragon Age: Origins indicated that the ability for it could come from any layer of the social strata, from commoner (Wynne) to noble (Connor), and has not delved into whether kin groups with a higher change of expression for magic are disruptive to Thedas society or even common.]

Lastly, the whole mage question really needs to be re-fraimed and thought of as the allegory I think it best represents. Mages, and more generally magic, need to be thought of as a powerful technology or energy source. Any given society can use this technology for what most would consider good purposes or they could use it for bad purposes. The Roman Republic / Empire possessed greater material conversion, organizational, and infrastructure technology and basically had their way with everyone for the better part of a millennium. They are an apt comparison with the Tevinter Imperium, which used magic to dominate everyone else around them, and according to legend, even tried to contravene the structure of reality and their place within it by breaking into the Golden City.

Thus the question of the "Mage Problem" isn't really a question at all, but rather how a society deals with a resource that is both powerful and dangerous. The qunari outlaw magic, wasting it entirely, the Chantry suppresses magic, wasting it mostly, and the Tevinter Imperium grew drunk with magic, wasting its potential to uplift society (think about it, a group of people who can manipulate energy and matter with their minds, imagine what we could do with that!) in exchange for personal gratification. Caveats regarding the dangers of magic persist with possession, abuse of Blood Magic, etc, but much could be gained if mages were integrated into society at large (they can heal people with a ****ing wave of their hand!) and mages were allowed to police themselves and actually employ Templars to help them in pursuance of that.

[Katana_Master]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Katana_Master wrote...

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

What principle would that be?  That it's impossible to deal with an objectionable group by any means other than force?  Doesn't fly.  It is the relative evilness of the Chantry TO **** Germany that makes the difference, so there's no principle to cover both instances.  The ****'s ruthlessly quelled any attempt at discussion/dissent.  Does the Chantry do that?  I'd say no, considering how Leliana was treated even though she disagreed with much of the official line.

If your Schindler's aren't risking death and torture by bucking the current, you have hope still for discussion.  When they are, discussion is pointless and it's time for all good men to take up arms to defend themselves.

The principle I'm speaking of is that people who have power almost never want to give up that power.  The relative differences betwees the ****s and the Chantry mean that, as you say, there is still a hope for discussion.  But when it comes down to the wire, I would bet that the guys controlling the Chantry will go to extreme lengths to hold onto their power.  So far they haven't had to, but that could change, and probably will in DA2.

[Zulmoka531]

In my opinion, it's not so much that mages need the Chantry removed, it's that the chantry itself has it's influence in way too many things.
In Origins, it was more like a secondary government, we saw that throughout the game and specifically in the Landsmeet.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlexXIV wrote...

I mean even now I just could think what do I care. But funny enough I don't feel like I have a choice, and I don't understand how people can actually not care about alot of things even if they could change them.

I live in an expensive neighbourhood.  I own my own home.  I could sell my home and move to a less expensive neighbourhood, and take the difference in money to help people or generally make the world a better place.

And every day, I don't do that.



That aside, given your position I think you would enjoy reading about Moral Perfectionism.  It's a school of ethical thought.

[LobselVith8]

TheCreeper wrote...

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.

Yet we're told the standard to be Keeper is typically about about noble blood, not magical ability.

[the_one_54321]

PsychoBlonde wrote...
Now, it's perfectly legitimate to say "I disagree with your particular determination for when mages are old enough/trained enough to be let loose".  The particular applications can be argued all day and all night.  But the principle that adults need a nanny?  No.  If you say that you have to do something "for my own good" because, as a falliable human, I'm not capable of doing it myself, you've contradicted yourself.  If I am literally *incapable* of policing myself, then how on earth are YOU capable of policing ME?  You're human too.  My failings are your failings.  To say that other people cannot be trusted to make their own decisions is to declare oneself unfit for making decisions.  How then, are any of us to survive?

My right to swing my fist ends where your face begins. Even if I didn't mean to hit you.

These restrictions exist to protect people from other people. Not from themselves. People are licenced to drive and have this restriction enforced so that it will not be considered legal for someone to get into a car, screw up from not know what s/he is doing, and accidentally kill someone.

Similarly, if in the appropriate situation, I would find a mages objection to the restrictings tiring and unmoving. They exist to prevent accidental killings.

[PsychoBlonde]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But you're correct, a non-mage would have no interest in ensuring the individual liberty of mages.

No?  Not a historical scholar, then.  Many, many people argue strenuously for the individual liberty of people they've never met and have no direct personal interest in.  Oh, sure, I'm a bit more enthusiastic when I'm arguing against censorship of video games, because I love video games.  But I still happily go picket and write about injustices inflicted on pornographers (I think a lot of porn is disgusting, btw) and college atheletes (who I, mostly, dislike) and even people who own dog-fighting rings (which is worse than disgusting).

Oh, sure, it's not very inspiring to defend scoundrels and people you dislike, but people do it all the time.  Why?  Because, if one is any kind of scholar of history, one knows that by opening the door to injustice, even directed at people you dislike, you leave yourself naked and helpless when someone comes along who dislikes YOU.  Defending the principles of liberty is a personal, selfish necessity.

And don't people always say that you can count on people to be selfish?  It's not true (boy, I wish it were), but it's a bit safer than counting on them to love their oppressor.

[TheCreeper]

Zulmoka531 wrote...

In my opinion, it's not so much that mages need the Chantry removed, it's that the chantry itself has it's influence in way too many things.
In Origins, it was more like a secondary government, we saw that throughout the game and specifically in the Landsmeet.

it's Not far off from the Catholic Church in the middle ages.

[DJ0000]

People sem to make the mistake of thinking that everyone with power will be corrupted by it. I know if I had magic my first thought would be to try to develop a way to cure disease, there are some people who don't care about being powerful and ruling over all and they are not guarenteed to be corrupted by power. That is merely an assumption based upon preconcieved ideas of people with power.

You could also think of it this way, in America it is legal to own a gun with a permit. This in itself is the power to choose who lives and dies becaue, if you want, you can just go on a killing spree if you wanted but what percentage of gun owners do that?

[Zulmoka531]

TheCreeper wrote...

Zulmoka531 wrote...

In my opinion, it's not so much that mages need the Chantry removed, it's that the chantry itself has it's influence in way too many things.
In Origins, it was more like a secondary government, we saw that throughout the game and specifically in the Landsmeet.

it's Not far off from the Catholic Church in the middle ages.

Pretty much. Like others have said, that didn't work out well in retrospect.
I guess that's getting a little off topic though. Personally I don't believe the mages should be...treated as they are, but power with completel freedom tends to be corruptive. It's what can turna  noble king into a tyrant over night.

Some sort of...humane precautions would have to be put in place to allow Mages to govern themselves. Then again thats just my opinion.

Modifié par Zulmoka531, 03 mars 2011 - 09:44 .

[the_one_54321]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But you're correct, a non-mage would have no interest in ensuring the individual liberty of mages.

No?  Not a historical scholar, then.  Many, many people argue strenuously for the individual liberty of people they've never met and have no direct personal interest in.

You are ignoring the orignial distinction that this was based on. That is that mages are demonstrably inherently inequal to other people.

[tobajas]

AlexXIV wrote...

tobajas wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

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.

True and I feel pretty much the same way but if, and this is a big if as I dont know if it really is this way. But if I was in charge of a religion I would want the person who belived in the religion and in MY way of doing things the most so as to keep the power as much as possible with the religion.

Well for a start I wouldn't be in charge of a religion unless I had some divine experience and god or whatever being would task me in person. I find it kind of hypocrite to preach about gods or divine laws if I never even had anything close to a divine experience. I mean, why would I try to convince people of things which I don't even know a first thing about?

Well thats the problem is'nt it? Most religions are based on things that happend a 1000 years ago and people who was'nt there preach of what happend as absolute truth even though they themselves do not know for sure if it, is true they can only read about it, never experience it themselves.

Modifié par tobajas, 03 mars 2011 - 09:44 .

[LobselVith8]

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.

We know from the existance of the Libertarians that this isn't a plausible solution, especially when Wynne already revealed in Awakening that more mages are leaning toward the Libertarian side of the argument.

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

Oppression never allows for a comfortable existance by its very nature. Given the lack of agency that mages have over their own lives, it's not surprising that we see mages run away from or rebel against the Chantry's dictatorship over the mages.

[the_one_54321]

Zulmoka531 wrote...

TheCreeper wrote...

Zulmoka531 wrote...
In my opinion, it's not so much that mages need the Chantry removed, it's that the chantry itself has it's influence in way too many things.
In Origins, it was more like a secondary government, we saw that throughout the game and specifically in the Landsmeet.

it's Not far off from the Catholic Church in the middle ages.

Pretty much. Like others have said, that didn't work out well in retrospect.

In England the monarchy took over things from the Catholic Church. And really, that didn't work out well in retrospect either.