264 réponses à ce sujet

[PsychoBlonde]

Katana_Master wrote...

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.

Ahh, I getcha.  So you're not opposed to discussion in and of itself, you just don't think it will bear fruit in this situation.  On the other hand, the more you can win with discussion, the less bad the eventual bloodletting will ultimately be, with any luck.  That's why I say the first step is to talk to the Chantry, not start mobilizing to FIGHT the Chantry.

[AlexXIV]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

I also live rather well. And I don't give it all up to help someone out. But I do charity, for example. Nobody asks you to give up everything you have to help others, just to do it if it doesn't hurt you much.

The question was if I had enough power to change things, would I give up my power if necessary. And yes I would. Comfort means alot to me, also freedom, having fun, etc. Power is more or less a burden which I am willing to take if it is worth it, but which I also would give up if I thought it was better that way. I am not exactly the most competitive type, so I don't care if people think they are better than I am.

[abat223]

The mages won't "rule" most likely.

Mages want liberty and freedom to be considered equal as humans.
Templars blindly infringe on the rights of mages due to a few bad apples and fear.

[PsychoBlonde]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

I actually already dispensed with this point.  In their particular capabilities, ALL people are inherently unequal.  It is only in one way that all people are "equal"--in our capability for rational thought.  And mages are identical to everyone else in this respect.

[the_one_54321]

LobselVith8 wrote...
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.

Well then Thedas is screwed. Hello genocide.

LobselVith8 wrote...
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.

That's why an agreement is necessary. If the mages agreed to restrictions then heavy restrictions wouldn't need to be enforced then mages wouldn't want to run away then heavy restrictions wouldn't need to be enforced and so on and so forth. Agreement of a safe existence is what is needed.

[TheCreeper]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Yet we're told the standard to be Keeper is typically about about noble blood, not magical ability.

The Noble house of the Dales was VERY full of mages?

[the_one_54321]

PsychoBlonde wrote...
I actually already dispensed with this point.  In their particular capabilities, ALL people are inherently unequal.  It is only in one way that all people are "equal"--in our capability for rational thought.  And mages are identical to everyone else in this respect.

Then you skipped over the response to that. Mages are capalbe of attacking the cognizance of "norms" to which they have no defense and no equal response.

[PsychoBlonde]

AlexXIV wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

I also live rather well. And I don't give it all up to help someone out. But I do charity, for example. Nobody asks you to give up everything you have to help others, just to do it if it doesn't hurt you much.

The question was if I had enough power to change things, would I give up my power if necessary. And yes I would. Comfort means alot to me, also freedom, having fun, etc. Power is more or less a burden which I am willing to take if it is worth it, but which I also would give up if I thought it was better that way. I am not exactly the most competitive type, so I don't care if people think they are better than I am.

Hello there, Cincinnatus.

There's a reason why there's a statue of George Washington as Cincinnatus in Washington D.C.  Sometimes we do rely on a man who would NOT be king.

[Zulmoka531]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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

True. It's a very difficult balance to, well, balance. At least in Dragon Age context, I feel that the Chantry has too much pull over everything.

But alas, pull one power away and it creates a vacuum for somethign else to fill the hole.

[Katana_Master]

DJ0000 wrote...

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?

I do not think that having power guarantees that you will be corrupted.  George Washington was the first true president of the U.S., he was given the opportunity to become KING of America, and he turned it down.  That's a pretty strong argument in my opinion.  However, power does possess a very strong corrupting influence, and a great number of people who aquire it are corrupted by it.  As for the example with firearms, I do not consider that to be valid, because every person you try to kill might be armed themselves, and can fire right back.  Too, killing a person will lead to the police knocking down your door.  The definition of power is the ability to push people around WITHOUT BEING PUSHED BACK.

[The_mango55]

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

Yet Lanaya, an elf that wasn't even born into the clan, becam Zathrian's first and eventually keeper because of her magical talent.

[LobselVith8]

the_one_54321 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

Well then Thedas is screwed. Hello genocide.

I see no reason to assume that emancipating the mages would only lead to genocide.

the_one_54321 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

That's why an agreement is necessary. If the mages agreed to restrictions then heavy restrictions wouldn't need to be enforced then mages wouldn't want to run away then heavy restrictions wouldn't need to be enforced and so on and so forth. Agreement of a safe existence is what is needed.

Or they would be freed from the Chantry to avoid an all-out war, because I doubt the Libertarians and the other groups of mages who seek their freedom will accept anything else.

[PsychoBlonde]

As an aside, this thread really reminds me of this post.

[LobselVith8]

The_mango55 wrote...

Yet Lanaya, an elf that wasn't even born into the clan, becam Zathrian's first and eventually keeper because of her magical talent.

There's no comment that's ever made to even suggest Lanaya being picked as First had anything to do with her magical ability. Maybe it did, but we can't say either way because nothing in canon provides a certain answer to this. It's never explicitly stated, especially when the comment is made explicit that being Keeper and First has to do with being descended from the nobility who once ruled the Dales (but even that isn't automatic, as we see with Lanaya).

[Sylvius the Mad]

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. 

That they have no interest is the point I was making.  Since I can't appeal to any reason why those people should support that position, I cannot persuade them to do so.

Certainly some people would support indivdual liberty just on principle.

Personally, I support individual liberty for selfish reasons.

[SirRaphael]

I'm siding with the chantry, they're the lesser of two evils. They're smart and treat mages like atom bombs, keep a few just in case (the circle), but destroy the rest in the world (apostates/maleficar).

[trobbins777]

I would just like to remove the military component of the chantry. A militant organization within the state is a threat to the state. Templars could work as public law enforcement specializing in hunting rogue mages and maleficars. However apostates would be free to live normal lives(though they still have to register being a mage with public law enforcement.

I doubt we'll have this option though

[Sylvius the Mad]

trobbins777 wrote...

A militant organization within the state is a threat to the state.

One might similarly argue that a state without an independent militant oganisation within it is a threat to its people.

[PsychoBlonde]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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. 

That they have no interest is the point I was making.  Since I can't appeal to any reason why those people should support that position, I cannot persuade them to do so.

Certainly some people would support indivdual liberty just on principle.

Personally, I support individual liberty for selfish reasons.

Boo, Sylvius, you edited out the pertinent part of my post, where I explained about the many people I know who support individual liberty on principle *for selfish reasons*, including myself.  That's just bad form.

[SirRaphael]

trobbins777 wrote...

I would just like to remove the military component of the chantry. A militant organization within the state is a threat to the state. Templars could work as public law enforcement specializing in hunting rogue mages and maleficars. However apostates would be free to live normal lives(though they still have to register being a mage with public law enforcement.

I doubt we'll have this option though

I picture some templars and long lines of mages in a bleak grey office building, the templars screwing with mages. Giving them different forms and telling them to go wait in different lines.

Modifié par SirRaphael, 03 mars 2011 - 10:03 .

[Erani]

Well, I don't see how Mages' freedom from the Chantry=Mages ruling.

Separation of church and state is key in this case, whether "the state" be a King/Queen/Emperor or more decentralized like in the Free Marches. Mages should be governed/supervised by the state, or some "police" force that answers to the state and not to the Chantry (like the Templars).

This is totally different from mages running amok. I don't see how prying the Chantry's dirty claws from power would lead to some kind of Mage World Domination.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Well then Thedas is screwed. Hello genocide.

This is what I've been saying all along.

[AlexXIV]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

trobbins777 wrote...

A militant organization within the state is a threat to the state.

One might similarly argue that a state without an independent militant oganisation within it is a threat to its people.

Independent in not having to answer to anyone? I am sure no state in the world does have a militant organisation that does not answer to anyone. Something like the Chantry never happened in real life. Even the catholic church in any country did never have more authority than for example the king or whatever kind of ruler.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 03 mars 2011 - 10:05 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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. 

That they have no interest is the point I was making.  Since I can't appeal to any reason why those people should support that position, I cannot persuade them to do so.

Certainly some people would support indivdual liberty just on principle.

Personally, I support individual liberty for selfish reasons.

Boo, Sylvius, you edited out the pertinent part of my post, where I explained about the many people I know who support individual liberty on principle *for selfish reasons*, including myself.  That's just bad form.

I actually missed that bit.  Sorry about that.

[DJ0000]

Katana_Master wrote...

DJ0000 wrote...

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?

I do not think that having power guarantees that you will be corrupted.  George Washington was the first true president of the U.S., he was given the opportunity to become KING of America, and he turned it down.  That's a pretty strong argument in my opinion.  However, power does possess a very strong corrupting influence, and a great number of people who aquire it are corrupted by it.  As for the example with firearms, I do not consider that to be valid, because every person you try to kill might be armed themselves, and can fire right back.  Too, killing a person will lead to the police knocking down your door.  The definition of power is the ability to push people around WITHOUT BEING PUSHED BACK.

Even if mages were free they couldn't just do what they want anyway. The templars would push back.

Also, lets say a mage did go on a killing spree, how do you know no one can fire back. There could easily be another mage there or a templar who would both be very capable of 'firing back'.