57020 réponses à ce sujet

[River5]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Ghandi's views on force are somewhat odd.  (I'm packing for a trip right now so my responses will be sporadic. Yay job interviews) 

Ghandi believed that the proper response to the Axis powers was for England to surrender all their lands and goods to them, and submit to execution. Here is his advice to the British people in 1940: 

"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."

Nonviolence is an interesting tool, however I do not believe it would have been the ideal one with which to fight the Axis. People forget that historically, oppositional forces whose best tool was violence have been encouraged not to take up that tool, as in the example above.

Indeed...  On the other hand, he also said "It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence."

But yes, going back to Ghandi and reading more about him, it seems that he doesn't condone any form of violence at all, no matter the circumstances.

"I cannot teach you violence, as I do not myself believe in it. I can only teach you not to bow your heads before any one even at the cost of your life."

He is a great spiritual leader, but he seems to deal a little bit too much in absolutes though, in my humble opinion.  Kind of like: "it is better to remain true and pure to your ideals, and let yourself and your people be massacred, than to retaliate and commit violence yourself".

I'm not quite comfortable with that.  So perhaps Ghandi is really not the best example to come up with as far as peaceful resistance movements go...  Lol!  I think I'll stick with Martin Luther King when it comes to the practical applications of non-violence.

Oooh!  Tops again!

Since we're on the subject of non-violence and all that stuff...  Here, have a cuddle!



Gorgeous sketch by Emmav... 

Modifié par River5, 06 juillet 2011 - 03:07 .

[beckaliz]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Feel free to quote me.

As for the relationship, you do fit the basic criteria: Nonharmful and interesting... however we'll have to see about the emergent meaning. I generally don't divine profound realizations on the first date.

In general I'd rather be discussing the fundamental nature of love, but hey... I also should be packing. I'll come back and condense my thoughts later if i have time.

The fundamental nature of love is when you want to make squishy kisses on their face all day on a park bench.  That is twooooo wuv!

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ igpd
Well it is a theory that could be widespread. They don't need to prove it perse.

River5 wrote...
LOL!  Only because you're already here dear...  

Does my quoting you makes you uncomfortable?  I could stop if you want...  

Lol no of course not.

beckaliz wrote...

For some reason this discussion is making me think of Egypt this morning, more than other discussions of rebellions.
What
could be the right time for anybody to have a rebellion? Having a
rebellion at a "poor" time can make conditions so horrible that the
"moderates" could say "ok WTF fine I'll get off my butt and do
something".

There is not an Egyptian that I know that is optimistic about the situation. Just yesterday I met one who said the situation is ****ed. Egypt is a crumbling state, which can't survive one push to its virtually ravaged economy. But Egypt is in a very different position. It was a mass populist movement. Mages don't have that. And even a mass populist movement is no guarantee or even a high probability for success. There are a lot of systemic, regional and domestic dynamics at play that no simple revolution can overcome in a few days.

And yea, more often then not, Revolutionaries screw things up so bad, that moderates have to fix their mess. But I wouldn't give them credit for that. Just like I wouldn't give credit for Mao, because after him came Deng Xiaoping who fixed his mess. I'd much rather give credit to the latter.

The right time to rebel is when the enemy is weak, and when you have a high chance of not only winning the rebellion, but also being able to build something after. It's when systemic (for instance balance of power) factors are in your favor, as well as domestic (mass support, infighting amongst enemies...etc).
And no, you work to make times favorable to you and not wait passively.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 juillet 2011 - 03:15 .

[River5]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Feel free to quote me.

As for the relationship, you do fit the basic criteria: Nonharmful and interesting... however we'll have to see about the emergent meaning. I generally don't divine profound realizations on the first date.

In general I'd rather be discussing the fundamental nature of love, but hey... I also should be packing. I'll come back and condense my thoughts later if i have time.

Of course!  I am right now in the first stages of infatuation where my curiosity is piqued, and I feel some inherent eagerness to establish a connection with the object of my fascination. 

I shall moderate my ardour, in order to give us time and space to think this through rationally...  

Modifié par River5, 06 juillet 2011 - 03:25 .

[River5]

beckaliz wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Feel free to quote me.

As for the relationship, you do fit the basic criteria: Nonharmful and interesting... however we'll have to see about the emergent meaning. I generally don't divine profound realizations on the first date.

In general I'd rather be discussing the fundamental nature of love, but hey... I also should be packing. I'll come back and condense my thoughts later if i have time.

The fundamental nature of love is when you want to make squishy kisses on their face all day on a park bench.  That is twooooo wuv!

Lol!  That's passion and lust, sweetheart!    Though combined with love, it is particularly exquisite!!!  <3

[KnightofPhoenix]

River5 wrote...
Of course!  I am right now in the first stages of infatuation where my curiosity is piqued, and I feel some inherent eagerness to establish a connection with the object of my fascination. 

I shall moderate my ardour, in order to give us time and space to think this through rationally...  

Tsk tsk tsk, it goes like this:

After a brief moment of self-analysis, I've come to the realization that I am in the phase of infatuation with your person, and my person is experiencing chemical reactions that are making me want to take this initial emotional reaction a step further towards attachement, which my estimates say is very possible based on my studies of our personalities and shared interests.

I've also determined that taking these steps slowly and with caution, is mutually beneficial and would increase the chances of success, for it allows you to analyse the situation and calculate the prospects of success yourself and reach your own conclusion, which I wholeheartedly hope would be in accordance with mine.


....you two are being so hot right now

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 juillet 2011 - 03:50 .

[beckaliz]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

beckaliz wrote...

For some reason this discussion is making me think of Egypt this morning, more than other discussions of rebellions.
What
could be the right time for anybody to have a rebellion? Having a
rebellion at a "poor" time can make conditions so horrible that the
"moderates" could say "ok WTF fine I'll get off my butt and do
something".

There is not an Egyptian that I know that is optimistic about the situation. Just yesterday I met one who said the situation is ****ed. Egypt is a crumbling state, which can't survive one push to its virtually ravaged economy. But Egypt is in a very different position. It was a mass populist movement. Mages don't have that. And even a mass populist movement is no guarantee or even a high probability for success. There are a lot of systemic, regional and domestic dynamics at play that no simple revolution can overcome in a few days.

And yea, more often then not, Revolutionaries screw things up so bad, that moderates have to fix their mess. But I wouldn't give them credit for that. Just like I wouldn't give credit for Mao, because after him came Deng Xiaoping who fixed his mess. I'd much rather give credit to the latter.

The right time to rebel is when the enemy is weak, and when you have a high chance of not only winning the rebellion, but also being able to build something after. It's when systemic (for instance balance of power) factors are in your favor, as well as domestic (mass support, infighting amongst enemies...etc).
And no, you work to make times favorable to you and not wait passively.

Yeah I've been worried about that.  It was crazy being there on Jan 25 and getting back to Eilat and the tour people picking us up at the border goin OMG OMG UR OK!!! Everyone was like "uh. D: well yeah we're ok, why?" OMG PROTESTZ U DIDNT SEE?? I was glued to Al Jazeera on my phone for weeks. Now nobody here talks about it anymore. *facepalm*

How can the mages work to make times favorable when they're locked up in the Circle, when some of them don't mind it, or even think it's right? They'd have to make a lot of internal changes, first, to unify. And they'd have to fight against the mages who are comfortable where they are. Beyond that, I don't see that they're really able to affect the world outside the Circle at all. A prison riot isn't going to spill out into the surrounding cities when there are a lot of jailors and they can shoot to kill on sight. Times being favorable is most likely when the state, as you say, has motivations for wanting their support. I don't see how the mages can get past Chantry supervision to approach the state and ask for changes. The states, from what I understand, also usally follow the Chantry's tenets on the place of mages in the world.

I suspect you've had this conversation before, though. But it was before I was paying a lot of attention to this thread... 

Modifié par beckaliz, 06 juillet 2011 - 03:48 .

[beckaliz]

River5 wrote...

beckaliz wrote...

The fundamental nature of love is when you want to make squishy kisses on their face all day on a park bench.  That is twooooo wuv!

Lol!  That's passion and lust, sweetheart!    Though combined with love, it is particularly exquisite!!!  <3

NO NO MY DEFINITION IS IMPECCABLE! 

Life circumstances have made me abandon my ideas of romance, true love, soul mates, all that good stuff.  So it's all AU from my standpoint. @w@;; When I see it I don't beliiiiiiieeeeeve it.

But you called me sweetheart! D'aaaaw! <3 Can I marry you too? The wedding cake is a lie though. 

__________________________

Hmm! This makes me wonder! Anders is obviously in obsessive passionate love with Hawke. In Awakenings, though, I'm not sure I could imagine hime being able to settle down at all. Emotionally, I mean. Obviously he'd be on the run before he's with the Wardens, and he doesn't seem to have really jived with them despite the happy post-Awakening epilogue blurb. And with Hawke, s/he is his reality check, and him grasping at having some happiness before the inevitable conclusion to his life.

So, does Anders believe in true love or not? I'm curious for opinions. If nobody has any, though, I won't be heartbroken. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

beckaliz wrote...
 Times being favorable is most likely when the state, as you say, has motivations for wanting their support. I don't see how the mages can get past Chantry supervision to approach the state and ask for changes. The states, from what I understand, also usally follow the Chantry's tenets on the place of mages in the world.

We have mages being able to smuggle lyrium without Templars knowing, we have Uldred and Loghain establishing an alliance, and we have Orsino who was able to make a speech in Hightown (which means he walked all the way from the gallows without anyone stopping him). I don't see why mages in high positions can't approach heads of states.

If heads of states are not willing, then the time is not right. But it's the mage's job to show they are useful. Rights more often then not are only given to those who prove they are necessary or useful (as the French say, "Pas de droits sans devoir" / no rights without duty / responsabilities). Mages can show they are necessary in warfare, but that in itself is not enough. Hence why I support the Lucrosians. Making the mages a vital economic force is a leverage that can be used, more so than the military usage of magic because it's on a day to day basis.

Of course, reciprocation is necessary. If states don't want this, then they don't. Mages will have to wait fo the opportune moment (or leader) and keep trying to influence their way in government, via economy and secret alliances with nobles / ministers / advisors in high positions.

It's not easy, but changing the status quo, while being reasonable and prudent aobut it, is never easy.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 juillet 2011 - 03:50 .

[beckaliz]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Of course, reciprocation is necessary. If states don't want this, then they don't. Mages will have to wait fo the opportune moment (or leader) and keep trying to influence their way in government, via economy and secret alliances with nobles / ministers / advisors in high positions. 

It's not easy, but changing the status quo, while being reasonable and prudent aobut it, is never easy.

Sadly, it seems to me that those with the ability to be reasonable and prudent about it usually lack the motivation to do so. People usually have to be calm to be reasonable, and those who have the motivation and want change are too upset about the way things are to be calm.

Modifié par beckaliz, 06 juillet 2011 - 04:02 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

beckaliz wrote...
Sadly, it seems to me that those with the ability to be reasonable and prudent about it usually lack the motivation to do so. People usually have to be calm to be reasonable, and those who have the motivation and want change are too upset about the way things are to be calm.

A tragic reality of life.
But people need leadership and one with both prudence and motivation, as well as charisma, is sometimes all that is needed.

[beckaliz]

Well we know Anders doesn't fit that bill! He has the motivation, but he was never prudent, and he loses a heck of a lot of his charisma by the end of the game. Poor guy.

[Taihsigva]

Ooh look, new-ish user finally de-lurking (to post about politics and states... really, self? how predictable). And apparently slightly late given the new posts since I started writing this, but I'll throw my opinions out nonetheless.

I suppose I have a lot of thoughts on the topic, but in the interest of not typing out a giant rambling unfocused wall-o-text, I'll just start with something a bit more manageable. Basically, I disagree with the notion that states and so-called legitimate authority figures attached to them have any more inherent right to make decisions affecting large (or small) groups of people than does the average random person off the street. Which isn't to say that I think Anders had a right to force war on the Circles either; Anders and the people in power in Thedas have an equal 'right' to decide whether it's more okay for mages to be oppressed in conjunction with the Circle institution or to need to fight for their lives, that is to say, they don't have any right.

Now, strategically, I'll agree that bombing the Chantry didn't exactly involve a good plan for winning the subsequent war, but that seems irrelevant as to who should have be 'allowed' to create the next moment in a situation where all outcomes will involve some form of suffering on the part of the oppressed group. Viscounts/kings/grand clerics/First Enchanters/etc. are not more justified in retaining the Circles just because they have some sort of official position of authority, because ultimately there are people, usually marginalised people, who were never given any sort of choice to abide by the rules set down by those in that authority, and saying it doesn't matter because a majority does choose such seems to be an argument that the majority is always in the right, which I don't agree with.

Hmm. This is getting a bit rambly anyway...

One last thing, is that when revolutionary groups 'go too far' and start executing and imprisoning dissenters and so forth, it tends to be once they've achieved their 'legitimacy' and become the state. The problem isn't the (violent) revolt, to me, it's the ultimate decision to perpetuate the existence of some form of hierarchy, only with the people in the ruling and oppressed groups reversed from the previous status quo. Trying to change things from the top down tends to resolve most frequently with punitive measures that only re-start the cycle...

[KnightofPhoenix]

Taihsigva wrote...
I suppose I have a lot of thoughts on the topic, but in the interest of not typing out a giant rambling unfocused wall-o-text, I'll just start with something a bit more manageable. Basically, I disagree with the notion that states and so-called legitimate authority figures attached to them have any more inherent right to make decisions affecting large (or small) groups of people than does the average random person off the street.

I personally don't believe in "inherent rights". I believe in efficiency. Change is more likely to happen if states accept them. Whether they have any inherent rights is completely irrelevent to me, I don't think anyone has any inherent rights to begin with. It's all a construct. 

saying it doesn't matter because a majority does choose such seems to be an argument that the majority is always in the right, which I don't agree with.

No, I think the majority is most of the time wrong. But it's not about who is "right" and who is "wrong". It's about what's the most efficient way for a minority to be accepted by the majority.

One last thing, is that when revolutionary groups 'go too far' and start executing and imprisoning dissenters and so forth, it tends to be once they've achieved their 'legitimacy' and become the state.

The purpose of all revolutions, in essence, end up being to form a new state. What the rabble think is not important, they simply followed revolutionary leaders.

Unless you wish to abolish all hierarchy and create an anarchist society, but it won't be long before the masses start killing each other in their revolutionary frenzy. Too big a subject to go into right now, but I have seen no indication whatsoever that society is possible without some form of hierarchy,

Revolutionists going too far is precisely them not thinking in terms of a state, when they have become one. People like Robespierre thought that the state was a tool for the revolution (while I see it as the contrary), and tried to pursue his naive revolutionary ideals and didn't think like a pragmatic statesman. In essence, he did not realize that the revolution was over, he thought it was still on going. That's the same pattern with Mao. He too thought the Revolution is an on-going process and he didn't think like a statesman, while being one.

That's why I like the Abassid Revolution. Abu Ja'afar Al Mansur quickly eliminated all revolutionary leaders who brougth him into power, to make sure that the revolution ends and the state begins.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I don't have time for a detailed analysis right now, but where I disagree is regarding the relative ability of mages to productively work toward change within the system. I'm not speaking of their willingness to do so, but rather the tools available to them.

What you're suggesting is similar to suggesting that the French people use the Vichy French to politically manipulate the system to regain French freedom, rather than working with the French Resistance. The problem is, those who are likely to rise to power in the Vichy French government are those who pretty much by definition tend to be willing to cooperate with the oppressor - First Enchanters are appointed by the Knight Commanders, after all. Anders' alternative is like the French Resistance, which was made up of independent cells with limited communication who worked outside the system sometimes using violence to achieve their goals.

We also differ in our perceptions of how likely this particular gambit is to succeed, and what exactly happened. It is my impression that the situation in Kirkwall lead to the other circles deciding that the time was right to organize, and rising up voluntarily. Others seem to believe that it triggered a war which lead to the Circles rising up in self-defense. We will know which one is more accurate when we have a little information, which is looks like we may have soonish.

This is based largely on Varric's very short statements during the epilogue, but I think that the Chantry explosion and subsequent annulment or resistance were more of a coordinated trigger, a loud and explicit picture painted of how things are, in a way that could not be ignored. Judging that a coordinated revolt on multiple fronts would be the tactic most likely to succeed, and that they would not likely see another time when emotions would be so high, the mages willingly chose to organize a revolution in reaction. Sort of a rallying cry. Mages may even be able to spin the fact that the worst abominations occurred in the place with ostensibly the tightest Chantry security, thus showing that the Templars do not have what it takes to police either mages or their own any longer.

One of the problems with this discussion is that there are no direct historical analogues, and the only ones that come close are generally considered rhetorically taboo. Systematic imprisonment of a minority group has happened very rarely, and almost never without accompanying executions. Also, there's no good way to denote the power differential... the closest example I can think of is if all of a sudden all the Christians in ancient Rome had psychokinesis.

I think the mages saw an opportunity - a 50% shot at winning a war, versus an unknowable period of waiting until suddenly some social change occurred that would allow an outside force to see mages as a stragegic force worth working with. While I would concede that a small percentage of mages (probably less than 1%) may have the ability to work to make future political alliances slightly more attractive and possible, the vast majority of mages have no such ability outside a widespread revolt. Also, the Chantry has so much more political power that the few mages who have any ability to act cannot reasonably hope to counter it - it would be like expecting a letter writing campaign to counteract government sponsored propaganda.

I actually believe that the Chantry has overextended itself recently, and is somewhat weakened. In some cases they have threatened marches on both Kirkwall and Orzammar, in some cases they have also directly countermanded the sovereignty of Ferelden, They have antagonized Rivain, invading to kill all the Rivani who had decided to follow the Qun, and their home state is inches from open war with two flanking countries: Ferelden and Nevarra.

The fundamental question is this: were the mages forced to rise up in self defense after the Chantry, or did they decide to rise up in response from within? I believe it was the latter, so I believe the resulting movement does and will have significant organization.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 06 juillet 2011 - 05:11 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
What you're suggesting is similar to suggesting that the French people use the Vichy French to politically manipulate the system to regain French freedom, rather than working with the French Resistance. The problem is, those who are likely to rise to power in the Vichy French government are those who pretty much by definition tend to be willing to cooperate with the oppressor - First Enchanters are appointed by the Knight Commanders, after all. Anders' alternative is like the French Resistance, which was made up of independent cells with limited communication who worked outside the system sometimes using violence to achieve their goals.

A poor example. The French Resistance had an army, an organization, had ways to appeal to the French public, was a populist movement, was able to use a lot of the ressources of the vast French colonial empire and more importantly had powerful allies. Anders is nothing like De Gaulle.

But were it in a different context, then yea, collaborating with the Vichy government could have made a situation less bad than it would be otherwise. A lesser of two "evils".

I think the mages saw an opportunity - a 50% shot at winning a war, versus an unknowable period of waiting until suddenly some social change occurred that would allow an outside force to see mages as a stragegic force worth working with.

What 50% chance? The mages were utterly pathetic in Kirkwall. They don't have military training. They lack ressources. They have no access to Lyrium. And they succumb to demons at the drop of a feather. And most people fear and hate them. And al their Circles are in cities.

And then what after winning the war?

I actually believe that the Chantry has overextended itself recently, and is somewhat weakened.

It is weakening and all that is happening is a symptom of its weakness. But it did not require going blindly into war, the systemic changes alone are weakening it.

The fundamental question is this: were the mages forced to rise up in self defense after the Chantry, or did they decide to rise up in response from within? I believe it was the latter, so I believe the resulting movement does and will have significant organization.

That's not the important part. Without allies, mages won't be able to do anything and their idiocy in Kirkwalll pretty much demonstrated that they will have a hard time making allies. Mages on their own, even if oganized, won't be able to do much unless they impose themselves as a magocracy, so we are back at square 1.

Could they sallveage the mess Anders help create? Mabee, and I'll give credit to those who do. Anders however, will always remain a blind reckless short sighted obsessive fool in my eyes.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 juillet 2011 - 05:17 .

[Patriciachr34]

One point KOP, the rebellion effectively divided the military arm of the chantry. The chantry is now trying to control it's rogue templars as well as trying to restore mages to the circle. So far, divide and conquer is working. Additionally, there was a growing amount of popular support for the mages before the chantry went boom. We do not know if that waned after the big boom or not. Plus, there is organization within the mages (remember libertarians, Equitarians, etc.) We also do not know how the templars for individual circles will respond. The bottom lin is that you are assuming that there is no infrastructure and support for the mages when they may indeed have this on a regional level.

[Jon Jern_]

"Oh boy, time to check out the Anders thread! Lots of cool and nice people post there! Maybe this time I can even join a discussion!"

"Great, a discussion is going on right now with intelligent supporting arguements! I can totally participate in this discussion!"

"This...uh....what...huh."

"Well, I guess lurking is easier."

^Everyday when I go to this thread ;-;

[Evilnor]

Jon Jern wrote...

"Oh boy, time to check out the Anders thread! Lots of cool and nice people post there! Maybe this time I can even join a discussion!"

"Great, a discussion is going on right now with intelligent supporting arguements! I can totally participate in this discussion!"

"This...uh....what...huh."

"Well, I guess lurking is easier."

^Everyday when I go to this thread ;-;

Yup, right now it's like watching a discussion between CGG and KoP with other people chiming in as they see fit.

Who wants popcorn? 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Patriciachr34 wrote...

One point KOP, the rebellion effectively divided the military arm of the chantry. The chantry is now trying to control it's rogue templars as well as trying to restore mages to the circle. So far, divide and conquer is working. Additionally, there was a growing amount of popular support for the mages before the chantry went boom. We do not know if that waned after the big boom or not. Plus, there is organization within the mages (remember libertarians, Equitarians, etc.) We also do not know how the templars for individual circles will respond. The bottom lin is that you are assuming that there is no infrastructure and support for the mages when they may indeed have this on a regional level.

We don't know what the rogue Templars are. IF they are rogue for refusing to fight the mages, or rogue because they want to wipe out all mages.

I see no reason why mages would still have popular support automatically after what Anders did. Furthermore, this was only in Kirkwall.

I am not assuming that there is no infrastructure and support for mages. I am saying, going into war blindly, is not prudent. Declaring war on the majority is not prudent. Disregarding states is not prudent. Can mages find allies and act reasonably? Yea, even though mages in Kirkwall were utter morons.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 juillet 2011 - 06:04 .

[Taihsigva]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

No, I think the majority is most of the time wrong. But it's not about who is "right" and who is "wrong". It's about what's the most efficient way for a minority to be accepted by the majority.

Indeed. I wouldn't consider courting states to be the most efficient way to gain acceptance, however, since progressive legislation tends to follow from rather than preceed the societal opinion change in question. If the underlying oppressive social structure still exists, people will work around or against the laws; see poll taxes and grandfather clauses, abortion clinic bombings, religious exceptions to equal-hiring laws.

The purpose of all revolutions, in essence, end up being to form a new state. What the rabble think is not important, they simply followed revolutionary leaders.

Unless you wish to abolish all hierarchy and create an anarchist society, but it won't be long before the masses start killing each other in their revolutionary frenzy. Too big a subject to go into right now, but I have seen no indication whatsoever that society is possible without some form of hierarchy,

...Is this a bad time to mention that I do want to abolish all hierarchy and create an anarchist society? :happy: Not that I believe that an armed revolution is the proper way to achieve this, as it seems far too nostalgic for the latter half of the 19th century and ideas about the 'propaganda by the deed', but I somewhat digress. Given my admittedly not-as-extensive-as-I'd-like knowledge of world history, I probably can't do this topic the justice it deserves, but communities like anarchist Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, the Paris Commune, and various nomadic tribes in Africa whose names I don't recall are/were organised in many ways along non-hierarchical lines, and worked fairly well as far as societies go. Now, they were hardly flawless, as their military defeats clearly show, but that doesn't mean similar ideas would be ineffectual, especially if further refined and adapted for whatever circumstances were relevant.

That's not the important part. Without allies, mages won't be able to do
anything and their idiocy in Kirkwalll pretty much demonstrated that
they will have a hard time making allies. Mages on their own, even if
oganized, won't be able to do much unless they impose themselves as a
magocracy, so we are back at square 1.

Well, the total amount of evidence in-game pointing one way or another is scant, but.. the codex entry on the Mage Underground does imply to me that, in Kirkwall at least, mages do have some number of allies among the populace. If Mistress Selby's comments (and those of the random nobles standing around in the opening of act 3) are anything to go by, this is a direct response to the terrible treatment of mages by the templars. Thus it seems possible to extrapolate that a crackdown on mages following the Chantry bombing would push more people towards supporting the mages. Especially if they emphasised personal connections, a la Harvey Milk - "look, your child is a mage, and what about that friend you had when you were younger; they got taken away by the templars, and you can't want them to suffer like this." But anyways, extrapolation.

Another thing, is that we see a lot of discussion of how bad mages are in 1 - Kirkwall, where everybody goes crazy because it's a Hellmouth; and 2 - Ferelden, where much of the population appears rural and rarely in direct contact with mages since they're all stuck in the middle of a lake. This sort of attitude could concievably, likely, be different in places where the mages live in a city and thus get more access to the populace at large but are not also subject to the whims of the demons living in the sewers.

[Patriciachr34]

If I'm not mistaken, the rogue templars are rampaging through Thedas killing all mages. This is what I gather from Cassandra's comments at the end of Act 3.

We do not know how the populace of Kirkwall views the local chantry. If they feel disenfranchised because of the what the chantry allowed the templars to do the the general population, then the big boom may not have had as big an impact on popular support as we all think. We also do not know how draconian the chantry is in general. There could be a general undercurrent of discontent among the populace. This could also present an opportunity for the political rulers of Thedas to break chantry hold over they're kingdoms, affording them more autonomy. Although Anders may not have had a plan for war, if I were a clever ruler, I would seize the opportunity handed to me on a sliver platter, organize the rabble, and make the big grab for power.

I agree, mages (both circle and apostate) in Kirkwall were total morons. At least the Ferelden circle had a plan of action albeit ill-conceived.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Regarding the Vichy French example: the problem is that there is no direct analogue for the situation, so everything is going to have some significant differences. Nevertheless, I still feel that in this particular situation, the leverage that anyone progressive would have within the system without a significant disruption causing a massive opinion shift is minimal. Orsino lacked the power to even prevent things from getting worse, let alone make any progress. Even a mage who is a major adviser to the King of Ferelden has little ability to change the situation in that nation's actual circle.

So while the parallel does not share leadership, it does share the issue of apologists and appeasers versus those who would actively revolt. Also, there are some apostate organizations, as we see in DA:O. I get teh feeling that the mage underground was decimated in Kirkwall, not internationally.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I think the mages saw an opportunity - a 50% shot at winning a war, versus an unknowable period of waiting until suddenly some social change occurred that would allow an outside force to see mages as a stragegic force worth working with.

What 50% chance? The mages were utterly pathetic in Kirkwall. They don't have military training. They lack ressources. They have no access to Lyrium. And they succumb to demons at the drop of a feather. And most people fear and hate them. And al their Circles are in cities.

And then what after winning the war?

Here is how I percieve the situation: the mages will take this disruption in security as a unique chance to communicate openly with multiple potential allies without having to wait for them to initiate it. Each country will have the ability to decide independently whether the mages are a valuable enough military resource to form an alliance with, and if one country does form such an alliance (such as Ferelden) other nations may find a significant number of their mages defecting to that country, seriously deflating their military might. If only a single nation decides to do this, they are vulnerable to an exalted march. However, given Orlais and the Chantry's recent aggression, combined with the threat of the Qunari, I doubt most countries will give up the military advantage of cooperative mages very easily.

If the mages in the circle did not have some plan to gather allies, I do not believe they would have chosen to rise up. They could have just as easily distanced themselves from the Kirkwall event and chosen not to rise up. I'll be interested in seeing what exactly did happen, when it is revealed. I imagine that some Knight Commanders went crazy and did initiate violence, but that many of the more powerful and liberal circles decided to participate after rational debate on the subject.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I actually believe that the Chantry has overextended itself recently, and is somewhat weakened.

It is weakening and all that is happening is a symptom of its weakness. But it did not require going blindly into war, the systemic changes alone are weakening it.

The fundamental question is this: were the mages forced to rise up in self defense after the Chantry, or did they decide to rise up in response from within? I believe it was the latter, so I believe the resulting movement does and will have significant organization.

That's not the important part. Without allies, mages won't be able to do anything and their idiocy in Kirkwalll pretty much demonstrated that they will have a hard time making allies. Mages on their own, even if oganized, won't be able to do much unless they impose themselves as a magocracy, so we are back at square 1.

Could they sallveage the mess Anders help create? Mabee, and I'll give credit to those who do. Anders however, will always remain a blind reckless short sighted obsessive fool in my eyes.

I believe that this was a fairly good time for a revolution: Ferelden is likely to have an openly mage-sympathetic ruler in many cases (even without a mage warden, there is Wynne), Orzammar may have a circle. Orlais is actively engaged in aggression against the state with the most powerful circle outside of Tevinter. The Qun are breathing down everyone's neck.

That's why I think knowing what the Chantry boom achieved is important to our intepretation of its significance. If it was meant as a rallying cry to incite other mages to change their opinions about the viability and necessity of a revolt, I think it succeeded.

Kirkwall mages couldn't succeed because they were already cowed, weakened, unprepared, and unable to productively gain allies. Also, that place is inherently crazy, I believe... it reduces the sanity of anyone in it by 1D6 per month, if you know what I mean.

I don't think Anders was a genius, neither do I think he was a fool. I think he was, for a brief shining moment, the anthropomorphic personification of the cause of mages. He saw a lever, a symbolic act that would present mages with a unique message and opportunity, and he pulled that lever.

Whether or not the other mages manage to make productive use of that opportunity is for history to decide. But I think the offering of the opportunity is a neutral act, not a negative one.

And now I've got a plane to catch. I'll see you when I see you!

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 06 juillet 2011 - 06:18 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Taihsigva wrote...
Indeed. I wouldn't consider courting states to be the most efficient way to gain acceptance, however, since progressive legislation tends to follow from rather than preceed the societal opinion change in question. If the underlying oppressive social structure still exists, people will work around or against the laws; see poll taxes and grandfather clauses, abortion clinic bombings, religious exceptions to equal-hiring laws.

That's more the case in modern systems. In a medieval context, big scale change has to come from above. Of course reciprocation from the bottom is always necessary, to encourage rulers to go on with it and otherwise, hence mages should appeal to both. Now only with sentimentality, but by apppealing to their self-interest.

communities like anarchist Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, the Paris Commune, and various nomadic tribes in Africa whose names I don't recall are/were organised in many ways along non-hierarchical lines, and worked fairly well as far as societies go.

They still had a semblance of hierarchy, whether respect of elders, or charismatic leaders....etc. They were not as pronounced as institutionalized hierarchies, but they were there. And those examples, imo, are more of a failure of a polity than a success.

the codex entry on the Mage Underground does imply to me that, in Kirkwall at least, mages do have some number of allies among the populace.

This was before a mage destroyed a symbol of their faith. And this was nly in Kirkwall. Everywhere else, people fear and hate mages. Blowwing the Chantry up is thus a rather stupid thing to do.

Now can there be a charismatic mage who will be able to rally common people to the cause? Maybe, but I don't think it's likely.

Another thing, is that we see a lot of discussion of how bad mages are in 1 - Kirkwall, where everybody goes crazy because it's a Hellmouth; and 2 - Ferelden, where much of the population appears rural and rarely in direct contact with mages since they're all stuck in the middle of a lake. This sort of attitude could concievably, likely, be different in places where the mages live in a city and thus get more access to the populace at large but are not also subject to the whims of the demons living in the sewers.

I don't like to use Kirkwall as an example because I see it as very poor writing.

I am not saying it's impossible for mages to win. They will likely win, though I suspect an extra-ordinary event will make it possible (Flemeth / Morrigan maybe). I am saying that they did not start in a prudent fashion, though I am not yet sure how they started. What I am certain of is that Anders was a reckless fool.