CrimsonZephyr wrote...
"Sure, there are probably some mages with more ambition than sense. You will run across the occasional Uldred who wants power for his own benefit. But you will also encounter the occasional Meredith, who also wants power for her own benefit. In both cases, they professed to be working toward a cause (mage freedom or public safety), but ultimately, the one thing both of them wanted above all else was to be top banana. The "cause" was just an excuse. In both cases, the way to restore order was the same: kill them with fire. Because that much ambition is always destructive, whether the owner's power is magical or martial, secular or religious."
That said, if a mage can become a ruler, and a good ruler, then being a mage in itself should not be an obstacle. A mage leader of a secular government is not exactly the same thing as a magister. Mages set themselves too small a goal if they simply want to be farmers and healers. At the very least, highborn mages should not be disinherited unless they commit magical-related crimes.
As a relatively liberal Westerner, it's easy for me to say that mages should not be barred from inheritance the way they are now. Even as a Thedosian, the concept that people should not be punished for a accident of birth is not completely unknown, especially in cultures like Ferelden where heredity is less important to the people than ability. Royalty - kings and teyrns - is hereditary, but banns are elected by their constituents. That's where the real power resides, in the Landsmeet. And that's why a single mage-blooded bann would have so little impact on the rest of the government. Despite what you see, mages represent a small percentage of the population. They are an exceptionally well-educated portion of the population, thanks to an enforced lifetime of scholarship, but leadership ability is not found more often in academia than elsewhere.
Most mages outside Tevinter probably imagine themselves more readily as farmers, soldiers, and healers because that is what their family background was. Connors are rare.
Anyway, it seems as if we pretty much agree. My point was more that people should be imprisoned because they commit actual crimes, not because there's a chance they might one day commit one. Going by that logic, you'd have to lock everyone up because the vast majority of criminal activity in Thedas is committed by non-mages. No one is saying that crimes of greater magnitude should not carry greater penalties, but preemptively treating people like criminals is a pretty good way of ensuring that they become criminals. Despite socialogical differences like more open acceptance of sexual orientation and a more egalitarian attitude about gender roles, human nature does not seem to be different in Ferelden than it is on earth. The carrot is generally more effective than the stick.
Retour en haut
I don't hate the templars, I actually have a strange attraction to Greagoir, and I can see their point of view. I just really wish they held Keran's point of view when he said "Templars are supposed to protect Mages, not massacre them."
