209 réponses à ce sujet

[Everwarden]

Taleroth wrote...
More important is the fact that her kid was stolen from her and never allowed to see it again.  There's nothing reasonable in that practice.

You read my mind and stole my thunder, Taleroth! You..

..must be a BLOOD MAGE! *waves pitchfork*

[Lithuasil]

TexasToast712 wrote...
Oh yes it must have been very easy to hide that growing bulge on her stomach from the Templars for 9 months. /sarcasm

Well, they wouldn't have taken the child if she hid it - that the child was born, and then ripped away, is basically proof that while all templars are colossal morons, some of them aren't complete monsters.

[ISpeakTheTruth]

TexasToast712 wrote...

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

TexasToast712 wrote...

Everwarden wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
While I certainly agree the Circles can and should be better, they are not unreasonable. Especially not in light of the situation and context in which they have been contained and managed, a broad culture that would put the mages in just as much danger from the common people as anyone else.

Mage aren't ever allowed to be in love or have children (some do it anyway and are punished), this alone is enough to dismiss the bolded statement. 

Wynne had a child and she isnt chained in irons. She mentions it in dialogue with Alistair.

Wynne secretly concieved and then had her child stolen from her the moment it was born. Yep what a reasonable system the Chantry has.

Oh yes it must have been very easy to hide that growing bulge on her stomach from the Templars for 9 months. /sarcasm

Hello? The Chantry doesn't believe in killing babies. The fact remains that a mage can't have anything or anyone in their lives in the Chantry system. Like Wynne, if they fall in love they'd probably be sent to different towers and if they have a child its stolen from them... I'm amazed that you even brought up the subject as if it was some kind of glorious kindness that the Templars didn't stab her in her stomach or strangle the child with its own cord when it came out of her.

[Dean_the_Young]

Everwarden wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Who's well-being you prioritize is just as relevant as who you shill for.

The Connor example isn't applicable because under the proposed system he'd had no real training. A week under a blood mage just doesn't count. 

I'm fairly sure it was longer than a week, but it remains applicable: the danger wasn't even malevolence on Conner's part, but external factors that weren't even aimed at him directly drove him into the arms of a demon. That's not something that goes away when you pass your harrowing if you're just released back into the world, where far more extreme pressures await and lurk than those in the Circle itself.

The Circle isn't just a place to train magi: it's a place to keep magi so that when they lose their sensibilities to emotions, the fallout doesn't take out a neighborhood. 

[MortalEngines]

Everwarden wrote...
So they would be efficient workers able to produce finer goods and boost the economy? Say it ain't so! 

They could raise undead servants to act as pooper-scoopers! No longer would the common man be able to scoop poop at the same rate that the evil mage man could!

And those dastardly mages would dominate the healing industry, too! No longer would leechings and bloodletting be necessary! Those mages could make bank curing diseases! Bastards! 

I bet they could even help boost crop growth! Then, instead of mass starvation, all the people in Denerim will be fat! Fat! Do you want fat people clogging up the streets? No! You don't! 

I think he's trying to say that mages have such an advantage that if they were intergrated into society they would excel in everything over the standard commoner. This would eventually lead to mages having more power and people being more dependant on them, eventually leading to a magocracy anyway.

Modifié par MortalEngines, 16 mars 2011 - 09:59 .

[mysticforce42]

It doesn't matter whether mages have a chance or not in their struggle against the Chantry. Before they can even get things warmed up the Qunari will simply swoop down and kill everyone in Thedas.

The only reason the first Qunari invasion was repelled was via Exalted March which included mages using magic against the Qunari's gunpowder weapons. Divided by a civil and religious war, Thedas stands no chance against the Qunari.

Kill them all and let the Qun sort them out.

[Dean_the_Young]

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

Connor is a result of the Chantry system. He wasn't sent to the tower because his mother didn't want her son to be sent to a prison and never see or hear from him again. If the circle wasn't a prison than he would have been sent there when he showed magic and none of that would have happened.

We can quibble about her reasons all we'd like: she was also ashamed of it and wanted to hide it. She also didn't want him to lose his brithright. Which of these might have pushed her to hide his powers, even if he would be allowed to come home afterwards?

Had Isolde followed the Chantry system and not tried to subvert it, the tragedy wouldn't have occured.

[Everwarden]

MortalEngines wrote...

I think he's trying to say that mages have such an advantage that if they were intergrated into society they would excel in everything over the standard commoner. This would eventually lead to mages having more power and people being more dependant on them, eventually leading to a magocracy anyway.

But that isn't just mages, that's life. Sorry to say it, but the world is full of people who are better at doing various things than other people. For example, Bioware is made up of people very good at getting fanboys to shill an inferior product like DA2. That's a talent that most of us mere mortals don't have, but I don't think that it's a justification to lock Mike Laidlaw up in a tower and tell him he's not allowed to have children. 

[Everwarden]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
We can quibble about her reasons all we'd like: she was also ashamed of it and wanted to hide it.

Nice way to dodge the way your logic backfires on you. The system is what caused the problem, and the proposed system (Connor being trained without fear of losing his entire life) would have sidestepped it entirely. 

[Nimander]

Way too many things to comment on, so I'll just list them off.

First, the Circle system could work -- but it'd need a major overhaul. How it SHOULD work is more along the lines of a pseudo-religious order, but without all the religious underpinnings. Mages and the Chantry would work -together-, and yes, the mages would be segregated to an extent but could leave when they wanted to go where they wanted, as long as they returned. With mages around to help the Templars, they'd be more likely to find other mages who succumb because the mages wouldn't look the other way in hopes they didn't see what they thought they saw. No 'YOU MIGHT BE BAD! TRANQUIL/DEATH!' Basically, more 'equal responsibility' and less 'big brother is watching'.

Secondly, I think people are over-emphasizing the Templar's strengths. There are, yes, fewer mages by far, but these are people who can rain fireballs down on people for quite a while before becoming tired. This gives them MASSIVE tactical strengths. Their strategic strengths are more nebulous, unless they can get a population willing to help. Which IS possible. Say there's 200 mages in a circle. They have families. Say the average extended mage family is 5-10 people, some more, some less. Some of those won't help, but a lot will. That's a good, solid base for supplies. All it'd take is a good, solid group moving to someplace where the mages can protect farms, like a mountain valley, and they have a nearly unbreakable location. They wouldn't be able to affect the world, but if multiple mage groups managed something like this? The templars would find themselves pinned down.

Thirdly, as for templars mowing through mages? As someone else said: most mages are likely scholars who didn't learn a great deal of combat magic. The Mage Warden and Mage Hawke, they likely know a lot of 'blow people up' spells. We don't know what they know outside this (I'm kind of sad my mage warden couldn't cleanse Bartrand, for one). But the 'normal Circle mages' probably have a great deal of 'lift heavy object for construction' and 'shape stone to create a really solid wall' and 'grow lots of crops' and 'heal exotic disease' spells. Which won't help in the opening stages of a war. When they /do/ start a war, however, there's bound to be a few mages who know battle magic, and if they're smart, this information would spread. And MANY of those spells would be INCREDIBLY useful from a strategic point of view.

I don't think it's as clear cut 'Templars Win' as people think. Nor do I think the mages would ROFL-stomp the Templars, because of the disparate numbers and difficulties the mages have. But I do think it makes it a fairly even battle.

[Dean_the_Young]

Everwarden wrote...

So they would be efficient workers able to produce finer goods and boost the economy? Say it ain't so! 

They could raise undead servants to act as pooper-scoopers! No longer would the common man be able to scoop poop at the same rate that the evil mage man could!

And those dastardly mages would dominate the healing industry, too! No longer would leechings and bloodletting be necessary! Those mages could make bank curing diseases! Bastards! 

I bet they could even help boost crop growth! Then, instead of mass starvation, all the people in Denerim will be fat! Fat! Do you want fat people clogging up the streets? No! You don't! 

This sarcasm all rests on a presumption that mages rising to dominate power will be ultimately beneficial because they will maintain beneficial attitudes and focuses.

On the other hand,  we have the case of the Tevinter Imperium, even post-Andraste, which rather shows us how this does... not quite happen as a matter of course.

If mages were ideal people, they would make ideal leaders. Aristotle's benevolent dictatorship would have benevolent magi at the top. But mages aren't ideal people. They're people with super powers, and will certainly end up using those powers to advance and eventually dominate any system that gives them the freedom to... whether or not this is better for the common people instead.

[Taleroth]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

Connor is a result of the Chantry system. He wasn't sent to the tower because his mother didn't want her son to be sent to a prison and never see or hear from him again. If the circle wasn't a prison than he would have been sent there when he showed magic and none of that would have happened.

We can quibble about her reasons all we'd like: she was also ashamed of it and wanted to hide it. She also didn't want him to lose his brithright. Which of these might have pushed her to hide his powers, even if he would be allowed to come home afterwards?

Had Isolde followed the Chantry system and not tried to subvert it, the tragedy wouldn't have occured.

And if she had less reason to be against the system, it also wouldn't have occured.

That's the point, making a system people will want to follow.  Nobody wants to be a slave.

[Dean_the_Young]

Taleroth wrote...

Wynne secretly concieved and then had her child stolen from her the moment it was born. Yep what a reasonable system the Chantry has.

You confuse reason for kind and sympathetic.

The Qunari also take their children from their parents. The Qunari also don't even have marriage. At the same time, though, their system works in many ways our own does not. There is a reason to and behind it.

[Nimander]

Dean_the_Young wrote...On the other hand,  we have the case of the Tevinter Imperium, even post-Andraste, which rather shows us how this does... not quite happen as a matter of course.

People keep saying this.  This is the 'Small Numbers' fallacy.  One nation does not prove a /darn/ thing.  Please, people, stop saying this.  This is faulty logic.

We also have the elves (not that I'm fond of them), whose mages didn't create a dystopia.  And there are other nations without the current structure where mages are not eeeeevil.

[Lithuasil]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

Wynne secretly concieved and then had her child stolen from her the moment it was born. Yep what a reasonable system the Chantry has.

You confuse reason for kind and sympathetic.

The Qunari also take their children from their parents. The Qunari also don't even have marriage. At the same time, though, their system works in many ways our own does not. There is a reason to and behind it.

Allow me to disagree, the Qun works even less then the whole circle business does - at least there's some reason behind why we should want the circles.

[Dean_the_Young]

Taleroth wrote...
And if she had less reason to be against the system, it also wouldn't have occured.

If Isolde had a dick, she'd be a man. It doesn't undermine the system simply because someone doesn't like it.

No matter what system you have, not everyone is going to be happy. You can
have people unhappy that their magi relatives are kept away from them,
and people unhappy that mages aren't kept away when some mage does
something that hurts their relatives. Whichever group occurs, you will
have people who see it as wrong, and try and take it into their own
hands, and this will undermine whatever system exists.

That's the point, making a system people will want to follow.  Nobody wants to be a slave.

The Qunari would beg to differ. So would a great number of mages.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 16 mars 2011 - 10:12 .

[Taleroth]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

Wynne secretly concieved and then had her child stolen from her the moment it was born. Yep what a reasonable system the Chantry has.

You confuse reason for kind and sympathetic.

The Qunari also take their children from their parents. The Qunari also don't even have marriage. At the same time, though, their system works in many ways our own does not. There is a reason to and behind it.

There is no confusion.

Do not assume the Qunari system works simply because the Qunari say so.  You have no idea what that means to them.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
So no. I don't think you could have an effective, enduring society in which mages aren't either on top or being restrained. They either have their freedoms restrained to handicap them to the level of anyone, or they have the freedom to rise up as a whole.

You're assuming that what I am advocating is complete meritocracy. Where obviously mages will have an advantage over everyone.

That's not what I am asking. Mages can be integrated in society to a point where they would become equal to the others, by also having restraints others wouldn't. A quota on mages in high positions can be put in place for instance. There are ways to set it all up.

That, plus I believe that a mage police should exist. Like the Templars, but run by the state, in case anything goes wrong.

So it doesn't have to be complete or almost complete restraints vs complete freedom and equality of opportunity. I think a balance can be struck. Wouldn't be easy, but I think it's doable.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 mars 2011 - 10:16 .

[Camilladilla]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

Wynne secretly concieved and then had her child stolen from her the moment it was born. Yep what a reasonable system the Chantry has.

You confuse reason for kind and sympathetic.

The Qunari also take their children from their parents. The Qunari also don't even have marriage. At the same time, though, their system works in many ways our own does not. There is a reason to and behind it.

Which is why the Qunari have their own simply defecting by the droves from a band led by the Arishok himself? Clearly there is something wrong with their system if that many are leaving.

[Everwarden]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
This sarcasm all rests on a presumption that mages rising to dominate power will be ultimately beneficial because they will maintain beneficial attitudes and focuses.

Again, people shouldn't have their rights stripped because of a crime they -could- commit. Anyone could use any advantage they have to advance themselves and abuse others. This is the logic behind having a trial to prove someone guilty and not a trial to prove someone innocent. Sure, apprehending all of those criminals is difficult, dirty, expensive and dangerous, but giving the individual the benefit of the doubt and not presuming that they commit the crime they are accused of is worth the expense to almost everyone who thinks about it for a solid two seconds. 

Mages are just people, and most people would use their power to further themselves. Contrary to your argument, 'furthering' oneself is not necessarily something that has to be done at the expense of others. Let's say I'm given magic, in the real world. The first thought wouldn't be "..how do I conquer New York!?", it would be "..how do I use this to make money?*" The fact that a small minority would use the power to do bad things is just a risk one takes living in a free society. 

*The first thing that comes to mind is either healing people or becoming a lightning-throwing human power plant. 

Modifié par Everwarden, 16 mars 2011 - 10:17 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Nimander wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...On the other hand,  we have the case of the Tevinter Imperium, even post-Andraste, which rather shows us how this does... not quite happen as a matter of course.

People keep saying this.  This is the 'Small Numbers' fallacy.  One nation does not prove a /darn/ thing.  Please, people, stop saying this.  This is faulty logic.

If one nation was like one individual, it wouldn't prove a darn thing. If one nation covered most of the world, it certainly would, because that one nation holds a lot of individuals within it.

And we can also, as the original remark to KoP goes, look at the number of other societies and see whether or how their magi fared in social status.

We also have the elves (not that I'm fond of them), whose mages didn't create a dystopia.  And there are other nations without the current structure where mages are not eeeeevil.

We can't say Arlathan was a dystopia, but we can't say it wasn't either. The ancient elves were magical and skilled, but no one has ever said they were nice.

We can, however, point out that a remarkable number of the Dalish clans we do see have mage-ruled clans, and that their solutions for dealing with abominations are... not necessarily what would be deemed acceptable to our settled societes. Like chasing down abominations post-powerup. And, seeking out and consorting with demons.

We can also look at the hedge witches of Riviana, who also have risen to power. We can't say how well or badly their system works for people, but we can certainly note that mages rose to the top of those as well.

In our cosm of nations for reference in Thedas, Mages continually either rise to the top, or are chained at some other level. Which was what KoP was asking about in the first place.

[TheCreeper]

mysticforce42 wrote...

It doesn't matter whether mages have a chance or not in their struggle against the Chantry. Before they can even get things warmed up the Qunari will simply swoop down and kill everyone in Thedas.

The only reason the first Qunari invasion was repelled was via Exalted March which included mages using magic against the Qunari's gunpowder weapons. Divided by a civil and religious war, Thedas stands no chance against the Qunari.

Kill them all and let the Qun sort them out.

Maybe not. They did just (Well three years ago but still) have the head of their entrie army and an invasion stop by one person almost single handedly and the Tevinter Imperium would serve as a big enough buffer to give the rest of thedas good warning and once The Qunari invades nobody is going to be very willing to go on with the Mage/Templar War.

[Dean_the_Young]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
So no. I don't think you could have an effective, enduring society in which mages aren't either on top or being restrained. They either have their freedoms restrained to handicap them to the level of anyone, or they have the freedom to rise up as a whole.

You're assuming that what I am advocating is complete meritocracy. Where obviously mages will have an advantage over everyone.

That's not what I am asking. Mages can be integrated in society to a point where they would become equal to the others, by also having restraints others wouldn't. A quota on mages in high positions can be put in place for instance. There are ways to set it all up.

That, plus I believe that a mage police should exist. Like the Templars, but run by the state, in case anything goes wrong.

So it doesn't have to be complete or almost complete restraints vs complete freedom and equality of opportunity. I think a balance can be struck. Wouldn't be easy, but I think it's doable.

KoP, if you aren't allowing free social mobility or mericratic advancement, you're always going to stand by the accusations of denial of rights and lack of 'true' integration. You'd simply be having a nicer Circle system if the Mages are given a distinct minority voice, and a probably unsustainable Imperium system if the Magi can reach a majority voice but are blocked from there.

In terms of the population, mages aren't even a single percentage point. Giving them quotas of any sort would be highly non-democratic representation in the first place, while 'separate but equal' rights will soon enough be deemed unequal in and of itself. Right now, the Magi do have rights, and privelages, that the non-magical don't have. The restrictions they do possess are then called slavery, and would still be unjust to people later who forget the context of compromise you'd be working in.

[Dean_the_Young]

Taleroth wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

Wynne secretly concieved and then had her child stolen from her the moment it was born. Yep what a reasonable system the Chantry has.

You confuse reason for kind and sympathetic.

The Qunari also take their children from their parents. The Qunari also don't even have marriage. At the same time, though, their system works in many ways our own does not. There is a reason to and behind it.

There is no confusion.

Do not assume the Qunari system works simply because the Qunari say so.  You have no idea what that means to them.

I do not.

I assume the Qunari system works because the Qunari says so, and the Chantry scholars largely concede so, and its converts say so, and its rebels still conform by it, and nothing to date has suggested or implied any great systematic failure.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
KoP, if you aren't allowing free social mobility or mericratic advancement, you're always going to stand by the accusations of denial of rights and lack of 'true' integration. You'd simply be having a nicer Circle system if the Mages are given a distinct minority voice, and a probably unsustainable Imperium system if the Magi can reach a majority voice but are blocked from there.

In terms of the population, mages aren't even a single percentage point. Giving them quotas of any sort would be highly non-democratic representation in the first place, while 'separate but equal' rights will soon enough be deemed unequal in and of itself. Right now, the Magi do have rights, and privelages, that the non-magical don't have. The restrictions they do possess are then called slavery, and would still be unjust to people later who forget the context of compromise you'd be working in.

I am not saying that some people (well mages) wouldn't complain. I know they will.

And I am not proposing this simply because I care about the plight of mages. It's for instrumental reasons. If I was a head of state in Thedas, I would like to integrate mages more to benefit from their powers, both in civil affairs and military (while still keeping an eye on them and makign sure they get adequate training). They have something to offer, which I don't feel that the current system is taking advantage of. In Origins, we know that the Chantry only allowed 7 mages at Ostagar. And that they very relunctantly and very late into the war, mobalized the mages against the Qunari, which turned the tide. And that all the economic potential of mages is essentially confined to runes, while they could offer more. Not only for their benefit, but for the benefit of the state.

And I don't think putting quotas for guaranteeing minority representation is undemocratic (minority protection is as important as majority rights), but in either case, whether it's democratic or not is not really something I'd lose sleep over. I'm not aiming for either. 

The fact that people might still complain that it's not enough, does not mean that we can't try to improve. Yea, people would still complain that taxes are too high if we drop them a bit. Doens't mean we shouldn't drop them a bit if there is a problem in their purchasing power.  Simplistic example, but just to illustrate my point. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 mars 2011 - 10:40 .