209 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Everwarden wrote...

Again, people shouldn't have their rights stripped because of a crime they -could- commit.

We very much do that. Your rights have always ended when they begin to signficantly endanger other people in mass. This is why, even in America where we recognize a right to bear arms, you do not have a right to a tank. This is why your freedom of speech does not allow you to shout 'fire' in a crowded movie theatre. This is why your freedom of movement is constrained when you are in a quarantine. This is why your freedom of privacy ends when highly suggestive signs are noticed.

Rights are not unlimited in scope, or scale. The point of all human rights rests on the foundation of the value of human lives: not just yours, but others as well.

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.

Not all advantages are equivalent, however. They never have been, as anyone who gives it a solid four seconds will remember.

Mages aren't people with funny swords. They aren't even people with funny guns. They are people who, on any particularly bad day, can lose all sanity and have the power to wipe out a city block, or more. People who have built-in suicide vests they can't even completely control always are, and always will be, treated with far more caution than anyone else.


They do have rights. They should have rights. The current Templar system does deserve and need to be reformed. But those rights, with consideration of everyone else considered as well, are going to be different than the rights of people without those powers.

The universiality of human rights rests on the uniformity of humanity. When humans aren't uniform, neither are their rights. Your rights vary by age, by mental stability, by marriage status... and yes, by what rests within your body.

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

[TheCreeper]

The Qunari System doesn't work. Look at the sheer number of defectors we see. It has a lot of converts yes but it also has a lot of people (even those close to the head of the military) who abandon it

[Lithuasil]

Dean_the_Young wrote...


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.

You know, that whole business in Kirkwall could very well be interpreted as a colossal failure... As could everything you experience during "shepherding the wolves". Basically, the qunari are a race with confidence issues out their rectums, that simply lack the backbone to tackle these issues, and instead retreat to a warm and comfortable "daddy says so" position, lest they have to do some thinking (or taking responsibility) for themselves.

[Dean_the_Young]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

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

Well, alright then. In which case, I'll be taking a different mindset with the rest.

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.

In the mindset of a civil ruler, I'd certainly agree in the desirability of an 'own' system that incorporates the mages under the national, rather than Chantry, banner. Mages could be a valuable national resource. And systemic compromises would/could be a large part in achieving that switchover in loyalty.

Personally, I'd expect a 'change of the Templars with nicer standards' sort of deal, but I do see where you're coming from... from a ruler's standpoint.


Now, how others might feel about that, on the other hand...

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.

Fair enough.

Minority protection quotas, in my understanding, usually insure a minority a proportional representation as a minimum. In the case of the Mages, though? That proportion of the population would probably be 'zero.'

Not a bad idea all the same (I do love the 2-seat-per-state Senate compromise in the US), but relevant all the same.

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. 

Indeed. My old King Cousland would certainly agree with you over the concept, though execution might differ.

[Dean_the_Young]

TheCreeper wrote...

The Qunari System doesn't work. Look at the sheer number of defectors we see. It has a lot of converts yes but it also has a lot of people (even those close to the head of the military) who abandon it

What 'sheer number'? 

We get, like, a single raiding band. The sort of which, we know from Origins, go out of their way to leave the Qunari lands. When you're talking populations in the millions, that's pretty darn small, especially in comparison to, say, the Templar conspiracy or the Uldrid's rebellious faction or how Loghain and his allies pretty much conquered loyal Ferelden.

All things relative, is it is.

[Everwarden]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

They do have rights. They should have rights. The current Templar system does deserve and need to be reformed. But those rights, with consideration of everyone else considered as well, are going to be different than the rights of people without those powers.

This strikes me a bit as backpeddling from an indefensible position, because the idea put forward was just that, a reformed, less ridiculous version of the current system. If you read the proposal, it would still require mages get mandatory training until they pass their harrowing, at which point they are freed, but on a loose leash. They still have phylactories, and still have to check in weekly to ensure no demons have infected them.

This is the system you objected to, and it's a system where parents would -want- to send their children to the circle, not hide them until demons creep into their brains. And if this system had been in place, the circles in Thedas would still be whole and unbroken.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
In the mindset of a civil ruler, I'd certainly agree in the desirability of an 'own' system that incorporates the mages under the national, rather than Chantry, banner. Mages could be a valuable national resource. And systemic compromises would/could be a large part in achieving that switchover in loyalty.

Personally, I'd expect a 'change of the Templars with nicer standards' sort of deal, but I do see where you're coming from... from a ruler's standpoint.

I think the Templars being under the authority of the state and under scrutiny could be part of a "rebranding". Also removing lyrium from the equation as apparently, it's not necessary or perhaps not even helpful. And reduce the importance of ideology / religion / dogma, which might alleviate the negative social attitude vis a vis mages.  And maybe reduce fanaticism, but that will always show up with different kind of faces.

Now, how others might feel about that, on the other hand...

I think for the most part, most would be fine with it.
I don't think the Chantry will last for long. I think its downfall will be parallel to the shift in the balance of power from Orlais to somewhere else (probably Nevarra). 
As for social attitudes. Unless really provoked, I'd think most popular opinion would either be indifferent, or relunctant but not enough to do anythign about it. Of course reforms imo are always only feasible when coupled with economic prosperity, so yea. Reforms in things like that while the entire country is a mess will likely engender problem.

But yes, all that would require a weakening of the Chantry, at least as a political institution. And my first post in this thread was to say that for me, the mage conflict is but one layer of the entire picture.

Minority protection quotas, in my understanding, usually insure a minority a proportional representation as a minimum. In the case of the Mages, though? That proportion of the population would probably be 'zero.'

Not a bad idea all the same (I do love the 2-seat-per-state Senate compromise in the US), but relevant all the same.

If there was a representative chamber, then I think the mages should have some representation. I have not thought about percentages and what kind of voting system would be in place and all that. But the basic idea is to have some representation in government.

If there is no representative system, but rather a royal court, a mage representative and advisor would also be a good idea.

If there is both, then we have both.
And I think that would be accepted, unless mages are given way too much power, like veto power, or 1/3 of the seats or something like that. Or if a mage advisor is suspected of controlling the monarch, an accusation I am sure many would use. But no system is perfect.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 17 mars 2011 - 01:10 .

[ISpeakTheTruth]

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.

She was ashamed of it because of the Chantry system that has told everyone that mages are monsters that need to be locked away forever. All the reasons that you lister are reasons that were created by the Chantry system which I say is wrong and should be changed.

There's no reason why mages shouldn't hold positions of authority as long as they are frequently checked to ensure that they are themselves.

The system that I listed a few pages ago is a system that would work. It would ensure that mages are only released after they prove they can resist demons and there's a way to find those that don't show up for a weekly check in.

[Dean_the_Young]

Everwarden wrote...

This strikes me a bit as backpeddling from an indefensible position, because the idea put forward was just that, a reformed, less ridiculous version of the current system. If you read the proposal, it would still require mages get mandatory training until they pass their harrowing, at which point they are freed, but on a loose leash. They still have phylactories, and still have to check in weekly to ensure no demons have infected them.

If you feel I'm backpeddling, nothing I can say will deter that. If I agree to it, you'll consider it confirmed. If I deny it, you'll consider it confirmed still. You might as well demand a yes or no to if I'm still beating my wife.

I can, and did, point out a counterargument to the proposed system, an existing concern that is not fully addressed by the proposed system: the concern of prioritizing preventing great loss to containing it afterwards. I did it even though your post implied anyone who did such a thing would be implicitly agreeing to be considered a shrill.

What I did not do was propose my own potential solution, or thoughts on what reforms would work. I picked at something that could still be criticized. Congrats.

This is the system you objected to, and it's a system where parents would -want- to send their children to the circle, not hide them until demons creep into their brains. And if this system had been in place, the circles in Thedas would still be whole and unbroken.

And if this circle had been in place, Thedas might have suffered a great deal more outbreaks of abominations from people who were out in areas they could do great damage when they lost control, and not only still have mages rebelling about stealing the children away but also non-mages outright trying to murder mages out of fear for what could happen.

We can argue infinite hypotheticals all you'd like. Either one of us could invent infinite numbers of potential catastrophes with any system proposed.

[Pileyourbodies]

Well not if you just did as the quanari do.

[Everwarden]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

]If you feel I'm backpeddling, nothing I can say will deter that. If I agree to it, you'll consider it confirmed. If I deny it, you'll consider it confirmed still. You might as well demand a yes or no to if I'm still beating my wife.

That's a fair enough point. Perhaps I should rephrase it to "...if you think that why exactly are we arguing? That's more or less what I think." Though I think that freedom is more important than security, and I don't get the impression you share the philosophy, so we do diverge on that.

[NRO TYN]

This thread is what the forum needs

But back on track, I realy believe that the Mages may win this.Mage by far are very powerful when push to the edge.

[TexasToast712]

Ah I give up on this thread. Too many ignorant mage fanboys too stupid to see why they are dangerous idiots.

Mages are dangerous.
Weak willed mages usually get possessed.
Powerful mages usually want more power and consort with a demon to get it which results in possession.
There are true good mages but they are far too few in number to justify that what the Chantry does is wrong.

Modifié par TexasToast712, 17 mars 2011 - 01:37 .

[mcsupersport]

One of the hardest things to fight against is someone doing something for "their own good" or "for the good of them all." I don't care how evil something is, if it is done because it is "for their own good" you will find it almost impossible to stop someone from doing it without killing them. Hey, locking someone up in a small room, and preforming labodimies on them just because you can, is pretty evil, but since it is for "their own good" or the "good of everyone else", that is ok, suck it up and do the hard thing, just don't laugh evilly since you are doing "good".

Chantry is doing this for the "good of all" and the "Maker told us too", so you will never get them to change even if they good people doing very evil things.

[Everwarden]

TexasToast712 wrote...

Ah I give up on this thread. Too many ignorant mage fanboys too stupid to see why they are dangerous idiots.

Mages are dangerous.
Weak willed mages usually get possessed.
Powerful mages usually want more power and consort with a demon to get it which results in possession.
There are true good mages but they are far too few in number to justify that what the Chantry does is wrong.

Because your well reasoned arguments are undeniable. Only a fool could deny your persuasive abilities! Never before have such brilliant strings of letters been typed onto a forum and soaked into my brain! I stand in awe! You have a real-life charisma score of 10!

Oh, my sarcasm detector just exploded. I'll send you the bill for the replacement I'm going to have to buy now. 

[TexasToast712]

Everwarden wrote...

TexasToast712 wrote...

Ah I give up on this thread. Too many ignorant mage fanboys too stupid to see why they are dangerous idiots.

Mages are dangerous.
Weak willed mages usually get possessed.
Powerful mages usually want more power and consort with a demon to get it which results in possession.
There are true good mages but they are far too few in number to justify that what the Chantry does is wrong.

Because your well reasoned arguments are undeniable. Only a fool could deny your persuasive abilities! Never before have such brilliant strings of letters been typed onto a forum and soaked into my brain! I stand in awe! You have a real-life charisma score of 10!

Oh, my sarcasm detector just exploded. I'll send you the bill for the replacement I'm going to have to buy now. 

You do mages no credit being a smartass.

[mcsupersport]

TexasToast712 wrote...

Ah I give up on this thread. Too many ignorant mage fanboys too stupid to see why they are dangerous idiots.

Mages are dangerous.
Weak willed mages usually get possessed.
Powerful mages usually want more power and consort with a demon to get it which results in possession.
There are true good mages but they are far too few in number to justify that what the Chantry does is wrong.

You don't think the Chantry has been abusing power for 100s of years??  How about declaring exhalted marches on the Dales because they could, or as stated the probability of declaring on on Kirkwall even though it will mean the deaths of many thousands of innocents.  How about how nobles abuse Elves in Fereldan?? Play the City elf in DAO and see.  People abuse power everyday, how is it right to abuse someone just because they MIGHT do something, that with proper training  and freedoms they probably will not do. 

You say it is for the good of all to hurt people, and call it "good", I can't call evil good, even if it is done for good reasons. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

II That Burn In Ya Ass II wrote...
Mage by far are very powerful when push to the edge.

They also tend to be very dangerous, to both themselves and others, and not always sane when pushed to the edge.

Raw power does not win wars.

[TexasToast712]

mcsupersport wrote...

TexasToast712 wrote...

Ah I give up on this thread. Too many ignorant mage fanboys too stupid to see why they are dangerous idiots.

Mages are dangerous.
Weak willed mages usually get possessed.
Powerful mages usually want more power and consort with a demon to get it which results in possession.
There are true good mages but they are far too few in number to justify that what the Chantry does is wrong.

You don't think the Chantry has been abusing power for 100s of years??  How about declaring exhalted marches on the Dales because they could, or as stated the probability of declaring on on Kirkwall even though it will mean the deaths of many thousands of innocents.  How about how nobles abuse Elves in Fereldan?? Play the City elf in DAO and see.  People abuse power everyday, how is it right to abuse someone just because they MIGHT do something, that with proper training  and freedoms they probably will not do. 

You say it is for the good of all to hurt people, and call it "good", I can't call evil good, even if it is done for good reasons. 

If everyone in Thedas had the ability to shoot fireballs out of their arse I might agree with you but the fact is mages are more dangerous than the average man.

[mcsupersport]

Texastoast then I am sure you wouldn't mind being locked up because you use computers and you might write a program that causes either power grids or the financial markets to crash thus harming untold millions. Since you are a computer user and can write these dangerous programs you should be locked up and if you give any problem have a lobotomy performed for the safety of all of course. Now we will be nice and give you a Kirkwall type location in which you are kept in a 10ft by 10ft room, can't be mean, so you will have limited computer access(no internet), watched by hardened guards, beaten and possibly raped at their whim, and no you can't ever leave. This is only fair because you are a member of a dangerous breed of humans.

We must protect everyone from such a dangerous person as yourself, you are the devil incarnate and will destroy our civilization if you get the chance.

This is what you are advocating, pretty nice isn't it. Did you even pay attention to what was being done to the mages in Kirkwall to cause them to do what they did?? I don't agree with what they did, but they were abused for years before deciding that death or possession was better than living the life they had.

[LobselVith8]

Lithuasil wrote...

Continuing their slavery is what they call protecting. And we actually don't get to know if the circles broke free. "They rose up and set the world on fire" yes, but technically that whole stunt uldred pulled was an uprising (and plenty of things and people got lit on fire). How many mages were freed in the process again?

Varric addresses that the Circles broke away from the Chantry, and that the templars did as well. I know others have stated that the Circles break away even when their Hawke supported Knight-Commander Meredith and the Order of Templars.

[Pileyourbodies]

Yeah no matter what you do varrics end narration is the same the mages looked at hawke as standing up to the templars because you kill meredith.

[TexasToast712]

Pileyourbodies wrote...

Yeah no matter what you do varrics end narration is the same the mages looked at hawke as standing up to the templars because you kill meredith.

No if you go pro templar he will say that the mages used the brutal actions of the Kirwall templars as a reason to revolt and if you side with the mages he says that the mages use the Champion of Kirkwall's defense of the mages as a rallying cry. Also Cassadra will say the champion of Kirkwall is someone the mages/templars will listen to depending on who you side with.

Modifié par TexasToast712, 17 mars 2011 - 04:25 .

[Pileyourbodies]

Huh...I've sided with the templars twice but both times hes said what I paraphrased....Damn this buggy dialog that happens.

[LobselVith8]

TexasToast712 wrote...

Ah I give up on this thread. Too many ignorant mage fanboys too stupid to see why they are dangerous idiots.

Mages are dangerous.
Weak willed mages usually get possessed.
Powerful mages usually want more power and consort with a demon to get it which results in possession.
There are true good mages but they are far too few in number to justify that what the Chantry does is wrong.

Maybe you could try simply disagreeing with people instead of attacking them for taking an opposing view than you do?