4350 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Point. Missing it. Ah well.

You r point wasn't that harboring a person you didn't know was a mage, shouldn't mean death for you?

I claim that it probably doesn't. The Templars aren't going to kill you just for being friendly. They are however going to interrogate you. However, if you knowingly hid an apostate, from the Templars, and further assisted him, you have effectively obstrcuted the Templars' duty, and needs to be punished. The punishments in Thedas, seem to be rather severe when compared to the crime commited I can agree with that. But taht isn't the fault of the Templars, but rather Thedas as a whole.

[In Exile]

GavrielKay wrote...
It's not so much a state of nature approach as since you can't truly be safe in any absolute way (especially in a place like Thedas) then why focus so much fear and hatred at just one source?  If it's merely because human beings are easier to cage than hurricanes or wild bears then that's not a great reason.

Do you think the game world would be a significantly more dangerous place if circles were schools instead of prisons and the social view of mages was as healers rather than cursed souls?

I think the world would be a significantly more dangerous place (in Thedas, for non-mages) if there was no counter-balance to the power of mages. In the same way that I think Thedas would is a very dangerous place because there is no counter-balance to the templars.

Power is exploitative, and if you want true substantive freedom, you have to limit power and its potential for abuse. Mages have power, and non-mages don't; not in the same way. For there to be true substantive freedom for all people, there has to be a balancing of the power available to each.

In this case, it is a reduced personal negative freedom on the part of the mages that provides for the safest and securest possible environment.

In the same way that Tevinter is terrible, so is Kirkwall. There needs to be a middle ground.

A Circle has to be more than just a schoo for that reason.

More broadly, I think you can look to safety as consistent of two things: safety from nature (and this includes darkspawn and demons, and in our world it would be something like disease) and safety from others.

We can only have so much control over nature, but we can regulate our own society. Restriciting magic to some extent, IMO, is like restricting the power of wealth, or the military power of the government that can be exercised to exploit the people.

GavrielKay wrote...
Indeed, plots are so demanding.

Thing
is, any real sister of mine would know how much more of a
sacrifice it was to wake up every morning and know Bethany was in that
horrible place.  So even though the plot demands that we rationalize it
somehow, I don't think that explanation works either. 

And once
we realized that our rich and powerful Kirkwall family was reduced to
one sniveling uncle, I'd have said, oh great, our bags aren't even
unpacked, let's go somewhere else.

We can't go the real sister route. Bethany is her own character, and I think foibles like a selfish rationalization of security on her part are what make her more like a real person.

The problem, and where the game lets us down, is that it forces Hawke to have a certain reaction. It's what I felt when DA:O refused to allow a Cousland to rule alone.

GavrielKay wrote...
I could imagine
being willingly Tranquiled if you are too weak to keep out the demons
and too scared to opt for outright death.  In a barely corresponding
analogy, we have people here and now losing themselves in drugs and
alcohol because they don't want to actually face their life but can't
bring themselves to end it either.  There's bound to be a few in 1000
years of history who wanted to contribute somehow to life without
wondering when they'd wake up an abomination.

But as you say,
forced Tranquiling is an entirely different matter.  Sitting around
wondering when a Templar will Tranquil you for sending a letter to
someone they don't like is pretty horrible.

We can look to Tranquility as the most aggressive sort of surgical ressection; like removing portions of the brain to control epilepsy.

It is an absolutely last resort time move to protect the best interesting of a plagued mage only if that's what the mage wants and only if other avenues have already been exhausted.

I only wanted to point out that Trainquility is not in itself immoral, because there is a narrow sliver where it may be the least bad choice.

GavrielKay wrote...
Perhaps we have
different ideas of what seems ok.  I get worried the moment she was
arguing against Orsino helping storm the Viscount's keep during the
Qunari attack.  Why turn down any help we can get?  The city is under
attack for goodness sake.  If her stated purpose it to make Kirkwall
safer she's not doing a good job there.

Her beliefs are wacky and absolutely out of line; but that doesn't mean she was unhinged by her ordeal.

I agree with you that Meredith ought to have been removed in favour of someone like Thrask or Cullen, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that Elthina's incompetence and inaction made her the equivalent to Meredith in terms of her role in the abuse of the mages, and justified retaliation against her or even against the Chantry as a political institution.

I
think that could be exactly what the Chantry and Grand Cleric Elthina
are thinking, but I believe it's terrible.  Sure, if you are dead set on
the idea of circles as prisons, you've got to have a strong warden... 
but fair minded and even tempered would be better.  Putting someone in
charge who's pushing the mages to break and then using that to justify
pushing them is vicious.

I don't think people expected Meredith to be quite so crazy, since the idea would be that you'd think she'd also appreciate the plight of mages.

Like I said: Meredith should have been removed and she was guilty of a series of atrociticies (which are all actually genocide under the UN definition). There is no excuse for her actions, IMO.

I just don't think that solution that is best is a complete dissolution of the Circles.]

[IanPolaris]

Silfren wrote...

klarabella wrote...
It is only used because Gaider has stated again and again that mages are dangerous and feared with good reason. I thought he of all people would know what he's talking about.

KnightofPhoenix

And no one is saying that they aren't dangerous and shouldnt' be feared (and I think the writers went in overkill mode in DA2 to try and prove that, hence the amount of ridiculous we had).

This is something I've yet to really understand.  I realize that Gaider himself said that they deliberately tried to skew the story so that mages would be far less sympathetic in DA2 than in Origins, and I've certainly seen a great many players talk about how they find it very difficult to side with the mages, seeing that they seem to be proving the Chantry right and justifying their enslavement.

Me, I just can't get that.  With the exception of a small handful, most of the mages I see turning to blood magic and making pacts with demons, is done out of desperation.  I'd understand all the above if mages were turning to blood magic and demons left and right purely to gain power to dominate others, but seriously, that seems to be not only a minority, but a tiny one.  Most mages in Kirkwall seem to be doing it because they feel desperate.  And sorry, but I'm so totally not down with the whole "well, they always had a choice, they still could have chosen not to resort to x!" because there's choices, and then there's free choices.  I'm not going to play the "you always had a choice" bull**** when a person's choice comes down to survival or death, or even "just" survival or imprisonment.

I get it.  I happen to believe (based on my own conversations with DG) that DG is a confirmed moral cynic who doesn't believe anyone can be moral if their own comfort depended on it (and I know he's denounced his cushy western audience...one more think I found appalling).  He apparently believes (and seems to be justified for some people) that if he rubs it in our face how vile, dangerous, and eviil magic is (not mages but magic), then we will tolerate as players any treatment for mages regardless of it's moral rectitude.

-Polaris

[Silfren]

Master Shiori wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...


Let's ask the Warden mages who are free from the Chantry and the templars, but dedicate their lives to protecting the people of Thedas against the darkspawn.

Those mages cannot live a normal life due to the taint within them. They cannot sire children, are plagued by nightmares and doomed to die fighting darkspawn. Being a Warden is a calling, not a profession.
They make great sacrifices to become Wardens, and I highly doubt all of them are happy to do so. Bethany sure didn't look thrilled.

Without ignoring that mages undoubtedly sometimes get conscripted unwillingly, and extreme cases where a mage has to undergo the Joining in order to try to survive having been tainted, I think it's safe to argue that most mages who become Wardens do so of their own volition.  They either volunteer, or, if asked, willingly agree.  Granted, they do so without full knowledge of what they're going into, beyond the fact that they know they'll be removed from the Circle and that joining the Wardens is a permanency.  But for the most part, it's something they choose. 

So the unpleasant aspects of being a Grey Warden are irrelevant to the point LobselVith8 was making. 

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The person in question knew it was an apostate she was assisting, she even admitted that. If you had no clue the person at your door was a mage, the Templars probably wouldn't kill you, but rather ask in which direction he went.

Sure.  Were you involved in the Iraqi occupation?  If so, legality completely aside, you have to know that assigning DEATH SQUADS to kill anyone that would give even a known terrorist a meal or other minor aid, is simply STUPID.  In fact, it's far, far better to show leniency, understanding, and mercy whenever you can (while noting who is helping whom).  Ideally you want to turn such people into informants.  At the very least you do NOT want to inspire hate.

-Polaris

I will refer you to my previous post, for clarification.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Point. Missing it. Ah well.

You r point wasn't that harboring a person you didn't know was a mage, shouldn't mean death for you?

I claim that it probably doesn't. The Templars aren't going to kill you just for being friendly. They are however going to interrogate you. However, if you knowingly hid an apostate, from the Templars, and further assisted him, you have effectively obstrcuted the Templars' duty, and needs to be punished. The punishments in Thedas, seem to be rather severe when compared to the crime commited I can agree with that. But taht isn't the fault of the Templars, but rather Thedas as a whole.

Actually punishing people that give minor aid even to known terrorists (and especially if said terrorist is a family member) is both stupid and counterproductive whatever the legality.  This was a hard lesson learned in the iraqi occupation.  That doesn't mean that nothing is done, but treating such 'fifth columists' humanely and with understadning whereever possible is actually much preferred....sometimes the US even got genuine informers that way.

-Polaris

Edit:  Given that teh Templars have been doing this a thousand years, it's something the Templars should understand.  In Act III Aveline shows SHE understand this when she says that she has to maintain a connection between the guards and the people or they become targets.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 08 mai 2011 - 06:39 .

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Point. Missing it. Ah well.

You r point wasn't that harboring a person you didn't know was a mage, shouldn't mean death for you?

I claim that it probably doesn't. The Templars aren't going to kill you just for being friendly. They are however going to interrogate you. However, if you knowingly hid an apostate, from the Templars, and further assisted him, you have effectively obstrcuted the Templars' duty, and needs to be punished. The punishments in Thedas, seem to be rather severe when compared to the crime commited I can agree with that. But taht isn't the fault of the Templars, but rather Thedas as a whole.

my point was that harboring a mage, whether knowingly or unknowingly, shouldn't mean immediate death for you. It should mean the Templars keep an eye on you for a while because you're either a mage sympathizer or just unlucky that an apostate was in your home.

[KnightofPhoenix]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
How on earth is kings using amges as their own personal death squads going to help mages? If aynthing it is going to make it far worse. Or at least their reputation.

Death squads? Since when centralized states have to act like totalitarian regimes?

Anyways, if states rely on mages, then an axiomatic result is an increase in their rights. Because you can't afford to use them without giving them something in return.

And no, their use should not be limited to warfare, I explictly mentionned the economic benefits they can provide. The important thing is to make use of the resource wisely and give the mages something in return, while making sure they remain supervised.

And international treaties on the limitation of the military use of magic can be put in place, like the banning of use of crossbows against Christians in Europe. A weakened Chantry can even mediate such a treaty and actually be useful. 

And let me see if I have gotten it straight KoP, your issue is with the monopoly the Chantry got? Or is it with their treatment of mages?

Both. Their monopoly on mages and the fact that they are wasting such an important resource, which is also linked to their treatment of mages. To best use them as a reosurce, mages should vbe integrated in society as much possible and not seen as accursed beings.

And also explain to me why the Chantry should be weakened. Because it is a religious institution? Because it has the most power? Why?

Barring the fact that it's clearly no longer functional and outdated, it is because it's wasting a resource for no real necessity other than private gain and a misguided dogma (which came first is hard to say. But we should remember that the Chantry was founded by an Orlesian Emperor for obvious reasons). They did not yet learn the lessons of the Qunari wars and how valuable mages can be.

With the weakened of Orlais, the Chantry is sure to follow and has thus become outdated. All systems become outdated eventually and when that happens, they should be either reformed or replaced. Putting political dinosaurs in life support systems is just delaying the inevitable.

As for the Chantry being a religious institution. I do not mind theocracies, as in states embracing religious dogma as their official law. But when an organization that is independent of the state is doing that, is controlling the trade of a valuable resource that can have many other uses, has its own armies and completely controls mages, then it's an obstacle to centralization. And centralization of power, with varying degrees depending on culture geography history..etc, has usually been a universal prerequisite for strong, efficient, productive and progressive states.  

Basically you have major issues with the Chantry, yet you want every state in Thedas to turn into the Chantry. I can't find head or tail in your reasons.

No, I don't want every state to turn into the Chantry. But rather to integrate mages into their systems more, use them and give them more rights in return.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 mai 2011 - 06:48 .

[Silfren]

The Baconer wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
They were a street gang! They had nothing to do with the Annulment!

So? The Annulment means every mage in Kirkwall must be executed. A roving band of blood mages and their mind-controlled thrall mudering their way across the streets of Hightown would certainly make for a fine argument in favor of Annulment. The common people of Kirkwall aren't going to think of them as "A rogue group of maleficar who are by no means affiliated with the Circle" they're going to hear, "A rogue group of maleficar".

Not exactly.  Annulment means that a Circle must be purged.  Nowhere does it say that a group of apostates is justification for purging the Circle.  Granted, if you're purging the Circle, it does logically follow that the Knight Commander is going to also include any wandering apostates they come across, but Annulment refers to Circle mages, not apostates.  Seeing a blood mage in the street does not constitute an argument for Annuling the Circle group.

[KnightofPhoenix]

IanPolaris wrote...
Edit:  Given that teh Templars have been doing this a thousand years, it's something the Templars should understand.  In Act III Aveline shows SHE understand this when she says that she has to maintain a connection between the guards and the people or they become targets.

Exactly.

It has little do with being nice and everything to do with being pragmatic. If the Templars anger the populace, then they are either not going to help them hunt for mages, or worse, they will actually start helping mages. That's a major reason why Kirkwall's Templars were in such a disastrous state.

The Templars apparently angered the populace for 2 reasons (I think). Because they usurped power, by putting a puppet on the throne, and then outright removing him and blocking all elections (for no reason). And for their excessive treatment of mages which caused public sympathy.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 mai 2011 - 06:47 .

[Silfren]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...


You don't even bother to read the entire analogy, and just bold the first part and calls it bad. Great. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother. Try read the whole thing, then come back.

I read the whole thing.  I just found it ridiculous.  A mage who wants freedom isn't going to want to transfer to another Circle.  And that's assuming they get approved if they ask.  If they even feel that they can ask.  Your analogy was bad from start to finish.  

And if rape isn't abuse, then what the hell is it? It is a form sexual abuse. So I fail to see why it makes me a monster to claim rape as abuse. But hell, I'm a monster, so I guess I shouldn't care.
And the tranquilizations of the mages is a form of power abuse from the Templars. So how the hell is that not abuse? But then again, I'm still a mosnter, so I shouldn't care. Right? Right.

I was referring to the fact that you put abuse in sneer quotes.  Farther back in the thread, you were the one who referred to the Templar abuses as "abuse."  So yes.  When people are pointing to concrete mentions in the game of rape, torture, and illegal Tranquil-ing, and you refer to that as "abuse" I have to wonder.   So it appears I'm not the only one who needs to go back and re-read.

[Silfren]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The person in question knew it was an apostate she was assisting, she even admitted that. If you had no clue the person at your door was a mage, the Templars probably wouldn't kill you, but rather ask in which direction he went.

Sure.  Were you involved in the Iraqi occupation?  If so, legality completely aside, you have to know that assigning DEATH SQUADS to kill anyone that would give even a known terrorist a meal or other minor aid, is simply STUPID.  In fact, it's far, far better to show leniency, understanding, and mercy whenever you can (while noting who is helping whom).  Ideally you want to turn such people into informants.  At the very least you do NOT want to inspire hate.

-Polaris

You're supposed to fight terror with terror.  Didn't you get the memo?

[EmperorSahlertz]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
How on earth is kings using amges as their own personal death squads going to help mages? If aynthing it is going to make it far worse. Or at least their reputation.

Death squads? Since when centralized states have to act like totalitarian regimes?

Anyways, if states rely on mages, then an axiomatic result is an increase in their rights. Because you can't afford to use them without giving them something in return.

But they can. Especially if you also want the states to have their own "Templars", ready to kill the state's own mages, if the state mages won't do as told. State mages would be confinend to do exactly as tehir king commanded, and they would have no chance to complain. Who would they complain to? There is no higher authority than the king, and it is his orders they would disobey. The only salvation for the mages in this case, would be if they rebelled. Not a marvellous improvement for their current situation.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
And no, their use should not be limited to warfare, I explictly mentionned the economic benefits they can provide. The important thing is to make use of the resource wisely and give the mages something in return, while making sure they remain supervised.

And international treaties on the limitation of the military use of magic can be put in place, like the banning of use of crossbows against Christians in Europe. A weakened Chantry can even mediate such a treaty and actually be useful. 

I think you give Thedas more credit than it is due. I don't think Thedas is anymore ready to sign international weapon regulation treaties, any more than they are ready to colonize their moon.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And let me see if I have gotten it straight KoP, your issue is with the monopoly the Chantry got? Or is it with their treatment of mages?

Both. Their monopoly on mages and the fact that they are wasting such an important resource, which is also linked to their treatment of mages. To best use them as a reosurce, mages should vbe integrated in society as much possible and not seen as accursed beings.

But they aren't wasting any resource. They are just keeping it to themselves. I don't now how big the mage potential is for agriculture or if it would be even remotely as useful as their enchantments.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And also explain to me why the Chantry should be weakened. Because it is a religious institution? Because it has the most power? Why?

Barring the fact that it's clearly no longer functional and outdated, it is because it's wasting a resource for no real necessity other than private gain and a misguided dogma (which came first is hard to say. But we should remember that the Chantry was founded by an Orlesian Emperor for obvious reasons). They did not yet learn the lessons of the Qunari wars and how valuable mages can be.

With the weakened of Orlais, the Chantry is sure to follow and has thus become outdated. All systems become outdated eventually and when that happens, they should be either reformed or replaced. Putting political dinosaurs in life support systems is just delaying the inevitable.

As for the Chantry being a religious institution. I do not mind theocracies, as in states embracing religious dogma as their official law. But when an organization that is independent of the state is doing  that, then it's an obstacle to centralization. And centralization of power, with varying degrees depending on culture geography history..etc, has usually been a universal prerequisite for strong, efficient and productive states.

But they have learned their lesson, from the Qunari wars. They have however also learned their lesson from magic itself. That, when overused, it can be extremely dangerous.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Basically you have major issues with the Chantry, yet you want every state in Thedas to turn into the Chantry. I can't find head or tail in your reasons.

No, I don't want every state to turn into the Chantry. But rather to integrate mages into their systems more, use them and give them more rights in return.

Giving the mages over to the crown, would not be the right way of achieving that.

[IanPolaris]

Silfren wrote...

You're supposed to fight terror with terror.  Didn't you get the memo?

That wasn't the memo the DoD wrote nor was it the memo that the Israelis (who have perhaps more experience than anyone) at occupation wrote.  I am not saying that as an occupier you have to be warm and fuzzy, but it IS important to show leniency and even mercy for minor offenses.....and Anmesty International has nothing to do with it.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Emperor,

Taking control of magic and mages AWAY from an overbearing and overly political religion that hates them would be a crucial first step. The Secular Royalty would seem to be the most reasonable place to look for regulation of magic especially since the secular nobility has no intrinsic reason to hate and fear magic.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

Silfren wrote...

You're supposed to fight terror with terror.  Didn't you get the memo?

That wasn't the memo the DoD wrote nor was it the memo that the Israelis (who have perhaps more experience than anyone) at occupation wrote.  I am not saying that as an occupier you have to be warm and fuzzy, but it IS important to show leniency and even mercy for minor offenses.....and Anmesty International has nothing to do with it.

-Polaris

It is also important not to appear weak, however. And if you do not punish those who oppose you, in one way or antoher, you can quickly get a reputaiton as weak, which is equally coutner-productive. It is a knifeedge you have to balance on. Being too lenient, is bad. Being too ruthless, is bad. Knowing when to show mercy, and when to punish, is the key. It is however sometimes incredibly difficult to decide.

[Silfren]

IanPolaris wrote...

Silfren wrote...

You're supposed to fight terror with terror.  Didn't you get the memo?

That wasn't the memo the DoD wrote nor was it the memo that the Israelis (who have perhaps more experience than anyone) at occupation wrote.  I am not saying that as an occupier you have to be warm and fuzzy, but it IS important to show leniency and even mercy for minor offenses.....and Anmesty International has nothing to do with it.

-Polaris

I was being sarcastic.

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

Emperor,

Taking control of magic and mages AWAY from an overbearing and overly political religion that hates them would be a crucial first step. The Secular Royalty would seem to be the most reasonable place to look for regulation of magic especially since the secular nobility has no intrinsic reason to hate and fear magic.

-Polaris

Other than the threat a mage would pose to their own power. The very first thing the royalty would procure, was their own Templars. So that they would be able to defend against the mages. Then the state mages, would be used to crush all opposistion. The mages would merely trade one master for another. With the Chantry they can at least ask for transfer. WIth the Crown, they can just bite it.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Silfren wrote...

You're supposed to fight terror with terror.  Didn't you get the memo?

That wasn't the memo the DoD wrote nor was it the memo that the Israelis (who have perhaps more experience than anyone) at occupation wrote.  I am not saying that as an occupier you have to be warm and fuzzy, but it IS important to show leniency and even mercy for minor offenses.....and Anmesty International has nothing to do with it.

-Polaris

It is also important not to appear weak, however. And if you do not punish those who oppose you, in one way or antoher, you can quickly get a reputaiton as weak, which is equally coutner-productive. It is a knifeedge you have to balance on. Being too lenient, is bad. Being too ruthless, is bad. Knowing when to show mercy, and when to punish, is the key. It is however sometimes incredibly difficult to decide.

My point is that the idiot Templars (and idiot KC) don't even seem to realize there IS a knifeedge let alone you need to balance it...and then Cullen wonders why the Templars have become hated.  Sheesh.

-Polaris

[KnightofPhoenix]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
But they can. Especially if you also want the states to have their own "Templars", ready to kill the state's own mages, if the state mages won't do as told. State mages would be confinend to do exactly as tehir king commanded, and they would have no chance to complain. Who would they complain to? There is no higher authority than the king, and it is his orders they would disobey. The only salvation for the mages in this case, would be if they rebelled. Not a marvellous improvement for their current situation.

That will depend on each state in question and what they do.
No permanent solution exists and to believe so is illusionary.

That however I believe to be an improvement over a dogmatic religious institution out for its own interests handling the thing and keeping it the way it is for its own interests. Because it has the only say in regard to all mages. While it should be each state that is reponsable for its own mages.

And I personally think the best anti-mage police would be one made up of mages. In addition to Templar like warriors on the side just in case.

And you overestimate the power of coercion. It's infintely more valuable to have mages want to help you, then force them to help you. Many problems would arise from that including possible revolt, that pragmatic statesmen would not opt to solely coerce.

I think you give Thedas more credit than it is due. I don't think Thedas is anymore ready to sign international weapon regulation treaties, any more than they are ready to colonize their moon.

Medieval Europe was much worse off and they had treaties banning the use of crossbows.

But they aren't wasting any resource. They are just keeping it to themselves. I don't now how big the mage potential is for agriculture or if it would be even remotely as useful as their enchantments.

They are not even keeping it for themselves. They only very relunctantly used them against the Qunari after decades of ass whopping. They fear to use them.

And the creation school can offer many opportunities. Their skills in alchemy would be invaluable. Their healing powers could be used for public of private hospitals. Firefighters. Academics for non-mages...etc etc.
The creation school can be used for agriculture, I don't see why not.

But they have learned their lesson, from the Qunari wars. They have however also learned their lesson from magic itself. That, when overused, it can be extremely dangerous.

How did they learn the lesson of the Qunari war when they refuse to allow more than 7 mages to participate in a war against Darkspawn? Do they train mages in warfare as much as they can? Do they give them rights in exchange for their services?

And seeing how the Chantry failed to prevent Meredith from provoking the mages into over-using magic, then I don't think they got the lesson on how to properly manage magic either. They forgot the importance of popular support.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 mai 2011 - 07:10 .

[In Exile]

IanPolaris wrote...

Emperor,

Taking control of magic and mages AWAY from an overbearing and overly political religion that hates them would be a crucial first step. The Secular Royalty would seem to be the most reasonable place to look for regulation of magic especially since the secular nobility has no intrinsic reason to hate and fear magic.

-Polaris

Of course they do! The mages are either very useful tools to advance their own power ( a free military force) or a dangerous counter-balance to their power, because the mages can be a much stronger army than any of the peasants they call up, and a single mage could kill many of the nobles guards.

The nobles would need a military order like the templars trained in anti-magic talents, and then suddenly you have an institution whose goal is the expansion of their wealth and an army they can use to expand it.

[In Exile]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
And you overestimate the power of coersion. It's infintely more valuable to have mages want to help you, then force them to help you. Many problems would arise from that including possible revolt, that pragmatic statesman would not opt to solely coerce.

I think you underestimate the noble's fear. If the mages organized against their noble rulers... suddenly things would be very bad. Wealthy mages, or landed knight mages... these would all be terrible threats to a non-mage nobility.

[KnightofPhoenix]

In Exile wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
And you overestimate the power of coersion. It's infintely more valuable to have mages want to help you, then force them to help you. Many problems would arise from that including possible revolt, that pragmatic statesman would not opt to solely coerce.

I think you underestimate the noble's fear. If the mages organized against their noble rulers... suddenly things would be very bad. Wealthy mages, or landed knight mages... these would all be terrible threats to a non-mage nobility.

That's why I am also saying that the feudal system needs to be changed compeltely and the nobility either removed or weakened. What I have in mind can only work with centralized states.

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

My point is that the idiot Templars (and idiot KC) don't even seem to realize there IS a knifeedge let alone you need to balance it...and then Cullen wonders why the Templars have become hated.  Sheesh.

-Polaris

The problem is, that we don't know what caused the problem. Was it the leniency of the Templars which caused the increase of apostate-aid tolerance, or was it Templar suppression that caused it? If the former, the Templars may try to rebalance, by taking a more forceful stance towards it, which in turn makes some of the more hardcore underground fight back.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
But they can. Especially if you also want the states to have their own "Templars", ready to kill the state's own mages, if the state mages won't do as told. State mages would be confinend to do exactly as tehir king commanded, and they would have no chance to complain. Who would they complain to? There is no higher authority than the king, and it is his orders they would disobey. The only salvation for the mages in this case, would be if they rebelled. Not a marvellous improvement for their current situation.

That will depend on each state in question and what they do.
No permanent solution exists and to believe so is illusionary.

That however I believe to be an improvement over a dogmatic religious institution out for its own interests handling the thing and keeping it the way it is for its own interests. Because it has the only say in regard to all mages. While it should be each state that is reponsable for its own mages.

And I personally think the best anti-mage police would be one made up of mages. In addition to Templar like warriors on the side just in case.

And you overestimate the power of coercion. It's infintely more valuable to have mages want to help you, then force them to help you. Many problems would arise from that including possible revolt, that pragmatic statesmen would not opt to solely coerce.

It is always more useful to be feared and respected, than loved and respected. In statesmanship anyway.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
And the creation school can offer many opportunities. Their skills in alchemy would be invaluable. Their healing powers could be used for public of private hospitals. Firefighters. Academics for non-mages...etc etc.
The creation school can be used for agriculture, I don't see why not.

It is however also the hardest school for a mage to learn, let alone master. The creation school practioners are supposedly rare. But the few there are, are highly coveted for their wide use. Which is probably also why magic is commonly connected with destruction, since the healers are rare.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

But they have learned their lesson, from the Qunari wars. They have however also learned their lesson from magic itself. That, when overused, it can be extremely dangerous.

How did they learn the lesson of the Qunari war when they refuse to allow more than 7 mages to participate in a war against Darkspawn? Do they train mages in warfare as much as they can? Do they give them rights in exchange for their services?

Because they even used mages in the war. iirc the Qunari wars was the first documented instance of mages being used in a war. They do not force a mage to train to cast combat spells. Once the amge has passed his Harrowing, it is his own choice to study whatever school he wants. If he wants he can go study primal spells (best used in war), if he doesn't feel like that, tehre are probably hundreds of non-violent spells he can learn, that we don't know of, because they don't have a use in a combat-based game.

[EmperorSahlertz]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

In Exile wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
And you overestimate the power of coersion. It's infintely more valuable to have mages want to help you, then force them to help you. Many problems would arise from that including possible revolt, that pragmatic statesman would not opt to solely coerce.

I think you underestimate the noble's fear. If the mages organized against their noble rulers... suddenly things would be very bad. Wealthy mages, or landed knight mages... these would all be terrible threats to a non-mage nobility.

That's why I am also saying that the feudal system needs to be changed compeltely and the nobility either removed or weakened. What I have in mind can only work with centralized states.

Even a centralized state would greatly fear the mages, unless they were temselves mages.