66 réponses à ce sujet

[Funny_chan]

Nightingale87 wrote...


#2. Is also from the Wheel of Time, the Aes Sedi in the book have a personal Gardian know as Warder (lol) which is an extensivly trained warroir who has the ability to sence darkspawn as well as the mage he is sworn to protect (this is really in the book too lol). I am thinking the "warder" or "templar" or whatevere they decided to name it could become a safe gaurd to the mage, if the mage where to turn into an abomination the warder or whatevere could strike them down.

Now I really want to read the Wheel of Time. Thanks for mentioning it.
I didn't know about their mages guardians (Warders), but I kinda thought about a similar thing: "Perhaps the less 'dangerous' (to themselves and to others) mages could
live with their own families, just like it happens in the real world
regarding the mentally unstable. Perhaps they could even have a templar 'bodyguard', just like some that suffer mental diseases have their
particular nurses".

Modifié par Funny_chan, 03 avril 2011 - 05:57 .

[Plaintiff]

Funny_chan wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Funny_chan wrote...

That's why I didn't kill all the mages in my DAII playthrough, even though I sided with the templars (I only killed the ones that transformed into abominations).

Meredith orders the execution of all mages in the Kirkwall Circle - from the eldest mage to the youngest apprentice - and the only reason three mages are spared is because of Knight-Captain Cullen's direct intervention.

That's why I hated the b*tch:

"Actually, I believe the best solution for the games main conflict would
be siding with the templars and expelling Meredith of their command (I
was actually quite pleased seeing that she was killed at the end of the
game).
BTW, I also think Meredith isn't to blame as much as Orsino,
because she was being controled by that artifact, while Orsino
deliberately chose to be a 'bad guy'."

I meant that I only killed the ones that transformed into abominations during the rest of the game, and not the end quest.
But, even if it's metagaming, I still believe Orsino was even worst than than Meredith (he never fooled me, anyway).

Tell me:
I know this is a touchy subject, but if someone were to hijack a commercial plane with 200 passengers and use it to explode, say, a crowded stadium,  with more than 40,000 people would you rather shoot down the plane (even though there were inocents inside) or let many more inocents die because you couldn't do it.
That's the way I often approach the circle question. I'm not saying that I'm right or anything, just that, unfortunately, sometimes sacrifices have to be made in order to protect the majority (in real life, at least).

That's a pretty bad analogy. Mages are not inherently threatening.  They aren't hijacked planes. Who says the "majority" would be in danger because you let them live? Why do the mages have to be sacrificed to protect them?
The mages of the Kirkwall Circle are acting in self-defense. Meredith is the aggressor, she is assaulting them for something they didn't even do. Orsino may turn out to be a total douchebag at the last minute, but he never would've done what he did unless he felt forced by the circumstances. Until then, he had been an entirely unthreatening character, and there was no evidence to suggest that Meredith was anything other than a bag of mixed nuts.

And seeing as your choice sparks a continent-wide war either way, you actually haven't protected anyone at all.

[Mnemnosyne]

Plaintiff wrote...

Do they need a Harrowing? As far as tests go, that struck me as one of the stupidest in that or any other universe. "Hey yeah, we'll just chuck you into the Fade, which you have no prior experience with, and see if you get possessed by a demon. BTW, if you take too long we'll kill you anyway! Are you in a state of emotional distress now? Good, that makes you even more vulnerable! No pressure!"

I think they do.  Or something to that effect, anyway.  There is no way to be reasonably certain that a mage can resist a demon other than letting them face one.  And making them even more vulnerable?  Well, when is a demon most likely to prey on a mage, when they're in perfectly sound mind and body where they have plenty of peace and calm to consider and reject the demon, or when they enter a crisis situation?

The harrowing obviously doesn't work all that well, it needs some reforms...but the concept, the idea, is very sound and I would argue necessary to be as certain as is reasonably possible that this individual is strong enough to resist demons even in the most stressful of situations.

However I don't necessarily feel that tranquility and harrowing should be the only options.  If a mage doesn't want to become tranquil and doesn't want to undergo the harrowing, then they could instead choose to remain in a highly secure area where they are unlikely to ever be exposed to great stresses, and if they do get possessed, the people who can deal with it are on hand.  However it would seem irresponsible to let them wander about without reasonably strong confirmation of their ability to deal with demons even in the most stressful and vulnerable moments.

[LobselVith8]

Funny_chan wrote...

Tell me:
I know this is a touchy subject, but if someone were to hijack a commercial plane with 200 passengers and use it to explode, say, a crowded stadium,  with more than 40,000 people would you rather shoot down the plane (even though there were inocents inside) or let many more inocents die because you couldn't do it.

It''s an issue of minimalizing casualties, of course.

Funny_chan wrote...

That's the way I often approach the circle question. I'm not saying that I'm right or anything, just that, unfortunately, sometimes sacrifices have to be made in order to protect the majority (in real life, at least).

But you're siding with templars who are going to murder every man, woman, and child in the Kirkwall Circle on Meredith's order (and only three mages are saved by siding with the templars), so it's not an issue of preventing casualities when you're helping the templars kill people. Siding with the templars isn't protecting the majority when the Circle mages have done nothing wrong, and the culpruit who is responsible for the attack is right in front of Meredith.

[Shadowrun1177]

My biggest thing for a Chantry free Circle is that the Circle of Magi should be more like a school not a prison. Mages who go to the Circle voluntarily to learn how to control their magic shouldn't be stripped of their families, freedoms, and humanity (I say this last one cause it seems pretty common for mundanes to look on mages as monsters or cursed). They should be allowed to come and go, to visit family or have family come visit them. There should be no shame in being a mage or a family member of a mage. I still think something like the harrowing is needed for the end of mages apprenticeship but even that needs to be revised and if possible a better way found. I would also still keep tranquility around for mages who want to voluntarily go through it. When a mages passes his/her harrowing its basically like a graduation after that they should be allowed to live where they choose. Funding can be from selling enchantments, and magical items, even state funding is possible if mages are gonna be called to assist in wars or blights.

On to the Chantry and Templars, I would still keep both around in some fashion. The Chantry is the main religion of this region of Thedas so should still be allowed. As for the Templars I agree with others it should be turned into a state thing, that is used to hunt down abominations, evil mages, and blood mages. Also like other's have said allow mages to join the templars to hunt evil mages. I don't think the Templars should be allowed to hunt down any and every mage, just cause a mage doesn't choose to go to the circle doesn't mean they are evil. Mage's such as Malcolm Hawke, who didn't send his daughter and possibly Hawke to the circle but trained them himself shouldn't be hunted.

Modifié par Shadowrun1177, 03 avril 2011 - 06:56 .

[Huntress]

Dr. Nexas wrote...

Camenae wrote...

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Harry_Potter

I don't think we should look to the Ministry of Magic as a standard for proper control of magic. Everyone there was ****ing incompetent.

You just described the templars. They fail 99% of the time on getting zealot mages, they only found the weak mages.

[Huntress]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Funny_chan wrote...

Tell me:
I know this is a touchy subject, but if someone were to hijack a commercial plane with 200 passengers and use it to explode, say, a crowded stadium,  with more than 40,000 people would you rather shoot down the plane (even though there were inocents inside) or let many more inocents die because you couldn't do it.

It''s an issue of minimalizing casualties, of course.

Funny_chan wrote...

That's the way I often approach the circle question. I'm not saying that I'm right or anything, just that, unfortunately, sometimes sacrifices have to be made in order to protect the majority (in real life, at least).

But you're siding with templars who are going to murder every man, woman, and child in the Kirkwall Circle on Meredith's order (and only three mages are saved by siding with the templars), so it's not an issue of preventing casualities when you're helping the templars kill people. Siding with the templars isn't protecting the majority when the Circle mages have done nothing wrong, and the culpruit who is responsible for the attack is right in front of Meredith.

They only point at Orsino, yes he was a mad man, yes he made a monster looks like the hero, but please, just think for a minute, templars are going to kill everyone because of Anders doing, I agree with Lobsel in this 100%.

Meredith wasn't good at all, her only motive was how to kill/destroy mages, am sure if anders didn't blow up the chantry she would have tryed to kill them or make more tranquils anyway.

Modifié par Huntress, 03 avril 2011 - 08:03 .

[AshenEndymion]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Funny_chan wrote...

That's the way I often approach the circle question. I'm not saying that I'm right or anything, just that, unfortunately, sometimes sacrifices have to be made in order to protect the majority (in real life, at least).

But you're siding with templars who are going to murder every man, woman, and child in the Kirkwall Circle on Meredith's order (and only three mages are saved by siding with the templars), so it's not an issue of preventing casualities when you're helping the templars kill people. Siding with the templars isn't protecting the majority when the Circle mages have done nothing wrong, and the culpruit who is responsible for the attack is right in front of Meredith.

But Hawke is preventing casualties.  Civilian casualties.  The idea that civilians would not act against the Kirkwall Circle if the Rite of Annulment isn't applied is rather silly.  Especially since you had civilians acting against the Qunari for just existing.  A mage blew up the Chantry.  It won't matter that the mage isn't a part of the Circle.  Only that a mage did it.

And if a mage "defends himself" against a civilian, and is punished for it, you don't think the rest of the Circle won't get up in arms about it?  Less death occurs, within the city of Kirkwall, if the Rite of Annulment is executed.

Also, the idea that only 3 mages are saved(if you take that option) is bull.  No, they don't show any other mages being saved, but they don'r show children in the Circle, either.  Perhaps I should start saying that no children die when the Right of Annulment is applied because we don't see any?

[LobselVith8]

AshenEndemion wrote...

But Hawke is preventing casualties.  Civilian casualties.  The idea that civilians would not act against the Kirkwall Circle if the Rite of Annulment isn't applied is rather silly.  Especially since you had civilians acting against the Qunari for just existing.  A mage blew up the Chantry.  It won't matter that the mage isn't a part of the Circle.  Only that a mage did it.

The Gallows is on an island. How are civilians going to reach the mages, who are locked inside a prison with armed guard? Are you arguing that the templars are incapable of protecting the mages?

AshenEndemion wrote...

Also, the idea that only 3 mages are saved(if you take that option) is bull.  No, they don't show any other mages being saved, but they don'r show children in the Circle, either. 

Why is it bull? Meredith called for the Rite of Annulment. She says "As Knight-Commander of Kirkwall, I hereby invoke the Rite of Annulment. Every mage in the Circle is to be executed - immediately!" It's only due to the direct involvement of Knight-Captain Cullen that three mages are even spared.

AshenEndemion wrote...

Perhaps I should start saying that no children die when the Right of Annulment is applied because we don't see any?

You could argue that, but since the Kirkwall Circle is only standing Circle Tower in the Free Marches (with the burning of the Starkhaven Circle Tower), I don't see why that would be the case.

[Suron]

fact is no one has thought it through...because it's a game an not real. They see it and go OPPRESSION BAD.

which it is..but..it's not that simple.

Fenris explained it best..In Tevinter the mages already have taken back over. Weak serve the strong and the mages lead. they take slaves. murder them with blood magic (among other ways) and it's EXACTLY why the circles came to be.

the FACT is the circles are needed. As they are? no. ESPECIALLY not as Kirkwalls was..Meredith abused her power and the mages were not supposed, or meant, to be treated that way.

For mages, the circle should exist.

1. Should be mandatory with "certification" given upon graduation.
2. A "Harrowing" type of test that is required for "certification"
3. Mages have more freedom, are NOT barred from their families entirely as it is now.
4. Non-"Certified" Mages are still illegal. But arrested.
5. Blood Magic still needs to be illegal with punishment fitting the crime upon discovery.
6. Set up a "circle" inside the Circle as Leaders...First Enchanters still exist.
7. Policed by both Templars AND Mages.
8. "Certified" Mages can live a normal life once "graduated"
9. Tranquility only offered as punishment to repeat offenders of blood-magic or abuse.
10. Tranquility also offered to Mages that volunteer because they fear their own magic (think that nut-job woman in the Tower of Magi in DA:O that you find praying and calls her "gift" a "curse")

and that's just 10 things..

no it's not perfect. no it's not abuse-proof. But it's the only FAIR way of handling it.

Mages MUST be taught and cannot be allowed to abuse their power..but they also must not be treated like criminals...my above example is akin to Harry Potters school thing kinda.

regardless it's not as simple as "mages bad" or "mages good"

[AshenEndymion]

LobselVith8 wrote...

AshenEndemion wrote...

But Hawke is preventing casualties.  Civilian casualties.  The idea that civilians would not act against the Kirkwall Circle if the Rite of Annulment isn't applied is rather silly.  Especially since you had civilians acting against the Qunari for just existing.  A mage blew up the Chantry.  It won't matter that the mage isn't a part of the Circle.  Only that a mage did it.

The Gallows is on an island. How are civilians going to reach the mages, who are locked inside a prison with armed guard? Are you arguing that the templars are incapable of protecting the mages?

Oh sure, a good majority of Templars will.  But all it takes is one Templar who dispises what Anders did, and agrees that all mages should pay.  It only took one mage to blow up the Chantry.  It will only take one Templar to turn his back.

And regardless of what the mages do to defend themselves, or how the civiilians get in, if a mage kills a civilian, it will only enrage the general population further, prompting more attacks and more deaths, until the Circle is Annulled, or the city is destroyed.  The former would happen long before the latter.  Annuling the circle immediately following Anders' action prevents all those future deaths within Kirkwall.

LobselVith8 wrote...

AshenEndemion wrote...

Also, the idea that only 3 mages are saved(if you take that option) is bull.  No, they don't show any other mages being saved, but they don'r show children in the Circle, either. 

Why is it bull? Meredith called for the Rite of Annulment. She says "As Knight-Commander of Kirkwall, I hereby invoke the Rite of Annulment. Every mage in the Circle is to be executed - immediately!" It's only due to the direct involvement of Knight-Captain Cullen that three mages are even spared.

Because a fourth is garaunteed if Hawke is a mage (or Bethany survived to this point).  A fifth if Merril is on good terms with Hawke.  They do not die because of Cullen's involvment.  That mages survived because of a Templars involvement does not automatically mean that only those specific mages survived period.  I would argue that because a single templar had a change of heart about the order(Knight Captain Cullen, no less), it could be that more templars had a change of heart about the order, and also allowed mages to survive.

LobselVith8 wrote...

AshenEndemion wrote...

Perhaps I should start saying that no children die when the Right of Annulment is applied because we don't see any?

You could argue that, but since the Kirkwall Circle is only standing Circle Tower in the Free Marches (with the burning of the Starkhaven Circle Tower), I don't see why that would be the case.

This implies that every mage from Starkhaven went to Kirkwall.  They could have gone to Nevarra or escaped to Tivinter.  It also implies that there were child mages in Starkhaven, which would be unprovable (if we base it on "didn't see it, didn't happen").

[Vormaerin]

I'm going to respond to various points made without going through and quoting specific comments.

1)  The mages make some money from selling magical services.  However, we know that no mage is actually obliged to do any work on behalf of the chantry, not even the Tranquil.  Word of God on that.  Considering that the "slavery" of Tranquil is one of the things frequently objected to, are we really going further increase the mages' reliance on the labor of Tranquil?   Or are we going to start requiring mages to actually work instead of study?

2) The Chantry isn't going to stop teaching about magic being a curse just because they don't control the Circle any more, so acting like the mages will suddenly be considered fluffy bunny friendly types once out of Chantry control is a non starter.

3)  Its not fair to dismiss the need for guards just because the PCs are good at combat.  The PCs and their companions are, by definition, highly skilled professional practitioners of violence.  Most mages aren't.  That's why they get cut down in the DAO Tower collapse and in the Templar assault on the Gallows.   You can't say  "well, American citizens don't need soldiers to protect them.  After all, Rambo is an American citizen. Therefore all American citizens are capable of being like Rambo if they need to." 

4) Several posters have pointed out that the Templars haven't done a very good job.   That there is a big difference between their listed duties and their actual performance.   What makes you confident that replacing them with some other group of individuals will automatically address the problems of incompetence and/or malice?   No one has addressed the problem of what to do if the First Enchanter turns into Danarius.  What if the commander of your mercenaries pulls a Meredith?

5)  If mages are still obliged to reside in Circles, will not the Anders types still run for it over and over again?  If they are still constrained by the Circle system, even if one with a mysteriously immune to corruption government, is that not still the very oppression that is being objected to in the legitimately functioning Circles like Fereldan's?

[maegi46]

Koyasha wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Do they need a Harrowing? As far as tests go, that struck me as one of the stupidest in that or any other universe. "Hey yeah, we'll just chuck you into the Fade, which you have no prior experience with, and see if you get possessed by a demon. BTW, if you take too long we'll kill you anyway! Are you in a state of emotional distress now? Good, that makes you even more vulnerable! No pressure!"

I think they do.  Or something to that effect, anyway.  There is no way to be reasonably certain that a mage can resist a demon other than letting them face one.  And making them even more vulnerable?  Well, when is a demon most likely to prey on a mage, when they're in perfectly sound mind and body where they have plenty of peace and calm to consider and reject the demon, or when they enter a crisis situation?

The harrowing obviously doesn't work all that well, it needs some reforms...but the concept, the idea, is very sound and I would argue necessary to be as certain as is reasonably possible that this individual is strong enough to resist demons even in the most stressful of situations.

However I don't necessarily feel that tranquility and harrowing should be the only options.  If a mage doesn't want to become tranquil and doesn't want to undergo the harrowing, then they could instead choose to remain in a highly secure area where they are unlikely to ever be exposed to great stresses, and if they do get possessed, the people who can deal with it are on hand.  However it would seem irresponsible to let them wander about without reasonably strong confirmation of their ability to deal with demons even in the most stressful and vulnerable moments.

This has to be one of the most narrowminded posts I have seen so far. By your logic, everyone and every child should have to go through the harrowing then. ANYONE can be possessed, even templars. The fade quest showed you that if you didn't already know. In DA:O several templars were possessed in the circle tower when Uldred went batchit crazy. It's the same reasoning they lock mages away in a tower, they MIGHT become dangerous. Ludicrous.

What needs to happen is the seperation of Chantry from state affairs and the seperation of the Templar Order from the Chantry. Mage children who show any inclination of becoming mages, usually by age 12, should be sent to the Circle, however, the Circle should become the Mage college.They should be allowed to attend daily and leave much like public school systems operate now.  They should educate mages on how to use their powers. Tell them about demons, ways to fight against them and ways to use their powers to help society. Mages should have the same rights as anyone else. If they are from noble families they should have the right to hold a Lord or Lady title. Even become king or queen if circumstances allow. Mages can protect themselves and others.

Why did King Cailan seek the aid of the Circle for the war against the Blight otherwise? Duncan even says a few mages can turn the tide against the Darkspawn. Wynne and Uldred were there in Ostagar...along with a few other mages. Mages are what finally turned the tide in the war of the invading Qunaris.

With great power comes great responsibility. With absolute power comes corruption. Education and  a way to regulate them is key. Mages should be elected to a Circle that governs themselves, led by wise mages that have proven themselves like Wynne or Hawke.

Modifié par maegi46, 03 avril 2011 - 10:20 .

[Vormaerin]

Plaintiff wrote...


Do you know of any real-world theocracies that don't suck?

In the real world, nations institute "separation of church and state" policies for a reason.

Do you know any real world governments period that don't suck?

Also, please stop confusing the United States with "the real world".   Separation of Church and State is a rule in the US and a very small number of other countries, like Turkey.  Most of the "West" has subjugation of the Church by the State.

Besides which, the Chantry doesn't seem to control any governments directly.  The one place that is Chantry controlled (Kirkwall after the Viscount's death), its pretty clearly not the norm or acceptable to most people.   You have Chantry influence, because the vast majority of residents are active Chantrists.

Claiming that the Circle governance is some kind of "Church and State" argument is silly.  Its like saying the Jesuit Order should be free of religious control because of separation of Church and State.

The Circle is a case of enforced monasticism, not theocracy.   Its the "Get thee to a nunnery" but applied to all mages instead of just annoying wives of nobles.

[Kijin]

The most important issue that the Circle would face without the backing of the Chantry would be the lack of funds. Fortunately, the abilities of mages are in high demand. The Circle would begin to offer a number of services they would conduct, for a price. They would perform healing to those who could afford to pay. Traditional guards would be ill equipped to deal with the threat of abominations or powerful apostate mages, so the Circle would help the local guard capture such threats, also for a price. Finally, the Circle would also sell their services to the King - but never to local lords. Selling their services to local lords would encourage rebellion.

The templars were not there to provide physical protection for the mages; they were there to prevent the mages from turning into abominations. The templars were the mage's jailers, not protectors. As such, they are not necessary. This new circle would be willing to embrace older forms of magic, such as the Arcane Warrior discipline. This circle would have an entire branch of mages dedicated entirely to combining martial prowess with powerful magic.

The Harrowing ritual is dangerous, as it exposes potential mages to demons, who are always difficult to resist.  Instead of a single test, recruits will be sent into the fade alongside experienced teachers, who will teach them the dangers of the Fade. These experienced teachers will be able to show them how to resist demonic temptation. THe Fade is a powerful tool, but it needs to be respected and used wisely. Instead of training mages to fear the Fade, this Circle would train mages to resist the temptation of the Fade. 

As mentioned earlier, the Circle allies itself first with the Sovereign of the realm, and second with the local authorities. They are not a political organization. THe policies within the Circle are decided by a council of the top mages. This council meets every week, where they discuss current issues in the realm. This is necessary to avoid any tensions from forming in the kingdom. This will naturally lead to a Circle that is more isolationist than most; however, it will still help, as long as they are payed. 

Lastly, Mages are allowed to have visitors. Although Mages need to live their lives within the Circle, their family can come visit them. If Circle Mages attempt to flee, the Arcane Warriors will hunt them down. All mages will still have phylacteries, so tracking them will be easy. 

[Andronic0s]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

Why should mages be barred from holding political power in the first place? Why is it more just for hereditary nobles to hold all political power than for mages to hold some of it? I would have no problem with mages becoming a part of the political system.

To keep the situation from devolving into Tevinter like depravity, the mages are already powerful enough with their magic let alone with the resources of nations at their command, I think the chantry could live with mages keeping to themselves but not with mages in power, one has to compromise to get things done without slaughtering the oposition! 

[Vormaerin]

maegi46 wrote...



This has to be one of the most narrowminded posts I have seen so far. By your logic, everyone and every child should have to go through the harrowing then. ANYONE can be possessed, even templars. The fade quest showed you that if you didn't already know. In DA:O several templars were possessed in the circle tower when Uldred went batchit crazy. It's the same reasoning they lock mages away in a tower, they MIGHT become dangerous. Ludicrous.

The Templars in the tower were dominated, not possessed.   Blood magic is feared precisely because it gives the power to control minds, which ordinary magic does not.   The difference between mages and ordinary people is that mages are naturally in contact with the Fade and quite likely to encounter Fade spirits as a result.  Ordinary people can be possessed, but only by very extreme circumstances (someone has to use magic to bring a spirit to the real world or send the mortal to the Fade and then use further magic to make the victim susceptible.

maegi46 wrote...
With great power comes great responsibility. With absolute power comes corruption. Education and  a way to regulate them is key. Mages should be elected to a Circle that governs themselves, led by wise mages that have proven themselves like Wynne or Hawke.

Oh yeah, that will work.    The friggin White Council of Middle Earth, comprised of generally competent people like Galadriel, Elrond, and Gandalf still managed to elect Saruman as their leader...

[Camenae]

I think any non-Chantry controlled Circle would have to be a system that provided the right incentives for mages. The Tevinter Imperium had incentives that were sufficient to prevent mages from turning into abominations left and right, but arguably those incentives are not the proper ones.

The proper incentives could be economic. I think mages should be allowed to amass property. They can be allowed to keep the profits from selling their enchantments or healing skills. This would not only make a Mage order economically self-sufficient, but the more somebody has to lose, the easier they are to control!

The proper incentives could also be emotional. Mages are widely hated and feared, and why not when the populace mostly sees blood mages or a big red boom in the middle of a city? I think Anders the healer and pre-abomination Evelina were doing it the right way. I think the Chantry actually missed a huge opportunity by not using the mages to establish an official branch of healers running chantry-sponsored clinics. Charitable reasons aside, that seems to me like it would be a huge opportunity, for the PR of both the Chantry and the mages.

[Shadowrun1177]

Andronic0s wrote...

LookingGlass93 wrote...

Why should mages be barred from holding political power in the first place? Why is it more just for hereditary nobles to hold all political power than for mages to hold some of it? I would have no problem with mages becoming a part of the political system.

To keep the situation from devolving into Tevinter like depravity, the mages are already powerful enough with their magic let alone with the resources of nations at their command, I think the chantry could live with mages keeping to themselves but not with mages in power, one has to compromise to get things done without slaughtering the oposition! 

Your using the same excuses the Chantry uses for it's locking up of mages. Just cause a mage is of noble birth doesn't mean that they will abuse their magic and cause the rise of another Tevinter. A mundane Lord or King can be just as abusive with power as a mage could be look at Loghain selling elves into slavery or Howe and abusing captives and murdering the human noble wardens parents. It's all a bunch of "if's" and it's really funny how the whole "Magic is to serve man" has only become about the frist line of it not the whole thing and magic a curse not a gift of the Maker which it is. Have you seen the whole codex on the "Magic is to serve" commandment? 

Modifié par Shadowrun1177, 03 avril 2011 - 10:55 .

[Vormaerin]

Issues to consider in magical health care and trade:

1) Currently, no mage is obliged to do anything except show up if the First Enchanter asks for aid in a military conflict. So, if there is to be mage health clinics, its going to be done by volunteers or you are going to have to change the rules so that mages actually are servants/employees.

2) Whether by volunteers or by conscripted 'thou must heal or else' rules, there still won't be anything like enough mages to handle the demand. Who determines who gets healing? How do you handle the issues of the guy whose wife you didn't heal, especially if he thinks you went to heal Arl Eamon's stubbed toe instead of fixing his wife's cancer? Or, what do you do if you refuse to fix Rendon Howe's stubbed toe to go save the peasant's wife? Think he'll be happy fluffy over that decision?

3)  Where is the healing done?  Do mages wander over to every little village to heal people?  Or do the people come to the Circle?  If the latter, what bout those too sick to travel?   How do you deal with the crowds camping on the lawn like happens at the miraculous healing springs in the real world?

4) If the mages suddenly get into all this economic activity, how are they going to deal with the fallout from the merchants' guild? You can bet that if they start mass producing self cleaning, self repairing tunics or whatever, they will create a lot of hatred. Cloth merchants, washerwomen, and tailors will all start losing their income. And if they are losing money, so are their lords. How do you diffuse this 'unfair competition' anger.

Modifié par Vormaerin, 03 avril 2011 - 11:09 .

[Camenae]

Just because there aren't enough mages to satisfy the demand for healing doesn't mean they shouldn't have them. Hospitals today can't serve everybody either. I don't even think they have to be free clinics. I just think that mages as healers would go a long way in terms of reversing the hate and fear people have for mages. If mages were respected, then they would work to keep that respect. People want to be liked, and healing as a branch of magic is, I think, incompatible with blood magic. It would be like, if I were trying to train my dog not to bark, I don't beat him until he shuts up, I train him to keep a bone in his mouth for as long as he can. Keeping a bone in the mouth is incompatible with barking, so problem solved! : )

(please note I'm not comparing mages to dogs...no doubt there would have been people who'd be angry that I used that example since this is the internets)

[Vormaerin]

I am not saying they shouldn't have them. But I am a health care worker. People don't always react well to even your best efforts when the outcome isn't what they want. We don't know how much magic a real mage (who is not an ACTION HERO) can actually do. There is going to be a lot of good AND bad PR from mages as healers.

If its a pure money basis, its the rich getting richer. If its not, its the Rich getting annoyed you aren't helping them and are wasting time on worthless darktowners.

[Vormaerin]

I am not saying none of these things are workable or that they aren't good ideas. I'm just pointing out that it is more complicated than most people seem to think. If mages become more integrated into society, that is going to change the balance of power. It is going to create winners and losers. After all, magical resources are finite.

No nobleman is going to tolerate his neighbor having a mage in his household if he doesn't have one of his own. Its simple survival. We know that the Banns of Fereldan spend a lot of time thumping on each other. The Orlesians practically live for intrigue and one upmanship. If mages are selling services or are allowed to live with their noble families, that's going to cause political issues with the less favored lords.

If the mages are selling goods and services beyond just what is useful to other mages, they are going to cost people their livelihood. If magical healers soak up all the high paying clients, doesn't it stand to reason that a lot fewer mundanes will bother to go into medicine? That's certainly how it works in the real world when doctors' income is capped by government action.

Right now, the impact of magic on Thedas is minimal, because the Chantry locks them up and they hardly do a thing of note. If that changes, its going to make a big difference in society.

[Andronic0s]

Shadowrun1177 wrote...


Your using the same excuses the Chantry uses for it's locking up of mages. Just cause a mage is of noble birth doesn't mean that they will abuse their magic and cause the rise of another Tevinter. A mundane Lord or King can be just as abusive with power as a mage could be look at Loghain selling elves into slavery or Howe and abusing captives and murdering the human noble wardens parents. It's all a bunch of "if's" and it's really funny how the whole "Magic is to serve man" has only become about the frist line of it not the whole thing and magic a curse not a gift of the Maker which it is. Have you seen the whole codex on the "Magic is to serve" commandment? 

You are not looking at the big picture.

Lets assume a mage becomes King in thedas, what advantage does he has over a regular king? None his powers of perception, ability to reason, empathy etc are the same regardless of magical power. So the world is not missing anything in this way.

Now assume said Mage-King is possesed by a demon of pride, and assume the demon is succesfull in remaining hidden, so we have a pride demon in command of a kingdom, he could start a war with a negihbour and none would be the wiser as long as there is an excuse, or decide to go "Free" the mages in his kingdom and then turn them into abominations to help him further his cause of earthly domination, etc 

There is nothing to gain by giving the mages political power and everything to lose, a mage can still help the common man by setting up healing centres, create magical items to aid struggling communities etc.

[Vormaerin]

Andronic0s wrote...

You are not looking at the big picture.

There is nothing to gain by giving the mages political power and everything to lose, a mage can still help the common man by setting up healing centres, create magical items to aid struggling communities etc.

In some ways, you aren't looking at it either.   The real problem isn't  'what if Arl Connor turns into an abomination', though that's pretty scary.  Its  "How do all the other Arls protect themselves from Arl Connor if he has magic and they don't."   

Also, why would the Banns let mages 'waste' time aiding struggling communities instead of furthering the bann's goals?   Magical do gooders aren't going to be any more welcomed by lords than charitable do gooders like Doctors without Borders are.   And mages have the added problem of "Dr. Bob could turn into a demon and kill you all!" to overcome.   

What do the mage healers do when the King of Fereldan says  "I want you to follow me around whereever I go, in case I need healing?"    If they say yes, then what about when the Teryrn demands that?   The Arls?  The Banns?   The Guildmaster of people who sell the mages their food?...