1207 réponses à ce sujet

[Master Shiori]

Having a normal individual kill 70 people over a course of a single year, in a situation that isn't extraordinary (read; wartime or some major conflict), would be considered horrible by anyone's standards.

But that example is one of the lesser disasters caused by an abomination. There are also references in the codex of whole towns and villages being destroyed practically over night by rampaging abominations.
You cannot predict how much damage a possessed mage will cause, but that doesn't mean it would be better to risk it than to try and prevent it, even if no prevention (short of using the rite of tranquility) is ever going to be full proof.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Silfren wrote...
The answer to this is that it doesn't matter how restrictive you are toward mages, it will not eliminate the danger in its entirety,

And no one is saying that it will, unless we go with the tranquil solution. Which is a tremendous waste of a resource.

and there is considerable evidence that the injustice of the Circle system actually creates as much, if not more, of the danger it claims to prevent.

I too think that the system is not as efficient as it should be.

The real world answer is that nobody is entitled to the kind of absolutely risk-free existence that comes only from restricting the rights of an entire group of people not for what they've done but for how they were born.

If I was in Thedas, I quite frankly would not care what you think I am entitlted to.
If restricting mage rights improves my safety and that of my family, this is something I'd support.

Now if the system is doing the exact opposite or is not efficient enough, I'd aim to fix it.

But a more humane system is called for; requiring that mages be trained, and having secular forces set up to hunt any that go rogue, but otherwise allowing mages to live normal lives, all while not constantly preaching that mages are cursed by the Maker and abominations waiting to happen...all that would go a long way toward making the average joe blow mage a lot less dangerous to the people around him than locking him away and treating him like a bomb waiting to go off.

Agreed, and I did nto argue otherwise.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 25 mai 2011 - 10:01 .

[GavrielKay]

Addai67 wrote...

Non-mages can't kill masses of people with their minds, or control thought.  The degree we're talking about is different, hence different standards.

The number of mages whose lives were destroyed by the Chantry cannot be compared to the number of lives that might have been destroyed by those mages had they been free.  It didn't happen so we don't know what the result would have been.  We simply can't know if a system that trained the mages and then allowed them to live relatively normal lives would actually end up with more harm done.  I can think of a number of instances in real life history where utterly non-magical people managed to deal death and destruction quite efficiently.  So, I still fail to see that the current system represents the least overall harm done to innocent people - because the mages who haven't committed any crimes ARE inncoents to be counted in this equation.

Indeed, which is why the rationale you're using is flawed.  Best to talk about direct personal responsibility, not something more diffuse and second-hand- all Chantry priests being complicit for the acts of a few, etc.  Although, what you're talking about here is retribution and that's another thing entirely.  Annulment is intended to be a preventative, to save other innocent lives.

BTW I tend to agree with you that the Circle system is broken and actually makes the problem worse.  The question is how you go about changing it.  Let's just say that in my view, Anders' approach isn't it.

Well, direct personal responsibility rules out the RoA then, as that is indiscriminate slaughter of every mage in the circle.  I feel like a broken record pointing out that the hundreds of mages who haven't done anything wrong are also innocent citizens of Kirkwall that we're supposed to care about. 

[Silfren]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Silfren wrote...
The answer to this is that it doesn't matter how restrictive you are toward mages, it will not eliminate the danger in its entirety,

And no one is saying that it will, unless we go with the tranquil solution. Which is a tremendous waste of a resource.

I have seen quite a few people suggest that it does, actually, and that it justifies the existence of the Circles as they are.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Silfren wrote...
and there is considerable evidence that the injustice of the Circle system actually creates as much, if not more, of the danger it claims to prevent.

I too think that the system is not as efficient as it should be.

You keep focusing on the efficiency, I get that, but I'm more concerned about the humane aspect.  I'm very uncomfortable with the concept of a more efficient system, because that can lead into dangerous territory: drowning at birth is about as efficient as it gets in dealing with the mage "problem."  Whether that is a waste of resources is another question entirely.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Silfren wrote...
The real world answer is that nobody is entitled to the kind of absolutely risk-free existence that comes only from restricting the rights of an entire group of people not for what they've done but for how they were born.

If I was in Thedas, I quite frankly would not care what you think I am entitlted to.
If restricting mage rights improves my safety and that of my family, this is something I'd support.

And the logical response to that is that if I was a citizen in Thedas and a mage, or the sister or mother of a mage, I wouldn't give two ****s about your belief that your need for safety justifies restrictions on my life or the life of my loved ones when we haven't done anything to justify that restriction.

Modifié par Silfren, 25 mai 2011 - 10:16 .

[GavrielKay]

Silfren wrote...

I find it extremely telling that said abomination killed 70 people over the course of a year.  A year.  What is so exceptional about that?  If unfettered abominations are so extraordinarily dangerous compared to non-mages, I'd have expected a far larger death toll over that period of time.  But 70 people in a year's time doesn't exactly conjure horrific images of world-shattering danger. 

Indeed.

So, thousands of mages imprisoned didn't save those 70 people.  70 innocents dead compared to how many innocent mages locked up and which is the actual "greater good" here?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Silfren wrote...
I'm very uncomfortable with the concept of a more efficient system, because that can lead into dangerous territory: drowning at birth is about as efficient as it gets in dealing with the mage "problem."  Whether that is a waste of resources is another question entirely.

Depends on the goals. If one is obsessed with magic as solely a problem, then yea.
But those who think that are short sighted and don't see how valuable a resource magic is.

One can be efficient vis-avis seucrity and not waste resources. That's the system I want.

Can people think that eliminating mages is safer? Yes, cowards of that kind will always be present. And they can be either ignored or shot down if they want to act on those views.

And the logical response to that is that if I was a citizen in Thedas and a mage, or the sister or mother of a mage, I wouldn't give two ****s about your belief that your need for safety justifies restrictions on my life or the life of my loved ones when we haven't done anything to justify that restriction.

Yes, and that's life. It has winners and losers, with losers obviously not wanting to be losers and winners either not caring or not knowing the price of being winners.

The trick is keeping enough of a balance as not not let it explode. Which is what happened.

And in the larger scheme of things, integrating mages more and using them as a resource would be more beneficial, to both them and others, than treating them like crap.

When it comes to the larger picture and institutions, a single minded pursuit of security with no other considerations is a corwardly obstacle to progress. Right now, that's the Chantry.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 25 mai 2011 - 10:26 .

[Silfren]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Silfren wrote...
I'm very uncomfortable with the concept of a more efficient system, because that can lead into dangerous territory: drowning at birth is about as efficient as it gets in dealing with the mage "problem."  Whether that is a waste of resources is another question entirely.

Depends on the goals. If one is obsessed with magic as solely a problem, then yea.
But those who think that are short sighted and don't see how valuable a resource magic is.

One can be efficient vis-avis seucrity and not waste resources. That's the system I want.

Can people think that eliminating mages is safer? Yes, cowards of that kind will always be present. And they can be either ignored or shot down if they want to act on those views.

And the logical response to that is that if I was a citizen in Thedas and a mage, or the sister or mother of a mage, I wouldn't give two ****s about your belief that your need for safety justifies restrictions on my life or the life of my loved ones when we haven't done anything to justify that restriction.

Yes, and that's life. It has winners and losers, with losers obviously not wanting to be losers and winners either not caring or not knowing the price of being winners.

The trick is keeping enough of a balance as not not let it explode. Which is what happened.

And in the larger scheme of things, integrating mages more and using them as a resource would be more beneficial, to both them and others, than treating them like crap.

When it comes to the larger picture and institutions, a single minded pursuit of security with no other considerations is a corwardly obstacle to progress. Right now, that's the Chantry.

Yours is by far the sanest response to dealing with mages I've yet read, I have to admit.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Silfren wrote...
Yours is by far the sanest response to dealing with mages I've yet read, I have to admit.

Thanks

That's why I'd support the Lucrosians. I think they are the wisest mage fraternity. Hsitorically speaking, rights and freedoms were generally given to groups who prove useful and necessary for a system to function (see what Bhelen is doing with casteless. Rights in exchange for services). Integrating mages into the economy (and the army) is the right step.

[GavrielKay]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

That's why I'd support the Lucrosians. I think they are the wisest mage fraternity. Hsitorically speaking, rights and freedoms were generally given to groups who prove useful and necessary for a system to function (see what Bhelen is doing with casteless. Rights in exchange for services). Integrating mages into the economy (and the army) is the right step.

See, this sounds reasonable, but what about the fact that in 1000 years it hasn't actually worked?  It's not like the circles were built last year and they're still working out the kinks.  This system has been in place for a very long time and still pretty much sucks for the mages.

[KnightofPhoenix]

GavrielKay wrote...
See, this sounds reasonable, but what about the fact that in 1000 years it hasn't actually worked?  It's not like the circles were built last year and they're still working out the kinks.  This system has been in place for a very long time and still pretty much sucks for the mages.

Because the Chantry is not interested in making it work (rather, they are interested in self-preservation), hence why I also suggest states taking over the system (or managing it). States are more likely to see mages as a resource to be used. Mages were never integrated in economies for a 1000 years (and only once in the army), except for enchantments (not a huge market for that and its tranquils doing it).

And what it will require is a shift in the balance of power from Orlais to elsewhere, which might be accompanied by the weakening of the Chantry as a political institution in a context of rise of nations. 

System level changes and trends affect individual details like the mage issue. That's why I don't fixate on this specific issue and look at the larger picture.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 25 mai 2011 - 11:10 .

[GavrielKay]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And what it will require is a shift in the balance of power from Orlais to elsewhere, which might be accompanied by the weakening of the Chantry as a political institution in a context of rise of nations. 

And in Kirkwall we can't even get a rightful government in place.  Not terribly promising.  Though the general failure level of everyone in Kirkwall has been noted many times  <_<

[KnightofPhoenix]

GavrielKay wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And what it will require is a shift in the balance of power from Orlais to elsewhere, which might be accompanied by the weakening of the Chantry as a political institution in a context of rise of nations. 

And in Kirkwall we can't even get a rightful government in place.  Not terribly promising.  Though the general failure level of everyone in Kirkwall has been noted many times  <_<

That's why I am emphasizing that Hawke leading a popular revolution against a Chantry stooge and imposing national sovereginity is the strongest signal one can give. Because it goes way beyond magic.

[Xilizhra]

Ugh. Nationalism. I can't say that I trust nations to manage mages better than the Chantry; they'd either retain the same superstition or just ruthlessly exploit the mages, and there'd be no international oversight. This is why I support a more or less self-governed international Circle network.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Xilizhra wrote...
they'd either retain the same superstition or just ruthlessly exploit the mages

Why the false dichotomy? They can be something other than those two.

and there'd be no international oversight.

International treaties. Medieval Europe banned the use of crossbows for instance (the Catholic Church oversaw it).
It will always be limited, sure, it's limited in today's world. And it will require a certain hegemonic power to enforce them either implicitly or explicitly. But hegemonic stability had historically proven to be more or less efficient until the hegemony starts collapsing. 

This is why I support a more or less self-governed international Circle network.

I can buy a semi-autonomous international mage organization that is overseen and regulated by states (who employ a multi-national Templar like force), with obligations to each party.
For instance, the circle would be obligated to provide military assistance in case of an exterior threat to the signataries.

But of course, the system like any other will have a lot of problem and will require hegemonic stability for it to function. A new power to support the system (preferrably with a network of allies).

Without that, it's doomed to fail. Just like a fully independent international mage system is doomed to fail if it doesn't have the power to maintain its existence. Institutions don't maintain themselves by thin air.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 25 mai 2011 - 11:39 .

[Xilizhra]

Why the false dichotomy? They can be something other than those two.

True, but I don't see any nation actually being so aside from Ferelden.

International treaties. Medieval Europe banned the use of crossbows for instance (the Catholic Church oversaw it).
It will always be limited, sure, it's limited in today's world. And it will require a certain hegemonic power to enforce them either implicitly or explicitly. But hegemonic stability had historically proven to be efficient until the hegmony starts collapsing.

Fair enough, but the Circle organization will need to oversee it.

I just dislike the way that "nationalism" is waved around like some sort of panacea by several people.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Xilizhra wrote...

Why the false dichotomy? They can be something other than those two.


True, but I don't see any nation actually being so aside from Ferelden.

We only know of two in detail. Why couldn't Nevarra be something like that?
Heck even Orlais is changing under Celene (and the Chantry is not happy).

Fair enough, but the Circle organization will need to oversee it.

It needs to be overseen first and foremost. And since it can never have the same amount of power as states, an equitable check and balance system, while might be desirable, is unfeasible.

Why did the League of Nations fail miserably while the UN suceeded (in comparision)? Because the latter had something called a permanent security council that recognizes the fact that not all states are equal and major powers should have more say than the others in order to encourage them to work within the system. And yes, they are less acountable than others.

So unless you find some way to make the Circle system equal to states (I don't see how unless you give them monopoly over Lurium, which I would not recommend, or give it a state, which goes back to what I am saying), Circles are not going to be equal in power relations, at least when it comes to major states (and those are the only ones who can help build and sustain a system).

I just dislike the way that "nationalism" is waved around like some sort of panacea by several people.

I am saying rise of nations now because I believe that's what's happening in Thedas at the moment.
And by nationalism, I mean emphasis on national sovereignity based on shared identity / language..etc. Not the ultra-nationalist / revisionist ideologies of the 1920s.

But any kind of state could work, including multi-cultural empires. But ones that do not depend on the Chantry.

[Xilizhra]

We only know of two in detail. Why couldn't Nevarra be something like that?
Heck even Orlais is changing under Celene (and the Chantry is not happy).

It could, but since it's a Circle-supporting nation, I wouldn't trust it in the slightest. Nor do I trust Celene.

So unless you find some way to make the Circle system equal to states (I don't see how unless you give them monopoly over Lurium, which I would not recommend, or give it a state, which goes back to what I am saying), Circles are not going to be equal in power relations, at least when it comes to major states (and those are the only ones who can help build and sustain a system).

Why would you not recommend that?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Xilizhra wrote...

So unless you find some way to make the Circle system equal to states (I don't see how unless you give them monopoly over Lurium, which I would not recommend, or give it a state, which goes back to what I am saying), Circles are not going to be equal in power relations, at least when it comes to major states (and those are the only ones who can help build and sustain a system).

Why would you not recommend that?

Lyrium powers magic. If you give mages unlimited access to lyrium, you are not checking their power.
Which brings us back to the original starting point: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Lyrium should be tightly regulated so as to make sure that mages don't get unlimited access.

[Xilizhra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

So unless you find some way to make the Circle system equal to states (I don't see how unless you give them monopoly over Lurium, which I would not recommend, or give it a state, which goes back to what I am saying), Circles are not going to be equal in power relations, at least when it comes to major states (and those are the only ones who can help build and sustain a system).

Why would you not recommend that?

Lyrium powers magic. If you give mages unlimited access to lyrium, you are not checking their power.
Which brings us back to the original starting point: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Lyrium should be tightly regulated so as to make sure that mages don't get unlimited access.

The dwarves are the ones who mine the stuff; they should have license to sell it to whom they choose.

[LobselVith8]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

That's why I'd support the Lucrosians. I think they are the wisest mage fraternity. Hsitorically speaking, rights and freedoms were generally given to groups who prove useful and necessary for a system to function (see what Bhelen is doing with casteless. Rights in exchange for services). Integrating mages into the economy (and the army) is the right step.

I think the Grey Wardens, or more specifically The Warden, would be the one who could make progressive steps towards a change in attitude. If the Hero of Ferelden was a mage who stepped into the role of Arl of Amaranthine, the opinions of the people in the nation could change because there's a powerful mage who is useful and necessary towards the survival and progress of the economy. Given how the factions in Kirkwall think Amaranthine could control the Waking Seas, I think Ferelden would be the place to look for a change in attitude towards mages (at least for the worlds where the Warden-Commander was a mage) rather than Kirkwall, where sanity points and common sense were revoked a long time ago.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Xilizhra wrote...
The dwarves are the ones who mine the stuff; they should have license to sell it to whom they choose.

It's a dangerous substance to ordinary humans and a dangerous weapon in the hands of mages (or others) if in large quantities. So no, the trade should be restricted with bilateral treaties with Orzammar on how to regulate it.
It's the equivalent of uranium, only with less civil / peaceful applications.

Of course there will always be loopholes. But to allow mages unlimited access to lyrium is a very imprudent move. And one that is very litely to eventually lead to another magocracy and the cycle would begin anew.

[KnightofPhoenix]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I think the Grey Wardens, or more specifically The Warden, would be the one who could make progressive steps towards a change in attitude. If the Hero of Ferelden was a mage who stepped into the role of Arl of Amaranthine, the opinions of the people in the nation could change because there's a powerful mage who is useful and necessary towards the survival and progress of the economy. Given how the factions in Kirkwall think Amaranthine could control the Waking Seas, I think Ferelden would be the place to look for a change in attitude towards mages (at least for the worlds where the Warden-Commander was a mage) rather than Kirkwall, where sanity points and common sense were revoked a long time ago.

I think the Warden can certainly start the first steps. But the problem with Wardens is somewhat similar to the Legion of the Dead. Casteless there could do a lot but no one in Orzammar would care as a Legionnaire cut off all ties. Wardens are somewhat similar, as they leave behind their former lives. Unless the Wardens become much more active in politics, which seems to be the First Wardens goal, but that is likely to engender another set of problems.

So yes, the Wardens can be the starting step, but it wil require more than that afterwards.

And I share your sentiment that Ferelden can become a harbinger of change, though I'd put that several decades if not a century or two in the future. IMO, the new major power on the rise is Nevarra.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 mai 2011 - 12:19 .

[Xilizhra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
The dwarves are the ones who mine the stuff; they should have license to sell it to whom they choose.

It's a dangerous substance to ordinary humans and a dangerous weapon in the hands of mages (or others) if in large quantities. So no, the trade should be restricted with bilateral treaties with Orzammar on how to regulate it.
It's the equivalent of uranium, only with less civil / peaceful applications.

Of course there will always be loopholes. But to allow mages unlimited access to lyrium is a very imprudent move. And one that is very litely to eventually lead to another magocracy and the cycle would begin anew.

It's too soon to say that; we have no idea how the original magocracy came about. Especially since the Old Gods may well have been backing them up, and their quickening the blood of the elves probably had horrendous effects on morale. Plus there was a total lack of a blood magic taboo.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Xilizhra wrote...
It's too soon to say that; we have no idea how the original magocracy came about. Especially since the Old Gods may well have been backing them up, and their quickening the blood of the elves probably had horrendous effects on morale. Plus there was a total lack of a blood magic taboo.

There is more than one way to bring about a magocracy.

Point is, lyrium powers magic. Unlimited access to Lyrium = "unlimited power"
It's self evident that someone else should handle the Lyrium.

[Addai]

Silfren wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Indeed, which is why the rationale you're using is flawed.  Best to talk about direct personal responsibility, not something more diffuse and second-hand- all Chantry priests being complicit for the acts of a few, etc.  Although, what you're talking about here is retribution and that's another thing entirely.  Annulment is intended to be a preventative, to save other innocent lives.

Oddly enough, the Annulment Meredith was invoking was most assuredly retributive, and not preventative at all.

It's more complicated than that.  She mentions the mob, which will assuredly want an eye for an eye, but Hawke's speech in the templar ending mentions staving off a full-scale mage rebellion.