1207 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

GavrielKay wrote...
When the minds of the people are poisoned by 1000 years of religous dogma, it isn't hypocritical to feel that changing those minds is better than playing along.  The Chantry has become so corrupt that a Grand Cleric can't even be bothered to stop rape and torture of mages under her care.  I fail to see how that doesn't count as a "bad thing."

And I don't disagree.  As I've said, I do think that White Andrastianism can and should change on this point- or rather, be more true to its actual tenets rather than their extremes in the Circle system, a system that I would add has partially been constructed by mages themselves.  I simply won't condone using terrorism to bring this about.  It's counter-productive, apart from everything else.  Who sympathizes with terrorists?  No one.  If you want Andrastians to change, you're not going to bring that about by terrorizing them.  You'll only alienate them further and sully your own cause.

Just as it's wrong to generalize blame for Anders' actions onto all mages, it's also wrong to hold the entire Chantry and all Andrastians responsible for what was happening in Kirkwall.  Here we come back to personal responsibility.

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...
Jefferson himself said that Revolutionaries in time wear the robes of the tyrants that they deposed.  It's called being human.  Given any human being or human organization nearly unlimited power (esp religious power) and it tends to go bad.  Just the way it is.

-Polaris

Right.  Please explain this point to Rifeneno, who was too busy being a smartass to figure it out in my discussion of mageocracy.

Just because it usually happens doesn't mean you have to endorse and hasten the tendency.

[Ryzaki]

Addai67 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
It's a reasonable analog to the late midaeval and early Rennsaissance RCC.  A person my be a sincere Caltholic and still think the RCC of that period was full of lying and corrupt sinners (and many did in fact during this same period of time....thirty years war). 

-Polaris

And becoming what you claim to hate is not better.

 

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." 

Edit: not disagreeing. Just throwing my fav quote into the discussion. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 01 juin 2011 - 06:41 .

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Jefferson himself said that Revolutionaries in time wear the robes of the tyrants that they deposed.  It's called being human.  Given any human being or human organization nearly unlimited power (esp religious power) and it tends to go bad.  Just the way it is.

-Polaris

Right.  Please explain this point to Rifeneno, who was too busy being a smartass to figure it out in my discussion of mageocracy.

Just because it usually happens doesn't mean you have to endorse and hasten the tendency.

You are making a large assumption that because the danger exists that mages might make another Tevinter, that mage freedom will automatically lead to that result, and I see precious little evidence for it.  For one thing the mages won't "win" their revolution by themselves.  It will be the crowned heads of state (starting with Fereldan) that will step in and knock the Chantry back a peg or three (because magic is too valuable a resource to waste).  Given that mages won't have a monopoly on power, I don't see a Tevinter 2.0 in the cards no matter what the Chantry and/or the Templars like to claim.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Addai67 wrote...

I find the anti-religious bias in the discussion pretty distracting.  I don't think the Chantry is a good or evil thing.  But if you claim to be interested in ending tyranny, consider that it's pretty hypocritical to go about changing their minds using magical explosives.

Addressing the monstrous behavior of the Chantry of Andraste isn't a bias against religion, particularly when the religious organization in question brutally oppresses men, women, and children across the continent because of how they are born.

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...
You are making a large assumption that because the danger exists that mages might make another Tevinter, that mage freedom will automatically lead to that result, -Polaris

NO I'M NOT.

However, I am saying that the likelihood is good, given that mages have an extraordinary innate power and that certain of them (like those possessed by vengeful Fade spirits) feel entitled to payback, and that the explosion of a Chantry is such a polarizing event that it will be a miracle if it resolves without a lot of blowback.  Call me pessimistic, I really don't see any good result coming of it.  And even though I side with the mages in DA2, Anders dies, and my PC will not have any interest in "setting the world on fire."  If mages can't police themselves, starting with violent abominations, then they don't deserve freedom.

P.S. Do you really think that states exploiting and using mages will be a better system than the Chantry doing so?

Modifié par Addai67, 01 juin 2011 - 06:59 .

[LobselVith8]

Addai67 wrote...

We've actually fought Qunari.  

So did the Circle of Magi, who were noted to be the "greatest advantage" of the Chantry led forces.

Addai67 wrote...

They did pretty well for being one ship full of guys, some of which drowned, who were stranded without resources for years.  And, they have mages too.

Who Genitivi noted were not as well trained as the Circle mages because the saarebas were treated as little more than animals.

Addai67 wrote...

So I'm inclined to believe Fenris could have a point.  I'm at least not going to dismiss what he says outright.

So did Orsino when everyone finally got to Viscount's Keep.

[Wulfram]

Mage freedom doesn't necessarily mean tyranny, but it will if won by waging war against the faith of the overwhelming majority.

[Addai]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Who Genitivi noted were not as well trained as the Circle mages

Who themselves are pathetic.  See Ostagar.

So did Orsino when everyone finally got to Viscount's Keep.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make, or why this little ****** for tat is relevant at all.

[LobselVith8]

Addai67 wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...
When the minds of the people are poisoned by 1000 years of religous dogma, it isn't hypocritical to feel that changing those minds is better than playing along.  The Chantry has become so corrupt that a Grand Cleric can't even be bothered to stop rape and torture of mages under her care.  I fail to see how that doesn't count as a "bad thing."

And I don't disagree.  As I've said, I do think that White Andrastianism can and should change on this point- or rather, be more true to its actual tenets rather than their extremes in the Circle system, a system that I would add has partially been constructed by mages themselves.  I simply won't condone using terrorism to bring this about.  It's counter-productive, apart from everything else.  Who sympathizes with terrorists?  No one.  If you want Andrastians to change, you're not going to bring that about by terrorizing them.  You'll only alienate them further and sully your own cause.

Just as it's wrong to generalize blame for Anders' actions onto all mages, it's also wrong to hold the entire Chantry and all Andrastians responsible for what was happening in Kirkwall.  Here we come back to personal responsibility.

One could argue that the slaves emancipating themselves from French slavery in Saint Dominique and the American revolutionaries were terrorists. Anders wanted to bring about the end of a system he saw as slavery. Whether you condone or condemn his actions, it doesn't change that the Chantry - as an institution - has controlled its Circles are dictatorships and have brutally oppressed entire populations of people for centuries, going as far as to commit legal genocide numerous times.

[IanPolaris]

Wulfram wrote...

Mage freedom doesn't necessarily mean tyranny, but it will if won by waging war against the faith of the overwhelming majority.

If that is the final view, then the mages are doomed before they even start.  However, it's not.  The nobility has their own interests and you had better believe they'd like more control over magic and less interference by the Chantry (and a reduction if not elimination of Chantry Private Armies, i.e. Templars) in their own internal affairs.  Given that, I think ultimately the war will be resolved by having the mages reach a compact with many of the heads of state (starting with Fereldan).  If that's the way it shakes out, then I'd say Tevinter 2.0 is very unlikely.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Addai67 wrote...

If mages can't police themselves, starting with violent abominations, then they don't deserve freedom.

One could make that same argument towards the templars who made mages illegally tranquil, gave 30 lashes to mages merely for speaking to a civilian, the templars who did nothing while Alrik threatened a child mage with an illegal tranquility and rape, and the rapes endured by Alain at the hands of a templar. If the templars can't police their own, they don't deserve to control the lives of men, women, and children across the continent.

[Addai]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

If mages can't police themselves, starting with violent abominations, then they don't deserve freedom.

One could make that same argument towards the templars who made mages illegally tranquil, gave 30 lashes to mages merely for speaking to a civilian, the templars who did nothing while Alrik threatened a child mage with an illegal tranquility and rape, and the rapes endured by Alain at the hands of a templar. If the templars can't police their own, they don't deserve to control the lives of men, women, and children across the continent.

And they should be called to account.  Ideally not by blowing up a building in a public square.

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

If mages can't police themselves, starting with violent abominations, then they don't deserve freedom.

One could make that same argument towards the templars who made mages illegally tranquil, gave 30 lashes to mages merely for speaking to a civilian, the templars who did nothing while Alrik threatened a child mage with an illegal tranquility and rape, and the rapes endured by Alain at the hands of a templar. If the templars can't police their own, they don't deserve to control the lives of men, women, and children across the continent.

And they should be called to account.  Ideally not by blowing up a building in a public square.

They never are though, and when enough injustice and outright evil happens for long enough against a class of people, those people will rebel and often use extreme means of their own.  Just the way it is. 

Want to blame anyone?  Blame the Chantry and the SEEKERS who couldn't be bothered to do their damn jobs (right along with Grand Cleric Elthina).

-Polaris

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...
If that is the final view, then the mages are doomed before they even start.  However, it's not.  The nobility has their own interests and you had better believe they'd like more control over magic and less interference by the Chantry (and a reduction if not elimination of Chantry Private Armies, i.e. Templars) in their own internal affairs.  Given that, I think ultimately the war will be resolved by having the mages reach a compact with many of the heads of state (starting with Fereldan).  If that's the way it shakes out, then I'd say Tevinter 2.0 is very unlikely.

-Polaris

How is it any better to be exploited by corrupt nobles and heads of state than by the Chantry?

I also think you're really over-exaggerating the anti-Chantry stance of Andrastian nobility.  Many of them are pious themselves, at least nominally so.  The Chantry sometimes interferes in politics, but it's just as likely to be good for them as not, for instance by maintaining a pacifying social influence, providing an organizational basis for education and charitable works, and by "sanctifying" state power.

Modifié par Addai67, 01 juin 2011 - 07:23 .

[GavrielKay]

Addai67 wrote...

Who sympathizes with terrorists?  No one.  If you want Andrastians to change, you're not going to bring that about by terrorizing them.  You'll only alienate them further and sully your own cause.

This is not necessarily true, and even if so, might be true only in the short term.  There are always people who sympathize with terrorists.  Terrorism is almost always a tool of people who don't have the power to use any other means.  I realize there are pacifists who believe that war is never the answer, and there are plenty of people who believe that terrorism is never the answer, but that's not the same as it being universal.  Anders may well have alienated a bunch of Andrastians, but he likely didn't have much of their support (esp. outside Kirkwall) to begin with.

It's an obivous point of contention, but I personally don't see the Chantry as a non-military target.  We have no equivalent currently in the world of a multi-national religion that possesses its own official army, controlled by purposeful drug addiction and recruited for the singular purpose of keeping a certain population in check. 

The Chantry in Dragon Age is not merely an institution for helping orphans and the poor.  They don't merely preach that mages are cursed and can't be treated like people, they enforce it.  They choose and control the Templars.  They actively oppress the mages.  In short, as far as I'm concerned, they make themselves a valid target.

Edit: spelling

Modifié par GavrielKay, 01 juin 2011 - 07:29 .

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...

How is it any better to be exploited by corrupt nobles and heads of state than by the Chantry?

Secular nobles are self-interested for the most part and don't have an innate religious reason to treat you badly.  In short, if you are useful to most nobles, the nobles will look after you.  This is one big reason why secular power (even totalarian secular states) work far better than when a religion gets this sort of political power.

I also think you're really over-exaggerating the anti-Chantry stance of Andrastian nobility.  Many of them are pious themselves, at least nominally so.  The Chantry sometimes interferes in politics, but it's just as likely to be good for them as not, for instance by maintaining a pacifying social influence, providing an organizational basis for education and charitable works, and by "sanctifying" state power.

You are confusing personal piety with self-interest.  Nobles hate and loath for the most part the control the Chantry has but to date there hasn't been anything they could do about it (without drawing an Exalted March....the lesson of the Dales wasn't lost on the rest of the Secular Kingdoms), but that is no longer the case.  Given the chance for secular nobles to gain control (or at least partial control) over a resource as powerful as magic while at the same time crippling a competing source of authority, they will do it. Personal piety has nothing to do with it.

-Polaris

[Wulfram]

IanPolaris wrote...

If that is the final view, then the mages are doomed before they even start.  However, it's not.  The nobility has their own interests and you had better believe they'd like more control over magic and less interference by the Chantry (and a reduction if not elimination of Chantry Private Armies, i.e. Templars) in their own internal affairs.  Given that, I think ultimately the war will be resolved by having the mages reach a compact with many of the heads of state (starting with Fereldan).  If that's the way it shakes out, then I'd say Tevinter 2.0 is very unlikely.

-Polaris

Making such an alliance was much more possible before Anders decided to associate the cause with the sort of atrocity which no Andrastean noble - no matter how sceptical of the temporal power of the Chantry - can be seen to endorse.

[LobselVith8]

Addai67 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

If mages can't police themselves, starting with violent abominations, then they don't deserve freedom.

One could make that same argument towards the templars who made mages illegally tranquil, gave 30 lashes to mages merely for speaking to a civilian, the templars who did nothing while Alrik threatened a child mage with an illegal tranquility and rape, and the rapes endured by Alain at the hands of a templar. If the templars can't police their own, they don't deserve to control the lives of men, women, and children across the continent.

And they should be called to account.  Ideally not by blowing up a building in a public square.

Who holds a dictatorship that's been in power for centuries accountable when all the power lies with the abusers?

[LobselVith8]

Addai67 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Who Genitivi noted were not as well trained as the Circle mages

Who themselves are pathetic.  See Ostagar.

That's because the Chantry only permitted seven mages to fight against an endless army of darkspawn.

Addai67 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

So did Orsino when everyone finally got to Viscount's Keep.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make, or why this little ****** for tat is relevant at all.

Because it demonstrates that a Circle mage was capable of handling the Qunari.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 01 juin 2011 - 07:43 .

[GavrielKay]

Wulfram wrote...

Making such an alliance was much more possible before Anders decided to associate the cause with the sort of atrocity which no Andrastean noble - no matter how sceptical of the temporal power of the Chantry - can be seen to endorse.

It's been 1000 years.  No such alliance had formed.  If that counts as "more possible" then the mages might as well give up and commit mass suicide.

The fact is that unless the mages show they are determined to change things, then no one else is going to take on the Chantry.  By stirring up a hornet's nest, the mages can at least hope the secular powers will step in and try to fix things in order to save themselves.  You make very blanket statements about who can be seen to endorse what - but it's just as easy to think that the populace will be happy with their govt's for making peace rather than provoking the mages to further destruction.

Governments and the Chantry are now given the choice of exterminating the mages (and losing access to their power) or bargaining with them to achieve a more equitable state of affairs.  I'm not at all sure how you think anything like this could have happened with the mages all nice and locked up in circles.

[IanPolaris]

Wulfram wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

If that is the final view, then the mages are doomed before they even start.  However, it's not.  The nobility has their own interests and you had better believe they'd like more control over magic and less interference by the Chantry (and a reduction if not elimination of Chantry Private Armies, i.e. Templars) in their own internal affairs.  Given that, I think ultimately the war will be resolved by having the mages reach a compact with many of the heads of state (starting with Fereldan).  If that's the way it shakes out, then I'd say Tevinter 2.0 is very unlikely.

-Polaris

Making such an alliance was much more possible before Anders decided to associate the cause with the sort of atrocity which no Andrastean noble - no matter how sceptical of the temporal power of the Chantry - can be seen to endorse.

That was before Meredith decided to call an unjustified (I am not talking about legality here....even Templars will admit that the RoA was unjustified by historic standards) Right of Annulment for a crime the circle didn't even DO!  Given that and given that Meredith essentially seized secular control of an entire city with zero oversight will all be strong mitigating factors.  In addition to that, we already know that King Alistair seems to be going "Church of England" on the Chantry already with no apparently immediate dire effects (except to the Chantry).

All told, I think it's quite plausible although I don't expect it to happen overnight.

-Polaris

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Addai67 wrote...
 I simply won't condone using terrorism to bring this about.  It's counter-productive, apart from everything else.  Who sympathizes with terrorists?  No one.  If you want Andrastians to change, you're not going to bring that about by terrorizing them.  You'll only alienate them further and sully your own cause.

Just as it's wrong to generalize blame for Anders' actions onto all mages, it's also wrong to hold the entire Chantry and all Andrastians responsible for what was happening in Kirkwall.  Here we come back to personal responsibility.

Few people sympathize with terrorists now. But prior to 1795, there wasn't even a word for terrorist. It wasn't a concept, because, for the concept to represent the same idea it represents today, it must exist in a world where there are other ways for the common man to change governments and world institutions.

In the modern world, I will agree: there are few to no situations where violent opposition is more likely to result in a postive result than nonviolent means. But this is due to the resources we have today: the UN, the internet, journalism, the international community, the very concept of democracy as one of the generally more acceptable forms of governance. Thedas has none of these things. 

Let's take this example: say a dude goes up to the head of state of a country where a group of people are being kept as slaves. He says "If you don't let us go, I will cause a thing to happen that will mystically kill thousands of innocent men and children." Then the leader of the country says "No, I'm not letting you go." Then thousands of innocent babies are killed by the mystical power the first man claimed to be able to bring to bear.

This is a famous story that is not classified as terrorism, because, while it directly involves someone using fear, violence, and the mass slaughter of innocents in order to bring about change, other factors in the story influence people's perception of his actions. Still, I don't see a functional difference between a man threatening to mystically slay thousands of children in order to free his people from slavery and a man setting off a magical bomb that kills a few hundred people to show that his people will no longer submit to being oppressed.

Anders did what he did because he felt he needed to act. There was literally no other action he could see as having a significant chance of causing change to occur. No one in this thread or any other thread has posited anything he might have done that would have caused all of his people to be free, that would have a significant chance of working.

I think that what happened to the Chantry was sad. I also think that what happened to all those innocent babies in the other story about the mystical killing was sad. I don't think either of those acts were inherently wrong, or evil.

In a world without democracy, without the press, without people's movements, the word terrorism isn't the same. It isn't the same in the story about the man and the magical baby killing, and it isn't the same in the tale of the Mages and the Chantry. We're applying modern ideas about working within a system to a world where such a system does not exist.

[Addai]

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

And they should be called to account.  Ideally not by blowing up a building in a public square.

But don't the mages deserve the same right do be 'called into account' only when they have done something wrong?

Are you talking about the Circle system in general or the ending of the game?  I sided with the mages in what I consider my "one true Hawke" game.  If you mean the Circle system in general, then I think it's wrong to look at it as punitive rather than as an attempt to protect innocent people from the undeniably terrible potential power of mages.

And what do you think should have been done instead? How would the templars be called into account, and by whom when their superiors won't do it? How would the mages get their freedom without the use of violent methods? I'm genuinely curious.

These are two separate things.  Kirkwall has no civil authority, so it's bound to implode one way or another.  That doesn't excuse Anders throwing a match into a gas tank, with the stated goal of removing any chance for compromise.

How mages could have gotten freedom- well, that begs the question that mages should be allowed total autonomy.  How do you regulate a nuclear bomb when that bomb is a person?  The Circle framework is not a bad solution to this problem, if it were administered more like a school/ refuge and less like a prison.  I think this would require a gradual reform movement within White Andrastianism itself.  In its own teachings, it says "magic is to serve man."  That's been interpreted negatively, but it can just as easily be interpreted positively.

Modifié par Addai67, 01 juin 2011 - 07:48 .