1207 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Plenty of mages didn't have access to Dworkin and Sandal, and I still see people on this forum who agree with what Anders did because they find the status quo of the Andrastian Chantry more monstrous and horrific than anything that Anders did.

Dworkin? Who?  

Agreeing with someone =/= being willing to do that yourself. 

I agree with the anullment of the circle. Doesn't mean I would do it myself. 

What comparison? Besides their willingness to change the status quo, you mean?

If we're gonna use the comparison that loosely I'm pretty sure there's plenty of reasonable historical figures Meredith can be compared to. 

As long as you know you're ignoring the definition of genocide when you state that.  

Like you're ignoring the definition of terrorist? 'kay. 

If Hawke sided with the mages and not with a genodical lunatic who wanted to murder hundreds of men, women, and children for something they had nothing to do with, the mages see Hawke as a hero.

 

And if Hawke doesn't they see Hawke as a far more powerful symbol (though one of oppression) than Anders. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juin 2011 - 08:51 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Like I've said before. Magic cannot stand as an isolated agenda on its own. Very few are going to care. Indeed, it's going to alienate pretty much everyone if you have people like Anders constantly viewing the conflict in terms of "us" vs "them". It has to be part of a larger movement and trend. What I see happening is a rise of nations with the gradual decline of Orlais (Nevarra and to a lesser extent Ferelden are the heralds of such a shift). If the mage condition is to improve, it has to affiliate itself with the new rising order. That of states that would most likely seek to reduce Chantry power and impose their sovereginity within their territories, as they have vested interest in using mages as valuable resources.
 

States are every bit as corrupt as religious organizations, and much worse at mediating people's private affairs.  The Chantry and civil governments check each other's power, and this is a good thing.  The only problem in Kirkwall is that it lacks any civil government at all- there is nothing to check the templars.  In fact, everyone in the game is so incompetent, it's hard to really talk about Kirkwall as an example of anything but epic fail.

[LobselVith8]

Ryzaki wrote...

Dworkin? Who?  

Dworkin the Mad, from Amaranthine. And Sandal, who lives in Hawke's house and has appeared in Origins and Witch Hunt.

Ryzaki wrote...

Agreeing with someone =/= being willing to do that yourself. 

I agree with the anullment of the circle. Doesn't mean I would do it myself. 

I don't agree with the Right of Annulment when the mages are innocent of the act that Anders alone committed, and I agree with emancipating the mages from a thousand years of subjugation.

Ryzaki wrote...

If we're gonna use the comparison that loosely I'm pretty sure there's plenty of reasonable historical figures Meredith can be compared to. 

Sure, like a certain historical figure who also ordered an act of genocide against men, women, and children.

Ryzaki wrote...

Like you're ignoring the definition of terrorist? 'kay. 

Pointing out that some people view Anders as a terrorist and others view him as a freedom fighter means I'm ignoring the definition? Was that comment supposed to make sense?

Ryzaki wrote...

And if Hawke doesn't they see Hawke as a far more powerful symbol (though one of oppression) than Anders. 

If Hawke helps Meredith murder the templars, he's seen as a villain and a symbol of oppression. If Hawke helps protect the mages, then he's seen as a hero, to the point where Cassandra thinks he can persuade the mages against fighting with the templars.

[Addai]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
I don't see how Anders and Merrill provide a reason to support the genocide of hundreds of men, women, and children who aren't responsible for what Anders specifically did. Should we wipe out all the templars because of Alrik and Kerras?

By showing that you don't need to be an evil mage to pose a threat to large numbers of people, just idealistic and naive.

Anders isn't idealistic, he's been worn down the past several years over what's happened, and Merrill isn't naive, particularly when she addresses how there's no good spirits, dealing with any spirits should be done with care, she can identify the type of spirit inhabiting the Profane Abomination, she can tell whether a person is possessed or not, and she uses magic and blood magic proficiently for several years.

He's sentimental and naive by thinking that fusing himself to a Fade spirit is anything but a really bad idea.  When it comes to his big plan to free mages, it consists of blow up the Chantry- ?? - profit!  He's waxing on about "someday our children will be free" when he has no clue, and doesn't seem to care, how to pick up the pieces of the sh*tstorm he created.  He's content to let Hawke figure that out.

Merrill is sitting in front of a mirror staring at it to the neglect of not only her responsibilities as keeper or her duty to her clan, but in the end to taking basic care of herself.  She's not just naive, she's dangerously obsessed, much like Anders but with less explosive results.

Bethany is the only mage in the game with an ounce of sense, and that's not saying much.

[Ryzaki]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Dworkin the Mad, from Amaranthine. And Sandal, who lives in Hawke's house and has appeared in Origins and Witch Hunt.

 

I'm confused as to why you brought them up. Yes they're resources.Just because I have access to my dad's gun doesn't mean I'm gonna start shooting people. No matter how much I think about it. Unless you're suggesting that other mages would've blown up the chantry if they had access to Anders resources (and why Anders even have access to Hawke's house in some cases I'll never understand.) is just...no. You need more than just resources and a thought. 

I don't agree with the Right of Annulment when the mages are innocent of the act that Anders alone committed, and I agree with emancipating the mages from a thousand years of subjugation.

Yes well I disagreeing with emancipating mages that maybe bloodmages and letting them roam freely. 

Sure, like a certain historical figure who also ordered an act of genocide against men, women, and children.

Ah but I can use a *loose* connection. The genocide isn't necessary. 

Pointing out that some people view Anders as a terrorist and others view him as a freedom fighter means I'm ignoring the definition? Was that comment supposed to make sense?

Viewing him as a freedom fighter doesn't stop him from being a terrorist. If that's what you meant (you acknowledge that he's still a terrorist even though some ignore that and label him only a freedom fighter instead) I apologize. 

Calling him a freedom fighter doesn't make his actions any less terrorism. 
Just like calling Meredith a protector of the people doesn't make her actions any less genocide. 

If Hawke helps Meredith murder the templars, he's seen as a villain and a symbol of oppression. If Hawke helps protect the mages, then he's seen as a hero, to the point where Cassandra thinks he can persuade the mages against fighting with the templars.

 

And Hawke's seen as a hero to thetemplars and the people (not mages) . Enough so that they'll stop on his word and beg him to rule the city. Hawke's a hero regardless. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juin 2011 - 09:16 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
States are every bit as corrupt as religious organizations,

But less likely to view magic as a curse and not a resource.

and much worse at mediating people's private affairs. 

I'd sooner trust a secular state than a religious organization that views my kind as solely a curse.

Now if the Chantry had a more enligthened and pragmatic view on magic, sure. I don't see that happening however as any reduction of their control over mages translates into losing their political power.

You should not confuse your local priest that handles individual problems, with the institution of the Chantry as a whole. The latter is what I am talking aobut. I don't mind priests acting as mediators and arbitrators in small villages and locales of little consequence. Certainly not a city like Kirkwall however.

The Chantry and civil governments check each other's power, and this is a good thing. 

Why? Because you believe that any check, regardless of content or efficiency, is necessarily a good thing?
States can have institutions that check each other, you don't need an exterior organization doing that, especially not one that has shown itself to be defunct.

How many people had to die for the Chantry to finally realize that mages should be used against the Qunari?
How many could have been spared if Ferelden had dozens of mages if not more at Ostagar and / or immediately after?

Furthermore, I do not see the Chantry as necessarily checking states. I did not see the Chantry checking Orlais and its puppet government in Ferelden, but I saw them doing the opposite.

The only problem in Kirkwall is that it lacks any civil government at all- there is nothing to check the templars.  In fact, everyone in the game is so incompetent, it's hard to really talk about Kirkwall as an example of anything but epic fail.

But Kirkwall was the Chantry's most critical and militarized Circle. So the epic fail falls on the Chantry most of all, for being unable to handle a situation once they themselves removed the civil government (or allowed it to happen), and worse of all allowed someone like Meredith to take over for a decade.

It is possible for an international organization that handles mages to exist, but since power politics is everything, states are going to axiomatically be the main players. The system obviously will have flaws, and will ultimately collapse like any other. But something new has to replace the defunct old, and herein lies advancement. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 juin 2011 - 09:16 .

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...
States are every bit as corrupt as religious organizations, and much worse at mediating people's private affairs.  The Chantry and civil governments check each other's power, and this is a good thing.  The only problem in Kirkwall is that it lacks any civil government at all- there is nothing to check the templars.  In fact, everyone in the game is so incompetent, it's hard to really talk about Kirkwall as an example of anything but epic fail.

States are much better at handling secular goverments and govermental affairs including regulation and public safety than relgions have EVER been.  Pretty much every time an organized relgion has attempted in history to take on secular authority without BEING the sole authority has been a history of dismal failure.

The big deal. hear is that states and secular rulers don't have an intrinsic "belief system" to minipulate which means they can't claim "religious dogma or faith" and that turns out to be a great big deal.  In short, states that regulate magic will do so from the self-interest of the state and not put any religious context on it, and that is a GOOD thing.

-Polaris

Edit:  Ninjaed by KoP

Modifié par IanPolaris, 03 juin 2011 - 09:14 .

[Phoenix_Loftian]

Holy Maker! What in the hell have I created!? I'm amazed and flattered that this topic is STILL going on...

[LobselVith8]

Addai67 wrote...

He's sentimental and naive by thinking that fusing himself to a Fade spirit is anything but a really bad idea.  When it comes to his big plan to free mages, it consists of blow up the Chantry- ?? - profit!  He's waxing on about "someday our children will be free" when he has no clue, and doesn't seem to care, how to pick up the pieces of the sh*tstorm he created.  He's content to let Hawke figure that out.

Anders' first love was trapped in the Kirkwall Circle and telling him horror stories about the place, so I can see why he would take a gamble that could emancipate Karl and all the mages like him across the continent. From what we've seen so far, the Circles of Magi already emancipated themselves from the Chantry and the Order of Templars. The mages could win against the templars who defected from the Chantry and are now hunting them down.

Addai67 wrote...

Merrill is sitting in front of a mirror staring at it to the neglect of not only her responsibilities as keeper or her duty to her clan, but in the end to taking basic care of herself. 

Merrill isn't a Keeper, she was the First, and she thinks the Eluvian can benefit the People.

Addai67 wrote...

She's not just naive, she's dangerously obsessed, much like Anders but with less explosive results.

By "explosive results," you mean none at all? Because nobody is actually hurt because of the Eluvian.

[Wulfram]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
States are every bit as corrupt as religious organizations,

But less likely to view magic as a curse and not a resource.

Just as likely to view a free mage as a threat.

And more likely to encourage use of the more dubious and dangerous types of magic.

[Ryzaki]

...I wonder if the state would charge citizens to house their mage children.

They have to get that money from somewhere. Probably taxes.

[KnightofPhoenix]

IanPolaris wrote...
States are much better at handling secular goverments and govermental affairs including regulation and public safety than relgions have EVER been.  Pretty much every time an organized relgion has attempted in history to take on secular authority without BEING the sole authority has been a history of dismal failure.

-Polaris

I'd pretty much extend that to any political system that is built upon two seperate factions sharing power. I strongly believe that states can only operate in the long run and be productive with a Leviathan as Hobbes argues. A clear central authority that has the last word. It doesn't have to be an individual, it can be a council, an elected president or a parliament.  One that is checked, yes, but within specific institutional paramaters.

The Chantry does not directly infringe on the soveregnity of states for the most part. But it deprives them of a resource and in some cases (like city-states), hold a military force that is stronger than that of the civil government.

And finally, TST showed it quite clearly. The Chantry is not an apolitical / politically neutral organization. It's willing to manipualte states and side with one against another for its own benefit. What does the Chantry have to gain to support the Orlesian invasion of Ferelden, if they are solely responsable for mages and lyrium? The invasion should have been mostly irrelevent to it.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 juin 2011 - 09:26 .

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...
The big deal. hear is that states and secular rulers don't have an intrinsic "belief system" to minipulate  

They most certainly do.  And since when is self-interest intrinsically any better, whether you're talking about a pragmatic or humanistic viewpoint?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Wulfram wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
States are every bit as corrupt as religious organizations,

But less likely to view magic as a curse and not a resource.

Just as likely to view a free mage as a threat.

If by "free", you mean out of control, then yes. They should be regulated.
But they are not bound by religious doctrine to do so.

It will ultimately depend on each individual state and what they think. But if one state manages to integrate mages properly and use them as a resource both economically and militarily, the others are going to be almost automatically pressured to do the same to keep up and / or appease their own mages. Why do you think the West established the Wellfare state in the 1940s? Hint: USSR and spread of communism in Europe (one of the main reasons).

And more likely to encourage use of the more dubious and dangerous types of magic.

If under control and properly checked, why not?

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 juin 2011 - 09:40 .

[LobselVith8]

Ryzaki wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Dworkin the Mad, from Amaranthine. And Sandal, who lives in Hawke's house and has appeared in Origins and Witch Hunt.

 

I'm confused as to why you brought them up. Yes they're resources.Just because I have access to my dad's gun doesn't mean I'm gonna start shooting people. No matter how much I think about it. Unless you're suggesting that other mages would've blown up the chantry if they had access to Anders resources (and why Anders even have access to Hawke's house in some cases I'll never understand.) is just...no. You need more than just resources and a thought. 

If you were confused as to why I brought them up, why did you ask "who?" then?

Ryzaki wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
I don't agree with the Right of Annulment when the mages are innocent of the act that Anders alone committed, and I agree with emancipating the mages from a thousand years of subjugation.

Yes well I disagreeing with emancipating mages that maybe bloodmages and letting them roam freely. 

You mean like the Grey Warden blood mages who use their magic to defeat the darkspawn? Or the mages who don't want to be illegally made tranquil or raped by the likes of Ser Alrik or Ser Kerras?

Ryzaki wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Sure, like a certain historical figure who also ordered an act of genocide against men, women, and children.

Ah but I can use a *loose* connection. The genocide isn't necessary. 

Meredith ordered an act of genocide and was a dictator over the city-state of Kirkwall. History is full of people like Meredith who ordered the execution of men, women, and children who were innocent (such as the mages who are being condemned for the actions of the man standing right in front of her).

Ryzaki wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Pointing out that some people view Anders as a terrorist and others view him as a freedom fighter means I'm ignoring the definition? Was that comment supposed to make sense?

Viewing him as a freedom fighter doesn't stop him from being a terrorist. If that's what you meant (you acknowledge that he's still a terrorist even though some ignore that and label him only a freedom fighter instead) I apologize. 

Calling him a freedom fighter doesn't make his actions any less terrorism. 
Just like calling Meredith a protector of the people doesn't make her actions any less genocide. 

Meredith didn't protect the people; Guard-Captain Aveline and her guards did. Meredith ordered her templars to kill the mages, and some of the mages fought back to survive. Meredith put the people in danger; how was she protecting the people? She wasn't, while Aveline was.

Furthermore, I pointed out some view Anders as a terrorist, and others view him as a freedom fighter. I never said one couldn't technically be both, but I addressed that not everyone views Anders and his actions the same way, nothing more than that. The real problem I have is that Anders is more proactive in one single Act than Hawke is throughout the entire storyline.

Ryzaki wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
If Hawke helps Meredith murder the templars, he's seen as a villain and a symbol of oppression. If Hawke helps protect the mages, then he's seen as a hero, to the point where Cassandra thinks he can persuade the mages against fighting with the templars.

 

And Hawke's seen as a hero to thetemplars and the people (not mages) . Enough so that they'll stop on his word and beg him to rule the city. Hawke's a hero regardless. 

Of course, Hawke is a hero to one faction and a villain to the other, but the templars don't "stop," the Right of Annulment happens; it's the reason why the mages across the continent rise up against the Chantry and the Order of Templars.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
  And since when is self-interest intrinsically any better, whether you're talking about a pragmatic or humanistic viewpoint?

It implies a more rational perspective, when compared to one founded in dogma. And based on self-interest, there are reason to want to integrate mages more, while still regulating them.

Example in Origins. Bhelen's reasoned self-interest is mutually beneficial to him, the casteless and Orzammar as a whole. Harrowmont's focus on his beloved outdated traditions makes him unable to think and is detrimental to everyone involved.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 juin 2011 - 09:34 .

[Ryzaki]

LobselVith8 wrote...
If you were confused as to why I brought them up, why did you ask "who?" then?

Becuase I didn't know who the the dwarf dude was. I remember him but I forgot his name. 

You mean like the Grey Warden blood mages who use their magic to defeat the darkspawn? Or the mages who don't want to be illegally made tranquil or raped by the likes of Ser Alrik or Ser Kerras?

No I mean those mages like Tarohne who force abominations into templar recruits, bloodmages like Gascard who have no problem killing innocent people to fuel their own ends. Bloodmages like Grace who turn on those who tried to help her and kidnap innocent people with the intention of killing them for vengeance. Mages like Orsino who let a serial murderer get away with his actions. 

If those other mages have to die to stop the above so be it . 

Not to mention GW bloodmages aren't in the circle. No mage in the circle has any necessity for bloodmagic. They're not protecting anyone, they have all the resources they need. As for not being illegally made tranquil or raped by Ser Alrik or Ser Kerras bloodmagic wasn't necessary. What they needed to do was flee. If they decided to fall onto bloodmagic instead of the mage underground then they singed their own death warrant. 

Meredith ordered an act of genocide and was a dictator over the city-state of Kirkwall. History is full of people like Meredith who ordered the execution of men, women, and children who were innocent (such as the mages who are being condemned for the actions of the man standing right in front of her).

Except everyone in the circle *wasn't* innocent. They were innocent of Anders' crime. Not of being bloodmages. The RoA should've been called much earlier but Elthina was in the way. Anders only gave Meredith a convient excuse. 

Meredith didn't protect the people; Guard-Captain Aveline and her guards did. Meredith ordered her templars to kill the mages, and some of the mages fought back to survive. Meredith put the people in danger; how was she protecting the people? She wasn't, while Aveline was.

Meredith didn't protect the people? So her and her templars killing those rogue mages and abominations wasn't protecting anyone at all? 

Rogue bloodmages and abominations put the people in danger. Aveline helped the people as well but so did Meredith.  

Furthermore, I pointed out some view Anders as a terrorist, and others view him as a freedom fighter. I never said one couldn't technically be both, but I addressed that not everyone views Anders and his actions the same way, nothing more than that. The real problem I have is that Anders is more proactive in one single Act than Hawke is throughout the entire storyline.

Then I don't view Meredith as a genocidest. I view her as a savior to Kirkwall's people .Since I view her actions differently than you nothing more than that. 

And that is a severe issue in the storyline. 

Of course, Hawke is a hero to one faction and a villain to the other, but the templars don't "stop," the Right of Annulment happens; it's the reason why the mages across the continent rise up against the Chantry and the Order of Templars.

 

I never said they did. Cassandra suggests they would stop if he spoke to them however. (Just like she does for the mages on the mage ending). They rise up and are pretty much glaring at each other across the room at that point. Maybe minor skirmishes but nothing serious so far. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juin 2011 - 09:54 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
  And since when is self-interest intrinsically any better, whether you're talking about a pragmatic or humanistic viewpoint?

It implies a more rational perspective, when compared to one founded in dogma. And based on self-interest, there are reason to want to integrate mages more, while still regulating them.

Example in Origins. Bhelen's reasoned self-interest is mutually beneficial to him, the casteless and Orzammar as a whole. Harrowmont's focus on his beloved outdated traditions makes him unable to think and is detrimental to everyone involved.

Human beings are human beings (elves and dwarves included in this case).  States cannot on their own provide the cohesion and sense of purpose that people need, be it on an individual or societal level.  So all they do is substitute their own dogmas and rituals in some sort of civil religion, or they exploit nationalism and colonialism, to achieve the same effect.  Not to mention that rulers start to see a new source of revenue and they can't keep their fingers off it once they get a taste.  None of these things are particularly healthy for a society IMO.  So in a quasi-medieval society, they are better off IMO with the combination of social cohesion and support that a strong religious base provides, offset by civil rulers who are strong and competent, with some healthy competition as well as cooperation between the two.

This is why I say an answer to the mage issue in White Andrastian societies will best come from within (i.e. doctrinal reform) and not imposed on them from above, imposed by law and with greedy rulers to play arbiter. 

Orzammar's situation is something entirely different IMO, a case of competence vs. incompetence.

Modifié par Addai67, 03 juin 2011 - 09:45 .

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Ryzaki wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

You mean like the Grey Warden blood mages who use their magic to defeat the darkspawn? Or the mages who don't want to be illegally made tranquil or raped by the likes of Ser Alrik or Ser Kerras?[/quote]

No I mean those mages like Tarohne who force abominations into templar recruits, bloodmages like Gascard who have no problem killing innocent people to fuel their own ends. Bloodmages like Grace who turn on those who tried to help her and kidnap innocent people with the intention of killing them for vengeance. Mages like Orsino who let a serial murderer get away with his actions. [/quote]

The first two you mentioned had no known affiliation with the Circle of Kirkwall, and the latter kidnapped Hawke's sibling or love interest along with the renegade templars.

[quote]Ryzaki wrote...

If those other mages have to die to stop the above so be it . [/quote]

Personally, if templars are going to carry out genocide against the innocent because of the actions of an apostate, I see no reason not to stop them.

[quote]Ryzaki wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Meredith ordered an act of genocide and was a dictator over the city-state of Kirkwall. History is full of people like Meredith who ordered the execution of men, women, and children who were innocent (such as the mages who are being condemned for the actions of the man standing right in front of her).[/quote]

Except evryone in the circle *wasn't* innocent. They were innocent of Anders' crime. [/quote]

Which is basically what I stated, and bolded for your convenience.

[quote]Ryzaki wrote...

Not of being bloodmages. The RoA should've been called much earlier but Elthina was in the way. Anders only gave Meredith a convient excuse. [/quote]

That makes no sense; let's condemn the mages to death in the Circle of Kirkwall because there are blood mage antagonists outside the Circle of Kirkwall?

[quote]Ryzaki wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Meredith didn't protect the people; Guard-Captain Aveline and her guards did. Meredith ordered her templars to kill the mages, and some of the mages fought back to survive. Meredith put the people in danger; how was she protecting the people? She wasn't, while Aveline was.[/quote]

Meredith didn't protect the people? So her and her templars killing those rogue mages and abominations wasn't protecting anyone at all? [/quote]

Not when her actions are producting antagonists like Huon and Evelina out of formerly sane mages.

[quote]Ryzaki wrote...

Rogue bloodmages and abominations put the people in danger. Aveline helped the people as well but so did Meredith.  [/quote]

Meredith helped put herself in a position of authority and power over the people.

[quote]Ryzaki wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Furthermore, I pointed out some view Anders as a terrorist, and others view him as a freedom fighter. I never said one couldn't technically be both, but I addressed that not everyone views Anders and his actions the same way, nothing more than that. The real problem I have is that Anders is more proactive in one single Act than Hawke is throughout the entire storyline.[/quote]

Then I don't view Meredith as a genocidest. I view her as a savior to Kirkwall's people .[/quote]

That must explain why she orders the murder of hundreds of men, women, and children, and why she endangers the lives of civilians by having her templars fighting mages in the streets.

[quote]Ryzaki wrote...

Since I view her actions differently than you nothing more than that. [/quote]

Considering that Meredith's Circle of Kirkwall lead to the rape, torture, murder, and tranquility of many, I don't see how you can support such a claim.

[quote]Ryzaki wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Of course, Hawke is a hero to one faction and a villain to the other, but the templars don't "stop," the Right of Annulment happens; it's the reason why the mages across the continent rise up against the Chantry and the Order of Templars.[/quote] 

I never said they did. Cassandra suggests they would stop if he spoke to them however. (Just like she does for the mages on the mage ending). They rise up and are pretty much glaring at each other across the room at that point. Maybe minor skirmishes but nothing serious so far.  [/quote]

We have little information on how bad things are between the templars and the mages, and we can't say the two are only "glaring across the room at each other" when Varric points out that it's put Thedas on the brink of war.

[Wulfram]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

If by "free", you mean out of control, then yes. They should be regulated.
But they are not bound by religious doctrine to do so.

By free, I mean in a meaningfully better position than they are currently.

Religious doctrine has very little role in the position of mages.  It bans blood magic, and limits their political power.  But they are not hated and oppressed because of the Chantry.

It will ultimately depend on each individual state and what they think. But if one state manages to integrate mages properly and use them as a resource both economically and militarily, the others are going to be almost automatically pressured to do the same to keep up and / or appease their own mages.

Or to more thoroughly enslave them.

And more likely to encourage use of the more dubious and dangerous types of magic.

If under control and properly checked, why not?

Because when under pressure to gain military advantage over rival states, it won't stay under control and properly checked.

Warfare is bad enough without enemy civilian's blood being a useful resource.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
States cannot on their own provide the cohesion and sense of purpose that people need, be it on an individual or
societal level.

Oh I most certainly agree. States on their own cannot provide a sense of purpose.
But, that's exactly what I would relegate religions / ideologies..etc to. To be present on a social level, but without having an institution that ends up acting like a state  (has its own army and monopolizes lyrium and magic).

I personally am not advocating the complete eradication of the Chantry , and even less so the religion of Andrastrianism. What I am however adocating is a weakening of the institution itself, and to strip it from political / military power. Whatever check it can provide against states should be an a social level. States wil require the consent of the Chantry to have legitimacy amongst the populace.

So in a quasi-medieval society

But what if they are becoming "modern" or becoming something other than medieval? Are we to stop the trend? I see it as inevitable. 

they are better off IMO with the combination of social cohesion and support that a strong religious base provides, offset by civil rulers who are strong and competent, with some healthy competition as well as cooperation between the two.

But again, you are ignoring the fact that the Chantry does not operate solely on a social level, it has its own army, controls lyrium trade and has monopoly over magic that no one checks or supervises except themselves. And they have a vested interest in preserving the status quo exactly as is.

This is why I say an answer to the mage issue in White Andrastian societies will best come from within and not imposed on them from above, with laws and greedy rulers to play arbiter. 

Change almost always starts from above, and succesful change needs reciprocation by the "bottom".

The average joe is not going to change his mind on this unless an initiative starts from above, or alternatively, unless an initiative starts from society and is protected and patronized by above.

Orzammar's situation is something entirely different IMO, a case of competence vs. incompetence.

Yea, and I believe that the Chantry is demonstrating a lot of incompetence lately. Perhaps not on the same level of idiocy as Harrowmont who doens't realize that he is accelrating the death of his people. But incompetence nonetheless.

[Ryzaki]

LobselVith8 wrote...
The first two you mentioned had no known affiliation with the Circle of Kirkwall, and the latter kidnapped Hawke's sibling or love interest along with the renegade templars.

And neither did those mages with helpful bloodmagic that you mentioned. 

Both Alain and Grace do harm to others. They're not innocent. 

Personally, if templars are going to carry out genocide against the innocent because of the actions of an apostate, I see no reason not to stop them.

That's your prerogative. 

Just like mine is to join in. 

Which is basically what I stated, and bolded for your convenience.

True. The RoA while justified was called for the wrong reasons. I don't blame Meredith for taking the opportunity Anders laid at her feet though. 

That makes no sense; let's condemn the mages to death in the Circle of Kirkwall because there are blood mage antagonists outside the Circle of Kirkwall?

Oh so I suppose Orsino, Grace and Alain aren't circle mages? 

I condemned them to death because there was bloodmages *everywhere* in the circle and out. 

The whole quest with Thrask and Grace makes that apparent. 

Not when her actions are producting antagonists like Huon and Evelina out of formerly sane mages.

What makes you say they were formly sane?

Meredith helped put herself in a position of authority and power over the people.

Indeed she did. That doesn't mean she wasn't keeping them safe. 

Ryzaki wrote...
That must explain why she orders the murder of hundreds of men, women, and children, and why she endangers the lives of civilians by having her templars fighting mages in the streets.

Hundreds? We have no way of  knowing how many mages were in thecircle (like with how many people were in the Chantry). 

As for endangering civilians the mages were the ones who weren't in the circle in the first place. And again bloodmages wouldn't hesitate to cause damage in the city. So it is best they were taken out

Considering that Meredith's Circle of Kirkwall lead to the rape, torture, murder, and tranquility of many, I don't see how you can support such a claim.

Her templars choosing to abuse their powers (and if the mages didnt' speak up how was she to help them?) doesn't mean she wasn't doing her job and keeping the mages in check. 

We have little information on how bad things are between the templars and the mages, and we can't say the two are only "glaring across the room at each other" when Varric points out that it's put Thedas on the brink of war.

 

...the BRINK of war. I'm pretty sure if there was massive fighting there would already be a war.  

Ah well. I'm not gonna agree. Innocent mages were killed in the RoA but there's enough guilty ones in there for me to do it. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juin 2011 - 10:12 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Wulfram wrote...
Religious doctrine has very little role in the position of mages.  It bans blood magic, and limits their political power.  But they are not hated and oppressed because of the Chantry.

If they continously preach that magic is a curse (to legitimate their own power), then how isn't it part of why magic is hated? It isn't the sole reason, sure. But one of the main reasons. And more importantly, that which blocks alternative thinking.

Or to more thoroughly enslave them.

It would not be cost effective and would most likely be counter-productive.
It's not easy to motivate people you enslave to use their substantial powers to help you, without having a stake in the system. 

Because when under pressure to gain military advantage over rival states, it won't stay under control and properly checked.

Warfare is bad enough without enemy civilian's blood being a useful resource.

Why wouldn't it? Medieval Europe banned the use of crossbows for instance. With self-interest in mind.

Furthermore, unless a magocracy, states would not have an interest in providing mages with unlimited power via blood, they would be signing their own death warrant.

So I don't see why states would deliberately allow their mages to acquire as much power as possible without making sure they are controlled (and weren't you just saying that states would rather enslave them?).

And while error is part of human nature and is inevitable, states are better equipped to handle such things. Both individually, and multilaterally, in international accords and treaties.

And I gtg, cheers!

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 juin 2011 - 10:08 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
States cannot on their own provide the cohesion and sense of purpose that people need, be it on an individual or
societal level.

Oh I most certainly agree. States on their own cannot provide a sense of purpose.
But, that's exactly what I would relegate religions / ideologies..etc to. To be present on a social level, but without having an institution that ends up acting like a state  (has its own army and monopolizes lyrium and magic).

I personally am not advocating the complete eradication of the Chantry , and even less so the religion of Andrastrianism. What I am however adocating is a weakening of the institution itself, and to strip it from political / military power. Whatever check it can provide against states should be an a social level. States wil require the consent of the Chantry to have legitimacy amongst the populace.

I don't think it's bad for a religious institution to have political power, but we're probably just going to differ on that.  For one thing, if the army is not all in one set of hands, it's less difficult for tyranny to exist on either side.  Kirkwall not having any civil government to speak of is where the imbalance comes.

So in a quasi-medieval society

But what if they are becoming "modern" or becoming something other than medieval? Are we to stop the trend? I see it as inevitable. 

I don't see "modernity" either as inevitable or inevitably good.

The average joe is not going to change his mind on this unless an initiative starts from above, or alternatively, unless an initiative starts from society and is protected and patronized by above.

I would agree if the "above" we're talking about is within the Chantry itself and not an outside power imposing a doctrinal reform on them.  A civil ruler can encourage such reform, by patronizing certain factions or leaders for example, but I don't think they should be allowed to impose them.

People are assuming that religions are inherently more unchanging- more "dogmatic"- than other human groupings/ organizations, and that's not true.  Human beings tend to hang on to our prejudices, but that's the case no matter where they come from.

Yea, and I believe that the Chantry is demonstrating a lot of incompetence lately. Perhaps not on the same level of idiocy as Harrowmont who doens't realize that he is accelrating the death of his people. But incompetence nonetheless.

Well look around.  They're hardly the only ones.

[GavrielKay]

Addai67 wrote...
People are assuming that religions are inherently more unchanging- more "dogmatic"- than other human groupings/ organizations, and that's not true.  Human beings tend to hang on to our prejudices, but that's the case no matter where they come from.

Religions are more inherently unchanging.  Their whole basis revolves around having some sort of higher truth handed down from an infalible source.  Every case of evolving relgion I've ever heard of has been inflicted on the religion, not come about from self-scrutiny.  An outside force or loss of membership due to outside influence is always part of revising doctrine.

Other forms of human society do not rely on having any kind of ultimate truth and can therefore simply rethink things when it is necessary or advantageous.