276 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonflight288]

Which makes more sense...and Meredith does use a tranquil as a ladyservant in Act 3. Which only goes to show that whatever happens in the circle has to pass the chantry.

[DKJaigen]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Actually the Chantry could simply improve on the internal affair offices of the Templar Order, and it would do much to relieve the tensions between mage and Templar.

However you would need to show the Chantry that their treatment, or just that the Templars' treatment (in some cases) was unacceptable to go unpunished. You don't need to start a war for that.

**** the chantry. as  i said this is all about power and they will still kill the mages if they are deemed a threat to the chantry. this has nothing to do with decent internal affairs .This a corrupt and tyrannical system that needs to be completely annilated for the benefit for every one involved even for the commoners .

So that someone else can claim the same power and let the cycle start again, just udner a new name, like government or coorporations?

Everything is about getting power and keeping it. You are naïve if you think removing the Chantry will change that.  At least the Chantry also have charities and educational values. I doubt anything replacing it would be as "bountiful".

Ofcourse there is always power . But the thought of having ignorant and corrupt religious institution like the chantry have absolute power over mage is a ****ty prospect for any mage knowing they will never be judged or treated fairly because the chantry is biased against magic and sees it as threat to their own power . I rather have the first enchanter have absolute power provided he does everything with reason and knowledge and not with religous mumbo jumbo. And charity and education is not something the chantry alone can provide.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

That sounds like you don't care about a corrupt institution with absolute power as long as it's not a religious one. You know what they say about having absolute power, if the First Enchanters had absolute power then they eventually would also eliminate anyone who would be a threat to their power. That's just how it works. That's exactly how the Tevinter Imperium works. It's not exactly a safe haven for mages, even though it's a magocracy.

[The Baconer]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

That's just how it works. That's exactly how the Tevinter Imperium works. It's not exactly a safe haven for mages, even though it's a magocracy.

It's a safe haven to the strong, and the capable, as it should be.

[MichaelFinnegan]

The Baconer wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

That's just how it works. That's exactly how the Tevinter Imperium works. It's not exactly a safe haven for mages, even though it's a magocracy.

It's a safe haven to the strong, and the capable, as it should be.

There is the aspect of slavery. How would that figure in?

[The Baconer]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
There is the aspect of slavery. How would that figure in?

Slaves obviously don't fall under the described criteria, or they wouldn't be where they are in Tevinter. Disregarding, of course, one who happens to be a mage and thus is capable of rising in social stature. I imagine it would work the same way it always has in Tevinter, and other places, since it's not exclusive to the Imperium.

[MichaelFinnegan]

The Baconer wrote...

Slaves obviously don't fall under the described criteria, or they wouldn't be where they are in Tevinter. Disregarding, of course, one who happens to be a mage and thus is capable of rising in social stature. I imagine it would work the same way it always has in Tevinter, and other places, since it's not exclusive to the Imperium.

Forget about slavery for the time being. My point was simply that concentrating power in the hands of magisters is never a good idea. Zeroing in on this statement (from DKJaigen): "I rather have the first enchanter have absolute power provided he does everything with reason and knowledge and not with religous mumbo jumbo." The assumption that "provided he does everything with reason and knowledge" never works in practice.

Let's say there is no Chantry. Would you still retain the Circle? If so, to what end?

[The Baconer]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

Forget about slavery for the time being. My point was simply that concentrating power in the hands of magisters is never a good idea. Zeroing in on this statement (from DKJaigen): "I rather have the first enchanter have absolute power provided he does everything with reason and knowledge and not with religous mumbo jumbo." The assumption that "provided he does everything with reason and knowledge" never works in practice.

Let's say there is no Chantry. Would you still retain the Circle? If so, to what end?

Well, when the power was all in the hands of the Magisters they produced most of the architectural wonders found in Thedas. They built a bridge across the Waking Sea. They built a highway that spanned parts of the continent. They advanced Thedas' knowledge of the Arcane and the Fade, and disregarding the Dwarves, they were the driving force behind all of Thedas' technological advancement. Even in 'modern' times, mages continue to discover new ways to push the envelope with magic, with many of the most wonderous discoveries being a product of Blood Magic.

With the Chantry being the supreme authority? Outside of the Circles, funnily enough, academic and technological advancement within Andrastian nations (again, aside from the Dwarves) seems to have stagnated. They are complacent with their squatting in leftovers of Tevinter's glory days. So, as a blunt answer, I would indeed prefer a complete Magocracy.

[ddv.rsa]

The Baconer wrote...

 So, as a blunt answer, I would indeed prefer a complete Magocracy.

So Chantry domination is evil, but if mages have absolute power then it's ok? Aside from how hypocritical that is, the Andrastian nobility and even the peasants would never stand for it. If the rebel mages even attempted to create a magocracy people like Meredith would stand vindicated.

[MichaelFinnegan]

I just wanted to understand your point of view.

The Baconer wrote...
Well, when the power was all in the hands of the Magisters they produced most of the architectural wonders found in Thedas. They built a bridge across the Waking Sea. They built a highway that spanned parts of the continent. They advanced Thedas' knowledge of the Arcane and the Fade, and disregarding the Dwarves, they were the driving force behind all of Thedas' technological advancement. Even in 'modern' times, mages continue to discover new ways to push the envelope with magic, with many of the most wonderous discoveries being a product of Blood Magic.

Yes, I completely agree with the advancement part. I am for abolishing restrictions on blood magic, for unleashing the powers of the mind and Fade, for free trade, and so on. But just consider how this advancement might have come to be. - on a sea of blood, especially of those steadily "imported" slaves. It is also a corrupt system, no more no less.

With the Chantry being the supreme authority? Outside of the Circles, funnily enough, academic and technological advancement within Andrastian nations (again, aside from the Dwarves) seems to have stagnated. They are complacent with their squatting in leftovers of Tevinter's glory days. So, as a blunt answer, I would indeed prefer a complete Magocracy.

Yes, one could call it the dark age - it bears resemblance I think.

But magecracy is a mage-dominated society. What I look for instead is what you suggested in your earlier post. A society where mages aren't restricted in their potential in any way, provided they don't resort to harm on others - by things like slavery. DKJaigen suggested that, but it is not clear to me how this would actually come to be. And I seriously wonder if this is not the whole point of the DA storyline.

[The Baconer]

ddv.rsa wrote...

So Chantry domination is evil, but if mages have absolute power then it's ok? Aside from how hypocritical that is,

I don't believe I ever described it as such.

the Andrastian nobility and even the peasants would never stand for it. If the rebel mages even attempted to create a magocracy people like Meredith would stand vindicated.

Ok.

MichaelFinnegan wrote...


Yes, one could call it the dark age - it bears resemblance I think.

But
magecracy is a mage-dominated society. What I look for instead is what
you suggested in your earlier post. A society where mages aren't
restricted in their potential in any way, provided they don't resort to
harm on others - by things like slavery. DKJaigen suggested that, but it
is not clear to me how this would actually come to be. And I seriously
wonder if this is not the whole point of the DA storyline.

My opinion in this topic has always leaned toward mage supremacy. I certainly advocate a society where mages aren't restriced in any capacity. I am not concerned with how they would choose to exercise such a right.

Modifié par The Baconer, 11 juin 2011 - 09:56 .

[ddv.rsa]

People are scared enough of mages. Mages need to show they want the same rights as everyone else, not that they're lunatics trying to create another Imperium.

[The Baconer]

ddv.rsa wrote...

Mages need to show they want the same rights as everyone else,

Man, I guess this whole time they should have just spoken up!

[MichaelFinnegan]

The Baconer wrote...

My opinion in this topic has always leaned toward mage supremacy. I certainly advocate a society where mages aren't restriced in any capacity. I am not concerned with how they would choose to exercise such a right.

It is a difficult problem to address. I do not lean toward any kind of supremacy, however. I just think that power shouldn't be concentrated the way it is now, either in the Tevinter Imprium or in Chantry-controlled/dominated society.

[ddv.rsa]

The Baconer wrote...

ddv.rsa wrote...

Mages need to show they want the same rights as everyone else,

Man, I guess this whole time they should have just spoken up!

I think it's obvious that I'm referring to the rebels. If they want  people to actually support their rebellion they can't act like magisters.

[dragonflight288]

...I'm against any corrupt institution. I don't agree with any group having absolute power over others. In Thedas, the chantry has had way too much power for far too long. In Tevinter, the magisters have way too much power over too many people.

I'm all for a system where people are treated equally with rights (so the chantry would have to lose their control over the circles and stop preaching hate), security measures are taken (templars are needed, but their power over mages aren't.), free thought and enterprise flourishes (mages being allowed to experiment, ethically of course. The Litany of Adralla speaks for itself there).

Those are all very modern principles that, when you look at the history of the world, is pretty much an infant or a toddler compared to other ideas and how long they've been around.

But as this is a medieval world, intolerance is the rule of thumb. The chantry having had so much power over mages and the people, having influence on the rulers of kingdoms, will not want to lose any of that power. And that means preaching hate and allowing abuses to occur, whether to mages, elves, or non-believers.

[DKJaigen]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

That sounds like you don't care about a corrupt institution with absolute power as long as it's not a religious one. You know what they say about having absolute power, if the First Enchanters had absolute power then they eventually would also eliminate anyone who would be a threat to their power. That's just how it works. That's exactly how the Tevinter Imperium works. It's not exactly a safe haven for mages, even though it's a magocracy.

Your correct about absolute power but having a single man having absolute power is not my ideal vision for the circle. However any corrupt goverment is preferable to a corrupt theocracy. A corrupt theocracy can perform horrendous crimes and say it its the will of some god. As commoner you are nearly powerles in such a case. But a normal man who has power can be judged by human standards. Even if a first enchanter gets out of line other mages are very likely to replace him swiftly. But you cannot replace templars because they have their divine rights

Modifié par DKJaigen, 11 juin 2011 - 11:11 .

[dragonflight288]

The Grand Cleric says it best in the Landsmeet in Origins.

"The Chantry will not overlook this Teyrn Loghain! Interference in a Templar's sacred duty is a crime against the Maker!"

[Jedi Master of Orion]

DKJaigen wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

That sounds like you don't care about a corrupt institution with absolute power as long as it's not a religious one. You know what they say about having absolute power, if the First Enchanters had absolute power then they eventually would also eliminate anyone who would be a threat to their power. That's just how it works. That's exactly how the Tevinter Imperium works. It's not exactly a safe haven for mages, even though it's a magocracy.

Your correct about absolute power but having a single man having absolute power is not my ideal vision for the circle. However any corrupt goverment is preferable to a corrupt theocracy. A corrupt theocracy can perform horrendous crimes and say it its the will of some god. As commoner you are nearly powerles in such a case. But a normal man who has power can be judged by human standards. Even if a first enchanter gets out of line other mages are very likely to replace him swiftly. But you cannot replace templars because they have their divine rights

What difference does it make what a crime is commited in the name of? A secular authority could find a reason to justify an atrocity just as easily as a theocracy. Templars are not above reproach in majority of places in Thedas. Outside of Krikwall they don't really have any wordly power anyway.

[dragonflight288]

As we are aware of. Things could theoretically be very different in Orlais, the heart of the Chantry and home of the Divine.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Thrask's comments in Act 3, sort of imply that what was going on in Kirkwall was an aberration. The Chantry might be more influential in Orlais, but it's not like the Orleasian Empire answers to The Divine, at least not directly. Orlais is still ruled by the Empress.

[DKJaigen]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

That sounds like you don't care about a corrupt institution with absolute power as long as it's not a religious one. You know what they say about having absolute power, if the First Enchanters had absolute power then they eventually would also eliminate anyone who would be a threat to their power. That's just how it works. That's exactly how the Tevinter Imperium works. It's not exactly a safe haven for mages, even though it's a magocracy.

Your correct about absolute power but having a single man having absolute power is not my ideal vision for the circle. However any corrupt goverment is preferable to a corrupt theocracy. A corrupt theocracy can perform horrendous crimes and say it its the will of some god. As commoner you are nearly powerles in such a case. But a normal man who has power can be judged by human standards. Even if a first enchanter gets out of line other mages are very likely to replace him swiftly. But you cannot replace templars because they have their divine rights

What difference does it make what a crime is commited in the name of? A secular authority could find a reason to justify an atrocity just as easily as a theocracy. Templars are not above reproach in majority of places in Thedas. Outside of Krikwall they don't really have any wordly power anyway.

No not really. look at our own history and see how many things where commited in gods name. its not about justification but how the common man looks upon the justification. Theocratic entities have an advantage here as the common man first needs to overcome his own religion.

You say templars are not above reproach? even in fereldan they are protected by divine law. and fereldan are the most level headed people here. The small tibits of information we have shows how the grand cleric holding great of social standing and influence.  furthermore we have no idea how it is in other nations but i gues they are even more protected in lands like the anderfelds.

However im not here to discuss the limits of the chantry. Right now the chantry hold on the mages is immoral as it causes more harm then good. The global war that is happening at the end of DA2 is a good reason why the chantry must never be allowed to control mages .

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Many crimes have been committed in the name of things other than God. All that would be needed is for someone in a corrupt authoritarian position to twist any noble virtue to suit their needs. Or sometimes if they are powerful enough they could simply drop the pretense and do it because it boosts their power. This is usually the real reason anyway. Heck, there's a simpler example even in Dragon Age, everything Loghian did was done in the name of fear of Orlais.

Of course the Grand Cleric has influence, she's the head of the Chantry in Ferelden. But she still has no direct authority over anyone but the clergy. The Templars have no such authority. Their power is mostly limited to their role of guarding mages. The King is still the real power in Ferelden, unlike in Kirkwall. The Grand Cleric told Loghian that stealing a blood mage from the Chantry's justice is a crime against the Maker but he did it anyway. And he would have been able to do it without any real repercussions if it wasn't for the fact that the Warden stopped him.

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 12 juin 2011 - 05:31 .

[dragonflight288]

Oh he would have faced repercussions. The darkspawn however took precedence.