174 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Six Years is not a long time at all when concerning international relations and preperations for war. The Qunari have been building up their armies and will not invade the rest of thedas again until they are fully prepared, From what Sten and the Arishok suggest.. They are almost prepared.

Sten and the Arishok make no such statement that the Qunari are "almost prepared." Sten thinks his people will invade Thedas eventually, while the Arishok cryptically claims that his people "will return." However, the Accord has been around for some time, and despite being broken three times, no war has resulted. There's also the factor that the Qunari are fighting a war with Tevinter. The idea that the Qunari will invade is speculation.

XxDeonxX wrote...

The Accord wasn't breached by the Qunari before that event, it was breached by The Chantry and Kont-arr is said to have not reported back the killings.

It was breached by the converts in the Kingdom of Rivain who remained, who are Qunari by definition.

XxDeonxX wrote...

The other times the accord was breached it was not officially recognised by the qunari or the chantry, this time it was recognised by both.
Open war with the qunari is inevitable. 

A Chantry scholar discusses in a written publication how it was broken twice, so I don't see how the Chantry or the Qunari aren't aware of the prior two times.
 

XxDeonxX wrote...

The Tevinter chantry worship Andraste just as the Orlesian Chantry do, Archon Hessarian acknowledged Andraste as the Makers chosen - although books come from tevinters scholars exploring the possibility that she was simply a powerful mage the Black divine and the tevinter chantry do follow andraste so they are considered andrastian.

Which doesn't mean the Imperial Chantry is the same thing as the Chantry of Andraste, so my point stands: the Hero of Ferelden from the Circle of Ferelden who becomes the new Arl of Amaranthine is the most powerful "Andrastian" mage in history of the Andrastian nations under the Chantry of Andraste.

XxDeonxX wrote...

When a large scale invasion is happening and people are fighting amongst themselves and refuse to stop fighting that is absolute arrogance.

Again, speculation isn't fact. You can speculate the Qunari will invade, but so far, there's no actual evidence that they will invade. Speculation =/= fact. Also, fighting to be free of a near millennia of subjugation isn't arrogance.

XxDeonxX wrote...

There is evidence the Qunari are planning to invade, Sten and the Arishok both say it will happen soon their forces are nearly at acceptable strength for an invasion and if the rest of thedas is fighting amongst themselves and the two major factions that opposed them and caused them the most trouble last time are to busy fighting each other of course they are going to take advantage of that.

Wrong. Sten thinks the Qunari will invade, and the Arishok provides a cryptic statement that his people will return upon his defeat. That's not hard evidence that an invasion is imminent.

XxDeonxX wrote...

The Templars indeed want to rule over that mages, but with the invasion when the choice is presented to either keep fighting and rule over nothing or make a compromise and have control over the people still but not the mages, the templars would make a compromise.

I don't see either side making a compromise when both are ideologically opposed to one another.

[Addai]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Secularism and religious tolerance do not go hand in hand, though. Perhaps they don't have a clear cut separation between church and state, but they are significantly less powerful in Ferelden than in Orlais, the Free Marches, or Neverra. Ferelden will probably go the way of Tudor England, though, and break off, probably slaughtering plenty of those loyal to the Divine of Val Royeaux. The Chantry is as Orlesian as Orlesian gets, and things aren't looking good between those two countries.

And where do you get that idea?  The Chantry survived in Ferelden despite supporting the occupation.

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Secularism and religious tolerance do not go hand in hand, though. Perhaps they don't have a clear cut separation between church and state, but they are significantly less powerful in Ferelden than in Orlais, the Free Marches, or Neverra. Ferelden will probably go the way of Tudor England, though, and break off, probably slaughtering plenty of those loyal to the Divine of Val Royeaux. The Chantry is as Orlesian as Orlesian gets, and things aren't looking good between those two countries.

And where do you get that idea?  The Chantry survived in Ferelden despite supporting the occupation.

The Chantry BARELY survived despite supporting the occupation.  The fact that Maric and Loghain could seriously consider kicking them out and how Alistair can openly defy them and retain his crown shows you how little power the Chantry really has in Fereldan next to other Andrastian nations.  The point is that the Fereldan Crown and nobility are secular if Andrastrian in belief....and that Piety likely doesn't extend to the Divine in Val Royeaux like it didn't with Rome in Tudor England.  I see Alistair in very much the same light as Henry the VIII and/or Anora as Elizabeth I.

-Polaris

[CrimsonZephyr]

Templars aren't running cities as a police state (Kirkwall, Free Marches), they don't have royalty as high ranking members of the Divine's secret police (Nevarra), thereby combining temporal and spiritual authority, among others. Templars have a minor role in merely policing mages in Ferelden. And it's not like they didn't consider splitting off. Likely they had bigger fish to fry.

[IanPolaris]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Templars aren't running cities as a police state (Kirkwall, Free Marches), they don't have royalty as high ranking members of the Divine's secret police (Nevarra), thereby combining temporal and spiritual authority, among others. Templars have a minor role in merely policing mages in Ferelden. And it's not like they didn't consider splitting off. Likely they had bigger fish to fry.

Indeed, once the effects of Kirkwall hit the fan, I wouldn't be at all suprised if Alistair (like Henry VIII) didn't take control of the Fereldan Templars outright.  Gregoire wouldn't be too happy about it, but if it kept the peace in Fereldan and still permitted him *some* authority to guard and protect mages, I think he'd go for it vs the alternative (getting kicked out of Fereldan).

-Polaris

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...

The Chantry BARELY survived despite supporting the occupation.  The fact that Maric and Loghain could seriously consider kicking them out and how Alistair can openly defy them and retain his crown shows you how little power the Chantry really has in Fereldan next to other Andrastian nations.  The point is that the Fereldan Crown and nobility are secular if Andrastrian in belief....and that Piety likely doesn't extend to the Divine in Val Royeaux like it didn't with Rome in Tudor England.  I see Alistair in very much the same light as Henry the VIII and/or Anora as Elizabeth I.

-Polaris

You're making stuff up.  Just because Loghain and Maric contemplated tossing the clergy out of Ferelden means nothing.  They promptly dismissed the idea as untenable.

I'm sure if the White Divine tried to start running Fereldan internal affairs, the Fereldans probably would cut their Chantry off from her influence.  We'll have to see how it goes.

[Addai]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Templars aren't running cities as a police state (Kirkwall, Free Marches), they don't have royalty as high ranking members of the Divine's secret police (Nevarra), thereby combining temporal and spiritual authority, among others. Templars have a minor role in merely policing mages in Ferelden. And it's not like they didn't consider splitting off. Likely they had bigger fish to fry.

We know next to nothing about Nevarran politics or Cassandra's ties to her family.  Does having a Grey Warden on the throne in Ferelden mean that Fereldans are politically beholden to the Wardens?

Kirkwall is Kirkwall, not the entire Free Marches.

[MichaelFinnegan]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The nations of Thedas aren't exactly clergy, but they certainly aren't secular.

Yes, this is my belief as well.

The very fact that even in Ferelden, the Chantry gets a vote on who is to be king, should be enough to show that they aren't secular.

I do not remember this one from the game, so I can't say anything about it at the moment.

Furthermore they are promoting Andrastianism, and restricting other religions at the same time, just look at the other religions in Thedas, which are all considered heretical.

I'm not sure whether this really applies outside the Chantry. Though, the issue still stands I think.

To me, there are really two distinct "official" powers in Ferelden, Kirkwall, or any place a Circle exists. The one (central monarchy in Ferelden with the lesser Banorns, an appointed Viscount in Kirkwall) which administers the common non-magic folk; and the other (Chantry) that polices over mages, which basically dictates how mages (part of the citizenry, it must be said) should exist and so on. Both of them maintain standing armies. The Chantry may not be tapping into the "official" funds of the nobility (if I can call it that), since apparently it has its own means of sustenance. And the nobility perhaps doesn't depend on the Chantry for its existence. So there is a case of division of power. And a division that might indeed be artifically reinforced - for whatever reason; a division that might cease to exist in circumstances of war, unrest, etc.

All of that being the case, I think the notion is rather absurd first of all to think that there are some sort of "central governments" in Ferelden, Kirkwall, etc. and further that these are somehow secular. We could debate whether the halves (parts, more precisely?) that are purportedly independent of the Chantry are really striving to be secular, that they are really striving to be tolerant of all the systems of belief that exist, and so on. Unless, such a proof can be submitted, the issue would stand open for debate.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Even if the Grand Cleric didn't get an actual vote, her mere presence, and allowance to speak an opinion, at the Landsmeet, shows that Ferelden isn't a secular government.

The fact is that most Thedas governments is mirred in religion, and while they may not claim to have been given kingship by the Maker, they are still heavily influenced by the Chantry. I guess the closest to a secular government you can come is Tevinter actually, though they aren't exactly tolerant either.

[Marduksdragon]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I don't see either side making a compromise when both are ideologically opposed to one another.

Then how did Thrask manage to compromise with the mages at all? He wanted them to be freer too-- to the point he'd allow them to run rather than see them captured by Karras-- and will help you kill Karras. There's going to be a wide spectrum of people on both sides (there's probably not even going to be organized armies-- just skirmishing groups rallied around specific leaders). If the majority on both end up being moderates who are following the polarizing people in the lead for lack of a better alternative (Alain and Keran as examples?), if given a pressing threat I can see them uniting to stop it.

[maxernst]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Even if the Grand Cleric didn't get an actual vote, her mere presence, and allowance to speak an opinion, at the Landsmeet, shows that Ferelden isn't a secular government.

The fact is that most Thedas governments is mirred in religion, and while they may not claim to have been given kingship by the Maker, they are still heavily influenced by the Chantry. I guess the closest to a secular government you can come is Tevinter actually, though they aren't exactly tolerant either.

The Chantry is far from powerless in Ferelden. Not only is the Grand Cleric allowed to speak, she can sway a vote, so it has "soft" power and influence with the Ferelden nobility, and I would guess its influence among the common people is stronger still.  The Chantry is basically running Lothering when the player arrives and they're heavily involved in the defense of Redcliffe, as well.  In any situation where the civil authority is weak, the Chantry takes over because it has a private army. I don't see much evidence of real opposition to the Chantry in Ferelden, either.

[DRTJR]

the redcliff chantry is being used because it's a definable position

[Torax]

The chantry was used because besides the Arl's keep. It was the most "Defensible" position in the city. It allowed them to have defense on multiple sides and since a large portion of the Chantry it's self was against the mountain? The ghouls that were attacking were forced to attack in almost funnel like points through the town's ally style entrances to get to it. This meant they be could bunker and have a better chance of getting the ghouls to thin their ranks. So they had the women and children in the chantry instead of all the wooden huts that is the majority of Redcliffe the chantry had a good portion of it'self built with stone.

[Augustei]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Sten and the Arishok make no such statement that the Qunari are "almost
prepared." Sten thinks his people will invade Thedas eventually, while
the Arishok cryptically claims that his people "will return." However,
the Accord has been around for some time, and despite being broken three
times, no war has resulted. There's also the factor that the Qunari are
fighting a war with Tevinter. The idea that the Qunari will invade is
speculation.

It was breached by the converts in the Kingdom of Rivain who remained, who are Qunari by definition.

A Chantry scholar discusses in a written publication how it was broken
twice, so I don't see how the Chantry or the Qunari aren't aware of the
prior two times.

Which doesn't mean the Imperial Chantry is the same thing as the Chantry
of Andraste, so my point stands: the Hero of Ferelden from the Circle
of Ferelden who becomes the new Arl of Amaranthine is the most powerful
"Andrastian" mage in history of the Andrastian nations under the Chantry
of Andraste.

Again, speculation isn't fact. You can speculate the Qunari will invade,
but so far, there's no actual evidence that they will invade.
Speculation =/= fact. Also, fighting to be free of a near millennia of
subjugation isn't arrogance.

Wrong. Sten thinks the Qunari will invade, and the Arishok provides a
cryptic statement that his people will return upon his defeat. That's
not hard evidence that an invasion is imminent.

I don't see either side making a compromise when both are ideologically opposed to one another.

Sten does make such a statement and says the qunari will return within his and the wardens lifetimes, The Accord has indeed been broken before not on the Qunari's end But it wasn't ever publiclly acknowledged by either side.. Publically acknowledging something and knowing it happened are not the same thing. In the past neither the Trimvirate or the divine publically acknowledged and had any statement saying the accord had been broken.

This time a member of the Trimvirate and the qunari armies breached the accord, as well as a chantry sister and templars in the name of a Grand Cleric.

When the Imperial Chantry split from the Orlesian chantry it didn't state anywhere they stopped referring to themselves as Andrastian so no point stands.
The Orlesian chantry and Tevinter Chanty both revere Andraste making them Andrastian.They were both part of the one chantry once as well.. Where does it say "Andrastian" is Orlesian Chantry exclusive?

Indeed Speculation isn't fact but the wind is certainly blowing that way, Especially since A) One of their leaders is dead( Possibly) , 2) The Llomeryn accord has been officially breached by both sides and due to it involving officials from both sides its something highly likely to be publically acknowledged Especially since the Seeker order publically acknowledges it to people not of the order (Varric)
3) Both the factions that caused them the most opposition last time are fighting each other
4) Sten says the war will happen within his and the wardens lifetime.. Being a warden the warden has about 2 decades left before the Qunari invade as well (although yeah sten didn't know that part)

If the Qunari invade then it would be arrogance for the mages to fight for freedom since when the Qunaris superior  training, battle tactics and technology allows them to conquer all of thedas with the mages and templars out of the way this will be alot easier as well -then freedom is exactly what the mages wont have. If they fail to see this as a very likely outcome if the Qunari invade that is arrogance

LobeselVith8 wrote...
I don't see either side making a compromise when both are ideologically opposed to one another.

Your Opinion, same as my statement was an opinion.. I guess we will just have to wait and see but even if the Templars are to arrogant to give the mages their freedom and just keep fighting I would think the chantry would condemn their actions since they would want to keep control.. and the peace

[DPSSOC]

XxDeonxX wrote...

LobeselVith8 wrote...
I don't see either side making a compromise when both are ideologically opposed to one another.

Your Opinion, same as my statement was an opinion.. I guess we will just have to wait and see but even if the Templars are to arrogant to give the mages their freedom and just keep fighting I would think the chantry would condemn their actions since they would want to keep control.. and the peace

Problem is the Chantry has lost control of the Templars by this point.  Chantry condemnation doesn't mean anything to them because they've already come to the conclusion that the Chantry has failed to do it's duty or is keeping them from doing theirs.  It's a bystander wagging their finger at the Templars nothing more.

[Sepewrath]

I would think the Chantry is just most interested in retaining their forces than any peace. If they lose the Circle and the lose the Templar's that is a huge lost of power for them, when there are mages running wild and the Chantry is nowhere to be seen, people will lose faith in it. They lose the hearts and minds of the people and then they are nothing more than large buildings with people in dresses. A new faith could easily overtake their teachings, when people are desperate for some kind of salvation. Suddenly the Qun doesn't seem so bad.

[elikal71]

DPSSOC wrote...

This thought has occurred to me every time I've heard this; if magic exists to serve man why aren't Mages put to more practical use?  I mean why not have Mages (supervised of course) acting as healers in every Chantry?  Why not have Mages make up a portion of Templar forces (I'm thinking 3 T:1 M)?  Hell why not use them for the simple task of digging trenches to aid  in irrigation?  If magic exists to serve man why aren't Mages allowed to do anything?

Unless I'm just missing something and the Mages are used for practical purposes and not just locked in their towers.

That's really a very good question.

As I see it, the entire system of magic and how it is handled is profoundly flawed.

- as you say, mages are not put to use at all
- locking away mages from ANYTHING to resemble a normal life is the most certain way to breed psychos, even a mage needs to have fun, relax, have a relationship and an easygoing time; denying that is guartanteed to cripple personalities
- that Mages have Templars as police is generally not the issue; but Templars are raised to dislike mages, and they unite police AND judge and often also law-maker all in one, there is no neutral clearing agency which really actively supervises these two, and the Chantry just usually stays outside the quarrels, so Mages are totally at the wanton grace of Templars
- Templars are raised as religiously prejudiced people and not as merely neutral police force
- there is no real rational inquiry about blood magic and abominations, it is all covered with superstitious fears

All these leads to dynamica which are destined to lead to disasters.

[MichaelFinnegan]

elikal71 wrote...

That's really a very good question.

As I see it, the entire system of magic and how it is handled is profoundly flawed.

A few observations below.

- as you say, mages are not put to use at all

By whom, though? The Chantry? The very first question that comes to my mind: is it even right for the Chantry to put mages to use? I would disagree with your assessment, though. Mages are put to use - during wars, as tranquils, etc. When it suits the fancy of their masters.

- locking away mages from ANYTHING to resemble a normal life is the most certain way to breed psychos, even a mage needs to have fun, relax, have a relationship and an easygoing time; denying that is guartanteed to cripple personalities

You almost make that sound like some kind of military life. Again, the question is where is the element of self-determination in all this? Just because someone is born a mage would not necessarily mean that the person would want to practice magic; he/she might just as well want to become farmers, or take up an interest in literature. One could argue that self-control would need to be exercised by them, given that they could fall prey to demons, but that again raises the question: is the Circle the right place or way to do it?

- that Mages have Templars as police is generally not the issue; but Templars are raised to dislike mages, and they unite police AND judge and often also law-maker all in one, there is no neutral clearing agency which really actively supervises these two, and the Chantry just usually stays outside the quarrels, so Mages are totally at the wanton grace of Templars

Mages having templars to police over them all the time is actually a very big issue, if you think about it. It always raises security issues for mages - irrespective of whether those templars are moral ones. It just has that effect of lowering self-esteem, if nothing else.

Even if one were to argue that someone actually polices the templars (someone at the Chantry, let's say), who polices over the Chantry itself? We actually reach a dead end. In systems like the democratic one, at least there is the some comfort that the polity decides on the fates of the legislators, and indirectly the police force. (I'm not saying that I favor entirely the democratic system, but just that it is superior, by contrast.)

- Templars are raised as religiously prejudiced people and not as merely neutral police force

I believe templars are chosen from among those who already have "unshakable" belief in the Maker - which for all practical purposes we can take to mean the preachings of the Chantry. Templars are raised to think that they have "a divine right of domination over mages."

- there is no real rational inquiry about blood magic and abominations, it is all covered with superstitious fears

I agree with you entirely here. One way to "solve" this problem is to look for ways to seal the Veil entirely, once and for all - to sever the connection between Thedas and the Fade. What has the White Chantry done to bring that about? Do they even want it? It seems to me that any rational inquiry into the matter is more or less quashed even before it takes shape.

All these leads to dynamica which are destined to lead to disasters.

Indeed. The system to me is ultimately an inferior one - one that ultimately must lead toward disasters. It is inferior precisely because it isn't a reactive one - but one that ultimately oppresses, all in the name of trying to prevent some future devastation. It is mired in religious dogma - with a closed minded outlook on magic in general.

[EmperorSahlertz]

A reactive system would be the most horrible irresponsible system imagineable. It HAS to be proactive, otherwise the disaster would already have struck when the system rolls out, instead of having been prevented. Sacrifices must be made, sadly these sacrifices aren't always voluntary, but it is for the safety of the majority. I will never see any value in a system that values an individuals happiness, over the majority's safety.

Furthermore, a closed mind is almost neccesary for the common folk to accept magic. If you have an open mind towards magic, you inevitably loosen the leash on the mages, which would lead them to study arts best left forgotten. Even relatively harmless arts, like shapeshifting, is outlawed for very good reasons. First of all, because it would be hard to keep a man, who can shift form into any imaginable creature, in one place. And secondly, because a man who can turn himself into a dragon, is hard to keep in one place...
The less the mages knows about their own power, the easier they are to control. It is terribly pragmatic, but it is the reason behind it.

By the way, how do you know mages aren't being put to use at all? It actually even seems like an errornous assesment, since mages ARE being used for different purposes, not least healing. The creation school is however the hardest school to master, hence why the amount of healers are limited.

[MichaelFinnegan]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

A reactive system would be the most horrible irresponsible system imagineable.

Why? Because of the "dangers" of magic?

It HAS to be proactive, otherwise the disaster would already have struck when the system rolls out, instead of having been prevented.

Not all preventative systems are good - especially oppressive ones. They tend to accomplish the opposite of what they set off with.

Even to come to such a conclusion - that disaster must ensue somehow, should have some emperical evidence behind it. What do we know about the conditions of Tevinter that led to such a devastation in the past? It is the exact causes behind that that ought to be combated - not magic in general.

Sacrifices must be made, sadly these sacrifices aren't always voluntary, but it is for the safety of the majority.

"Safety of the majority" is never a good argument, in my opinion. Because it sidelines one section of society as minority and puts them under the majority's whims. Always a recipe for disaster - especiallly when we look at the true powers of the minority in this case. It is counterproductive - simply put.

I will never see any value in a system that values an individuals happiness, over the majority's safety.

Why though? That assumes it is somehow "moral" to let the majority survive at the expense of the individual. And I think you're not even sticking to the mage's individuality at this point. That seems like a general view of things. If you think somehow the survival of the majority is at issue, just look at the whole of nature. There are no "contrived systems" at work, still somehow life goes on, and better yet "evolves."

Furthermore, a closed mind is almost neccesary for the common folk to accept magic. If you have an open mind towards magic, you inevitably loosen the leash on the mages, which would lead them to study arts best left forgotten.

That simply assumes that all such research should lead to something bad. I'm not jumping into that well.

Even relatively harmless arts, like shapeshifting, is outlawed for very good reasons. First of all, because it would be hard to keep a man, who can shift form into any imaginable creature, in one place. And secondly, because a man who can turn himself into a dragon, is hard to keep in one place...

But look at what the Circle does. It actually forces mages to practice magic - to hone their skills. I will agree with you about some things - that blood magic mind control, etc. should be banished - and those who dwell on it should perhaps be executed. But not otherwise -  not when there is no dishonest intention evident. There is a reason, you know, that the modern system of justice protects the individual - innocent until proven guilty.

The less the mages knows about their own power, the easier they are to control. It is terribly pragmatic, but it is the reason behind it.

There is nothing pragmatic - and everything dogmatic about it. More knowledge is always good - it is how that knowledge is used that should be at issue - not possible in a closed minded system.

By the way, how do you know mages aren't being put to use at all? It actually even seems like an errornous assesment, since mages ARE being used for different purposes, not least healing. The creation school is however the hardest school to master, hence why the amount of healers are limited.

This I assume is directed at someone else.

EDIT: Adding a missed quote.

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 26 juillet 2011 - 03:50 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

Deleting the duplicate.

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 26 juillet 2011 - 03:50 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...

[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote...

A reactive system would be the most horrible irresponsible system imagineable.[/quote]
Why? Because of the "dangers" of magic?[/quote]
Yes. I take it you don't believe in the dangers of magic, even if a demon were to bite you in the arse.

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...
[quote]
It HAS to be proactive, otherwise the disaster would already have struck when the system rolls out, instead of having been prevented.[/quote]
Not all preventative systems are good - especially oppressive ones. They tend to accomplish the opposite of what they set off with.

Even to come to such a conclusion - that disaster must ensue somehow, should have some emperical evidence behind it. What do we know about the conditions of Tevinter that led to such a devastation in the past? It is the exact causes behind that that ought to be combated - not magic in general.[/quote]
Reactive systems aren't neccesarily good either you know. Actually they would probably breed just as much hate towards mages, if not even more. Because if it were reactive, then every single time a mage messed up, which could(/should) be a rare occurence, it would be open to the public, and they would be first hand witnesses of the dangers of magic. Furthermore, whenever a mage messed up, it would take days, weeks or even months for the Templars to respond, more than enough time to wreak havoc across a region and irrepairably damage the veil. Not acceptable.

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...
[quote]
Sacrifices must be made, sadly these sacrifices aren't always voluntary, but it is for the safety of the majority.[/quote]
"Safety of the majority" is never a good argument, in my opinion. Because it sidelines one section of society as minority and puts them under the majority's whims. Always a recipe for disaster - especiallly when we look at the true powers of the minority in this case. It is counterproductive - simply put.[/quote]
Mages are a minority. Your do no one any favors by pretending minorities don't exist. By accepting their existance you can get to work on creating acceptable situations, or as close as can get, for all groups, both the majority, and all minorities. If you close your eyes and pretend that everyone is part of same whole, you deny the chance for improval.

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...
[quote]
I will never see any value in a system that values an individuals happiness, over the majority's safety.[/quote]
Why though? That assumes it is somehow "moral" to let the majority survive at the expense of the individual. And I think you're not even sticking to the mage's individuality at this point. That seems like a general view of things. If you think somehow the survival of the majority is at issue, just look at the whole of nature. There are no "contrived systems" at work, still somehow life goes on, and better yet "evolves."[/quote]
Morality is a luxury only we can afford, because we actually have time to sit at our computers every day, discussing fictional situations.
Who cares about morality? Morality is the excuse the passive. "Oh, but it isn't right!" Then do something about it, instead of crying foul at someone elses actions. Perhaps it would be the right time to stop one's own inaction and do what "is right" then. No. Morality is an excuse of a coward.

Ugh.. that was a ball of gall.. It happens. Wasn't directed at you, it is just the subject of morality in itself that I hate.

Anyway.. I don't fear for the majority's survival. I fear for their safety. The majority should not have to be afraid of going out their door every day. Hell, no one should ever have to be afraid. Letting mages run around willy nilly, will not help. A mage WILL **** up at some point, and that will be public knowledge, and the public will fear mages even more. And evolution is not neccesarily a good thing either. Evolution is actually a very dangerous things, completely chaotic and out of control. It needs to be reigned in and controlled.

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...
[quote]
Furthermore, a closed mind is almost neccesary for the common folk to accept magic. If you have an open mind towards magic, you inevitably loosen the leash on the mages, which would lead them to study arts best left forgotten.[/quote]
That simply assumes that all such research should lead to something bad. I'm not jumping into that well.[/quote]
It will lead to something bad. Blood magic and the involvement of demons will not have a happy ending.

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...
[quote]
Even relatively harmless arts, like shapeshifting, is outlawed for very good reasons. First of all, because it would be hard to keep a man, who can shift form into any imaginable creature, in one place. And secondly, because a man who can turn himself into a dragon, is hard to keep in one place...[/quote]
But look at what the Circle does. It actually forces mages to practice magic - to hone their skills. I will agree with you about some things - that blood magic mind control, etc. should be banished - and those who dwell on it should perhaps be executed. But not otherwise -  not when there is no dishonest intention evident. There is a reason, you know, that the modern system of justice protects the individual - innocent until proven guilty.[/quote]
They don't kill mages on mere suspecion (usually anyway), despite what most pro-mage folks would have you believe. There is testimony and/or proof requirements, even the signature of the First Enchanter is needed, for the lawful killing of a mage studying illegal arts. Shapeshifting is illegal, not because it is dangerous, but becasue it is too uncontrollable. Any mage wanting to escape would "just" learn how to shapeshift into a bird or a mouse, and fly away or slink through the cracks in the wall.

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...
[quote]
The less the mages knows about their own power, the easier they are to control. It is terribly pragmatic, but it is the reason behind it.[/quote]
There is nothing pragmatic - and everything dogmatic about it. More knowledge is always good - it is how that knowledge is used that should be at issue - not possible in a closed minded system.[/quote]
More knowledge is good in our world, that is not so in Thedas, or any fantasy setting really. The more knowledge you have of demons, for instance, the more intertwined they become with you, they begin to have a stronger and stronger influence on your life. Look at almost every single mage in DA who has interacted with demons. All their stories end in tragedy.

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...
[quote]
By the way, how do you know mages aren't being put to use at all? It actually even seems like an errornous assesment, since mages ARE being used for different purposes, not least healing. The creation school is however the hardest school to master, hence why the amount of healers are limited.[/quote]
This I assume is directed at someone else.[/quote]
It was indeed.

[MichaelFinnegan]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Yes. I take it you don't believe in the dangers of magic, even if a demon were to bite you in the arse.

Of course, I do. One thing though: magic does not automatically mean demons. Even by your own estimate, you seem to seem not to be highlighting fireballs or cones of cold, but just the involvement of demons. So, let me reiterate - that is a fraction of what magic is.

Reactive systems aren't neccesarily good either you know. Actually they would probably breed just as much hate towards mages, if not even more. Because if it were reactive, then every single time a mage messed up, which could(/should) be a rare occurence, it would be open to the public, and they would be first hand witnesses of the dangers of magic. Furthermore, whenever a mage messed up, it would take days, weeks or even months for the Templars to respond, more than enough time to wreak havoc across a region and irrepairably damage the veil. Not acceptable.

Reactive systems have the great advantage of being "flexible." For the mages to lead normal lives, or do research even to repair tears in the Veil (you know?), for people to benefit from magic, and so on. If the public come to perceive mages as dangerous - then so be it. If they think they'd need to organize templar armies to combat them, then so be it, too. But where is the sense in punishing innocent mages from acts that they might never commit? And punished by an entity that is clearly dogmatic about the interpretation of magic?

What you say as a "proactive" system is actually an oppressively prevantative one. One that is ultimately counterproductive, simply because it maintains the status quo of stagnation.

Mages are a minority. Your do no one any favors by pretending minorities don't exist. By accepting their existance you can get to work on creating acceptable situations, or as close as can get, for all groups, both the majority, and all minorities. If you close your eyes and pretend that everyone is part of same whole, you deny the chance for improval.

Things like "acceptable situations" always make me stand up and take notice, because to whom it must be acceptable is often times not specified. If indeed it is so much acceptable to all parties concerned, where do ideas of rebillions spring from? Obviously something has gone awry.

In any case, the issue isn't simply segregating people into majorities or minorities; it is that it is done based on one aspect of character - even though it might be perceived as a dominant one. It is that whoever decides to make such groups disallow other groups to form naturally, for their own accord. For instance if persons of a certain village fear mages, then they'd make it a point not to allow them in. It is something entirely different for the Chantry to come along and say that mages should be disallowed from mingling with people.

Morality is a luxury only we can afford, because we actually have time to sit at our computers every day, discussing fictional situations.
Who cares about morality? Morality is the excuse the passive. "Oh, but it isn't right!" Then do something about it, instead of crying foul at someone elses actions. Perhaps it would be the right time to stop one's own inaction and do what "is right" then. No. Morality is an excuse of a coward.

Morality is something that guides our actions. And my conception of morality simply centres around the consequences of someone's actions. You punch me, I punch you. Whose actions are moral? It could really be as simple as that.

Ugh.. that was a ball of gall.. It happens. Wasn't directed at you, it is just the subject of morality in itself that I hate.

I don't mind even if it was directed at me. It doesn't undermine my belief in morality any much. By morality I don't mean someone else's conceptualization of such. It is what I know and perceive to be right/wrong. And I often times hate to subscribe to someone else's notions of such.

Anyway.. I don't fear for the majority's survival. I fear for their safety. The majority should not have to be afraid of going out their door every day. Hell, no one should ever have to be afraid. Letting mages run around willy nilly, will not help. A mage WILL **** up at some point, and that will be public knowledge, and the public will fear mages even more.

Part and parcel of existence, really. The real question is will locking up mages work forever? For how long will it work? What are the consequences of THAT action?

And evolution is not neccesarily a good thing either. Evolution is actually a very dangerous things, completely chaotic and out of control. It needs to be reigned in and controlled.

I perceive evolution as a precondition for existence. And any such control comes about naturally, at least from what I could tell from my barest knowledge of it. If a lion is really at the top of the food chain, then why is it that we don't see lions everywhere? Things have a way of adjusting themselves naturally over time. Even for humanity a time might come to face up to such an eventuality.

It will lead to something bad. Blood magic and the involvement of demons will not have a happy ending.

It may lead to something bad - let me highlight. As far as I could tell, not all magic involves demons, including blood magic.

They don't kill mages on mere suspecion (usually anyway), despite what most pro-mage folks would have you believe. There is testimony and/or proof requirements, even the signature of the First Enchanter is needed, for the lawful killing of a mage studying illegal arts. Shapeshifting is illegal, not because it is dangerous, but becasue it is too uncontrollable. Any mage wanting to escape would "just" learn how to shapeshift into a bird or a mouse, and fly away or slink through the cracks in the wall.

True enough. A shapeshifting, mind controlling blood mage would be quite an handful. My point is that if things were allowed to develop on their own, some mages like Adralla would find countermeasures, eventually. Even the mighty Tevinter Imperium, with all their powerful magisters, was defeated somehow.

More knowledge is good in our world, that is not so in Thedas, or any fantasy setting really. The more knowledge you have of demons, for instance, the more intertwined they become with you, they begin to have a stronger and stronger influence on your life. Look at almost every single mage in DA who has interacted with demons. All their stories end in tragedy.

Adralla is one counterexample. If she could find countermeasures (by theory, it is said of all things), why doesn't the White Chantry condone more of it? What do they have to lose? (perhaps a rhetorical question that)

And not to forget about the rest of the DA unverse we haven't yet seen. What's to say that all dealings with demons must end in tragedy?

[EmperorSahlertz]

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...

[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Yes. I take it you don't believe in the dangers of magic, even if a demon were to bite you in the arse.[/quote]
Of course, I do. One thing though: magic does not automatically mean demons. Even by your own estimate, you seem to seem not to be highlighting fireballs or cones of cold, but just the involvement of demons. So, let me reiterate - that is a fraction of what magic is.[/quote]
Because a mage uninfluenced by demons, you can at læeast count on his humanity. A mage is only as prone to natural (for lack of a better word) insanity as any other normal human being. An insane mage, without infleunce from ademon, is not bad luck really. A mage possessed by a demon, is however a result of an incompetent mage, or even worse, a stupid mage.

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...
[quote]
Reactive systems aren't neccesarily good either you know. Actually they would probably breed just as much hate towards mages, if not even more. Because if it were reactive, then every single time a mage messed up, which could(/should) be a rare occurence, it would be open to the public, and they would be first hand witnesses of the dangers of magic. Furthermore, whenever a mage messed up, it would take days, weeks or even months for the Templars to respond, more than enough time to wreak havoc across a region and irrepairably damage the veil. Not acceptable.[/quote]
Reactive systems have the great advantage of being "flexible." For the mages to lead normal lives, or do research even to repair tears in the Veil (you know?), for people to benefit from magic, and so on. If the public come to perceive mages as dangerous - then so be it. If they think they'd need to organize templar armies to combat them, then so be it, too. But where is the sense in punishing innocent mages from acts that they might never commit? And punished by an entity that is clearly dogmatic about the interpretation of magic?

What you say as a "proactive" system is actually an oppressively prevantative one. One that is ultimately counterproductive, simply because it maintains the status quo of stagnation.[/quote]
It has to oppress the mages. Otherwise you end up with **** ups like the Baroness or Conner.  The problem with being flexible is that it would be easy to manipulate. It is easy to decieve. And you actually want the people to find mages dangerous, and hate them even more? How on sweet mother earth is that ever going to help the mages? How would that help them lead a normal life?
And it is no punishment unless the mages wishes to percieve it as such. Some mages percieve it as a protection of them.

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...
[quote]
Mages are a minority. Your do no one any favors by pretending minorities don't exist. By accepting their existance you can get to work on creating acceptable situations, or as close as can get, for all groups, both the majority, and all minorities. If you close your eyes and pretend that everyone is part of same whole, you deny the chance for improval.[/quote]
Things like "acceptable situations" always make me stand up and take notice, because to whom it must be acceptable is often times not specified. If indeed it is so much acceptable to all parties concerned, where do ideas of rebillions spring from? Obviously something has gone awry.

In any case, the issue isn't simply segregating people into majorities or minorities; it is that it is done based on one aspect of character - even though it might be perceived as a dominant one. It is that whoever decides to make such groups disallow other groups to form naturally, for their own accord. For instance if persons of a certain village fear mages, then they'd make it a point not to allow them in. It is something entirely different for the Chantry to come along and say that mages should be disallowed from mingling with people.[/quote]
So you'd rather that a village would hound and harass a mage, simply because he wants to live in the village? You realize that it would probably end in blood being spilled, right? This is no modern society, where the villagers could file a complaint to some sort of agency. If something happens the village doesn't like, they will respond. With force. Wether the blood being spilled is the mage's or the villagers', it is a tragedy brought on by a flexible system like you suggest.

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...
[quote]
Morality is a luxury only we can afford, because we actually have time to sit at our computers every day, discussing fictional situations.
Who cares about morality? Morality is the excuse the passive. "Oh, but it isn't right!" Then do something about it, instead of crying foul at someone elses actions. Perhaps it would be the right time to stop one's own inaction and do what "is right" then. No. Morality is an excuse of a coward.[/quote]
Morality is something that guides our actions. And my conception of morality simply centres around the consequences of someone's actions. You punch me, I punch you. Whose actions are moral? It could really be as simple as that.[/quote]
Morality is wahtever the most powerful dictates. There is no morality, but the one which is imposed on us.

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...
[quote]
Anyway.. I don't fear for the majority's survival. I fear for their safety. The majority should not have to be afraid of going out their door every day. Hell, no one should ever have to be afraid. Letting mages run around willy nilly, will not help. A mage WILL **** up at some point, and that will be public knowledge, and the public will fear mages even more.[/quote]
Part and parcel of existence, really. The real question is will locking up mages work forever? For how long will it work? What are the consequences of THAT action?[/quote]
Why does that question have to be asked? The Circle system is what we have, and it will have to work, it can be made to work. It has clear and defined consequences. Wether you are able to live with those, is the question you should ask.
To tear down the system and replace it however, with some sort of untested system, filled with idealism and other nonsense, needs to be questioned.

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...

[quote]
And evolution is not neccesarily a good thing either. Evolution is actually a very dangerous things, completely chaotic and out of control. It needs to be reigned in and controlled.[/quote]
I perceive evolution as a precondition for existence. And any such control comes about naturally, at least from what I could tell from my barest knowledge of it. If a lion is really at the top of the food chain, then why is it that we don't see lions everywhere? Things have a way of adjusting themselves naturally over time. Even for humanity a time might come to face up to such an eventuality.[/quote]
Exactly. Evolution is dangerous. And if man wants to survive, it will have to control evolution. Otherwise we will be replaced.
And a lion isn't at the top of the food chain... (at least not worldwide) hence why it isn't a global species. The top of the food chain, would be humans.

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...
[quote]
It will lead to something bad. Blood magic and the involvement of demons will not have a happy ending.[/quote]
It may lead to something bad - let me highlight. As far as I could tell, not all magic involves demons, including blood magic.[/quote]
Blood magic does involve demons, since that is the only way to learn it, or at least use it.

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...
[quote]
They don't kill mages on mere suspecion (usually anyway), despite what most pro-mage folks would have you believe. There is testimony and/or proof requirements, even the signature of the First Enchanter is needed, for the lawful killing of a mage studying illegal arts. Shapeshifting is illegal, not because it is dangerous, but becasue it is too uncontrollable. Any mage wanting to escape would "just" learn how to shapeshift into a bird or a mouse, and fly away or slink through the cracks in the wall.[/quote]
True enough. A shapeshifting, mind controlling blood mage would be quite an handful. My point is that if things were allowed to develop on their own, some mages like Adralla would find countermeasures, eventually. Even the mighty Tevinter Imperium, with all their powerful magisters, was defeated somehow.[/quote]
Countermeasures only another mage could use. There are countermeasures already against magic. The Templars abilities for example. The problem isn't in the obvious magics, it is in the subtle ones. How are you supposed to counter a mind control, if you are unaware you are being influenced in the first place?

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...
[quote]
More knowledge is good in our world, that is not so in Thedas, or any fantasy setting really. The more knowledge you have of demons, for instance, the more intertwined they become with you, they begin to have a stronger and stronger influence on your life. Look at almost every single mage in DA who has interacted with demons. All their stories end in tragedy.[/quote]
Adralla is one counterexample. If she could find countermeasures (by theory, it is said of all things), why doesn't the White Chantry condone more of it? What do they have to lose? (perhaps a rhetorical question that)

And not to forget about the rest of the DA unverse we haven't yet seen. What's to say that all dealings with demons must end in tragedy?[/quote]
Because they are demons... It is fiction, and these demons are obviously based on all other kinds of demons. They prey on humans' desires, and are always trying to get the upperhand in any dealings, and usually get it. Of course you always find the one prodigy, like the Warden or Hawke, who is able to see through a demons' manipulations, but they are the exception.

[MichaelFinnegan]

[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Because a mage uninfluenced by demons, you can at læeast count on his humanity. A mage is only as prone to natural (for lack of a better word) insanity as any other normal human being. An insane mage, without infleunce from ademon, is not bad luck really. A mage possessed by a demon, is however a result of an incompetent mage, or even worse, a stupid mage.[/quote]
Any mage is a potential danger - no denying that. I always think the actions of the mage are what ought to be judged - whether that is shooting fireballs at innocents or being possessed by demons. The difference is really one of degree.

[quote]
It has to oppress the mages. Otherwise you end up with **** ups like the Baroness or Conner.  The problem with being flexible is that it would be easy to manipulate. It is easy to decieve. And you actually want the people to find mages dangerous, and hate them even more? How on sweet mother earth is that ever going to help the mages? How would that help them lead a normal life? [/quote]
By oppressing mages, you do lose a viable ally. Mages themselves. And my point about reactive systems is the rest of the non-mage world would not stand around doing nothing. They'd act and react in turn. People will get wise to any such deceptions (if they are committed) over time. Giving them a better chance to face what could come about - they'd not just rely on the Chantry's (in)competance in the matter.

It is all part and parcel of existence, as I already mentioned. One cannot guarantee something bad won't happen - but one best be prepared for such events, if they do happen.

[quote]
And it is no punishment unless the mages wishes to percieve it as such. Some mages percieve it as a protection of them.[/quote]
There are all sorts of mages. Some who fear possession and perhaps perceive Circles as safe havens. Others who think that such form of "protection" is restrictive of freedoms. And still others who want perhaps nothing to do with magic. There is no one stop solution for all of them - and trying to impose any such must necessarily be counterproductive.

[quote]
So you'd rather that a village would hound and harass a mage, simply because he wants to live in the village? You realize that it would probably end in blood being spilled, right? This is no modern society, where the villagers could file a complaint to some sort of agency. If something happens the village doesn't like, they will respond. With force. Wether the blood being spilled is the mage's or the villagers', it is a tragedy brought on by a flexible system like you suggest.[/quote]
No doubt things could go awry with the example I brought about. My own beliefs regarding interactions of people is somewhat different. By this I mean if the problem is between those villagers and the mage who wants to live with them for some reason, there is no need for the problem to spill over. The effects of it are rather local. And if, in the scheme of things, neither the villagers nor the mages hold any sort of advantage of power over the other (which I very much believe a reactive system would eventually bring about), the results are more or less likely to be peaceful.

[quote]
Morality is wahtever the most powerful dictates. There is no morality, but the one which is imposed on us.[/quote]
Ah, well. I have nothing to say to that, except that I disagree.

[quote]
Why does that question have to be asked? The Circle system is what we have, and it will have to work, it can be made to work. It has clear and defined consequences. Wether you  are able to live with those, is the question you should ask.[/quote]
To change or not to change. That is the question. The clear and defined consequence in the present context is more likely one of chaos. I suppose it'll become evident as things go along.

[quote]
To tear down the system and replace it however, with some sort of untested system, filled with idealism and other nonsense, needs to be questioned.[/quote]
What I proposed is not a system, per se. But a natural order of things. Of people being given an option to make up their own minds as to how they wish to exist. It is not an idealistic one.

[quote]
Exactly. Evolution is dangerous. And if man wants to survive, it will have to control evolution. Otherwise we will be replaced. And a lion isn't at the top of the food chain... (at least not worldwide) hence why it isn't a global species. The top of the food chain, would be humans.[/quote]
One could debate whether mankind has become the pinnacle of evolution on Earth. I'd say it is too soon - we haven't yet existed on this planet long enough to say either way, and the future, well, lacking technological progress looks rather glum. No denying that we do try to control things around us, to an extent. But to say that the whole of it can somehow be controlled - a fool's notion, nothing more.

I'll admit that the example of the lion was a poor one - I intended simply to point out that just because something looks to be at the top of the food chain, doesn't mean it can start changing the natural order (laws). We're all restricted by the resources at our disposal, and we rely on the balance in the order of things, whether we care to admit it or not.

[quote]
Blood magic does involve demons, since that is the only way to learn it, or at least use it.[/quote]
Let us not debate this. I don't know why the writers have been so vague with this. I see so many debates raging on, with no clear cut evidence to say either way.

[quote]
Countermeasures only another mage could use. There are countermeasures already against magic. The Templars abilities for example. The problem isn't in the obvious magics, it is in the subtle ones. How are you supposed to counter a mind control, if you are unaware you are being influenced in the first place?[/quote]
To that I'd answer that you'd better be aware. It is one thing to try to counter it and fail, and still another to throw up one's hands at the first sign of trouble. And anway I did say that mind control ought to be outlawed. I don't see how it can be used without harming others.

Templar abilities, mind control countermeasures, etc. have all come about because of practical necessity - because people do recognize the potential dangers of mages who will use magic for destruction - there is nothing further to look into that. I'm sure the counters would come about even if Circles or the Chantry didn't actually exist.

[quote]
Because they are demons... It is fiction, and these demons are obviously based on all other kinds of demons. They prey on humans' desires, and are always trying to get the upperhand in any dealings, and usually get it. Of course you always find the one prodigy, like the Warden or Hawke, who is able to see through a demons' manipulations, but they are the exception.[/quote]
The dalish don't actually see distinctions among spirits. Not that they don't see them all as bad, though. In any case, I believe you may be right about intentional dealings with demons - all "demons" seem to prey on human desires. What would need to be done would be to have sufficient willpower to overcome such temptations - but why deal with demons at all? The reasons are not obvious to me at the moment. Let's wait and watch how things unfold. I'm very much interested in where all this is going.

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 27 juillet 2011 - 08:37 .