257 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

TheJediSaint wrote...

Well, any system needs to do two things.

1. Prevent Mages, either through training or tranquility, from becoming abominations.

2. Prevent Mages from using their powers to abuse non-mages.


Granted, no system is going to be 100% effective, but considering that it took one mage in one city to destroy the existing system of circles, there is definite need for reform. At least reforms that don't amount to adopting the Qunari practice of turning mages into saarabas.

A better alternative would be a mage enclave-city of sorts. Mages who graduate the Circle can go, oh, to a super-circle city-state islands on some sea. Said Circle-City, as long as it's well isolated and in some part dependent on foreign trade, can both afford to be self-governing in most respects and free. You'd avoid the problems of losing a monopoly of education (the apostate-teacher candidates go to a different city-state, far from the students), but also have a 'closed' society in which mages could have a more normal life without the spill-over that would effect a continent.

The Templars role, besides a minor policing effort, would be more about preventing smuggling of lyrium and such.

[jamesp81]

TheJediSaint wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Standard of living is irrelevant.

Context is always relevant. You can't claim to be treated badly if your treatment is better than most everyone else's in most every way.

You really don't get it, do you?

He does get it, you're not understanding his point.

I understand his point perfectly, it's just that it's profoundly wrong in almost every conceivable way.  But, that's not really my problem either.

[jamesp81]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Even so, it will be a liberal democratic society after I chop enough heads.

Rather illustrative of why you don't understand liberal democracy...

or the importance of context.

Try reading history maybe?  Most of the free countries of this world became so after their people had finally inflicted enough violence and death on their oppressors to win their freedom, and they remained free because they maintained the ability to do it again if needed.

The American Revolution is, perhaps, the textbook example of this.  You might try studying it sometime.

Modifié par jamesp81, 10 octobre 2011 - 12:36 .

[Dean_the_Young]

AlexXIV wrote...

His point being that you're not a slave if everyone else is a slave as well? As in if we compare it to 'Matrix' they should all have stayed in the Matrix because they were all equally free and comfortable?

If the freedom of Xion were chattel slavery.

Remember, context.

No one is 'free' in Thedas, as we in western post-enlightenment understand it. There is no bill of rights. There is no magna carta. You have no recognized rights except those recognized by caste and station in the feudal heirarchies. All the UN and Western niceties we take for granted, are nowhere near existent in Thedas.

The alternative to the Circle isn't 'libertarian freedom'. It's going back to the treatment of everyone else. If the rest are worse, that isn't an improvement.

[Dean_the_Young]

jamesp81 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Even so, it will be a liberal democratic society after I chop enough heads.

Rather illustrative of why you don't understand liberal democracy...

or the importance of context.

Try reading history maybe?  Most of the free countries of this world became so after their people had finally inflicted enough violence and death on their oppressors to win their freedom, and they remained free because they maintained the ability to do it again if needed.

The American Revolution is, perhaps, the textbook example of this.  You might try studying it sometime.

Your understanding of the American Revolution and liberal democracy is highly flawed if you think that either came to be by the process of cutting off the heads of people who disagreed until the rest were cowed into line.

Now, would you care to provide your credentials as to why you are the historical expert? You first, after all.

[Dean_the_Young]

jamesp81 wrote...

I understand his point perfectly, it's just that it's profoundly wrong in almost every conceivable way.  But, that's not really my problem either.

Conceive harder.

/innuendo

[Dean_the_Young]

AlexXIV wrote...

You can't sell weapons with peaceful solutions. Think of the economy for once damnit!

You can't justify massacres either. Think of the all the poor willing martyrs willing to sacrifice others for the greater good!

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

His point being that you're not a slave if everyone else is a slave as well? As in if we compare it to 'Matrix' they should all have stayed in the Matrix because they were all equally free and comfortable?

If the freedom of Xion were chattel slavery.

Remember, context.

No one is 'free' in Thedas, as we in western post-enlightenment understand it. There is no bill of rights. There is no magna carta. You have no recognized rights except those recognized by caste and station in the feudal heirarchies. All the UN and Western niceties we take for granted, are nowhere near existent in Thedas.

The alternative to the Circle isn't 'libertarian freedom'. It's going back to the treatment of everyone else. If the rest are worse, that isn't an improvement.

Ferelden sort of gave me a "England shortly after the Magna Carta" feel. Maybe with a bit of an old school Saxon style nobility.


And it seems to suck slightly less to be a peasant in Ferelden than say Orlais.

Modifié par Grand Admiral Cheesecake, 10 octobre 2011 - 12:43 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

You can't sell weapons with peaceful solutions. Think of the economy for once damnit!

You can't justify massacres either. Think of the all the poor willing martyrs willing to sacrifice others for the greater good!

Herp-a-derp they deserved it by not being part of the revolution!

[TheJediSaint]

jamesp81 wrote...

Try reading history maybe?  Most of the free countries of this world became so after their people had finally inflicted enough violence and death on their oppressors to win their freedom, and they remained free because they maintained the ability to do it again if needed.

The American Revolution is, perhaps, the textbook example of this.  You might try studying it sometime.

How many British civilians did Ghandi kill to free India?  How many died to free Canada?  Or Austrailia?  How many people did MLK kill to get equal rights for African Americans?  How many people has the Gay Right Movement killed to get the right to marry?  Not very many, if any.  

You seem to think that freedom justifies violence, when it is quite the opposite.  If anything, violence is the tool of oppression.  

Modifié par TheJediSaint, 10 octobre 2011 - 12:51 .

[Jedi Master of Orion]

AlexXIV wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Magic isn't like the force, as some collective pseduo-entity that has a will and makes actions. Magic is just non-technical technology with a lot of strings attached. It's a tool. As a tool, it isn't even the root of the problem: the real problem is the spirits, which are distinct from magic.

That's where our opinions go in different directions. I think magic is much like the force. Basically the force is a sort of sci-fi space age magic, but whatever. We don't know the origin of a supposed 'Maker' or the Fade. So we neither really know what magic is all about. Of course I can't prove my point, but I am pretty sure you can't prove yours either. Not yet anyway, I hope somewhere along the road we learn more in either the next games or other sources.

I think you're still taking the intent of that passage from the Chant too literally. Andraste was making an unfavorable comparison to the Teveinter Imperium. i think she meant that the use of magic must not rule society.

[jamesp81]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Even so, it will be a liberal democratic society after I chop enough heads.

Rather illustrative of why you don't understand liberal democracy...

or the importance of context.

Try reading history maybe?  Most of the free countries of this world became so after their people had finally inflicted enough violence and death on their oppressors to win their freedom, and they remained free because they maintained the ability to do it again if needed.

The American Revolution is, perhaps, the textbook example of this.  You might try studying it sometime.

Your understanding of the American Revolution and liberal democracy is highly flawed if you think that either came to be by the process of cutting off the heads of people who disagreed until the rest were cowed into line.

Now, would you care to provide your credentials as to why you are the historical expert? You first, after all.

I've read most of the federalist papers and studied the history of it.

Your understanding is the one that lacks.  The patriots won their freedom through force of arms and an enormous dose of good luck (or divine intervention, if that's your belief).

They didn't win their freedom from the British by talking, negotiating, or reaching a compromise.  They didn't reach across the aisle, try to understand, or find common ground with the other side.  In fact, they started shooting at the other side until they'd had enough and left.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Yes because the aid of the Dutch, Spanish, and French armies/navies had nothing to do with it.
Hell even Mysore got in on the act.

Modifié par Grand Admiral Cheesecake, 10 octobre 2011 - 12:53 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Ferelden sort of gave me a "England shortly after the Magna Carta" feel. Maybe with a bit of an old school Saxon style nobility.


And it seems to suck slightly less to be a peasant in Ferelden than say Orlais.

Aye, but that's damning with faint praise indeed.

Ferelden is a perfectly progressive place to be unless you're an elf, poor, or in the way of some nobility.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Ferelden sort of gave me a "England shortly after the Magna Carta" feel. Maybe with a bit of an old school Saxon style nobility.


And it seems to suck slightly less to be a peasant in Ferelden than say Orlais.

Aye, but that's damning with faint praise indeed.

Ferelden is a perfectly progressive place to be unless you're an elf, poor, or in the way of some nobility.

Which is an awful sight better than Orlais.

Ferelden seems like the type of country that could evolve relatively peacefully into some kind of constitutional monarcy.

While the Orlesian emperors will probably have to be French revolutioned.

[TheJediSaint]

jamesp81 wrote...

I've read most of the federalist papers and studied the history of it.

Your understanding is the one that lacks.  The patriots won their freedom through force of arms and an enormous dose of good luck (or divine intervention, if that's your belief).

They didn't win their freedom from the British by talking, negotiating, or reaching a compromise.  They didn't reach across the aisle, try to understand, or find common ground with the other side.  In fact, they started shooting at the other side until they'd had enough and left.

Oversimplifications oversimpfy.  The American  Colonists did try to negotiate and compromise before they resorted to violence, even after the British started using violence against them, which seems to be the crucile point that you're missing.  They engaged in a shooting war only after every peaceful solution had been excausted, when the British demonstrated that they would never treat the American colonists as anything other than second class citizens.

[TheJediSaint]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Ferelden sort of gave me a "England shortly after the Magna Carta" feel. Maybe with a bit of an old school Saxon style nobility.


And it seems to suck slightly less to be a peasant in Ferelden than say Orlais.

Aye, but that's damning with faint praise indeed.

Ferelden is a perfectly progressive place to be unless you're an elf, poor, or in the way of some nobility.

Being nobles didnt help the Couslands, that's for sure.

Modifié par TheJediSaint, 10 octobre 2011 - 12:59 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

TheJediSaint wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

I've read most of the federalist papers and studied the history of it.

Your understanding is the one that lacks.  The patriots won their freedom through force of arms and an enormous dose of good luck (or divine intervention, if that's your belief).

They didn't win their freedom from the British by talking, negotiating, or reaching a compromise.  They didn't reach across the aisle, try to understand, or find common ground with the other side.  In fact, they started shooting at the other side until they'd had enough and left.

Oversimplifications oversimpfy.  The American  Colonists did try to negotiate and compromise before they resorted to violence, even after the British started using violence against them, which seems to be the crucile point that you're missing.  They engaged in a shooting war only after every peaceful solution had been excausted, when the British demonstrated that they would never treat the American colonists as anything other than second class citizens.

I get the feeling that's what they were going for with the mage/templar thing.

Didn't really work though because both sides were batty by mid-act 3.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

TheJediSaint wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Ferelden sort of gave me a "England shortly after the Magna Carta" feel. Maybe with a bit of an old school Saxon style nobility.


And it seems to suck slightly less to be a peasant in Ferelden than say Orlais.

Aye, but that's damning with faint praise indeed.

Ferelden is a perfectly progressive place to be unless you're an elf, poor, or in the way of some nobility.

Being nobles didnt help the Couslands, that's for sure.

That would seem to be very much the exception to the rule though.

[AlexXIV]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

His point being that you're not a slave if everyone else is a slave as well? As in if we compare it to 'Matrix' they should all have stayed in the Matrix because they were all equally free and comfortable?

If the freedom of Xion were chattel slavery.

Remember, context.

No one is 'free' in Thedas, as we in western post-enlightenment understand it. There is no bill of rights. There is no magna carta. You have no recognized rights except those recognized by caste and station in the feudal heirarchies. All the UN and Western niceties we take for granted, are nowhere near existent in Thedas.

The alternative to the Circle isn't 'libertarian freedom'. It's going back to the treatment of everyone else. If the rest are worse, that isn't an improvement.

But mages are no peasants. No insult to peasants meant, but mage are probably among the more intelligent people of Thedas. So they are more likely to rebel against oppression, as it has always been the more intelligent people who were among the first to protest against mistreatment. They are powerful and intelligent and they probably 'know' at some point that they deserve more. You can call it arrogance, but my problem is not just the morale side, it is also that the chantry and templars both fail at logic, or knowledge of human nature. I mean the common people may be happy in with their lot, at least they don't have enough self-esteem or courage or means (as in weapons) to ask for more.

But the Chantry is trying to enslave the most intelligent and most powerful people of Thedas and use them for their purpose. In that case I am rather with the Qunari. I don't support them at all, but at least they do it in a way that seems safer than what the Chantry is doing.

Excuse me, I don't understand the part about chattel slavery and why it is relevant what kind of slavery there is. Point is they could have been happy ever after in the Matrix. Life outside was actually alot worse than inside. Still they wanted to be free. Because they were intelligent and probably arrogant enough to claim a life without control of machines. I am not really an expert about freedom and why we want it so much, but it seems to me that the more intelligent or knowning or cultivated a person is, the stronger is their desire to be in control of their own life.

[Dean_the_Young]

jamesp81 wrote...

I've read most of the federalist papers and studied the history of it.

Congratulations. You finished a high-school civics class. Maybe you even had an 'A'.

Your understanding is the one that lacks.  The patriots won their freedom through force of arms and an enormous dose of good luck (or divine intervention, if that's your belief).

And it wasn't won by executing the dissenters who didn't agree with the way things were going. You're thinking of the Communist Revolution of Russia.

They didn't win their freedom from the British by talking, negotiating, or reaching a compromise.  They didn't reach across the aisle, try to understand, or find common ground with the other side

That's exactly what the Revolutionaries did, even after the American Revolution started: attempts at negotiations went hand-in-hand with fighting. That was true at the first, and that continued to the end: the end of the American Revolution was a political agreement, not a military total victory: Britain was still far more powerful and still capable of war, but its reasons for agreeing to peace were political.

[jamesp81]

TheJediSaint wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Try reading history maybe?  Most of the free countries of this world became so after their people had finally inflicted enough violence and death on their oppressors to win their freedom, and they remained free because they maintained the ability to do it again if needed.

The American Revolution is, perhaps, the textbook example of this.  You might try studying it sometime.

How many British civilians did Ghandi kill to free India?  How many died to free Canada?  Or Austrailia?  How many people did MLK kill to get equal rights for African Americans?  How many people has the Gay Right Movement killed to get the right to marry?  Not very many, if any.  

You seem to think that freedom justifies violence, when it is quite the opposite.  If anything, violence is the tool of oppression.  

Gandhi said something interesting once:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India,
history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the
blackest.
"

We can never know for sure, but it might be that Gandhi used civil disobedience because he had no other options.

MLK followed Gandhi's model because he believed it was most likely to succeed.  And sometimes, it IS most likely to succeed.

The United States won its freedom by force of arms.  So did Mexico.  The Czechs forcefully resisted the Soviets and eventually were freed.  The Afghans in the 80s also fought the Soviets for their freedom.  The Scots won their freedom from the English on the bloody fields of Bannockburn.  The Communists overthrew the oppressive Czarist regime in Russia (although they promptly turned around and became just as bad, if not worse).  The partizans of France fought their German occupiers during WW2 until such time as allies were able to liberate their homeland.  The brutal dictator and mass murderer Pol Pot was dislodged from power by the invading Vietnamese army.  The Greeks preserved their sovereignty from Persian occupation by force of arms and the sacrifice of the 300 Spartans in the classical era.  Modern day Israel was invaded the day it became a country, and the people of Israel retook their country in battle.  The Polish and the Austrians fought from the walls of Vienna to break the conquering Ottoman army in Europe.

These are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.  I'm sure I could hit the bookshelf and find a great many more.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

I'm reminded about how it was usually the aristocracy who would think up all these newfangled ideas like "The rights of man" or "The separation of Church and State".

When you've got a relatively easy life you have much more time to think about the finer things.

[nightscrawl]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

A better alternative would be a mage enclave-city of sorts. Mages who graduate the Circle can go, oh, to a super-circle city-state islands on some sea. Said Circle-City, as long as it's well isolated and in some part dependent on foreign trade, can both afford to be self-governing in most respects and free. You'd avoid the problems of losing a monopoly of education (the apostate-teacher candidates go to a different city-state, far from the students), but also have a 'closed' society in which mages could have a more normal life without the spill-over that would effect a continent.

The Templars role, besides a minor policing effort, would be more about preventing smuggling of lyrium and such.

While interesting, the problem with this is the same problem that will happen in any nation, magic or no: people who want power rise to the top over time and eventually want more than they have: this leads to conquering other nations. So, then you have an entire national mage army that could be completely devastating to any other nations they set their sights on.

Look at Osatgar: in the mage origin story, Duncan mentions having about a dozen mages for the army. Twelve. That's it. Twelve mages and several thousand bow, spear, and foot (and one should assume horse also, but they aren't shown). Duncan might want more, but for fear of the mages' powers, the Chantry allows that few number. Think of what a coordinated army of just 1000 mages could do to Thedas.

This is what the Chantry fears and why they keep a gauntleted templar fist gripped tightly around the mages' throats.

As far as templars are concerned, the problem with the current system is that they are the military arm of the chantry. This means that they cannot be simply a police force to act as you suggest, stopping lyrium smuggling or tracking abominations. As long as they are united to the Chantry, there will be zealots who think that all mages are evil and the only thing stopping them from exterminating the whole of them is the rigid military rank structure. I truly believe that once the templars can branch off from the Chantry, mages will be in a better position in Thedas.

Look at the scene where you meet Meredith for the first time: a Saarebas is charging up a lightning spell and it just suddenly dies, he looks down at his hands in confusion, then you see her sword go through him. That is the power, skill, and training of a templar at work, and they are needed for that reason.

The system has to be organized better than it is currently.

[AlexXIV]

TheJediSaint wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

I've read most of the federalist papers and studied the history of it.

Your understanding is the one that lacks.  The patriots won their freedom through force of arms and an enormous dose of good luck (or divine intervention, if that's your belief).

They didn't win their freedom from the British by talking, negotiating, or reaching a compromise.  They didn't reach across the aisle, try to understand, or find common ground with the other side.  In fact, they started shooting at the other side until they'd had enough and left.

Oversimplifications oversimpfy.  The American  Colonists did try to negotiate and compromise before they resorted to violence, even after the British started using violence against them, which seems to be the crucile point that you're missing.  They engaged in a shooting war only after every peaceful solution had been excausted, when the British demonstrated that they would never treat the American colonists as anything other than second class citizens.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Does not exactly fit, but I think most revolutions in our history have only come at the cost of lifes.

Simply because a ruling body will not give up power without a fight. Even Ghandi actually had help because the British Empire was crumbling because of the war in Europe. So even he was just getting lucky, or maybe clever enough to use the situation. Even all the accomplishments of the UNO, NATO, etc. are only in place nowadays because of WW2. For some reason humanity seems to need a violent lesson first to improve their civilisation. It may have to do with the fact that at the core of human nature is that we are selfish.