257 réponses à ce sujet

[Joy Divison]

TheJediSaint wrote...

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.  

To be fair, all the examples you have cited worked only because the ruling powers were ostensibly democratic and amenable to negotiation.

I do agree the non-violent means are geneally more effective and lasting to both parties.  Whether or not that is possible in DA2 Thedas concerning Mage vs. Templar is another matter.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 10 octobre 2011 - 01:46 .

[jamesp81]

But the more freedoms you gain, the more you want. To a certain point,
granted, but if you were at one point only free to go to school, but not
free to vote, then at some point you would want to vote too. It does
not matter how unfree you are, you will always want more, until you
value the comfort of peace more than the value of more freedom gained by
conflict.

That's actually a pretty profound insight into human nature in general.  It's a shame most of the world is too foolish to appreciate it for what it is.

[jamesp81]

Joy Divison wrote...

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.  

To be fair, all the examples you have cited worked only because the ruling powers were ostensibly democratic and amenable to negotiation.

I do agree the non-violent means are geneally more effective and lasting to both parties.  Whether or not that is possible in DA2 Thedas concerning Mage vs. Templar is another matter.

Non-violent means are definitely better in cases where they will work.  Unfortunately they don't work in all cases.

I don't see a lot of hope for that sort of solution where it comes to mage vs templar.  The templars want mages locked up and controlled, and they don't seem all that interested in compromise.  Non-violent resistance doesn't look good, not when they can just whistle up the RoA to kill everyone protesting.

[TJPags]

jamesp81 wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

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.  

To be fair, all the examples you have cited worked only because the ruling powers were ostensibly democratic and amenable to negotiation.

I do agree the non-violent means are geneally more effective and lasting to both parties.  Whether or not that is possible in DA2 Thedas concerning Mage vs. Templar is another matter.

Non-violent means are definitely better in cases where they will work.  Unfortunately they don't work in all cases.

I don't see a lot of hope for that sort of solution where it comes to mage vs templar.  The templars want mages locked up and controlled, and they don't seem all that interested in compromise.  Non-violent resistance doesn't look good, not when they can just whistle up the RoA to kill everyone protesting.

Oddly enough, it was non-violent means which ended the first standoff between mages and the Chantry, when the Divine wanted to call an Exalted March on her own cathedral when the mages went on strike.  It was, actually, the Templars who stopped her, and helped reach a compromise.

We just weren't given an option to try that in DA2.

[jamesp81]

TJPags wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

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.  

To be fair, all the examples you have cited worked only because the ruling powers were ostensibly democratic and amenable to negotiation.

I do agree the non-violent means are geneally more effective and lasting to both parties.  Whether or not that is possible in DA2 Thedas concerning Mage vs. Templar is another matter.

Non-violent means are definitely better in cases where they will work.  Unfortunately they don't work in all cases.

I don't see a lot of hope for that sort of solution where it comes to mage vs templar.  The templars want mages locked up and controlled, and they don't seem all that interested in compromise.  Non-violent resistance doesn't look good, not when they can just whistle up the RoA to kill everyone protesting.

Oddly enough, it was non-violent means which ended the first standoff between mages and the Chantry, when the Divine wanted to call an Exalted March on her own cathedral when the mages went on strike.  It was, actually, the Templars who stopped her, and helped reach a compromise.

We just weren't given an option to try that in DA2.

When the Knight Commander goes bat**** insane and the First Enchanter turns himself into an Eldritch Abomination, talking things out doesn't usually get very far 

[TheJediSaint]

TJPags wrote...


We just weren't given an option to try that in DA2.

You can thank Anders for that.

[Dean_the_Young]

AlexXIV wrote...

Intelligent people are usually educated and the other way round. That's why I make no difference here for the sake of this argument.

This is a profound misconception. Education doesn't change whether you are intelligent, education is the structure to let your intelligence be useful. An intelligent person without education will quite often be trumped by a less intelligent person with education.

You confusing what is in effect a cause-and-effect relationship with a false synonym. If you're appealing on the basis of behavior of an educated population group, any group that isn't actually in that category is irrelevant.

Anyway, to learn the use of magic you need a certain grade of intelligence. There are certainly some examples of less intelligent mages, but I doubt they would ever be as powerful.

You don't need intelligence. Magic is well demonstrated to also be triggered by emotions: Connor didn't rip the veil and become a top-level abomination threat because he was educated, but because he was emotionally reacting.

Magic is, however, ritualistic and even systematic. Education improves your proficiency, unless you get possessed.

Actually I think mages could become independent. Like the Chantry is independent. I don't think they need to be outside of the Circles, I never said that. But I think neither Chantry not Templars should rule the Circles. .

The Chantry isn't independent. The Chantry is highly interdependent to the whims and positions of a great number of groups. It has to tow the line to national politics, subordinate itself to dominate interests in various regions, and all together not 'free' to pursue whatever interests it wants.

The Circle system only works when mage compliance is compulsorary.

At least not in the way they did it in the past

About the only thing we agree on.

Not all inequities are equal.

But the more freedoms you gain, the more you want. To a certain point, granted, but if you were at one point only free to go to school, but not free to vote, then at some point you would want to vote too. It does not matter how unfree you are, you will always want more, until you value the comfort of peace more than the value of more freedom gained by conflict.

Perhaps you should rephrase this counter-argument. I can't tell what you think you're disproving, or proving, or whatever. It seems unrelated.

Freedom in Xion. You'd still have a sort of government, and who knows what other hardships there restrict individual freedom. And as I said the Circles in Thedas could rule themselves, independent of the feudal systems around them.

Why should the feudal system tolerate an independent mage-empire? Why should they trust it? How will all these maglings be sent... where ever? 

Moreover, where is this non-feudal organizational movement coming from? What's the ideological basis?


Hell they could even have their own country. After all so do the Grey Wardens.

They don't. If you're referring to the Anderfels, the Wardens are an over-siged special-interst minority group that plays politics. Which is exactly the Tevinter-esque situation that everyone not a mage or in Tevinter seeks to avoid.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 10 octobre 2011 - 01:54 .

[Dean_the_Young]

jamesp81 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

So, why go butchering up my post to mean something entirely different than what I originally said?  What's the point?

Fun aside, you make the best counter-argument to your own position when you aren't aware that you're doing so.

Riiiiiiight <_<

The amazing thing about blindspots is that you still can't realize them even when they're mentioned.

[Dean_the_Young]

TheJediSaint wrote...

TJPags wrote...


We just weren't given an option to try that in DA2.

You can thank Anders for that.

Yeah. No more Cathedral left. :innocent:

[TJPags]

TheJediSaint wrote...

TJPags wrote...


We just weren't given an option to try that in DA2.

You can thank Anders for that.

Yes, well, extremists must be extreme, after all.

[Dean_the_Young]

jamesp81 wrote...

But the more freedoms you gain, the more you want. To a certain point,
granted, but if you were at one point only free to go to school, but not
free to vote, then at some point you would want to vote too. It does
not matter how unfree you are, you will always want more, until you
value the comfort of peace more than the value of more freedom gained by
conflict.

That's actually a pretty profound insight into human nature in general.  It's a shame most of the world is too foolish to appreciate it for what it is.

Actually, it's less about the profound nature of 'freedom' and far more the more basic 'unlimited wants.' Sounds more noble than insatiable greed, I'll admit.

[GodWood]

Dean.

This thread

Let loose on it.

[TheJediSaint]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

But the more freedoms you gain, the more you want. To a certain point,
granted, but if you were at one point only free to go to school, but not
free to vote, then at some point you would want to vote too. It does
not matter how unfree you are, you will always want more, until you
value the comfort of peace more than the value of more freedom gained by
conflict.

That's actually a pretty profound insight into human nature in general.  It's a shame most of the world is too foolish to appreciate it for what it is.

Actually, it's less about the profound nature of 'freedom' and far more the more basic 'unlimited wants.' Sounds more noble than insatiable greed, I'll admit.

That sounds less like a "profound insight" and more like the basic definition of economics.  

[Dean_the_Young]

Didn't I just say that?

/joke

[TheJediSaint]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Didn't I just say that?

/joke

For the sake of clarity, if not redudency.

[nightscrawl]

TJPags wrote...

Staying on topic, you mention conditions.  It was covered earlier in the thread, the "conditions" the mages are kept in are better than those of most other people in Thedas not nobility.  The Ferelden Circle sure as heck seemed a lot nicer than Gamlen's shack, didn't it?

And yes, mages are housed, fed, educated, clothed, all on the Chantries payroll.  And I have no doubt the Chantry is funded, at least in part, by the congregations.

This whole issue really comes down to one question: is it right to make mages live in a certain place?

By Thedas convention, yes it is.  All other argument really seems pretty silly.

You make it seem like that's all there is to it, when that's not the case. While there are children who would be orphaned once their magic becomes known, there are also those who are loved by their parents who are forcibly taken away. Additionally, it's not just about being forced to live somewhere, it is about being confined. In Ferelden's circle, mages have to seek special permission to go outside the tower (shown in Witch Hunt). It's also about having the freedom to have a child with the person you love. Mage unions are strongly discouraged, and if one produces a child, that child is taken away from the mother.

Other Theodesians would rebel at being confined to a place, even if they are educated, fed, and clothed; had their children taken from them; or were prevented from making personal choices, like who to partner with. But I guess it's OK to do that to mages, because they're mages?

I do think that Anders is getting carried away when he refers to mages as "slaves," especially when you consider Fenris, it seems ridiculous. Mages do not have a slave mentality because of who they are, what they are, and the various ways they came to be in the circle. Unfortunately for the chantry, mages need education to control their powers, and education, or lack thereof, is one tool of oppression of slaves, which is why Fenris never learned to read.

Anders: "They're slaves, you should want to help them."
Fenris: "I don't."

It also must be remembered that Kirkwall's circle isn't the only circle. There are several and they each will treat their mages in their own way, with varying degrees of severity. The circle is necessary, even Anders himself admits (party banter with Bethany) that "usually it's the only decent training a mage can get." The circle also let's mages associate with their peers and protects them from the ignorant prejudice of the general populace.

The main thing I am surprised about concerning mages is that the circles did not develop into something similar to the Citadel in A Song of Ice and Fire, where you have a Maester who is trained and educated there, who then goes on to be a Maester in a noble house: being an adviser to the lord and also tending to the various medical needs of the family. I suppose the potential threat of demons, combined with the power of the Chantry would have never allowed it to develop that way. A mage in every royal household, healing an ailing king, a sickly arl, etc, would be quite valuable I would think.

[TheJediSaint]

nightscrawl wrote...

The main thing I am surprised about concerning mages is that the circles did not develop into something similar to the Citadel in A Song of Ice and Fire, where you have a Maester who is trained and educated there, who then goes on to be a Maester in a noble house: being an adviser to the lord and also tending to the various medical needs of the family. I suppose the potential threat of demons, combined with the power of the Chantry would have never allowed it to develop that way. A mage in every royal household, healing an ailing king, a sickly arl, etc, would be quite valuable I would think.

Essentially the idea of a "court mage" who serves a perticular noble.  The problems is that without proper oversight, "court mage" can become "puppet master" if blood magic comes into play.

[Dean_the_Young]

Or even without it. Mages have all other sorts of means to coerce and influence.

[Dean_the_Young]

nightscrawl wrote...

Other Theodesians would rebel at being confined to a place, even if they are educated, fed, and clothed; had their children taken from them; or were prevented from making personal choices, like who to partner with. But I guess it's OK to do that to mages, because they're mages?

The Darktown sewage-liverse would rebel? The Ferelden refugees? The bandit-raided peasants? The farmers under Orlesian occupation?

[AlexXIV]

Dean, I don't want to quote the whole thing again, so I'll just answer in a new post. Hope it works for you.

I know the difference between intelligence and education. I'm more intelligent than educated, at least that's what I think.  I just didn't want to make a big deal about it since we talk about 12th century based setting in which there are basically two kinds of people. Those who can count to three and those who can't. That was a joke. I mean people were not that intelligent or educated so I didn't think it makes alot of difference. I just mean that people who use their brain more, more often get ideas. Ideas like trying to change their lot in life.

I think the reason why it could work is because the Chantry is crumbling. So what are the people of Thedas going to do if they have the choice of a war against mages that will destroy their world or giving them their own country? It's just a question of the lesser evil, since they have the choice to fight them ... or not fight them.

Also I think the only reason why the Chantry ever had control over the mages and Circles was simply because so many mages cooperated willingly.

And yes, what I wrote about wanting more is basically an economic principle. From basic needs to luxory. And freedom is just like any goods. It has an individual value, and a cost.

[Dean_the_Young]

GodWood wrote...

Dean.

This thread

Let loose on it.

I made an analogy comparing the burden of magic to having a disease.

Let's see how well that rolls over.

Probably shouldn't type something like that when I'm tired and before bed.

[Dean_the_Young]

AlexXIV wrote...

I think the reason why it could work is because the Chantry is crumbling. So what are the people of Thedas going to do if they have the choice of a war against mages that will destroy their world or giving them their own country? It's just a question of the lesser evil, since they have the choice to fight them ... or not fight them.

No one in the mage-section is going 'hey, let's have a totally democratic and free society!' The mage-seditionists want a country of the mages, by the mages, for the mages. Not even Anders and Justice cared about overthrowing the feudal system, and the the mages certainly aren't going to subordinate themselves to a democratic system in which they are outnumbered by the majority.

[TJPags]

nightscrawl wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Staying on topic, you mention conditions.  It was covered earlier in the thread, the "conditions" the mages are kept in are better than those of most other people in Thedas not nobility.  The Ferelden Circle sure as heck seemed a lot nicer than Gamlen's shack, didn't it?

And yes, mages are housed, fed, educated, clothed, all on the Chantries payroll.  And I have no doubt the Chantry is funded, at least in part, by the congregations.

This whole issue really comes down to one question: is it right to make mages live in a certain place?

By Thedas convention, yes it is.  All other argument really seems pretty silly.

You make it seem like that's all there is to it, when that's not the case. While there are children who would be orphaned once their magic becomes known, there are also those who are loved by their parents who are forcibly taken away. Additionally, it's not just about being forced to live somewhere, it is about being confined. In Ferelden's circle, mages have to seek special permission to go outside the tower (shown in Witch Hunt). It's also about having the freedom to have a child with the person you love. Mage unions are strongly discouraged, and if one produces a child, that child is taken away from the mother.

Other Theodesians would rebel at being confined to a place, even if they are educated, fed, and clothed; had their children taken from them; or were prevented from making personal choices, like who to partner with. But I guess it's OK to do that to mages, because they're mages?

I do think that Anders is getting carried away when he refers to mages as "slaves," especially when you consider Fenris, it seems ridiculous. Mages do not have a slave mentality because of who they are, what they are, and the various ways they came to be in the circle. Unfortunately for the chantry, mages need education to control their powers, and education, or lack thereof, is one tool of oppression of slaves, which is why Fenris never learned to read.

Anders: "They're slaves, you should want to help them."
Fenris: "I don't."

It also must be remembered that Kirkwall's circle isn't the only circle. There are several and they each will treat their mages in their own way, with varying degrees of severity. The circle is necessary, even Anders himself admits (party banter with Bethany) that "usually it's the only decent training a mage can get." The circle also let's mages associate with their peers and protects them from the ignorant prejudice of the general populace.

The main thing I am surprised about concerning mages is that the circles did not develop into something similar to the Citadel in A Song of Ice and Fire, where you have a Maester who is trained and educated there, who then goes on to be a Maester in a noble house: being an adviser to the lord and also tending to the various medical needs of the family. I suppose the potential threat of demons, combined with the power of the Chantry would have never allowed it to develop that way. A mage in every royal household, healing an ailing king, a sickly arl, etc, would be quite valuable I would think.

Yes, there are children who would be loved who are taken away.  Many of those children actually have a better life, though.  Better food, better education, better living space, etc.  No, it's not ideal at all.  But then a young girl in HS who is pregnant and gives the baby up for adoption - that's not ideal either.  But it's better for the child.  In the case of a mage who may go untrained otherwise, and thus be a danger to himself and others, it's safer, too.

And sure, confinement sucks.  But there are ways to be allowed out.  Wynne travels on her own in DAA as does that botonist mage.  The guy from WH just asks, and is allowed out.  We run into several mages during DAO (at least 2) that are travelling on their own with their apprentices (and getting attacked by DS, random encounters).  Wynne gets permission to travel with the Warden in DAO.  Wilber (or whatever his name is, the guy who owned Shale) lived alone outside the Circle.  So obviously, permission is granted.  Asking is not that hard to do, after all.

And I'm glad you brought up that Kirkwall is not the same as every Circle.  It's obviously a lot different than the Ferelden Circle.  It may be unique in its awful conditions, location, etc.  Some mages (Wynne, Bethany for two quick examples) actually like it there.

The Circle system is not ideal, it has its flaws - I don't think anyone really argues (seriously, anyway) that it's perfect. But I don't think mages running free with no supervision is a viable alternative.

[nightscrawl]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Darktown sewage-liverse would rebel? The Ferelden refugees? The bandit-raided peasants? The farmers under Orlesian occupation?

Perhaps it was poor word choice. I actually meant it as more of an abstract form: they wouldn't like it and might try to find a way to escape if the method presented itself, not that they would all band together and rise up against their oppressors. My main point what that they are hypocritical in that they accept that treatment of others when they would not like it for themselves. This includes the lowly peasant as well as the high borne.

However, that behavior is nothing new, and it doesn't really have anything to do with mages specifically. It simply is a behavior and a mindset that exists.

[AlexXIV]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

I think the reason why it could work is because the Chantry is crumbling. So what are the people of Thedas going to do if they have the choice of a war against mages that will destroy their world or giving them their own country? It's just a question of the lesser evil, since they have the choice to fight them ... or not fight them.

No one in the mage-section is going 'hey, let's have a totally democratic and free society!' The mage-seditionists want a country of the mages, by the mages, for the mages. Not even Anders and Justice cared about overthrowing the feudal system, and the the mages certainly aren't going to subordinate themselves to a democratic system in which they are outnumbered by the majority.

Well no, they will probably keep the Circle hierarchy. Maybe a council of sorts led by the eldest or most powerful. I think as long as mages don't lord over non-mages again like in the TE there will not be problems with non mages. The problem in the TE was that mages used non mages as slaves and fuel for their rituals. In a country of just mages they would only have low numbers and mages would still have to clean their rooms themselves. Stuff like that. I would make it a rule that mages may not have non mages servants, not even paid ones. That would keep mage problems in mage hands at any time without non mages being victims of any kind. And they should be forbidden to summon any demons of course.