2008 réponses à ce sujet

[HiroVoid]

Plaintiff wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

Just out of curiosity Plaintiff, what plan do you ultimately think would ultimately work for mages the best?

To keep it short:

1.  Break free of Chantry. (This has been done)

2. Find nobles receptive to the mage cause, or at least those looking to get out from under the Chantry's thumb. They do exist. Mages have plenty to offer in a variety of fields. Any nobleman would be stupid to turn them down.

3. Simultaneously, send emmissaries to dwarves, break Chantry monopoly on lyrium.

4. Attempt negotiations with Chantry.

5. If Chantry unresponsive, blow chunks off it. Back to 4.

6. When negotiations succeed, or Chantry reduced to rubble, begin reformation of Circle system and long-term plan of integration with wider society.

I do not approve of violence as a general rule, but there are times when it is necessary. The Chantry has never hesitated to respond to dissenters with unnecessary force, so the Circle must respond in kind. Only when the Chantry has been substantially weakened, can there be any chance of a real compromise.

1. Agreed, though I think templar training specifically meant to deal with magic users should be kept for mage criminals.
2. By nobles, do you mean countries as a whole.  The way the conflict's spreading makes me feel like this is going to have to be a 'Choose a side' for many of the nations of Thedas who are ultimately ruled by kings, emporers or some other form of government.  Even in this case, I feel like many of those nations would only harbor them to use them for furthering their countries' interests though this could work for a time while it's neccessary.
3. How would the mages convince the dwarves for the lyrium?  More money?
4. If the chantry and templars are two separate groups now, don't you have to deal with two groups then?
5. If they're at war, then sure.
6. Exactly what type of reformation?  Does everyone who can use magic still required to come to the circle?  How do you deal with mages post-war who start taking everything they can and start killing due to entitlement?  What do you think the numbers will be for those who just want a reformed circle vs wanting to start a country similar to Tevinter(seemingly harmless at first of course.)?  What is your opinion on blood magic?  The main danger of blood magic is that it can be used for influence and mind control.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 18 janvier 2012 - 07:28 .

[TEWR]

Hirovoid wrote...

For insults, I usually just find them laughable since I figure I know myself better than some guy I'm debating with.  At most, I'll usually just go over what a person insulted me for and see if I feel that any of my actions were like that.

That's actually why I can't stand being insulted. People presume to know who I am better than I do and it just really pisses me off.

HiroVoid wrote...

Just out of curiosity Plaintiff, what plan do you ultimately think would ultimately work for mages the best?

Though directed at Plaintiff, I'd like to take a crack at this, though this depends on if you mean during the war or post-war what would suit the mages best.

I'll talk about during the war:

1) Support from the nobility. Specifically Ferelden and Orzammar. Those two are key in this whole thing.

2) Popular support. They need to begin integrating themselves into villages and towns and establishing themselves as good citizens, for two reasons. The first is to blend in. The second is to gain trust. Eventually, if a person is wounded and they happen to know healing magic, they could demonstrate that they're a mage and win over more people.

3) Find Divine Justinia V and her supporters. She's a reformist and pro-mage, so having her is key to this whole thing.

4) Have some of the Circle towers under their control so as to establish a base of operations. Kinloch Hold and the Gallows are ideal targets.

5) Hopefully gain the support of a fair number of Templars. Gregoir's Templars as well as the Redcliffe Knight Commander's I can definitely see helping the mages.

6) Fight the rogue Templars. Hell try some sleeper cell tactics by pretending to be a mage loyal to their cause, if that'd work (doubtful). Negotiation isn't possible at this point in time.

7) make sure the Rogue Templars can't get their lyrium. No lyrium = withdrawal and possible death. No lyrium also = weaker -- or possibly nonexistant -- Templar abilities.

8) Prepare for the Qunari invasion that's imminent. And when they do invade, that's the time when negotiation with the rogue Templars can commence.




Alternatively, they could just run away and become hermits. But that'd be no fun.

Player: Alright! DA3! Let's start it up!
Game: You are a mage. Go be a hermit.
Player: Okay.... fine.
Game: Congratulations! You just beat the game!
Player:

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 18 janvier 2012 - 07:37 .

[Plaintiff]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

And your position on blood magic?

A useful tool with considerable risks. Tevinter may be a horrible place, but speaking purely in terms of functionality, it works.

I would not use it myself, unless I felt that my current circumstances were unpleasant enough to outweigh the chance of becoming possessed. I would be primarily concerned with my own safety, not anyone else's.

[CrimsonZephyr]

er double post...

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 18 janvier 2012 - 07:42 .

[CrimsonZephyr]

Plaintiff wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

And your position on blood magic?

A useful tool with considerable risks. Tevinter may be a horrible place, but speaking purely in terms of functionality, it works.

I would not use it myself, unless I felt that my current circumstances were unpleasant enough to outweigh the chance of becoming possessed. I would be primarily concerned with my own safety, not anyone else's.

And what happens when the mages win - the mages will win eventually, there's no way the Templars could fight off the Qunari on their own and there's no way they could suppress a continental revolt without concessions - will blood magic be legallized? Mind control whoever you wish; want a blood slave, an army of the dead? Go ahead! Necromancy? Have fun!

Besides, while it might be good in terms of raw power, blood magic is unpredictable and impractical. Abominations are lousy for army cohesion. And if the mages want to survive, they're going to have to start thinking like soldiers, part of a unit, not a ragtag bunch of rebels.

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 18 janvier 2012 - 07:42 .

[TEWR]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

And your position on blood magic?

A useful tool with considerable risks. Tevinter may be a horrible place, but speaking purely in terms of functionality, it works.

I would not use it myself, unless I felt that my current circumstances were unpleasant enough to outweigh the chance of becoming possessed. I would be primarily concerned with my own safety, not anyone else's.

And what happens when the mages win - the mages will win, there's no way the Templars could fight off the Qunari on their own and there's no way they could suppress a continental revolt without concessions - will blood magic be legallized? Mind control whoever you wish; want a blood slave, an army of the dead? Go ahead! Necromancy? Have fun!

Blood magic should be made legal, albeit with heavy restrictions and heavy regulations. Those would be:

1) No sacrificing anyone to fuel your magic. Not the wiling and especially not the unwilling. Use your own blood.
2) No mind control.
3) No necromancy.
4) No demon summoning.

Otherwise, I see nothing wrong with it.

Besides, while it might be good in terms of raw power, blood magic is unpredictable and impractical. Abominations are lousy for army cohesion.

There's absolutely no evidence to back up the claims that blood magic is a guaranteed thing that makes someone become an Abomination.

There is however sufficient evidence to support my theory that if you let your guard down because you become complacent and think you're the most powerful thing on Thedas -- and obviously you're a blood mage -- then a demon is going to take advantage of that.

Two very different concepts. One says "It'll always happen!" while the other says "It'll only happen if you let your guard down!"

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 18 janvier 2012 - 07:45 .

[HiroVoid]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Though directed at Plaintiff, I'd like to take a crack at this, though this depends on if you mean during the war or post-war what would suit the mages best.

I'll talk about during the war:

1) Support from the nobility. Specifically Ferelden and Orzammar. Those two are key in this whole thing.

2) Popular support. They need to begin integrating themselves into villages and towns and establishing themselves as good citizens, for two reasons. The first is to blend in. The second is to gain trust. Eventually, if a person is wounded and they happen to know healing magic, they could demonstrate that they're a mage and win over more people.

3) Find Divine Justinia V and her supporters. She's a reformist and pro-mage, so having her is key to this whole thing.

4) Have some of the Circle towers under their control so as to establish a base of operations. Kinloch Hold and the Gallows are ideal targets.

5) Hopefully gain the support of a fair number of Templars. Gregoir's Templars as well as the Redcliffe Knight Commander's I can definitely see helping the mages.

6) Fight the rogue Templars. Hell try some sleeper cell tactics by pretending to be a mage loyal to their cause, if that'd work (doubtful). Negotiation isn't possible at this point in time.

7) make sure the Rogue Templars can't get their lyrium. No lyrium = withdrawal and possible death. No lyrium also = weaker -- or possibly nonexistant -- Templar abilities.

8) Prepare for the Qunari invasion that's imminent. And when they do invade, that's the time when negotiation with the rogue Templars can commence.

Alternatively, they could just run away and become hermits. But that'd be no fun.

Player: Alright! DA3! Let's start it up!
Game: You are a mage. Go be a hermit.
Player: Okay.... fine.
Game: Congratulations! You just beat the game!

1. I can't see Ferelden support unless you can get at least one or two other nation's support.  I just don't think they can risk ticking off other nations while still being weakened by the blight.  How to go about geting Orzammar's support?  More money?  If threatened with violence, I can't see Orzammar risk getting into a conflict while constantly having to face darkspawn.
2. Agreed.  Isolation only leads down to more fear and conflicts.  Though harder to immideately deal with, popular support'll have to be more needed.  I have a hard time seeing the mages get popular support between the conflict being started with a mage blowing up a church, the majority of citizens going to the chantry, and simply having the time and people to do that while dealing with the templars.
Edit: Also, healing mages are rare according to the codex since creation magic apparently needs more finesse to use.
3. This actually goes along with your second point.  If they can get her support, that'll do wonders for popular support, and make them more hostile to the templars.
4. Well, we need to figure out what countries that could side with the mages first.
5. Greagoir's actually opposed to more mage autonomy in the ending of DA1.  While he's practically an ideal templar between looking like he checks his sources(he's correct about Jowan) and only using the RoA when there was basically no other choice, it'll be interesting to see where he stands, and I hope to see him in DA3.
6. Isn't it mostly just the templars now they're fighting with the Chantry not being fully decided yet(You may have to explain this one to me.  I haven't read Asunder.)
7. This is definitely the ideal tactic though it'll have to be seen how this spreads mage resources and what counterattacks the templars can use.  If the templars get dwarves on their side with the lyrium trade and can get them to deliver it, dwarves are pretty resistant to magic while it would make the dwarves back at orzammar more likely to be hostile to mages.  Of course, it'd be delivered by surface dwarves, so the nobles probably wouldn't give a crap about them.
8. The Qunari would be a common enemy and honestly how I see a compromise ultimately coming up in a future DA game.

Hermit was one of my favorite characters in DAO.  The moment Morrigan said he had strong magic and had a worried look on her face was the moment I went .

Modifié par HiroVoid, 18 janvier 2012 - 07:57 .

[HiroVoid]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Blood magic should be made legal, albeit with heavy restrictions and heavy regulations. Those would be:

1) No sacrificing anyone to fuel your magic. Not the wiling and especially not the unwilling. Use your own blood.
2) No mind control.
3) No necromancy.
4) No demon summoning.

Otherwise, I see nothing wrong with it.

There's absolutely no evidence to back up the claims that blood magic is a guaranteed thing that makes someone become an Abomination.

There is however sufficient evidence to support my theory that if you let your guard down because you become complacent and think you're the most powerful thing on Thedas -- and obviously you're a blood mage -- then a demon is going to take advantage of that.

Two very different concepts. One says "It'll always happen!" while the other says "It'll only happen if you let your guard down!"

I actually agree with continuing with making blood magic illegal.  What use are you going to have it for that another school won't fulfill at least for self defense?  It feels like too many people who use blood magic just get very easily tempted to use it like the ways you said they shouldn't.  I agree controlled and supervised experiments should be done to learn how to counterattack more of blood magic though.

[CrimsonZephyr]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

And your position on blood magic?

A useful tool with considerable risks. Tevinter may be a horrible place, but speaking purely in terms of functionality, it works.

I would not use it myself, unless I felt that my current circumstances were unpleasant enough to outweigh the chance of becoming possessed. I would be primarily concerned with my own safety, not anyone else's.

And what happens when the mages win - the mages will win, there's no way the Templars could fight off the Qunari on their own and there's no way they could suppress a continental revolt without concessions - will blood magic be legallized? Mind control whoever you wish; want a blood slave, an army of the dead? Go ahead! Necromancy? Have fun!

Blood magic should be made legal, albeit with heavy restrictions and heavy regulations. Those would be:

1) No sacrificing anyone to fuel your magic. Not the wiling and especially not the unwilling. Use your own blood.
2) No mind control.
3) No necromancy.
4) No demon summoning.

Otherwise, I see nothing wrong with it.

Besides, while it might be good in terms of raw power, blood magic is unpredictable and impractical. Abominations are lousy for army cohesion.

There's absolutely no evidence to back up the claims that blood magic is a guaranteed thing that makes someone become an Abomination.

There is however sufficient evidence to support my theory that if you let your guard down because you become complacent and think you're the most powerful thing on Thedas -- and obviously you're a blood mage -- then a demon is going to take advantage of that.

Two very different concepts. One says "It'll always happen!" while the other says "It'll only happen if you let your guard down!"

Blood magic tends to be the province of the prideful to the insane. Even Merrill almost becomes a demon's willing dupe - there was no guarantee that her possessed form would not kill Hawke, for instance. I just don't see humility and responsibility coming from these people.

Also, how would you police something that can be used for mind control when it's supposedly quite subtle. If it were obvious, the paranoia surrounding it wouldn't be nearly as great. The only way to police that kind of thing would be to keep blood mages under constant supervision, because unlike fireballing someone, mind control might not be obvious. A single blood mage, for instance, could enslave an entire government, if they were so inclined.

Just telling people "don't" is less effective than "don't or I'll have you hanged."

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 18 janvier 2012 - 08:08 .

[TEWR]

1. I can't see Ferelden support unless you can get at least one or two other nation's support.  I just don't think they can risk ticking off other nations while still being weakened by the blight.  How to go about geting Orzammar's support?  More money?  If threatened with violence, I can't see Orzammar risk getting into a conflict while constantly having to face darkspawn.

I see a split down the middle happening. Assuming the mages can find Divine Justinia V, then they can persuade other nations to join their cause. And Ferelden would stand a much better chance of holding out against an invasion.

Though they'd stand a great chance already with the mages, a potential alliance with the Dwarves, and Loghain assuming he was kept alive at the Landsmeet.

Not every nation would support the mages however, but I can definitely see.... Antiva, half of Orlais, Ferelden, and possibly Nevarra siding with the mages. Maybe part of Rivain as well.

2. Agreed.  Isolation only leads down to more fear and conflicts.  Though harder to immideately deal with, popular support'll have to be more needed.  I have a hard time seeing the mages get popular support between the conflict being started with a mage blowing up a church, the majority of citizens going to the chantry, and simply having the time and people to do that while dealing with the templars.

I doubt anyone outside of Kirkwall knew the full story. Cassandra acts like Hawke was the one that blew up the Chantry, when really it was Anders. Considering she's a Seeker and is incredibly important, if this detail escaped her knowledge then I doubt the rest of Thedas knew what happened.

Plus, it's clear that Anders' actions only served to show that the mages are being persecuted to the point of possible death. That if there is no one there to stand up for the mages, the Templars would just slaughter them all.

I can see a fair deal of sympathy going towards the mages after this, especially if they remind the world that two -- possibly three -- mages helped stop the Blight. One technically being an Abomination that helped protect the Divine -- I'm assuming. Haven't yet read Asunder unfortunately -- though I find that word to have far too much of a negative connotation.

3. This actually goes along with your second point.  If they can get her support, that'll do wonders for popular support, and make them more hostile to the templars.

It will. The Templars that are fighting the mages have already made it clear that they want her killed and replaced with someone else. Someone that's less mage-friendly. So the Templars really painted themselves into a corner for this one, but then again they're just fanatical zealots.

And that has been the Chantry's biggest recruiting failure for the Templars. They focused on fervent faith in the Maker above a good moral compass.

In a way though, it's also the mage's success.

4. Well, we need to figure out what countries that could side with the mages first.

See point 1.

5. Greagoir's actually opposed to more mage autonomy in the ending of DA1.  While he's practically an ideal templar between looking like he checks his sources(he's correct about Jowan) and only using the RoA when there was basically no other choice, it'll be interesting to see where he stands, and I hope to see him in DA3.

Gregoir also focuses on carrying out his duty to the Maker, the Chantry, and the Divine when required. His duty is to protect the mages from those that would do them harm -- demons and those in the mortal realm -- so I have no doubt that while he might initially be opposed to the idea of mages having more free, he'd eventually warm up to the idea especially given the Divine's support of the mages.

6. Isn't it mostly just the templars now they're fighting with the Chantry not being fully decided yet(You may have to explain this one to me.  I haven't read Asunder.)

Sadly neither have I.

But yes, it's mostly just Rogue Templars that dislike the mages. They'll probably get support from like-minded nobility however.

7. This is definitely the ideal tactic though it'll have to be seen how this spreads mage resources and what counterattacks the templars can use.  If the templars get dwarves on their side with the lyrium trade and can get them to deliver it, dwarves are pretty resistant to magic while it would make the dwarves back at orzammar more likely to be hostile to mages.  Of course, it'd be delivered by surface dwarves, so the nobles probably wouldn't give a crap about them.

I see Orzammar taking the ideal opportunity to either:

A) sell to both sides to make a profit

or

shutting off their gates and keeping the lyrium to themselves so they can improve their arms and armor in the war against the Darkspawn.

Either option is promising, as mages are neither addicted to lyrium nor do they need it to cast their spells. Templars will eventually run out of money -- since the Chantry was the one issuing their paychecks -- and they'll go through withdrawal.

Once that happens, they'll either die or be delirious and possibly go on a pillaging spree, weakening their support.

8. The Qunari would be a common enemy and honestly how I see a compromise ultimately coming up in a future DA game.

It seems like Bioware has almost guaranteed the Qunari will invade.

And when that happens, I demand to see Sten. With a goatee. And a box of kittens.

I believe Sten will have importance to the Qun society. I see him as a reformist within the Qun, though sadly I'm alone in that belief.

Hermit was one of my favorite characters in DAO.  The moment Morrigan said he had strong magic and had a worried look on her face was the moment I went .

I miss the Mad Hermit.

[esper]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

And your position on blood magic?

A useful tool with considerable risks. Tevinter may be a horrible place, but speaking purely in terms of functionality, it works.

I would not use it myself, unless I felt that my current circumstances were unpleasant enough to outweigh the chance of becoming possessed. I would be primarily concerned with my own safety, not anyone else's.

And what happens when the mages win - the mages will win, there's no way the Templars could fight off the Qunari on their own and there's no way they could suppress a continental revolt without concessions - will blood magic be legallized? Mind control whoever you wish; want a blood slave, an army of the dead? Go ahead! Necromancy? Have fun!

Blood magic should be made legal, albeit with heavy restrictions and heavy regulations. Those would be:

1) No sacrificing anyone to fuel your magic. Not the wiling and especially not the unwilling. Use your own blood.
2) No mind control.
3) No necromancy.
4) No demon summoning.

Otherwise, I see nothing wrong with it.

Besides, while it might be good in terms of raw power, blood magic is unpredictable and impractical. Abominations are lousy for army cohesion.

There's absolutely no evidence to back up the claims that blood magic is a guaranteed thing that makes someone become an Abomination.

There is however sufficient evidence to support my theory that if you let your guard down because you become complacent and think you're the most powerful thing on Thedas -- and obviously you're a blood mage -- then a demon is going to take advantage of that.

Two very different concepts. One says "It'll always happen!" while the other says "It'll only happen if you let your guard down!"

Blood magic tends to be the province of the prideful to the insane. Even Merrill almost becomes a demon's willing dupe - there was no guarantee that her possessed form would not kill Hawke, for instance. I just don't see humility and responsibility coming from these people.

Also, how would you police something that can be used for mind control when it's supposedly quite subtle. If it were obvious, the paranoia surrounding it wouldn't be nearly as great. The only way to police that kind of thing would be to keep blood mages under constant supervision, because unlike fireballing someone, mind control might not be obvious. A single blood mage, for instance, could enslave an entire government, if they were so inclined.

Just telling people "don't" is less effective than "don't or I'll have you hanged."

having mages in the guard to help identify when mind control is happening. Also makes sure to keep the Littery around.

[TEWR]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Blood magic tends to be the province of the prideful to the insane. Even Merrill almost becomes a demon's willing dupe - there was no guarantee that her possessed form would not kill Hawke, for instance. I just don't see humility and responsibility coming from these people.

If this is about Wryme, allow me to dig up my defense of Merrill where I point out that Night Terrors has every companion do things that go against their character.

Ah, here we go:

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Oh sure, let's call out Merrill for her betrayal! While we're at it, let's say that Aveline doesn't truly love Donnic because she wants her dead husband Wesley back! Or while we're at it, let's say that Varric would sell out his friends for revenge against the person who sold him out! Or hey, let's say that Fenris would stoop to the level of the magisters he so fervently hates because he's so intent on revenge!

I could go on an on. Night Terrors has both demons mind control the companions and forces them to betray Hawke by doing things that directly go against their character.

Merrill would never actually work with a demon. She's all about playing demons before they can play you. She would never let one possess her. Despite what many think, she is not an idiot. She's actually very astute and philosophical.

Likewise, Aveline acknowledges that Wesley's dead and she knows nothing can change that. Yet she sides with the Desire demon anyway! This goes directly against what she states are the true facts about her husband Wesley!

Then for Varric, not only is he a Dwarf -- and is thus naturally cut off from the Fade and resistant to magic -- but he admits that he would never side with a demon over Hawke while conscious and sober (he was joking, but the point is he gave Hawke a vow). Varric takes pride in the fact that he's the good brother, the one that wouldn't ever sell out his friends or family for whatever reason. Yet I don't see anyone using his betrayal against anything he does. Why? Because his betrayal in the Fade goes directly against his character.

Fenris has experience amongst the Tevinter Magisters and abhors not only magic but any mage that works with a demon. And the demon promised him the ability to be a mage on par with the Magisters. This goes directly against his character. Yet people don't slander Fenris with this betrayal to back up their claims.

Hell for further evidence, look at Caress! Caress used the desire of the Harimann family to manipulate them and mind control them! Caress herself says she could plant desire in a person if she wanted to, but it's far easier to use existing desire to control a person. Who's to say that Wryme didn't plant pride in the companions and then manipulated them into siding with him?

Again, I could go on and on. Oh, but I guess because Merrill's a mage her betrayal automatically goes against her. Should she have maybe recognized that something was off or at least tried to refuse the demon? Maybe, but the demon did mind control her into doing what it wanted by using whatever pride she held during Act II (which by Act III, has severely diminished)

If this is about Audacity, no she was never at risk. Audacity was cut off from the Fade, trapped in a statue, could only be freed by powerful spells -- of which we have no idea if Merrill even knew the particular spell needed to free him. Just that she knew a powerful spell was needed --, and she had no intention of freeing Audacity.

And given how she vows to be extra, extra, extra careful after what happened in Night Terrors.

Also, how would you police something that can be used for mind control when it's supposedly quite subtle.. If it were obvious, the paranoia surrounding it wouldn't be nearly as great. The only way to police that kind of thing would be to keep blood mages under constant supervision, because unlike fireballing someone, mind control might not be obvious. A single blood mage, for instance, could enslave an entire government, if they were so inclined.

When Hawke was being mind controlled, it was obvious he was being mind controlled. And this was from a woman that had done this numerous times in the past.

Even Fenris was forced to do things he wouldn't have otherwise done, and he knew he was being controlled.

I was willing, but not by choice. If that makes any sense. --- Fenris

Mind control and subtle influence are two different things. Mind control is blatant. Influencing is just a little nudge, and the person still retains the ability to make decisions on their own. They can still veto or approve of things.

Avernus says that he only nudged Teyrn Cousland. He doesn't say that he forced him to do anything. He simply influenced him a tiny bit, but Teyrn Cousland still made the decision on his own. No outside party forced him to do anything.

In fact, didn't Avernus also say that Teyrn Cousland was a potential supporter anyway and the nudge was only used to help make it more likely to happen?

Just telling people "don't" is less effective than "don't or I'll have you hanged."

Oh still have the things that shouldn't be done as capital offenses punishable by death certainly. Just don't ban the magic as a whole for what it can do, because then it won't ever stop. Eventually all magic would be banned.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 18 janvier 2012 - 08:24 .

[CrimsonZephyr]

There's a clear demarcation though. "Magic by lyrium is okay. Magic by blood is not." That is enforceable. "Please don't mind control me or summon demons even though I have no idea whether you are or are not and will have to maintain a cumbersome secret police just to enforce these laws" is not enforceable.

[Plaintiff]

HiroVoid wrote...
1. Agreed, though I think templar training specifically meant to deal with magic users should be kept for mage criminals.

The Templar Order should be a secular organization, free from the bias of the Chantry. If necessary, the mages should form their own, in conjuction with the nobility. Mages could even serve in it.

2. By nobles, do you mean countries as a whole.  The way the conflict's spreading makes me feel like this is going to have to be a 'Choose a side' for many of the nations of Thedas who are ultimately ruled by kings, emporers or some other form of government.

Actually, I suspect this is an issue on which many countries will be internally divided.

Even in this case, I feel like many of those nations would only harbor them to use them for furthering their countries' interests though this could work for a time while it's neccessary.

I'm banking on it. Once common people realize how useful mages are, they'll wonder how they ever did without them.

3. How would the mages convince the dwarves for the lyrium?  More money?

Possibly. Also magical aid in their never-ending war with the darkspawn. Healing services. Pretty much the same things they'd offer to non-magical humans.

4. If the chantry and templars are two separate groups now, don't you have to deal with two groups then?

I don't see the templars making any concessions. It might be better to just wipe them out or cripple them by reducing public support.

6. Exactly what type of reformation?  Does everyone who can use magic still required to come to the circle?  How do you deal with mages post-war who start taking everything they can and start killing due to entitlement?  What do you think the numbers will be for those who just want a reformed circle vs wanting to start a country similar to Tevinter(seemingly harmless at first of course.)?  What is your opinion on blood magic?  The main danger of blood magic is that it can be used for influence and mind control.

Mage children still need instruction, for their own good if no one else's. That can't be avoided.

The biggest problem with the Circle system is that it is isolated. Most of the problems stem from that. They need to establish more circles of a smaller size, ideally one per mid-sized settlement. Children would not need to be taken from their parents, the potential for abuse would be significantly reduced. Additionally, organize a system that allows people to arrange personal tutoring, where an accredited mage will be sent to mentor their child in private. For those whose children are far away, allow regular visits.

The second biggest problem, a consequence of the isolation, is that mages are alienated from society. The Circle needs to fight back against Chantry dogma by putting heavy emphasis on the ways mages can help people and the benefits of a Circle education. It also needs to empower its students to see themselves and their abilities as a force for good, and arrange regular excursions into the surrounding settlements, where mages can mingle with young people of their own age and even make friends.

The final problem is that mages aren't allowed to leave, even after passing the Harrowing (which I would personally abolish, but that's a separate issue). A fully-accredited mage should be allowed to leave, and be given some sort of certificate of graduation or license or other token that signifies to any authorities they meet that they are free to do as they like with their life, up to and including marriage and procreation.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 18 janvier 2012 - 08:39 .

[TEWR]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

There's a clear demarcation though. "Magic by lyrium is okay. Magic by blood is not." That is enforceable. "Please don't mind control me or summon demons even though I have no idea whether you are or are not and will have to maintain a cumbersome secret police just to enforce these laws" is not enforceable.

Magic by lyrium leads to a severe mutation on the part of the mage, supposedly. I don't see how that's any better. The mage loses any trace of what made them appear -- and possibly be -- human and now look like some hideous monster.

And as I said, mind control is blatant. It's forceful. It's obvious.

You could also put an addendum to the blood magic law saying that any blood mage must go on record as being a blood mage and is from that point in time unable to take part in any politics.

[CrimsonZephyr]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

There's a clear demarcation though. "Magic by lyrium is okay. Magic by blood is not." That is enforceable. "Please don't mind control me or summon demons even though I have no idea whether you are or are not and will have to maintain a cumbersome secret police just to enforce these laws" is not enforceable.

Magic by lyrium leads to a severe mutation on the part of the mage, supposedly. I don't see how that's any better. The mage loses any trace of what made them appear -- and possibly be -- human and now look like some hideous monster.

And as I said, mind control is blatant. It's forceful. It's obvious.

You could also put an addendum to the blood magic law saying that any blood mage must go on record as being a blood mage and is from that point in time unable to take part in any politics.

The scale of lyrium use you're taking about is immense, as described by the codex. If you were to use blood for spells like that, you'd almost certainly have to use a body other than your own. But you do raise a good point. How about setting limits on lyrium exposure, the way we do for radiation.

And a blood mage could be meet a politician in a tavern. Bam, blood slave! That addendum becomes meaningless. You wouldn't know exactly who. You'd simply have to question every single blood mage on record. What is they refuse to register? How will you tell who's controlling who?

[TEWR]

And a blood mage could be meet a politician in a tavern. Bam, blood slave! That addendum becomes meaningless. You wouldn't know exactly who. You'd simply have to question every single blood mage on record. What is they refuse to register? How will you tell who's controlling who?

It'd be a requirement that a blood mage sign a record book in front of dozens of Templars. A blood mage would need to mind control all of them to be able to get out of it, and that's an arduous task in and of itself. The more people a blood mage tries to control the harder it is to maintain said control. So it'd be impossible for a blood mage to wiggle out of it.

Though you've got me on the politician part. Can't think up a rebuttal for that.

Perhaps blood magic should only be allowed to be used by those people of a good, moral center like Merrill and Jowan.

This would however require the Thedosian population to have a tighter grasp on psychology and thus have mages through psychological exams every year. Sort of like how in Fullmetal Alchemist a State Alchemist needed to re-earn his right to be a State Alchemist.

Ultimately though, while blood magic is prone to abuse so is regular magic.

I dunno. I can't think of a good solid defense to back up why I think blood magic should be made legal, so we should probably just agree to disagree.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 18 janvier 2012 - 08:52 .

[Gervaise]

The edicts on blood magic are based on one Divine's interpretation of the Chant of Light. Meredith admits you can't spot a blood mage just by looking at them, they have to actually act for you to know. Even in Tevinter I think I am right in saying that blood magic, or the worst forms of it, are meant to be illegal, so what happens is that it is done behind closed doors. Lambert thought that he and his mage friend were going to put a stop to magic abuses when the latter became Black Divine, only for Lambert to discover that his friend and various other supposedly "good" Magisters that Lambert had helped bring to power were all at it behind the scenes. Blood magic was outlawed because it can be used to control people's minds but surely entropy does that when you create horrific visions or put them to sleep. If you then go on to kill those people while they are imobilised, then what is the difference? It is the intent of the user and the result of the magic which determines if it is bad or not and this is exactly what the Chant of Light says.

The way I'd deal with the problem is from the ground up. People go along with mages being locked up because they are afraid of them. So you sure the beneficial effects of having mages in your community are promoted. Get mages out there healing, driving off bandits and generally protecting the community - which is what my mage Hawkes were doing much of the time. Plus mages who live in the community will have friends and families there and so have a vested interest in looking after those people and not allowing power hungry mages to abuse them. In other words you do not treat mages like they are either superior or inferior to the people they live with, just people with a different set of abilities that can be used for the benefit of the whole.

You don't go around bombing chantries but reform them. They become what they should be, independent arbiters who anyone can appeal to if justice is being denied and spread the word of the Maker as a code you live by (everyone not just those inside the Chantry), not simply something you claim to believe in and sing in the building, whilst rulers (templars/nobles/kings/divines) commit the very injustices that Andraste fought and taught against.

You open up schools where all children, mage and none mage are educated together. You use people's faith to show them what the Chant of Light really says on many issues but particularly magic. That a person should be judged by their actions. Non-mages abuse their natural gifts as well, like being stronger, cleverer or simply being born into the "right" family. You point out that anyone can be tempted by a demon, manipulated by a demon and possessed by a demon and the best way to avoid such a situation is to ensure people have the knowledge to recognise the signs and resist them, or report them to somone who has the experience to deal with it.

You have a specialist police force, the templars, but this is made up of both warrior non-mages and mages acting together. Templars no longer have lyrium addiction forced upon them as the mages can deal with neutralising the rogue mages magic and can also help produce magic items to assist the warriors.

And much of this can initially be started without bloodshed. If the Qunari can succeed in spreading a network of sleeper cells throughout Thedas, surely it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the Reform movement cannot do the same but convert much larger numbers since they are working within any existing faith system rather than introducing a new one. Then when numbers are large enough, co-oordinate a mass sit in on the steps of the Chantries thoughout Thedas (mages seem to have access to ability to contact quickly over large distances) along the lines of what was done on a small scale in Starkhaven that brought the Vaels to power.

Of course that doesn't really lend itself to a fantasy RPG, so I guess there will be blood.

.

[MichaelFinnegan]

GavrielKay wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Freedom is a privilege, not a right.

On this point i must disagree most strongly. 

Freedom is a right.

I feel myself ill-prepared to argue this, but I'm going to try anyway.

I believe freedom, in and of itself, is neither a right nor a privilege. It just is. What guarantees a man his freedom at the most basic level? It's his ability to defend himself (a built in mechanism accessible to almost everyone; not an equitable one to be sure, but nevertheless one that exists). If he fails to defend himself, he loses his freedom.

And what perhaps are the preconditions for everyone else to acknowledge a man's freedom? I believe it's simply the reciprocal recognition by this individual that every other man possess that freedom. It's through this that society organizes itself and "secures" freedom for all its individuals; and thus perhaps is the concept of a "right" born. This, within a nation, could be accomplished by a police force acting against internal threats to an individual's freedom; and accomplished by means of a military to ward off any extra-national threats. Now when an individual gains access to these protective forces (to secure one's freedom), it can perhaps be said that he's gained a "right," an entirely conditional one. And individuals are granted that right, for various reasons. Otherwise, if someone is not eligible, he's simply left to defend himself. The freedom could at all times be, therefore, maintained by the individual itself - regardless of how daunting a prospect that is. But the "security" of freedom is granted by means of an organized concept - a right.

Now to claim that freedom is some sort of a privilege - meaning it's only available to some people and not to others - is to directly claim that those who're denied that freedom have been shackled, denied even of the right to defend themselves. It cannot mean anything other than oppression to my mind. (Unless the person, by some sort of aggression, has infringed upon the freedom of another, and therefore is being punished. This situation doesn't imply any kind of privilege, however, but a loss of freedom directly in violation of infringing upon the freedom of another, which a suitably organized society guards every individual against.)

I'm sure this could be debated at length, and there are many different interpretations and complications. I'm just trying to formulate what appears to be the most simple/obvious meanings.

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Rights are not natural at all.

Rights are an organized concept. Any right needs somebody to guarantee it because the concept goes beyond the individual. For instance, it's absurd for a person on an isolated island to claim he has some kind of "right," when he's left alone to fend for himself.

Do you think the laws of nature, for
example, grant me the right to vote? Or the right to own property? Or to
marry whoever I wish?

In a free society, you're actually free (duh!) to do all those, unless you infringe upon someone else's rights, whereby you might be denied them.

Those are all government constructs, and
therefore, the government provides rights.

Perhaps you mean a society empowers a government to secure individual rights? It seems there is a subtle difference there.

The government, whether it is
autocratic, theocratic, aristocratic, or democratic may have some
protections for the minority (as in, minority of the body politic), but
its policies are formed by majority factions. Ergo, unless you want a
cycle of violence in which oppression is simply traded from faction to
faction, a minority is going to have to realistically appease the
majority, because the majority calls the shots.

That sounds like oppression of the minority by the majority to me. Autocratic, theocratic, and aristocratic society are all societies built around privilege - meaning some are granted powers over others. In a democratic society, however, such privileges aren't intended - that they might happen is different, maybe because it's a flawed concept or maybe because it fails when implemented.

I'd welcome any sort of counters. This is a topic that I'm actually uncomfortable with, and perhaps I could learn more.

HiroVoid wrote...

Just out of curiosity Plaintiff, what plan do you ultimately think would ultimately work for mages the best?

If you were asking me that question, I'd say it's time for those mages hoping for peace to leave Thedas. (I can't believe I'm saying this - I had argued at length with someone on all the difficulties that such a move would entail, and how I'd thought there was still hope somewhere in Thedas.) Find a place someplace else - in isolation perhaps, or somewhere they're more welcome. If they encounter resistance (like a templar army) then they'd be forced to fight, of course; but no longer would there be any talk of slaughtering innocents. And in a new world they'd be forced to confront the demons on their own terms and either fight them and become free of them, or be doomed to fall to them. But that'd at least be a fate they'd leave to themselves - give themselves an opportunity to make or break themselves.

I talk from the perspective of a person who doesn't necessarily believe in war, and who's thinking of them making a last ditch effort to find some peace in their lifetimes, on their own terms. Perhaps the situation isn't as hopeless as I make it sound. Ah, well.

[Lazy Jer]

Plaintiff wrote...

Where are these "hundreds of people"? The chantry holds less than ten at any given moment and only has like, two beds. Maybe four.

I think what you meant to say was "The Circle is F'ed up, sure, but that doesn't justify mass mudrering hundreds of feet of golden statue", because that's the only thing in the Chantry. Unless you found a nest of Borrowers in the walls?

Stop assuming that the chantry harbours orphans and sick people and the homeless. There is no proof that it does any of these things. In fact, all evidence suggests the exact opposite.

Well I am safely assuming that an explosion that takes of an entire building does not just allow the rubble form said explosion to safely deposit itself neatly into a nice little polite pile ready for the garbage men to pick up and cart away.  Secondly, even if it is the case where no one's home is destroyed from Chantry rubble, we do see innocent people in the chantry.  People who are just there to worship and pray.  So maybe "hundreds" of innocent people is an exageration.  Maybe it's only about a dozen innocent people.  That being said stop assuming that Anders bomb took out a building and a grand cleric and left everything and everybody else squeeky clean.

Modifié par Lazy Jer, 18 janvier 2012 - 03:00 .

[John Epler]

Bans handed out for the nonsense on Page 9. If you can't be civil, stay out of the forums. This is not a difficult concept.

[LobselVith8]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

A dangerous zealot who likes to punish innocent people for his ideals who is driven bonkers by a powerful entity.(Meredith = Idol, Anders = Justice)

I'm not certain there was much of a point to the idol, besides turning Meredith into a Super-Saiyan. There was so much promise with the schism between the mages and the templars that was simply wasted. The dichotomy between mages and templars becomes more than pointless when templars and mages are made out to be little more than caricatures in the narrative. The fact that Cassandra had dialogue pointing this out (particularly in regards to all of the mages being insane) doesn't really help matters.
 
As for Anders, even though his timeline is completely frakked up, I think Anders' symbiosis with Justice is worth exploration and study, since it has interesting implications about the nature of a spirit inhabiting a living person and co-existing in the same body, while Meredith becoming possessed because of red lyrium was simply a matter of providing Hawke with a boss battle through the introduction of a macguffin.

[GavrielKay]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

Just out of curiosity Plaintiff, what plan do you ultimately think would ultimately work for mages the best?

If you were asking me that question, I'd say it's time for those mages hoping for peace to leave Thedas.

I'd agree with that except for the simple fact that new mages are born all the time.  Unless the new mage society has some kind of treaty worked out where newly discovered mages are sent safely to their brethren on an island somewhere...  which is almost as unworkable as saying all mages must be sent to a circle.

The discussion of freedom being a right or a privilige is an interesting one.  It seems the two arguing that most err...  loudly?  might have been banned.

I still think freedom is a right, but I also agree that it doesn't mean much without some means to defend it.

I made an argument months ago about how there is no "right" to feel safe.  People trade safety for freedom all over the place...  living in earthquake zones, near volcanoes, tornado alley etc.  I dare say most of them wouldn't want to be told they are not free to live where they please, risks and all.

Trading someone else's freedom (i.e. mages) for whatever feeling of safety the majority gain is just plain wrong.

Modifié par GavrielKay, 18 janvier 2012 - 05:33 .

[GavrielKay]

A thought on the whole forbidding blood magic bit... There is a rather tenuous analogy to file sharing I might make.

When you have something that is almost impossible for the authorities to detect and punish, then making that thing illegal is all but a farce. People will do it in droves and so few of them will be punished that the overall effect is more highlighting the ineffectuality of law enforcement rather than the inappropriateness of the act itself.

In a post circle society where mages are for the most part free to act... making blood magic itself illegal is just as hard to enforce. It is much better to have laws against the bad outcomes that could occur due to blood magic rather than the magic itself. So, cutting yourself to power a spell to heal your neighbor is ok. Using blood magic to enthrall the village elder gets you executed. In that way, you haven't made criminals out of mages who are doing no harm.

Modifié par GavrielKay, 18 janvier 2012 - 05:53 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

GavrielKay wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

Just out of curiosity Plaintiff, what plan do you ultimately think would ultimately work for mages the best?

If you were asking me that question, I'd say it's time for those mages hoping for peace to leave Thedas.

I'd agree with that except for the simple fact that new mages are born all the time.  Unless the new mage society has some kind of treaty worked out where newly discovered mages are sent safely to their brethren on an island somewhere...  which is almost as unworkable as saying all mages must be sent to a circle.

Yeah. I know. I'd debated this with Skadi several months ago. Here's what I'd thought were some of the problems. Although, logically I know it may not work as I hope it to, it almost feels as if (at least some parts of) Thedas is becoming increasingly unlivable for mages. And, especially for those who may not wish to fight, the number of options seem to be dwindling.

The discussion of freedom being a right or a privilige is an interesting one.  It seems the two arguing that most err...  loudly?  might have been banned.

I still think freedom is a right, but I also agree that it doesn't mean much without some means to defend it.

I think this ban is a good example of the limitations of a perecived right (to "freedom of speech," in this case). We might, for example, involuntarily, i.e. without even consciously knowing, assume that we have the freedom of speech, to say whatever we want within these forums. But in reality what we have is a limited "right," viz. to stay within the limits of what BioWare considers civil. It's almost always a precondition, and it's especially evident when treading on someone else's private property.

In my previous post, despite my best efforts, I ended up typing: "denied even the 'right' to defend themselves," (as if there is some "right" to self-defense, which someone else, apart from our ability to defend ourselves, is granting us) despite my best efforts to keep the confusion to a minimum.  Freedom is a "feeling" I think, more than anything - it almost feels as if it is a "natural right," that we're all "entitled" to it. It at times feels self-evident, almost, I don't know, emotionally liberating. But the main problem is that everyone feels this way. And any given activity (apart from the act of breathing or thinking, perhaps) probably involves treading on someone else's domain - his perceived notion of freedom.

I made an argument months ago about how there is no "right" to feel safe.  People trade safety for freedom all over the place...  living in earthquake zones, near volcanoes, tornado alley etc.  I dare say most of them wouldn't want to be told they are not free to live where they please, risks and all.

Indeed. What do "right to feel safe," or "right to shelter," or "right to food," etc really mean? Just because we might demand a "right" doesn't mean that there is someone waiting to make good on that demand. A "right to feel safe" always assumes that there is someone (if not ourselves) ensuring us of that safety - it means we're making claims on someone else's time, and if it's not a voluntary thing, then we're infringing on that someone's freedom by making that claim.

Trading someone else's freedom (i.e. mages) for whatever feeling of safety the majority gain is just plain wrong.

The issue is that the majority, in this case, has weapons they can always brandish: power, in the form of the templar army; the insecurity of the mage and commoners, and most everyone else; and, of course, the instances of the devastation sometimes caused by a possessed mage as "justication." What I've come to understand is that it has become a complex problem, more a problem of "if's" and "but's," and "what if's," of someone doing something wrong, but someone else taking the blame, guilt by mere association, and so on - but nevertheless a very real problem in everyone's mind. And the dogma and rigidity of the system disallows any kind of easy or even rational resoluton to the matter. Reading Asunder, it was heartening for me that at least there is the notion of RoT being reversible, and with a further suggestion of a possibility of better solutions on the way - at least for those who might feel really trapped.

About what you said, though, there is one other way to see it: the mages might trade in some of their freedom, to gain safety for themselves - safety from the power they'd eventually learn to control and safety from everyone else. That is a trade-in they do - in theory. I think this was perhaps what a part of the Nevarran Accord was all about. But somehow it has not worked out as planned. Perhaps this is a case of something looking good on paper, but not in reality.