2008 réponses à ce sujet

[General User]

OldMan91 wrote...
Peace is wonderful when it is among equals, as progress is best made when in the presence of justice. When it's among oppressors and oppressed, it is reactionary and conservative. It is not peace at all.

I'm not sure I follow.

On a slight tangent though, I will say that the very concept of "progress" is problematic at best because it implies that there is some ultimate ideal or goal that all societies should strive toward, when in fact all different societies have their own separate (and ever-changing) ideals and cultural imperatives.

OldMan91 wrote...
"It needs to stop" is a statement that doesn't imply change.

Change is not always good.  Celarius the Loremaster wrote that it is best "to dilute change where it brings greed, gluttony, sloth, ignorance, prejudice, cruelty [etc.], and to encourage change where it brings excellence, beauty, happiness, and enlightenment."  There's enough change going on in Thedas right now that both are called for.

OldMan91 wrote...
Not taking sides is taking a side, that of the status quo, the natural enemy of progress.

That's just it; I am on a side.  I'm on the side of Peace.  I'm on the side of Protection.  I'm on the side of Love and Friendship.  I'm on the side of Respect, even for those that aren't (yet) a party to this conflict.  I'm on the side of Reason and Rationality.  And, yes, I'm on the side of Freedom too. 

That's the side I'm on!  But is anyone on my side?

OldMan91 wrote...
If you must balance out the suffering of the mages against the suffering of the templars, then you'll find that the former will weigh far more than the latter, hence why I find my sympathies with the mages.

We all sympathize with the mages.  But there's more to it than that.  Abominations and bloodmages do represent a threat to the general public.  One that the public has every right to either be protected from or to protect themselves from. 

OldMan91 wrote...
There is no relativity or discussion here. Rights are an absolute value. Either everyone has equal rights or no one has them.

Ultimately yes.  But how you get there makes all the difference.  What we're looking at here is a cycle of atrocity and counter-atrocity.  Everyone's going to lose.

OldMan91 wrote...
You cannot have some people having more rights than others by virtue of birth.

You can when some people are born with more power than others by virtue of birth.

[OldMan91]

General User wrote...
I'm not sure I follow.

On a slight tangent though, I will say that the very concept of "progress" is problematic at best because it implies that there is some ultimate ideal or goal that all societies should strive toward, when in fact all different societies have their own separate (and ever-changing) ideals and cultural imperatives.

My point was that you can't have peace when two sides have a completely unequal distribution of power, wealth and/or rights. The priviledged side will most certainly not concede unless forced or coerced to, violence or no violence. Either way, someone is going to have to lose something for peace to be established. It might as well be the Templars or the Chantry.

Regarding the concept of progress, It's not problematic. Regardless of cultural relativity there is a zero level of universality that all societies share, including an "ultimate ideal". Don't believe me? Start with a person's most basic (phisiological) needs and work your way up the hierarchy of needs. You can also see evidence of this in the closeness of how societies are developing. True, they place more importance in other values, but notice how less developed countries will adopt similar ways of life to those that are developed. A developed country shows to a less developed one an image of its own future. 

That's just it; I am on a side.  I'm on the side of Peace.  I'm on the side of Protection.  I'm on the side of Love and Friendship.  I'm on the side of Respect, even for those that aren't (yet) a party to this conflict.  I'm on the side of Reason and Rationality.  And, yes, I'm on the side of Freedom too. 

That's the side I'm on!  But is anyone on my side?

In times of upheaval, there is no "side of peace". You can't have your own side when you're alone. If you really want love, friendship, respect, protection or peace, then fight for change and you will have all of those. No one ever won a war being neutral.

We all sympathize with the mages.  But there's more to it than that.  Abominations and bloodmages do represent a threat to the general public.  One that the public has every right to either be protected from or to protect themselves from.

They have a right to be protected, yes. They also have a right to associate with mages freely, without Templar interference. And Mages have basic rights too. Either give everyone rights, or give no rights to anyone at all. Besides non-mages can be just as destructive as mages.

Ultimately yes.  But how you get there makes all the difference.  What we're looking at here is a cycle of atrocity and counter-atrocity.  Everyone's going to lose.

Experience shows that revolutions, wars, violence or coercion have brought more progress than any other method, especially so when no other venues for change exist. Our society, our countries... USA, Europe, Latin America or anywhere else, are products of people using war as a means to free themselves and establish constitutional and democratic states. Peace makes for poor progress, especially so when It's not a peace between equals.

You can when some people are born with more power than others by virtue of birth.

No you can't, regardless of the person. They share the same rights as everyone else. Now, do they have the same responsibilities as every other citizen? No, they have some added responsibilities. Their rights however must be the same. 

Modifié par OldMan91, 04 février 2012 - 02:23 .

[Rifneno]

General User wrote...

That's just it; I am on a side. I'm on the side of Peace. I'm on the side of Protection. I'm on the side of Love and Friendship. I'm on the side of Respect, even for those that aren't (yet) a party to this conflict. I'm on the side of Reason and Rationality. And, yes, I'm on the side of Freedom too.

That's the side I'm on! But is anyone on my side?

I hope not, because your side is grossly unrealistic. You want to snap your fingers and transform Thedas into a utopia. You don't get peace AND freedom from tyranny. It's one or the other. Shockingly, occasionally good men have to fight for what's right.

[General User]

Rifneno wrote...

General User wrote...

That's just it; I am on a side. I'm on the side of Peace. I'm on the side of Protection. I'm on the side of Love and Friendship. I'm on the side of Respect, even for those that aren't (yet) a party to this conflict. I'm on the side of Reason and Rationality. And, yes, I'm on the side of Freedom too.

That's the side I'm on! But is anyone on my side?

I hope not, because your side is grossly unrealistic. You want to snap your fingers and transform Thedas into a utopia. You don't get peace AND freedom from tyranny. It's one or the other. Shockingly, occasionally good men have to fight for what's right.

And when bad men fight for what's right?  Or when good men fight for what wrong?  Or when everyone is so far gone they can't tell the difference?  What do you get then?

[Rifneno]

General User wrote...

And when bad men fight for what's right?  Or when good men fight for what wrong?  Or when everyone is so far gone they can't tell the difference?  What do you get then?

What next, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?  What does this have to do with the naive belief that a peaceful solution can be found with tyrants?

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
"You can totally reason with military zealots." - No one

[General User]

Rifneno wrote...

General User wrote...

And when bad men fight for what's right?  Or when good men fight for what wrong?  Or when everyone is so far gone they can't tell the difference?  What do you get then?

What next, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?  What does this have to do with the naive belief that a peaceful solution can be found with tyrants?

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
"You can totally reason with military zealots." - No one

No conflict, Mage-Templar being no exception, is straight-forward and clear cut.  One must always seek to understand the true nature of conflict in general, the conflict at hand specifically, and the other side especially.  In so doing, resolution and reconciliation become possible.

Maybe there's a peaceful solution, maybe there isn't.  Maybe one side is right and the other is wrong, maybe it's the reverse.  Maybe both sides are right, and maybe both sides are wrong.

I say it's all of the above.

[General User]

OldMan91 wrote...
Regarding the concept of progress, It's not problematic. Regardless of cultural relativity there is a zero level of universality that all societies share, including an "ultimate ideal". Don't believe me? Start with a person's most basic (phisiological) needs and work your way up the hierarchy of needs. You can also see evidence of this in the closeness of how societies are developing. True, they place more importance in other values, but notice how less developed countries will adopt similar ways of life to those that are developed. A developed country shows to a less developed one an image of its own future.

Your pretty much right that all human beings share the same needs and desires.  But persons from different cultures interpret and prioritize those needs in radically different ways and construct radically different systems around that.

OldMan91 wrote...
In times of upheaval, there is no "side of peace". You can't have your own side when you're alone. If you really want love, friendship, respect, protection or peace, then fight for change and you will have all of those. No one ever won a war being neutral.

Oh, but you're wrong.  It is during times of upheaval that the side of Peace is most important… and least understood.  It sounds strange to say, but Peace and violence are not contradictory, as some of you examples show, in times of upheaval the side of Peace is the side that defends that which is good (love, friendship, respect) and opposes that which is bad.  I think perhaps we are of similar mind on this point.

OldMan91 wrote...
They have a right to be protected, yes. They also have a right to associate with mages freely, without Templar interference. And Mages have basic rights too. Either give everyone rights, or give no rights to anyone at all.

Sure.  The trick of course is to balance various people's rights when they contradict.

OldMan91 wrote...
Besides non-mages can be just as destructive as mages.

They can, but it takes way more effort.

OldMan91 wrote...
Experience shows that revolutions, wars, violence or coercion have brought more progress than any other method, especially so when no other venues for change exist. Our society, our countries... USA, Europe, Latin America or anywhere else, are products of people using war as a means to free themselves and establish constitutional and democratic states. Peace makes for poor progress, especially so when It's not a peace between equals.

Ok.  I see what you're getting at, and you're right sometimes freedom has to be fought for.  Watering the Tree of Liberty so to speak.  I was looking at this from the angle of making sure that, whatever twists and turns this road takes, freedom and reconciliation is at the end of it.  Something that simply will never happen if the mages follow Anders' example.  In other words, if it must be revolution, let it be the American and not the French.

OldMan91 wrote...
No you can't, regardless of the person. They share the same rights as everyone else. Now, do they have the same responsibilities as every other citizen? No, they have some added responsibilities. Their rights however must be the same.

  Sounds reasonable.   I can get on-board with that.

[DPSSOC]

OldMan91 wrote...
They have a right to be protected, yes. They also have a right to associate with mages freely, without Templar interference. And Mages have basic rights too. Either give everyone rights, or give no rights to anyone at all.

Except that even in modern society we regularly deny people various rights and freedoms.  Heck I wasn't granted all the rights and freedoms offered to me as a citizen until I turned 20, it takes immigrants 6 years before they get them all (or they turn 20 whichever comes last).  Not to mention that when you commit a crime you're stripped of a number of rights and freedoms, and if you're crime's bad enough we strip you of all but 3 for the rest of your life.

I know this is getting off topic but human rights are a human construct, we made them up.  They aren't actually based in anything other than the people running the show figured they were good for a smooth running society.

[Goneaviking]

DPSSOC wrote...

OldMan91 wrote...
They have a right to be protected, yes. They also have a right to associate with mages freely, without Templar interference. And Mages have basic rights too. Either give everyone rights, or give no rights to anyone at all.

Except that even in modern society we regularly deny people various rights and freedoms.  Heck I wasn't granted all the rights and freedoms offered to me as a citizen until I turned 20, it takes immigrants 6 years before they get them all (or they turn 20 whichever comes last).  Not to mention that when you commit a crime you're stripped of a number of rights and freedoms, and if you're crime's bad enough we strip you of all but 3 for the rest of your life.

I know this is getting off topic but human rights are a human construct, we made them up.  They aren't actually based in anything other than the people running the show figured they were good for a smooth running society.

Significant differences from the game include: 1) in the current system mages do not, and will never be given, the same rights as the rest of the population and 2) mages don't have their rights stripped from them because of something they've done, but because of what they are.

As you say those rights a good for a smooth running society, if one group sees themselves being deprived of rights that everyone else benefits from then resentment is inevitable and resistance a matter of time. The Chantry and Templars did well managing to keep it going as long as they did but violent revolution was just a matter of time.

[dragonflight288]

No conflict, Mage-Templar being no exception, is straight-forward and clear cut. One must always seek to understand the true nature of conflict in general, the conflict at hand specifically, and the other side especially. In so doing, resolution and reconciliation become possible.

Maybe there's a peaceful solution, maybe there isn't. Maybe one side is right and the other is wrong, maybe it's the reverse. Maybe both sides are right, and maybe both sides are wrong.

I say it's all of the above.

Okay. Here's my analysis of the nature of the conflict. This will likely veer of topic in some cases but here I go.

After the rise of the Chantry, mages weren't given any rights whatsoever. All they were ever allowed to use their own magic for was lighting the candles in the Chantry. But the mages wanted a place to study and practice magic so they could be better protected from the threat of demons. The Divine wanted nothing to do with it.

The mages peacefully protested in the cathedral, and because the candles weren't getting lit, the Divine tried to order an exalted march on her own cathedral. Ironically it was the Templar's who said she was taking it way too far, as she would've killed every living mage just for the peaceful act of defiance. So the Circle was born out of a compromise shouted down from the balcony.

Mages would be given a place to study magic and to practice, and the templars would observe. But slowly, over the course of 900 years, more and more practices by the templars became commonplace throughout Thedas. The Right of Tranquility became a favored punishment or escape from the Harrowing. The Right of Annulment became the practice of purging a Circle completely if the Knight-Commander under the authority of the Grand Cleric thought it necessary.

At first the strict punishments were used rarely, but as the 900 years passed, they became used with greater frequency. But because of the need for the Right of Annulment, which would kill every man, woman, and child. Enchanters to Apprentices, templars began to question and doubt the orders. So the Chantry started recruiting largely from zealots who won't question orders.

Given enough time, and suddenly you have templars who discuss killling mages with glee, sadists who see all the power lorded over mages because a templar can tranquilize or kill the mage for whatever crime.

And we finally come to where Origins and DA 2. An order so full of zealots that any mention of an idea of taking away some of the powers templars have over mages to improve the lives of mages is met with bitter resentment and opposition by most of those in power. They've had 900 years to watch the mages, and have grown comfortable with the privileges they've had over mages. Or their paranoia built up by a system which prefers the zealots on what all mages are, rather than the few.

It was a long built system of corruption, climaxing in a dramatic turnaround from the beginning. The Divine wanting to be gentle on the mages, but the Templars and Seekers, now so full of paranoia and zealotry outright ignore her and give the mages the destruction that the Divine 900 years earlier tried to enact.

---Some of what I said may not be accurate to the history of Thedas as I was filling in the blanks between codex's.

But the heart of the conflict is that most mages just want to live their lives in peace. Mind their own business, and the Templars are too freaking paranoid to allow that to happen, and after centuries of preferring zealots, practices which attract a more sadistic personality over mages, and outright bigotry we have an entire army of drug addicts (lyrium) vowing to kill every mage they can because it's the will of the Maker. And if they have to disobey and rebel against the Chantry to do so then so be it.

From the mages view, this is not a war that can be settled through diplomacy. It's either fight for survival or die. Or run away and hide.

[DKJaigen]

DPSSOC wrote...

OldMan91 wrote...
They have a right to be protected, yes. They also have a right to associate with mages freely, without Templar interference. And Mages have basic rights too. Either give everyone rights, or give no rights to anyone at all.

Except that even in modern society we regularly deny people various rights and freedoms.  Heck I wasn't granted all the rights and freedoms offered to me as a citizen until I turned 20, it takes immigrants 6 years before they get them all (or they turn 20 whichever comes last).  Not to mention that when you commit a crime you're stripped of a number of rights and freedoms, and if you're crime's bad enough we strip you of all but 3 for the rest of your life.

I know this is getting off topic but human rights are a human construct, we made them up.  They aren't actually based in anything other than the people running the show figured they were good for a smooth running society.

I approve of that but reducing freedon should be done for the benefit for society and its not in this case. in fact reducing several mage freedoms have harmed society.

[Ivucci]

DPSSOC wrote...

Except that even in modern society we regularly deny people various rights and freedoms. Heck I wasn't granted all the rights and freedoms offered to me as a citizen until I turned 20, it takes immigrants 6 years before they get them all (or they turn 20 whichever comes last). Not to mention that when you commit a crime you're stripped of a number of rights and freedoms, and if you're crime's bad enough we strip you of all but 3 for the rest of your life.

I know this is getting off topic but human rights are a human construct, we made them up. They aren't actually based in anything other than the people running the show figured they were good for a smooth running society.

But the "exceptions" you mentioned are not an indication of a faulty system. Quite on the contrary, they are included in order for the system to work and to prevent chaos and selfdestruction. They apply to everyone and are not selective, unlike in Thedas.

OldMan91 wrote...

No you can't, regardless of the person. They share the same rights as everyone else. Now, do they have the same responsibilities as every other citizen? No, they have some added responsibilities. Their rights however must be the same.

Excellent point.

It's the responsibilities that should be discussed and that can vary. The rights should not be doubted on any ground.

Edit: Yep and great post dragonflight288

Modifié par Ivucci, 04 février 2012 - 12:40 .

[Rifneno]

I don't want to quote so much for just a few sentences, but I want to say what an excellent summary that is, Dragonflight.

[Porenferser]

No, he is worse.

[General User]

dragonflight288 wrote...
But the heart of the conflict is that most mages just want to live their lives in peace. Mind their own business, and the Templars are too freaking paranoid to allow that to happen, and after centuries of preferring zealots, practices which attract a more sadistic personality over mages, and outright bigotry we have an entire army of drug addicts (lyrium) vowing to kill every mage they can because it's the will of the Maker. And if they have to disobey and rebel against the Chantry to do so then so be it.

From the mages view, this is not a war that can be settled through diplomacy. It's either fight for survival or die. Or run away and hide.

You know, that is an excellent point!  For who knows how many mages, this war is not about freedom at all but rather survival.  What's done in the name of survival is bound to be far more desperate and brutal.

Along the same line, another thing is: few people in Thedas have little experience with freedom, the mages least of all.  I think it's a bit… naïve to think that a group of people with no experience with freedom will be able to set up a system that respects it.  

[Rifneno]

Porenferser wrote...

No, he is worse.

You should pay attention to the story next time.

[Ivucci]

General User wrote...

You know, that is an excellent point! For who knows how many mages, this war is not about freedom at all but rather survival. What's done in the name of survival is bound to be far more desperate and brutal.

Of course, war is not an honorable game in itself, and no matter what noble slogans are thrown into ring at the beginning, it becomes a fight for mere survival for everyone who finds themselves on the actual battlefield.

To a large extent, I think it’s you who can decide whether it’s for freedom or survival. You, and mostly your leader… which is the tricky part in the case of mages.

Someone already mentioned a few pages back that the mages are knee deep in sh*t. They face powers greater and more brutal than theirs, they probably have very little, drawing on zero, support among ordinary people, no centralized leadership, no plan, no strategy. If you let Anders live, he states he’s taking the hunted refugee route, so he’s not planning on leading any faction (as far as we know now) – not that it would even be possible or a good idea given the circumstances and his strategic talents. It’s somehow apparent that the mages are already losing, and the war didn’t even break out in full. Difficult to stick to your slogans and declare a war for freedom in a situation like that. The more support those guys get from me though.

The way I’m reading it, the mages have already been fighting for survival for some time. The moment they take the initiative, they can fight for something more. Another possible way of interpreting Anders’ action.

I didn’t read Asunder so I’m desperately lacking information though. Do the mages have any support from outside of the Circles/Chantry/Templars system? I guess not.

Along the same line, another thing is: few people in Thedas have little experience with freedom, the mages least of all. I think it's a bit… naïve to think that a group of people with no experience with freedom will be able to set up a system that respects it.

I’m not sure what you mean, sorry.

It’s not only the mages who should be setting up the new system, if there will be any. They should certainly be participating, though, sure. It will take a whole generation for them to settle in, but in essence I believe that once you stop taking the kids away from their families in such a huge scale, the family will in most/many cases ensure that the kid knows what’s what.

Modifié par Ivucci, 04 février 2012 - 03:24 .

[TEWR]

Of course, war is not an honorable game in itself, and no matter what noble slogans are thrown into ring at the beginning, it becomes a fight for mere survival for everyone who finds themselves on the actual battlefield.

To a large extent, I think it’s you who can decide whether it’s for freedom or survival. You, and mostly your leader… which is the tricky part in the case of mages.

Someone already mentioned a few pages back that the mages are knee deep in sh*t. They face powers greater and more brutal than theirs, they probably have very little, drawing on zero, support among ordinary people, no centralized leadership, no plan, no strategy. If you let Anders live, he states he’s taking the hunted refugee route, so he’s not planning on leading any faction (as far as we know now) – not that it would even be possible or a good idea given the circumstances and his strategic talents. It’s somehow apparent that the mages are already losing, and the war didn’t even break out in full. Difficult to stick to your slogans and declare a war for freedom in a situation like that. The more support those guys get from me though.

The way I’m reading it, the mages have already been fighting for survival for some time. The moment they take the initiative, they can fight for something more. Another possible way of interpreting Anders’ action.

I haven't read Asunder either, but I can most assuredly say that the mages have Ferelden, the Divine, and her truly loyal subordinates on their side. Not only is Alistair seeking more freedom for the mages, but Ferelden's populus has become much more mage friendly thanks to the Mages' Collective (see the Collective Arming Cowl's description).

I'm willing to bet that Orzammar will be mage friendly as well, and possibly half of Orlais.

There's also part of Rivain that has free mages, so they might help out.

Then there are the Dalish, who would offer temporary to permanent shelter to any Elven mages and would be fools not to join in on the side of the mages now that the Templars have gone rogue and want to round up every apostate.

And by round up, I mean execute.

Mages have a good deal of support, whereas the Templars' support will eventually run out since they're so hooked on lyrium and are primarily composed of zealotous fanatics. Once they run out of lyrium, they'll start ransacking villages and plundering just to get enough money for their fix. Or they'll die from the withdrawal.

Ultimately, it's all pointless once the Qunari invade. And we shall see Sten again, where he will have a goatee and a box of kittens that he's playing with in one hand and a box of cookies in the other.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 04 février 2012 - 03:46 .

[TEWR]

Rifneno wrote...

Porenferser wrote...

No, he is worse.

You should pay attention to the story next time.

DAII had a story?!

[General User]

Ivucci wrote...
I’m not sure what you mean, sorry.

I'm just thinking about why it is that most revolutions only end up replacing one tyranny with another.  Why did the American Revolution end in a stable republic, while most all other revolutions and independence movements end in some combination of chaos and dictatorship? 

And the thing I keep coming back to is that, even under the British Crown, the North American colonies had stable, mainly republican forms of government.  Because the American Founding Fathers knew how freedom worked on both a theoretical and a practical level, they were able to set up a system that respected and cherished freedom.  But in, for example, France, the people had no real experience or understanding of freedom beyond the theoretical.  So it is no surprise that that revolution degenerated the way it did.

[Ivucci]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Mages have a good deal of support, whereas the Templars' support will eventually run out since they're so hooked on lyrium and are primarily composed of zealotous fanatics. Once they run out of lyrium, they'll start ransacking villages and plundering just to get enough money for their fix. Or they'll die from the withdrawal.

Ok ok.

I meant support as in support that would fight for them if needed, not just support that would accept apostates, nevertheless some of what you say makes sense.

I'm sometimes terribly bad at putting lore and background information scattered throughout the games together, my bad.

Modifié par Ivucci, 04 février 2012 - 03:50 .

[TEWR]

Well, most of the support I mentioned would probably fight for them. If you think about it, if Ferelden accepts apostates then the Templars will try and assault Ferelden. Even if Ferelden were to hand over apostates -- something I highly doubt either Alistair or Anora would do -- the Templars may still try and kill them on principle.

"You sheltered mages! You heretics must die!"

So Ferelden would be better off just keeping the mages and fighting the New Inquisition (what I'm going to now refer to the Rogue Templars as).

Ah, and the Templars may go after the Wardens as well. They have mages in their ranks, and the Templars may not care about any diplomatic immunity the Wardens hold when a mage joins their order.

[lrrose]

There are a lot of parallels between the two. The idol vs. Justice. Their increasing instability.. Their willingness to kill people to advance their agendas. That being said, at least Anders acknowledges that destroying the chantry was morally wrong, so I think he's less evil.

[Cody]

This agaaaaain?

[DPSSOC]

Goneaviking wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
Except that even in modern society we regularly deny people various rights and freedoms.  Heck I wasn't granted all the rights and freedoms offered to me as a citizen until I turned 20, it takes immigrants 6 years before they get them all (or they turn 20 whichever comes last).  Not to mention that when you commit a crime you're stripped of a number of rights and freedoms, and if you're crime's bad enough we strip you of all but 3 for the rest of your life.

I know this is getting off topic but human rights are a human construct, we made them up.  They aren't actually based in anything other than the people running the show figured they were good for a smooth running society.

Significant differences from the game include: 1) in the current system mages do not, and will never be given, the same rights as the rest of the population

 
True however they do have a few rights and freedoms the population will never enjoy.  The right to an education, the freedom to study and practice magic freely, hell the freedom to be an academic.  Farmer Joe is probably lucky if he can spell his own name, and he could never pack up and become an academic.

Goneaviking wrote...
and 2) mages don't have their rights stripped from them because of something they've done, but because of what they are.

Yes because mages are capable of something normal people aren't they do not have the same rights and freedoms as normal people, they're different and the system needs to treat them differently.  Is the current system perfect, hell no, but to suggest that mages should have all the freedoms of normal people is ludicrous.

Goneaviking wrote...
As you say those rights a good for a smooth running society, if one group sees themselves being deprived of rights that everyone else benefits from then resentment is inevitable and resistance a matter of time. The Chantry and Templars did well managing to keep it going as long as they did but violent revolution was just a matter of time.

Yes our rights result in a smooth running society for us, failed attempts to transplant them should indicate it's not the only way however.  Actually the Templars and Chantry could have kept the system going a lot longer, probably
 indefinitely, if they just reminded the mages how much better they have it than anyone else.  Normal people risk starvation, exposure, poverty, and they still risk physical abuse and rape.  So basically the system failed because of poor marketing.

Ivucci wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
Except that even in modern society we regularly deny people various rights and freedoms. Heck I wasn't granted all the rights and freedoms offered to me as a citizen until I turned 20, it takes immigrants 6 years before they get them all (or they turn 20 whichever comes last). Not to mention that when you commit a crime you're stripped of a number of rights and freedoms, and if you're crime's bad enough we strip you of all but 3 for the rest of your life.

I know this is getting off topic but human rights are a human construct, we made them up. They aren't actually based in anything other than the people running the show figured they were good for a smooth running society.

But the "exceptions" you mentioned are not an indication of a faulty system. Quite on the contrary, they are included in order for the system to work and to prevent chaos and selfdestruction. They apply to everyone and are not selective, unlike in Thedas.

True but the exceptions in our world are a lot more arbitrary. Ask yourself were you really all that different when you were 18 to when you were 17? Were you any more responsible when you turned 16 and were allowed to drive? Mages are different from normal people, and not that Sesame Street, Care Bears, "everybody's special" kind of different, they are drastically and measurably different from normal people. As such the system needs to treat them differently. Our exceptions may be more fair, but there's make a lot more sense.

Society: You can't live like a normal person.
Mage: Why not?
Society: Well because if Farmer Joe has a bad day, he might hit the bottle and take it out on his family. If you have a bad day, you might hit the bottle and take it out on the whole village.