2008 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

GavrielKay wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Mage "freedom" should only ever happen the day a mage can walk around truly without the danger of possession, and the day all traces of blood magic has been erased from the world. Until then, mages are gonna have to cope with limitations. What these limitations should be, is debatable, and consensus can only ever be reached through debate, not open warfare.

And the debate ends with the idea that the majority are somehow entitled to enslave the minority in order to feel safe.  Modern morality has pretty much dismissed that as rubbish.  There is no "right to feel safe" that trumps someone else's right to be free - at least up until that someone else actually commits a crime. 

That's why no one on the mage side thinks compromise will be possible.  Because even the notion that anyone has the "right" to imprison innocent mages is already an extreme viewpoint.  There is no compromise with someone who starts out with the complete conviction that they are justified in keeping you prisoner for life - "just in case."

So the mages wouldn't be willing to acept a compromise consisting of mages being allowed to choose between living in the Circle or outside, on the reuirement that if they live outside, they will need to keep regular contact with the Circle, and they could earn the right to start a family through dedicated service?

Great to know that the mages are unreasonable...

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 22 février 2012 - 07:16 .

[Xilizhra]

So the mages wouldn't be willing to acept a compromise consisting of mages being allowed to choose between living in the Circle or outside, on the reuirement that if they live outside, they will need to keep regular contact with the Circle, and they could earn the right to start a family through dedicated service?

Not if the Circle is run by a magophobic religious order, no.

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

So the mages wouldn't be willing to acept a compromise consisting of mages being allowed to choose between living in the Circle or outside, on the reuirement that if they live outside, they will need to keep regular contact with the Circle, and they could earn the right to start a family through dedicated service?

Not if the Circle is run by a magophobic religious order, no.

What if it were run by the Crown?

[Xilizhra]

General User wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

So the mages wouldn't be willing to acept a compromise consisting of mages being allowed to choose between living in the Circle or outside, on the reuirement that if they live outside, they will need to keep regular contact with the Circle, and they could earn the right to start a family through dedicated service?

Not if the Circle is run by a magophobic religious order, no.

What if it were run by the Crown?

I believe the Circle should be a political entity unto itself, that makes alliances with national governments as it sees fit. This would not be Tevinteresque in and of itself, as it wouldn't have any political power over nonmages.

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...
I believe the Circle should be a political entity unto itself, that makes alliances with national governments as it sees fit. This would not be Tevinteresque in and of itself, as it wouldn't have any political power over nonmages.

Neat idea.  And not without some merit.  How would you assure that nonmages would be protected though?

My real problem with that though is that I look at mages as being a part of their respective communities like anyone else.  I don't think that mages should be separted out for a number of reasons, not the least of which is I think it would breed suspicion on both sides of the divide. 

I think elevating the Circle to the equivlent of a Duchy or Teyrnyr(?) in their respective kingdoms and making the Archmages the equivilent of Dukes/Duchesses or Teyrns/Teyrnas is a great idea though.

Modifié par General User, 22 février 2012 - 07:28 .

[Xilizhra]

Neat idea. And not without some merit. How would you assure that nonmages would be protected though?

The Sentinels. Warriors trained in templar techniques, and probably holding equal rank to the mage officials in the Circle's hierarchy, but sworn to the Circle itself, as well as being secular.

My real problem with that though is that I look at mages as being a part of their respective communities like anyone else. I don't think that mages should be separted out for a number of reasons, not the least of which is I think it would breed suspicion on both sides of the divide.

It's an extremely sad day when Warhammer of all settings has a more enlightened approach to magic, and in that setting, magic literally comes from Hell. But the situation there is that the Empire's wizards congregate around their Colleges in the capital, but some members frequently travel and/or stay at other places, though generally alone. A situation like that is something that I'd probably advocate for, though the mage law enforcers are also far larger in order size and political clout than the templars, in large part because they fight a lot more things than just rogue mages. So it'd need more adaptation.

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

Neat idea. And not without some merit. How would you assure that nonmages would be protected though?

The Sentinels. Warriors trained in templar techniques, and probably holding equal rank to the mage officials in the Circle's hierarchy, but sworn to the Circle itself, as well as being secular.

Well yeah I figured you had in mind some sort of police force.  I was asking more along the line of who would watch the watchers (or Sentinels in this case)?  In other words how does a force which reports to the Circle hierarchy serve as any sort of assurance to anyone outside the Circle?

Xilizhra wrote...

My real problem with that though is that I look at mages as being a part of their respective communities like anyone else. I don't think that mages should be separted out for a number of reasons, not the least of which is I think it would breed suspicion on both sides of the divide.

It's an extremely sad day when Warhammer of all settings has a more enlightened approach to magic, and in that setting, magic literally comes from Hell. But the situation there is that the Empire's wizards congregate around their Colleges in the capital, but some members frequently travel and/or stay at other places, though generally alone. A situation like that is something that I'd probably advocate for, though the mage law enforcers are also far larger in order size and political clout than the templars, in large part because they fight a lot more things than just rogue mages. So it'd need more adaptation.

I'd advocate that mages be registered with the Crown and their movements monitored.

[GavrielKay]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
So the mages wouldn't be willing to acept a compromise consisting of mages being allowed to choose between living in the Circle or outside, on the reuirement that if they live outside, they will need to keep regular contact with the Circle, and they could earn the right to start a family through dedicated service?

Great to know that the mages are unreasonable...

You say "earn the right to start a family" as if they should have to.  People should be born with all those rights:  freedom of self determination, love, where to live and how to live.  You give up those rights by actually commiting a crime against your fellow man.

If you start with an egalitarian notion that everyone has the same rights (until they surrender them by commiting a crime) then I'd listen.

You want to talk about how it would be better for everyone including mages for mages to be trained in resisting demons, that's great.  I agree completely.  You want to start by saying mages have to prove they can resist demons before you'll even consider whether they have earned the basic human rights, then I say no, you've already given up on compromise by claiming the other side isn't yet worthy of a full seat at the table.

Modifié par GavrielKay, 22 février 2012 - 07:50 .

[Xilizhra]

Well yeah I figured you had in mind some sort of police force. I was asking more along the line of who would watch the watchers (or Sentinels in this case)? In other words how does a force which reports to the Circle hierarchy serve as any sort of assurance to anyone outside the Circle?

Hmmm. Were the Circle to be accountable to the people, that might help, though governmental accountability to them doesn't really exist at this point in time...

I'd advocate that mages be registered with the Crown and their movements monitored.

I suppose, though getting rid of the crowns would be a good thing too.

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

Well yeah I figured you had in mind some sort of police force. I was asking more along the line of who would watch the watchers (or Sentinels in this case)? In other words how does a force which reports to the Circle hierarchy serve as any sort of assurance to anyone outside the Circle?

Hmmm. Were the Circle to be accountable to the people, that might help, though governmental accountability to them doesn't really exist at this point in time...

The Crown represents the people and/or the nation (that's the theory anyway).

Xilizhra wrote...

I'd advocate that mages be registered with the Crown and their movements monitored.

I suppose, though getting rid of the crowns would be a good thing too.

In a way, I kindasorta agree(ish) a bit.  I think some wisdom to be found in most any system of social organization.  And while monarchy, in all it's various shapes and sizes, may not be the best form of government ever conceived, it's far from the worst either.

[Xilizhra]

The Crown represents the people and/or the nation (that's the theory anyway).

So how to adapt that to the Circle?

In a way, I kindasorta agree(ish) a bit. I think some wisdom to be found in most any system of social organization. And while monarchy, in all it's various shapes and sizes, may not be the best form of government ever conceived, it's far from the worst either.

To be honest, I think it is. Even totalitarian dictators gain their power through some form of merit. And they may have committed larger atrocities in gross terms, but that's largely because totalitarianism is newer than monarchy and has the advantage of technological/logistical advancements. I see nothing good at all about monarchy, unless the whole family consists of Platonic philosopher-kings, something which I believe has happened exactly never.

[Lazy Jer]

Xilizhra wrote...

The Crown represents the people and/or the nation (that's the theory anyway).

So how to adapt that to the Circle?

Well one way is to approach the Circle as an organization like any other with it's own specific goals, like the Chantry or the Merchant's Guild, and allow it to exist within the limits of a city or nation as long as it doesn't violate the laws of said government.

Another way would be to incorporate the Circle of Magi within the actual government of the city, like the City Guards.  In which case the Circle of Magi would be given two tasks to perform for the city, most likely the education of mages and policing and/or consulting of matters having to do with magic.

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

The Crown represents the people and/or the nation (that's the theory anyway).

So how to adapt that to the Circle?

Have the Archmage (and probably the senior enchanters too) of each Circle swear fealty to their sovereigns just like any other noble would have to.  With all the rights and privileges that entails.  And extend the same privileges other subjects of the Crown enjoy to mages of lesser rank.

Modifié par General User, 22 février 2012 - 08:20 .

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

In a way, I kindasorta agree(ish) a bit. I think some wisdom to be found in most any system of social organization. And while monarchy, in all it's various shapes and sizes, may not be the best form of government ever conceived, it's far from the worst either.

To be honest, I think it is. Even totalitarian dictators gain their power through some form of merit. And they may have committed larger atrocities in gross terms, but that's largely because totalitarianism is newer than monarchy and has the advantage of technological/logistical advancements. I see nothing good at all about monarchy, unless the whole family consists of Platonic philosopher-kings, something which I believe has happened exactly never.

Just keep in mind that alot of the concepts that are  absolutely fundamental to our modern, Western, classical-Liberal mindset, such as private property, and inalienable individual rights, have strong roots in medieval feudal monarchy (or, at least the version of it that was practiced in England). 

(adding)
Whereas more modern tyrannical philosophies constitute a fundamental rejection of those concepts.

Modifié par General User, 22 février 2012 - 08:32 .

[Xilizhra]

Just keep in mind that alot of the concepts that are absolutely fundamental to our modern, Western, classical-Liberal mindset, such as private property, and inalienable individual rights, have strong roots in medieval feudal monarchy (or, at least the version of it that was practiced in England).

Do note that the English version was more like a noble oligarchy; the king had a great deal of power, but was strongly constrained by the Magna Carta. Ferelden has something similar, but not places like Orlais.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 22 février 2012 - 08:39 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xilizhra wrote...

Neat idea. And not without some merit. How would you assure that nonmages would be protected though?

The Sentinels. Warriors trained in templar techniques, and probably holding equal rank to the mage officials in the Circle's hierarchy, but sworn to the Circle itself, as well as being secular.

If they are sworn to the Circle, then they would serve the Circle, which could potetially mean that the Circle would prevent them from doing their duty.
Far rather that the "sentinels" would serve a seperate faction, such as the Crown or Chantry, but keeping the Circle out of either. That way, if for instance the Sentinels serve the Crown, then each indiviual country could set their own laws regarding magic, and the Templars would enforce them within the country's borders.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 22 février 2012 - 08:53 .

[Xilizhra]

If they are sworn to the Circle, then they would serve the Circle, which could potetially mean that the Circle would prevent them from doing their duty.

It's no more in the interest of the Circle to have abominations running around than anyone else. I think their hierarchy would be separate and equal to the Circle, but they'd have no obligations to anyone else.

Far rather that the "sentinels" would serve a seperate faction, such as the Crown or Chantry, but keeping the Circle out of either. That way, if for instance the Sentinels serve the Crown, then each indiviual country could set their own laws regarding magic, and the Templars would enforce them within the country's borders.

No. This would undermine the Circle's independence, and I trust national governments barely more than I trust the Chantry.
I support Circle independence because I believe those who can't perceive magic have no business making policy decisions regarding magic because they're fundamentally less qualified.

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...
No. This would undermine the Circle's independence, and I trust national governments barely more than I trust the Chantry.
I support Circle independence because I believe those who can't perceive magic have no business making policy decisions regarding magic because they're fundamentally less qualified.

Oh that's just silly!  All sorts of politicians make decisions on things they either don't understand or have no business ruling on in the first place and... umm... hmm... actually you might be on to something there.

[Xilizhra]

To be honest, I think there's something to be said for technocracy, even if it has the same implementation problems as all other non-democratic governments. But it's better, I feel, than monarchy.

[Fast Jimmy]

I'm of the mind that a wise, benevolent dictatorship would be ideal.

If only you had a dictator that could house infinite amounts of information, could have zero personal motivation or ability to corrupt, and could put the needs of the masses over the wants of a few.. if only something could have all of the information and ethics coded or "programmed' into them... and who would be able to make thousand or millions of split-second decisions...

But that would be something like a computer. And there's no way those things will ever be able to handle that level of processing. Not unless computer technology were to double every seven years... <Moore's Law, cough cough>

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xilizhra wrote...

If they are sworn to the Circle, then they would serve the Circle, which could potetially mean that the Circle would prevent them from doing their duty.

It's no more in the interest of the Circle to have abominations running around than anyone else. I think their hierarchy would be separate and equal to the Circle, but they'd have no obligations to anyone else.

 
Templars are not merely there to prevent Abominations, but also to prevent the misuse and corruption of mages. And if a Circle leader ends up corrupt, he could prevent the Templars from doing their job. Not acceptable.

Xilizhra wrote... 

Far rather that the "sentinels" would serve a seperate faction, such as the Crown or Chantry, but keeping the Circle out of either. That way, if for instance the Sentinels serve the Crown, then each indiviual country could set their own laws regarding magic, and the Templars would enforce them within the country's borders.

No. This would undermine the Circle's independence, and I trust national governments barely more than I trust the Chantry.
I support Circle independence because I believe those who can't perceive magic have no business making policy decisions regarding magic because they're fundamentally less qualified.

It would not undermine the Circle any more than it would undermine any other seperate faction to abide by a country's laws.
If a nation has unfavorable laws, the Circle will simply cease to have a presence in said country, and the country must do without highly qualified and trained magical services.

[Xilizhra]

Templars are not merely there to prevent Abominations, but also to prevent the misuse and corruption of mages. And if a Circle leader ends up corrupt, he could prevent the Templars from doing their job. Not acceptable.

Only insofar as a corrupt leader of anything could keep people from doing their jobs. It's no different from anything else. In any case, I believe the Knight-Commander would have an equal rank to the First Enchanter and be able to act in law-enforcement actions independently.

It would not undermine the Circle any more than it would undermine any other seperate faction to abide by a country's laws.
If a nation has unfavorable laws, the Circle will simply cease to have a presence in said country, and the country must do without highly qualified and trained magical services.

Which could lead to every nation launching a trust conspiracy to make unfavorable laws in every nation so the mages would have nowhere to go, which is kind of what happened already. Or, of course, every mage could defect to Tevinter, which would surely be superior, yes?

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xilizhra wrote...

Templars are not merely there to prevent Abominations, but also to prevent the misuse and corruption of mages. And if a Circle leader ends up corrupt, he could prevent the Templars from doing their job. Not acceptable.

Only insofar as a corrupt leader of anything could keep people from doing their jobs. It's no different from anything else. In any case, I believe the Knight-Commander would have an equal rank to the First Enchanter and be able to act in law-enforcement actions independently.

 
Then nothing would be different from what it is now.

Xilizhra wrote... 

It would not undermine the Circle any more than it would undermine any other seperate faction to abide by a country's laws.
If a nation has unfavorable laws, the Circle will simply cease to have a presence in said country, and the country must do without highly qualified and trained magical services.

Which could lead to every nation launching a trust conspiracy to make unfavorable laws in every nation so the mages would have nowhere to go, which is kind of what happened already. Or, of course, every mage could defect to Tevinter, which would surely be superior, yes?

Why would nations make unfavorable laws for the mages? As a matter of fact, chances are that most nations would try and compete with eachother to have the most favorable laws for mages. And nothing would prevent the mages from migrating to Tevinter. I doubt that the Magisters would appreciate the added competition though, so it may turn out to be a short trip.
If the Circle are free to choose where it would establish bases, but was still bound by the regional laws regarding magic, the Circle would naturally only settle in places where they found it favorable. And they would, of course, make their services availble to the nations they settled in, for a price.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 22 février 2012 - 10:07 .

[Xilizhra]

Then nothing would be different from what it is now.

The Knight-Commander would be answerable still to the ultimate leaders of the international Circle organization, however, which would probably be a mix of mages/sentinels.

Why would nations make unfavorable laws for the mages? As a matter of fact, chances are that most nations would try and compete with eachother to have the most favorable laws for mages. And nothing would prevent the mages from migrating to Tevinter. I doubt that the Magisters would appreciate the added competition though, so it may turn out to be a short trip.
If the Circle are free to choose where it would establish bases, but was still bound by the regional laws regarding magic, the Circle would naturally only settle in places where they found it favorable. And they would, of course, make their services availble to the nations they settled in, for a price.

Society is still highly magophobic, and common sense rarely wins against fear. I have no faith in most national leaders being that smart about it, though maybe there's hope for Ferelden.
I still, however, believe that only mages should be able to make laws about magic.

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...
Society is still highly magophobic, and common sense rarely wins against fear. I have no faith in most national leaders being that smart about it, though maybe there's hope for Ferelden.

It does, and more often than you might think.  But that needn't be the base of it all.  If common sense, or altruism, or fidelity, or honor, or all other noble qualities will not suffice than let self-interest fill the gap.  On a purely practical level, mages are useful to a great number of people in a great many ways.  Integrate mages into society and they will always have their supporters, sensible or no.

Xilizhra wrote...
I still, however, believe that only mages should be able to make laws about magic.

I take issue with that bolded word.  Should only doctors make laws about medicine?  Should only carpenters and masons should write building codes?  Should only soldiers decide when to go to war?