90 réponses à ce sujet

[CrimsonZephyr]

General User wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...
He advocated reconcilliation after the Confederacy had been crushed to a fine pulp after Grant and Sherman had been done with them, you know, "fierce in battle, magnanimous in victory." He was pretty much cribbing Machiavelli here, by offering generous terms of reconciliation to utterly defeated enemies in order to renew trust. Lincoln did not offer terms of reconciliation in 1861, however, when the war was still starting and the Union's position was unclear. The mages will have to fight intelligently and pragmatically (this generally means not scorching the earth indiscriminately or using blood magic - a PR killer), but they will still have to fight.

The mages do have a chance to get some punches in on the Templars early on, but it won't be through "kill everything, burn everything" total war. It's be more along the lines of "exploit pre-existing tensions to create alliances," "create good PR," and "keep your army together at all costs." Going underground is actually a really, really terrible idea. It prevents ideological consistency (some groups will become crazy blood mages without a stern general on hand to give them a taste of the lash), prevents any kind of unified planning, and it makes creating a trained and veteran army an absolute nightmare. Guerrilla movements are actually a lot more organized than we give them credit for.

I think you have the right of it in a lot of ways.  But to me mages proving themselves to be a trustworthy lot is more than just PR, it's the truth.  Mages are as much a part of Thedas as anyone else.  So if it comes down to mages fighting for themselves, or fighting for Thedas as a whole, the choice should be obvious.

The best PR comes when it reflects the truth. That's why blood magic shouldn't be used. The drop in public approval would be far too high to justify and far too many resources would be expended in covering up such crimes. There is a pragmatic angle towards banning blood magic, not just moral.

Also, the mages cannot effectively fight "for Thedas" if their most basic self-interests are not secure. Asking them to suppress any desire or push for basic freedoms or codified rights for "the greater good," by organizations that have all the power in the first place, is really just double-speak for "know your place."

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 04 février 2012 - 06:15 .

[Xilizhra]

You're wrong for two reasons. First, not all Templars are "zealous, drug-addled fascists", many are good, decent people doing what the genuinely believe (rightly or wrongly) is in the best interests of their communities and societies.

Well, they are zealous and drug-addled as a rule, it's policy.

And second, different elements in a society coming together to put a stop to threats to that society (ie 'making friends') is an excellent course of action. In this case that would mean the moderate elements of society uniting under the Crown against the extremists on both sides.

The crowns also suck, in general, and I feel that doing away with them next would be a next decent course of action, if possible. Kowtowing to them will probably result in state slavery instead of religious, eventually. Means need to be taken to prevent this from ever happening again.

It is possible for mages and templars to work together. Thrask proved it. He spent years going to mages and templars, one-by-one and convincing them they should work together. Aside from Grace, he actually succeeded. That proves not all templars are religious zealots.

For the purpose of getting rid of one nutcase knight-commander, not bringing about mage freedom as a whole. I doubt so many templars would be so tractable.

[CrimsonZephyr]

Xilizhra wrote...

And second, different elements in a society coming together to put a stop to threats to that society (ie 'making friends') is an excellent course of action. In this case that would mean the moderate elements of society uniting under the Crown against the extremists on both sides.

The crowns also suck, in general, and I feel that doing away with them next would be a next decent course of action, if possible. Kowtowing to them will probably result in state slavery instead of religious, eventually. Means need to be taken to prevent this from ever happening again.

Well, it depends which crown. That would definitely be the case in absolute monarchies, as in Orlais or Nevarra, but Ferelden, the country where the nobility sits in assembly and votes on the king, and one where the Landsmeet has a great deal of influence on what the King can and cannot do? The mages would be at home there, and not to mention their democratic traditions (Circles decide things by vote, after all, even if only enchanters can vote) might rub off positively on the country as a whole. Also, by the time the mages even consider such an alliance, they will have largely militarized - no nation would be able to demand anything of them without some concessions; they have teeth now.

[dragonflight288]

The crowns also suck, in general, and I feel that doing away with them next would be a next decent course of action, if possible. Kowtowing to them will probably result in state slavery instead of religious, eventually. Means need to be taken to prevent this from ever happening again.

You should consider that only the Qunari and the Darkspawn don't really have any king or crowned ruler at all. You would essentially be destroying every form of government throughout Thedas. (Tevinter may not have Kings but they have Archons which is almost the same thing.)

For the purpose of getting rid of one nutcase knight-commander, not bringing about mage freedom as a whole. I doubt so many templars would be so tractable.

But it stands out as proof that if the cause is there, templars and mages can unite. Meredith was overstepping her authority as Knight-Commander by playing Viscount for three years and preventing the nobles of Kirkwall from electing a new one. She was the defacto Queen of Kirkwall. That was a cause of concern for every citizen of Kirkwall. Not just mages or templars.

One step at a time is usually the best way to go. Kind of like climbing a mountain. If you rush it in a forced determination to make it to the top way too fast, most people will burn out and drop before they get close to the peak. Or in the case of freedom for the mages, a sword in the gut.

The best course of action is to show the common man that the templars aren't divine protectors of the Maker as they are commonly believed. Most people won't believe the mages on account of prejudice against mages. So the mages should hide and maintain a low profile, striking every now and then to keep the rogue templars searching. Eventually their lyrium addiction will take its toll.

The zealous templars, on a mandate from the Maker according to them, would have absolutely no problem raping and pillaging Thedas to get lyrium, or the money to pay smugglers to get them lyrium. A campaign of propaganda against the templars abuses and self-righteous arrogance will be proven by the templars themselves, if given enough time. They will lose that divine protector view the common man of thedas sees them with. Instead they would be addicted thugs who are a threat to the nations of Thedas in their witch hunt.

[General User]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...
Also, the mages cannot effectively fight "for Thedas" if their most basic self-interests are not secure. Asking them to suppress any desire or push for basic freedoms or codified rights for "the greater good," by organizations that have all the power in the first place, is really just double-speak for "know your place."

Knowing your place needn't have any sort of negative connotation.  Take this business with the mages; a mages place is as a functional member of their respective communities.  Nothing wrong with knowing that.

Xilizhra wrote...
I don't know if this rebellion should stop with the mages, to be honest. These crowns have been oppressing elves and frequently other humans for quite some time. If there should be any alliance, I'd like it to be with the elves, and if possible, downtrodden humans. Taking out the Orlesian government seems to be a generally good thing to do in any case.

Xilizhra wrote...
The crowns also suck, in general, and I feel that doing away with them next would be a next decent course of action, if possible. Kowtowing to them will probably result in state slavery instead of religious, eventually. Means need to be taken to prevent this from ever happening again.

This is pretty much a case in point of why revolutions are so dangerous and to be avoided if at all possible.  You start with one group's legitimate desire for change or reform then someone says "hey, what about those guys over there?  Let's get them too!".  And before you know it, the countryside is full of labor camps, you're cheering public be-headings, and slaughtering whole families by the hundreds.  Now don't misunderstand, I'm not accusing you of advocating or endorsing anything so horrid, but this is very much a Pandora's Box situation, and it's not too late to stop the worst things from happening.

Modifié par General User, 04 février 2012 - 10:42 .

[GodWood]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

I take your Abraham Lincoln, and give you my Mao Zedong:

"The People are the sea that the Revolutionary swims in."

"All Reactionaries are paper tigers. In appearance, the Reactionaries are terrifying, but in reality they are not so powerful."

"[Anders] made mistakes... One cannot advance without mistakes... It is necessary to make mistakes."

"Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed."

"A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."

"Every [Mage] must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the [flames] of a [fireball]."

"If the [Templars] persist in pushing their policies of [oppression and suppression], the day is bound to come when they will be hanged by the people of the whole world. The same fate awaits their accomplices."

"The revolutionary war is a war of the masses; it can be waged only by mobilizing the masses and relying on them."

Lol, well done.

[CrimsonZephyr]

General User wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...
Also, the mages cannot effectively fight "for Thedas" if their most basic self-interests are not secure. Asking them to suppress any desire or push for basic freedoms or codified rights for "the greater good," by organizations that have all the power in the first place, is really just double-speak for "know your place."

Knowing your place needn't have any sort of negative connotation.  Take this business with the mages; a mages place is as a functional member of their respective communities.  Nothing wrong with knowing that.

When they're being abused and tortured based on birth and not on their crimes? Mages are a member of the community of Thedas, but a healthy community is built on give and take on both sides. I'm sorry, but "think of the greater good" arguments fall flat when the system you think mages should help prop up is so systematically broken and biased against them, while the Templars have all the bargaining power by default.

Revolutions aren't picnics, but here's the thing: the start of ending any sort of revolution short of base oppression is entirely in the Templars' hands. Mages would not be acting in their self-interest to surrender to the Templars, sacrificing all of their autonomy and agency while the Templars sacrifice nothing. Sure, there would be peace, but it would be a very bad peace. The Templars could have avoided all of this had they made concessions and triangulated political support away from the Libertarians - virtually all of the other fraternities would have be fine with a slow progression of freedoms and increased autonomy short of complete emancipation and separation. Instead, the Templars' first instinct was to kill them all.

The kind of bloodbaths that you're referring to happen generally because the ruling classes are so obstinate and immoveable that the most radical sections of the opposition gain support for their methods and ideology. Half the reason communism, for example, didn't take over in Western Europe in the 19th Century was that it was marginalized politically by adopting reforms that satisfied a larger section of the population than the radicals could convince.

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 04 février 2012 - 10:42 .

[General User]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

General User wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...
Also, the mages cannot effectively fight "for Thedas" if their most basic self-interests are not secure. Asking them to suppress any desire or push for basic freedoms or codified rights for "the greater good," by organizations that have all the power in the first place, is really just double-speak for "know your place."

Knowing your place needn't have any sort of negative connotation.  Take this business with the mages; a mages place is as a functional member of their respective communities.  Nothing wrong with knowing that.

When they're being abused and tortured based on birth and not on their crimes? Mages are a member of the community of Thedas, but a healthy community is built on give and take on both sides. I'm sorry, but "think of the greater good" arguments fall flat when the system you think mages should help prop up is so systematically broken and biased against them, while the Templars have all the bargaining power by default.

Revolutions aren't picnics, but here's the thing: the start of ending any sort of revolution short of base oppression is entirely in the Templars' hands. Mages would not be acting in their self-interest to surrender to the Templars, sacrificing all of their autonomy and agency while the Templars sacrifice nothing. Sure, there would be peace, but it would be a very bad peace. The Templars could have avoided all of this had they made concessions and triangulated political support away from the Libertarians - virtually all of the other fraternities would have be fine with a slow progression of freedoms and increased autonomy short of complete emancipation and separation. Instead, the Templars' first instinct was to kill them all.

The kind of bloodbaths that you're referring to happen generally because the ruling classes are so obstinate and immoveable that the most radical sections of the opposition gain support for their methods and ideology. Half the reason communism, for example, didn't take over in Western Europe in the 19th Century was that it was marginalized politically by adopting reforms that satisfied a larger section of the population than the radicals could convince.

Think about it this way: If a the 'proper place' for all mages is with their respective families and communities just like anyone else, and the Templar/Circle system removes them from such, then who is it really who is acting 'out of their place'?  Why, Templar/Circle system of course!

Remember the Templar Order has proven itself faithless and treacherous.  Each and every Templar who has left the Chantry to hunt mages could rightly be put to a traitors death.  So what the Templar Order might do/think, isn't much of a concern since they likely won't honor any deal even if they did make one.  I'm more focused on the other powers in Thedas, both secular and religious. 

A point I want to make is that it is much as you said, Lincoln was ferocious towards the Confederacy but conciliatory towards Confederates who lay down arms.  And so we should be towards the templars, ferocious to the Order, but forgiving towards individual templars.

[Xilizhra]

You should consider that only the Qunari and the Darkspawn don't really have any king or crowned ruler at all. You would essentially be destroying every form of government throughout Thedas. (Tevinter may not have Kings but they have Archons which is almost the same thing.)

I hope to find a way to plunge the qunari into chaos as well before this happens.

This is pretty much a case in point of why revolutions are so dangerous and to be avoided if at all possible. You start with one group's legitimate desire for change or reform then someone says "hey, what about those guys over there? Let's get them too!". And before you know it, the countryside is full of labor camps, you're cheering public be-headings, and slaughtering whole families by the hundreds. Now don't misunderstand, I'm not accusing you of advocating or endorsing anything so horrid, but this is very much a Pandora's Box situation, and it's not too late to stop the worst things from happening.

Well, that's not my plan, as such. However, I do most definitely want to bring down the government of Orlais. Not only is it an expansionist evil empire, it's one of the major pillars propping up Chantry power and a source of military might for possible Exalted Marches. Orlais must fall, for, really, the sake of most of the people in it (as I mentioned before, Orlesian commoners are one of the few nonmage humans who share the elf/mage problem of being able to be raped on a whim, among other things).

[Rifneno]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

I was quoting him as a revolutionary leader and a military strategist. If you are unaware of his phenomenal prowess as both then you are simply ignorant. If you fail to see the relevance of that with the thread topic of Mage-Templar war then you are also obtuse.

I'm aware of that, but I'm also aware that people tend to assume if you agree with someone's tactics you also agree with their moral philosophy. Which is exactly why I've been biting on lip on bringing up psychological warfare from figures like Vlad Tepes or Genghis Khan. They were bastards, but they knew how to defeat a larger force sometimes even without a fight. Unfortuantely, the pragmatic approach is not well received around here on either side of the fence. You get crap for saying it's okay to kill all the armed enemy soldiers you can in a war, so I can't imagine the shock and horror people would respond with for anything but complete condemnation of people who made their mark by being ruthless. I'm surprised there wasn't one for that. I can only assume that most of the folks who think you can solve all the world's problems by talking just don't know who Mao Zedong was.

General User wrote...

The line is indeed arbitrary. Where it is drawn and how thick is entirely dependent on the particular situation at hand. For example, if the Qunari invade then common cause might be found with Tevinter, during a Blight common cause must be found with all.

And now, the line is between the mages or templars.

First, not all Templars are "zealous, drug-addled fascists", many are good, decent people doing what the genuinely believe (rightly or wrongly) is in the best interests of their communities and societies.

Yeah yeah yeah. They were brainwashed by propaganda, yada yada yada. So were the ****s. And if I was there, I'd have killed as many of them as I could too.

And second, different elements in a society coming together to put a stop to threats to that society (ie 'making friends') is an excellent course of action. In this case that would mean the moderate elements of society uniting under the Crown against the extremists on both sides.

So you don't want a war with A vs. B, you want a war with A vs. B vs. C. Yes, that's much better. And I'm sure the heads of state you want them to rally behind will have only the best in mind for everyone.

This is pretty much a case in point of why revolutions are so dangerous and to be avoided if at all possible.

And it's not reasonably possible.

dragonflight288 wrote...

But it stands out as proof that if the cause is there, templars and mages can unite.

It stands as proof that some of them can. Thrask didn't have any hardliners that we know of, and the hardliners are the problem. Thrask's rebellion united people on opposite sides against what they considered a greater threat. But in the minds of many people on both sides, the other side is the greatest threat. There is nothing to unite them because it requires a bigger threat than the number one threat.

[Xilizhra]

Yeah yeah yeah. They were brainwashed by propaganda, yada yada yada. So were the ****s. And if I was there, I'd have killed as many of them as I could too.

Possibly problematic. I don't see a reason to kill people when it's not a combat situation.

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...
Well, that's not my plan, as such. However, I do most definitely want to bring down the government of Orlais. Not only is it an expansionist evil empire, it's one of the major pillars propping up Chantry power and a source of military might for possible Exalted Marches. Orlais must fall, for, really, the sake of most of the people in it (as I mentioned before, Orlesian commoners are one of the few nonmage humans who share the elf/mage problem of being able to be raped on a whim, among other things).

If you like, think of the Orlesian Empire as another  of those nefarious factions that would love to use the chaos of the Mage-Templar Conflict to advance its own agenda.

Rifneno wrote...
And now, the line is between the mages or templars.

It is for the mages and templars.  But those aren't the only two seats at the table.

Rifneno wrote...
So you don't want a war with A vs. B, you want a war with A vs. B vs. C. Yes, that's much better.

When A and B represent fanatics and extremists, and C represents moderation and compromise?  Yes it is.

 

Rifneno wrote...
And I'm sure the heads of state you want them to rally behind will have only the best in mind for everyone.

Some more than others.  Enlightened self-interest is the bedrock upon which all truly productive political, diplomatic, etc. relationships are built.

Rifneno wrote...
And it's not reasonably possible.

I was speaking of revolutions in general.  Unfortunately, the Mage-Templar Conflict cannot now be prevented since it has already begun.  It's excesses, however, can still be ameliorated or prevented.

[Xilizhra]

If you like, think of the Orlesian Empire as another of those nefarious factions that would love to use the chaos of the Mage-Templar Conflict to advance its own agenda.

Indeed. In fact, I think of every government as being this. I feel the only people the mages can or should trust is each other and possibly the elves.

[Rifneno]

Xilizhra wrote...

Possibly problematic. I don't see a reason to kill people when it's not a combat situation.

I mean military. What the Soviets did when they took Berlin was nauseating. Though anyone aiding the enemy's war effort is fair game. Weapons plants, research, ect. "Civilians" or not, those people are fair game.

General User wrote...

If you like, think of the Orlesian Empire as another of those nefarious factions that would love to use the chaos of the Mage-Templar Conflict to advance its own agenda.

I'm unconvinced one way or the other on the Empress' intentions. She seems to have been an entirely positive influence on both kings of Ferelden. On the other hand it could easily have just been to spring a surprise. She didn't get her throne because she always plays by the rules. The rest of the Orlesian nobility seems to be generally scum though.

When A and B represent fanatics and extremists, and C represents moderation and compromise? Yes it is.

I don't know whether the mages as a whole are open to compromise. I do know that the templars as a whole are not. So it doesn't really matter. There will be no compromise. Which shouldn't really come as a surprise to anyone that's ever tried to talk reason to a religious fanatic or tried to set straight someone who turned out bad because they grew up abused.

Some more than others. Enlightened self-interest is the bedrock upon which all truly productive political, diplomatic, etc. relationships are built.

"Enlightened" is possibly the LAST word I would use to describe the rulers of Thedas.

[Rifneno]

Xilizhra wrote...

Indeed. In fact, I think of every government as being this. I feel the only people the mages can or should trust is each other and possibly the elves.

The elves?  Gah!  City elves are questionable.  A lot of them are good people, but people have made pretty compelling arguments that they purposely hold themselves and each other down.  Dalish elves are by and large just racist pricks.  And in the case of their hunters, probably often murderers.

[Xilizhra]

I mean military. What the Soviets did when they took Berlin was nauseating. Though anyone aiding the enemy's war effort is fair game. Weapons plants, research, ect. "Civilians" or not, those people are fair game.

Nauseating, but hardly surprising. Luckily, there isn't a single nation of people the templars are obliged to for the mages to avenge themselves upon.
Also luckily, weapons plants and research don't seem to be in much use lately in this. Though then we get into the murkier business of things like food production.

[Heimdall]

So I'm seeing a lot of judging medieval rulers and government by twentieth century standards in this thread...

[HiroVoid]

Rifneno wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Indeed. In fact, I think of every government as being this. I feel the only people the mages can or should trust is each other and possibly the elves.

The elves?  Gah!  City elves are questionable.  A lot of them are good people, but people have made pretty compelling arguments that they purposely hold themselves and each other down.  Dalish elves are by and large just racist pricks.  And in the case of their hunters, probably often murderers.

Oh you will take that back or I'll take you down like those racist bastards that were going to rat out my clan's location at the beginning of Origins!

[Xilizhra]

The elves? Gah! City elves are questionable. A lot of them are good people, but people have made pretty compelling arguments that they purposely hold themselves and each other down. Dalish elves are by and large just racist pricks. And in the case of their hunters, probably often murderers.

Then we find the best city elves and let them pull the rest of the elves along with them. As for the Dalish, it's in their interest to take down Orlais and the military might of the Chantry.

So I'm seeing a lot of judging medieval rulers and government by twentieth century standards in this thread...

Our standards are superior.

[CrimsonZephyr]

Lord Aesir wrote...

So I'm seeing a lot of judging medieval rulers and government by twentieth century standards in this thread...

And you're applying real-life medieval standards to a universe where such sensibilities are inconsistently applied.

[Heimdall]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

So I'm seeing a lot of judging medieval rulers and government by twentieth century standards in this thread...

And you're applying real-life medieval standards to a universe where such sensibilities are inconsistently applied.

*Blinks*  When did I apply any standards?

[Heimdall]

Xilizhra wrote...

The elves? Gah! City elves are questionable. A lot of them are good people, but people have made pretty compelling arguments that they purposely hold themselves and each other down. Dalish elves are by and large just racist pricks. And in the case of their hunters, probably often murderers.

Then we find the best city elves and let them pull the rest of the elves along with them. As for the Dalish, it's in their interest to take down Orlais and the military might of the Chantry.

So I'm seeing a lot of judging medieval rulers and government by twentieth century standards in this thread...

Our standards are superior.

They certainly are different, but as with medieval standards, they are only inconsistantly applicable in the world of Dragon Age.

[Xilizhra]

I don't believe I'm using many, if any, standards that can't be expressed in-game.

[dragonflight288]

Then we find the best city elves and let them pull the rest of the elves along with them. As for the Dalish, it's in their interest to take down Orlais and the military might of the Chantry.

As a city elf, you are the best the alienage has to offer. But you can't help the alienage because they don't want to help themselves. They would prefer to live in squalor rather than risk getting on the bad side of humans. You can't help someone who refuses to help himself.

As for the Dalish, they are disorganized clans who only meet roughly a decade or so. If you can get an alliance with one clan, that's great, but it won't count for all the Dalish. Some Dalish would rather avoid the war entirely because it is fought by shemlen. No other reason needed. Let them fight and kill each other.