201 réponses à ce sujet

[Lazy Jer]

Three words.  Mage civil war.  The fraternities are going to splinter off into side groups and side groups of those side  groups.  When their done fighting the Templars they're going to have to determine the future of the new circle, IF there even is one.  Some won't want anything to do with it, the Isolationists come to mind, as well as mages like Jowen who just wanted to run away to a romote farm somewhere.  The Mages Circle is going to suddenly have a heck of a lot more mages to deal with including some mages that feel like they themselves should be running the darn thing.  The Libertarians are going to split between two groups, one that just wanted equal rights and the others who want superiority.  The Loyalists are going to go to war with latter group from the previous sentence and the Aequitarians are going to invent Advil, because as the moderates, they're going to have the headache of dealing with the subsequent bickering.

Anyway, tl:dr version, the mages once done fighting the Templars will begin fighting each other.

[GavrielKay]

Lazy Jer wrote...
Anyway, tl:dr version, the mages once done fighting the Templars will begin fighting each other.

I don't know.  I think the factions probably came mostly out of being stuck together in circles.  Once they win the freedom to go their own ways, they would just do that.  The Isolationists won't have to fight with anybody, they can just go live in remote places, loyalists can try to win their way back into the Chantry etc...  they don't have to fight for domination when they can all do what they want to.

[LobselVith8]

vixvicco wrote...

Fenris' comments made me paranoid, but I suppose his hatred for Mages can't be used as evidence of a sociey failing once Mages are set free.

Magisters enslave mages and nonmages alike. You can consider that there are other societies with free mages that don't try to emulate Tevinter: the Dalish clans, the Chasind Wilders, the Avvar tribes, and the seers and witches in the Kingdom of Rivain. Free mages don't mean another Imperium. The mage protagonist can ask for the emancipation of his people when he becomes the Hero of Ferelden. The historical mage Aldenon co-founded Ferelden with the intent of creating a kingdom where all men and women would be free; he saw the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery.

[DarkDragon777]

A Neo-Tevinter is what I'm hoping for.

[wsandista]

It wouldn't. DA2 showed us that all mages are insane blood mages.

[LobselVith8]

caradoc2000 wrote...

It works just fine in Tevinter where mages rule.

I can imagine more than a few mages would wish to avoid emulating Tevinter.

I suppose our Warden and Champion could be a factor. I had an elven mage become Hero of Ferelden and an apostate become Champion of Kirkwall; if Anders continual argument to my Hawke about becoming a leader to the mages means anything, I could imagine an apostate Hawke as a leader of the rebellion. And I could see mages seeking out my Hero of Ferelden who asked the ruler to free his people. Morrigan could be a factor, as an infamous Witch of the Wild. Mages fighting for autonomy and freedom don't mean another magocracy like Tevinter.

Perhaps Ferelden will see the benefit of these mages with Orlais contemplating another invasion. Maybe some land for them to live in peace, in exchange for aid against the Orlesians.

[Daerog]

The title says "society," I can't imagine a single answer to overall society, as the end result of mages winning will likely have many different scenarios in different places. Maybe a smaller tevinter here, loyalist mages setting things back to the way they were in another area, revolt and civil war in other areas, so on.

The big question is if the Circle will survive. I would think it would fall apart after the war if mages win, probably preserved by some and abandoned by others. Different methods of regulation may appear, some places may just abandon regulation and just have a good market for abomination hunters.

Would certainly give a chance for the Imperial Chantry to spread beyond Tevinter, and future wars can now just be determined by who has the most combat trained mages without the Chantry denying most mages from joining in wars. Technology may pick up at a fast rate in the more mage-starved nations/areas just to meet the threat, if they can remain independent in the first place.

Modifié par DaerogTheDhampir, 03 juillet 2012 - 12:23 .

[caradoc2000]

LobselVith8 wrote...

caradoc2000 wrote...

It works just fine in Tevinter where mages rule.

I can imagine more than a few mages would wish to avoid emulating Tevinter.

How many mages you meet in DA2 that aren't blood mages? Not many. Even Hawke can be BM.

[Samzo77]

If the mages were to throw off the Chantry's rule over their lives, things would become very hard for them. Winning a war against the Templars in a world were you are feared will not do much for your social standing. Mages will continue to be looked on as abominations waiting to happen. Mages will only be able to live where permitted by governments, and many have ties to the chantry. If the different nations hadn't already joined the Templars in the fight, they would at this point, so it would take radical leaders to give them amnesty, and protect them from other armies. That could lead to new wars between nations, not just Templars and mages.
Truth is, I don't believe the mages can win a war against the Templars. Society is against them at every turn. The mages can only win through political means, in which the governments of Thedas separate from Chantry law. This would result in the existence of Chantry organized circles wherevere mages who were loyal to the Chantry teaching could be found. Other mages would form institutes like universities or colleges, probably divided by their fraternities and differing opinions on what magic is acceptable. In addition, there would be enclaves of mages who won't even attend the schools, but ae content to try and learn together, or teach each other forbidden magics. And some may just try to find ways to help themselves in everyday life, no longer being hunted or separated from their families.
I think it ultimately leads to more abominations due to lack of oversight and regulation.

Modifié par Samzo77, 03 juillet 2012 - 03:48 .

[GavrielKay]

caradoc2000 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

caradoc2000 wrote...

It works just fine in Tevinter where mages rule.

I can imagine more than a few mages would wish to avoid emulating Tevinter.

How many mages you meet in DA2 that aren't blood mages? Not many. Even Hawke can be BM.

Blood mage is not automatically equal to Tevinter-sympathizer.

Tevinter is awful even for most mages.  They enslave and challenge each other as much as anyone else.

Plus, we don't meet very many mages in DA2 compared to how many we're told are there.  There are hundreds of mages in the Gallows that we never meet.  So, the real ratio of crazy to stable mages in Kirkwall probably isn't as bad as what it appears from Hawke's point of view.

Anyway it's the Chantry's fault for keeping hundreds of mages in a place that the Tevinters soaked in blood for who knows how many years.  Why would you keep people who are dangerous in a place designed to terrorize slaves?

Samzo77 wrote...
I think it ultimately leads to more abominations due to lack of oversight and regulation.

I think it will do the opposite.  As more mages are raised in stable families rather than by suspicious religious zealots, they may actually develop better resistance to demon temptation and become safer.  Give mages families and a community to care about and they will have a reason to try harder to prevent disasters.

From all accounts in game, cultures who treat their mages with cautious respect rather than loathing and fear don't have as much trouble with abominations.  Even Tevinter, for all its horrors, doesn't appear to be over-run by abominations.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Magisters enslave mages and nonmages alike. You can consider that there are other societies with free mages that don't try to emulate Tevinter: the Dalish clans, the Chasind Wilders, the Avvar tribes, and the seers and witches in the Kingdom of Rivain. Free mages don't mean another Imperium. The mage protagonist can ask for the emancipation of his people when he becomes the Hero of Ferelden. The historical mage Aldenon co-founded Ferelden with the intent of creating a kingdom where all men and women would be free; he saw the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery.

All of your examples of "free mages" except of Tevinter are not large, developed countries and free mage systems used trought. In all the cases of "free mages" the free mages are a handfull living in the wilderness.

For the dalish it's 1-2 mages per clan, living in remote forests away from humans..and some clans fall prey to demons because of that.
Chasind are similar.
With Rivian, they have Circles where most of their mages are, the witches are like the dalish - a few of them living a hermit life in a forest away from the rest of humanity.

[Lotion Soronarr]

GavrielKay wrote...

Samzo77 wrote...
I think it ultimately leads to more abominations due to lack of oversight and regulation.

I think it will do the opposite.  As more mages are raised in stable families rather than by suspicious religious zealots, they may actually develop better resistance to demon temptation and become safer.  Give mages families and a community to care about and they will have a reason to try harder to prevent disasters.

I don't see no connection between "demonic resistance" and that.
It's not like the power of love or some BS like that affects resistance in any way, shape or form. I could easily argue that it could be the opposite.
Familiar connections can be easily used by the demon against the mage.


What you call religious zealotry I call common sense.
Mages are damn dangerous even under the best of conditions.

From all accounts in game, cultures who treat their mages with cautious respect rather than loathing and fear don't have as much trouble with abominations.  Even Tevinter, for all its horrors, doesn't appear to be over-run by abominations.

Actually, I don't see the game accounts confirming your suspicions. Entire dalish clans dissapearing doesn't sound like abomination trouble to you?

[Sir JK]

There is merit to the idea that a stable society with good relations to the mages will lower the amount of demons. If mages are satisfied, there is less ground for rage demons to prey on mages.

Loving families sounds good. Until you realise that even with mages about there is no real healthcare in this world. Terminal illness is not only common but very difficult to cure. In IRL, prior to the beginning of the 20th century the child mortality rate was 50 %. I suspect it's comparable in Thedas.
How will the mages handle that I wonder? Will not the promise of a living child be an all too easy method for the desire demons? We all know it worked with Connor.
Tragedy will happen and it will strike the families of mages too. Isolation does not prevent this, but it does limit their ability to hear of it or care about it.

And then we have the problems of career and politics. If mages are allowed to indulge en masse in those fields, allowing themselves to get rich and powerful. Is that not a perfect ground for demons of hunger, sloth and pride?
Not being barred from anything will surely lower the number of rage abominations from feeling repressed, but will the increased venues for decadence, indulgence and ambition cause an effect?

We already know that having a welcome place in society is not a complete safeguard, given that abominations happen among Dalish Keepers as well. So the question is how effective a society that welcomes mages would be.

I mentioned above some of the concerns that could arise in a welcoming society.Similarily, peace and stability is perhaps the primary hallmarks of qunari society and we know they too have abominations. Even if the number of abominations total is lessened, could society handle the potential of a larger amount of desire, hunger, sloth and pride demons? All whom are more powerful than rage demons.
This is not saying that rage abominations are the only thing that happens in the andrastian society. Just that a free mage society does open up possibilities that fit other demons very well.

So the question in this regard is. Will a free society truly lessen the risk of becoming abominations? It will solve some problems yes, but it is unclear how many new ones that would emerge

Modifié par Sir JK, 03 juillet 2012 - 11:19 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sir JK wrote...

There is merit to the idea that a stable society with good relations to the mages will lower the amount of demons. If mages are satisfied, there is less ground for rage demons to prey on mages.

Good relations and stable families are NOT something you can guarantee with any law.

And "satisfied" is a very broad term. Satisfied about WHAT? Any point that brings satisfaction also brings more potential dissatisfaction with it.

How will the mages handle that I wonder? Will not the promise of a living child be an all too easy method for the desire demons? We all know it worked with Connor.
Tragedy will happen and it will strike the families of mages too. Isolation does not prevent this, but it does limit their ability to hear of it or care about it.

That's what I was reffering too. Living in the cities among thousands will not make demonic possesion less likely.
I specualte it will be the oppoite. It will give them more incentive and more opportunities to fall.

I mentioned above some of the concerns that could arise in a welcoming society.Similarily, peace and stability is perhaps the primary hallmarks of qunari society and we know they too have abominations. Even if the number of abominations total is lessened, could society handle the potential of a larger amount of desire, hunger, sloth and pride demons? All whom are more powerful than rage demons.

So the question in this regard is. Will a free society truly lessen the risk of becoming abominations? It will solve some problems yes, but it is unclear how many new ones that would emerge

It wouldn't solve anything.
The abominations that DO happen would happen in populated areas. You'd have more deaths before they could be stopped. More deaths = more resentment. More breeding ground for greater temptations.

[EricHVela]

I have to agree with Sir JK.

There will be mass murderers, serial killers and other horrible people that take many lives. This will happen mostly in cities. Mages merely have a different option to accomplish it. The Qunari in Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age: Kirkwall have shown that magic is not necessary for a single person to commit mass murder. Both stories also show how easy it is for a single, mundane person to do it. Heck. Dragon Age: Kirkwall suggests that the Blood Mage serial killer didn't actually use any magic to lure in women.

If we were to treat Mages as a threat, we should treat everyone as a threat by the same logic.

History shows that focusing on what makes people different instead of what makes people the same has always resulted in segregation which has always resulted in resentment between all parties (regardless whoever was responsible for the segregation). Mages isolating themselves or mundanes isolating mages is simply not the way forward. It's just going backwards.

EDIT: Clarification

Modifié par ReggarBlane, 03 juillet 2012 - 12:58 .

[MisterJB]

ReggarBlane wrote...

I have to agree with Sir JK.

There will be mass murderers, serial killers and other horrible people that take many lives. This will happen mostly in cities. Mages merely have a different option to accomplish it. The Qunari in Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age: Kirkwall have shown that magic is not necessary for a single person to commit mass murder. Both stories also show how easy it is for a single, mundane person to do it. Heck. Dragon Age: Kirkwall suggests that the Blood Mage serial killer didn't actually use any magic to lure in women.

If we were to treat Mages as a threat, we should treat everyone as a threat by the same logic.

True, it doesn't take magic for someone to kill. But not every mass murderer has the capability of burning down entire cities with a tought.

[EricHVela]

MisterJB wrote...

ReggarBlane wrote...

I have to agree with Sir JK.

There will be mass murderers, serial killers and other horrible people that take many lives. This will happen mostly in cities. Mages merely have a different option to accomplish it. The Qunari in Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age: Kirkwall have shown that magic is not necessary for a single person to commit mass murder. Both stories also show how easy it is for a single, mundane person to do it. Heck. Dragon Age: Kirkwall suggests that the Blood Mage serial killer didn't actually use any magic to lure in women.

If we were to treat Mages as a threat, we should treat everyone as a threat by the same logic.

True, it doesn't take magic for someone to kill. But not every mass murderer has the capability of burning down entire cities with a tought.

Neither do mages in Dragon Age. If you're referring to Anders' destruction of the Chantry, he relied on alchemy. The Qunari, however, have means to kill everyone in a city through poisonous gas and explosives without any need for magic.

[MisterJB]

ReggarBlane wrote...
Neither do mages in Dragon Age. If you're referring to Anders' destruction of the Chantry, he relied on alchemy. The Qunari, however, have means to kill everyone in a city through poisonous gas and explosives without any need for magic.

A powerful enough mage has the potential to burn down an entire country. Wasn't it Cullen who said that?

The qunari are religious zealots with expansionists goals. They are dangerous but so is the Empress of Orlais who would have opressed Ferelden through marriage.
But, ultimately, neither of them can just release a Fireball in the middle of the market because they had a bad day.

Modifié par MisterJB, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:20 .

[EricHVela]

MisterJB wrote...

ReggarBlane wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

ReggarBlane wrote...

I have to agree with Sir JK.

There will be mass murderers, serial killers and other horrible people that take many lives. This will happen mostly in cities. Mages merely have a different option to accomplish it. The Qunari in Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age: Kirkwall have shown that magic is not necessary for a single person to commit mass murder. Both stories also show how easy it is for a single, mundane person to do it. Heck. Dragon Age: Kirkwall suggests that the Blood Mage serial killer didn't actually use any magic to lure in women.

If we were to treat Mages as a threat, we should treat everyone as a threat by the same logic.

True, it doesn't take magic for someone to kill. But not every mass murderer has the capability of burning down entire cities with a tought.

Neither do mages in Dragon Age. If you're referring to Anders' destruction of the Chantry, he relied on alchemy. The Qunari, however, have means to kill everyone in a city through poisonous gas and explosives without any need for magic.

A powerful enough mage has the potential to burn down an entire country. Wasn't it Cullen who said that?

The qunari are religious zealots with expansionists goals. They are dangerous but so is the Empress of Orlais who would have opressed Ferelden through marriage.
But, ultimately, neither of them can just release a Fireball in the middle of the market because they had a bad day.

And we know Cullen fears mages. We also know he has little experience with them. His first errant abomination was at the Circle crisis in Ferelden. He had never seen one before.

Cullen still can change his mind, though (as I mentioned).

No. If a mage could do that, it would have been done already. That's just Cullen being paranoid by his own limited experience.

Yes. A mundane can kill everyone in a market because they had a bad day.

Modifié par ReggarBlane, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:46 .

[MisterJB]

Cullen accepted we can't simply slaugther mages for no crime other than being born with magic. He still acknowledges them as dangerous which they are. Both intentionally, as a beacon for demons or simply because magic can have terrible side effects if not controlled properly.

Are you honestly comparing the potential for destruction of a mundane with a sword to that of a blood mage?

[Reznore57]

It depends on a lot of things ...Are the mages united?
They have different fraternities and ideas about how things should be.
Some are pro chantry , some wants to be isolated , some are power hungry.
And if they win ?Who will police magic...
Mages need some help to live among society , they need education about their powers.
The problem is , they are an elite (they 're born more poweful) and they're educated.
The only healthy way , i imagine this , is mages running free clinics etc , keeping moderate templars etc...
But i don't see this working , too much powers struggle in Thedas .
They will naturally end up on top of the food chain.

[vixvicco]

Reznore57 wrote...

It depends on a lot of things ...Are the mages united?
They have different fraternities and ideas about how things should be.
Some are pro chantry , some wants to be isolated , some are power hungry.
And if they win ?Who will police magic...
Mages need some help to live among society , they need education about their powers.
The problem is , they are an elite (they 're born more poweful) and they're educated.
The only healthy way , i imagine this , is mages running free clinics etc , keeping moderate templars etc...
But i don't see this working , too much powers struggle in Thedas .
They will naturally end up on top of the food chain.

Interesting point. I think I agree with you. That's something I was thinking about. They will always be "elites" always be more powerful, but also differing in values. I am very much interested in what Bioware is going to do with DA 3. I hope they've thought about all of this too as much as we have.

[Lazy Jer]

GavrielKay wrote...
I don't know.  I think the factions probably came mostly out of being stuck together in circles.  Once they win the freedom to go their own ways, they would just do that.  The Isolationists won't have to fight with anybody, they can just go live in remote places, loyalists can try to win their way back into the Chantry etc...  they don't have to fight for domination when they can all do what they want to.

They don't need to fight, but I still think they're going to.  For example the Libertarians are not going to be happy with Loyalists going back to the Chantry because they may feel that it will undo everything they had accomplished, with the added fear that they are privy to a lot of internal strategies the mages will have used during the war.  They also will be unhappy with any Loyalist imput in how to run a newly reformed Circle of Magi should they attempt to do that.  That's just two of the frats. 

The Lucrosians and the Isolationists are also going to butt heads in a "new circle scenario".  The Lucrosians aren't going to want to isolate from the rest of Thedas because it limits their income, the Isolationists are going to want to cut off from the rest of Thedas, so there's conflict again. 

I see the Aequitarians initially wanting to work with the Mages Collective, and that may work in some areas, but in others there may be a question of leadership.  Will the Mages Collective resent these Johnny-Come-Lately ex-Circle Mages trying to tell them what to do?  Will the Aequitarians resent being talked-down to by a bunch of ex-apostates?  I think both are entirely possible.

Anyway in my opinion if the mages pull of a victory in this war then there's going to at least by minor skirmishes present while the dust settles.

[Samzo77]

GavrielKay wrote...

Samzo77 wrote...
I think it ultimately leads to more abominations due to lack of oversight and regulation.

I think it will do the opposite.  As more mages are raised in stable families rather than by suspicious religious zealots, they may actually develop better resistance to demon temptation and become safer.  Give mages families and a community to care about and they will have a reason to try harder to prevent disasters.

From all accounts in game, cultures who treat their mages with cautious respect rather than loathing and fear don't have as much trouble with abominations.  Even Tevinter, for all its horrors, doesn't appear to be over-run by abominations.

Thats to assume that new mages will be born to stable families in sympathetic communities. Undoing a lifetime of fear of mages cannot be achieved through a war with the chantry.
A stable family like Hawkes may not have a sympathetic community around it. Or look at Cole from Asunder. his family was anything but stable (the real cole whose memories we see in the fade).
Winning the war does not change the surrounding society. Not overnight.

[GavrielKay]

Lazy Jer wrote...
Anyway in my opinion if the mages pull of a victory in this war then there's going to at least by minor skirmishes present while the dust settles.

I don't see a new forced cirlce system coming out of a mage victory.  I could imagine those that want to organizing themselves into colleges or even trying to get accepted back into some sort of Chantry system. 

But, to me anyway, "Libertarian" means getting to decide for yourself.

When they are all locked up together, forcibly, by the Chantry, then it matters that some of them wish to keep the current system and some don't.  It matters a great deal to people who need allies in order to fight for change that some folks don't even want that change.  Once the cataclysmic destruction of the system has happened (if it does) then all mages would be technically free.

Once all mages have the ability to choose individually whether to focus on making money, or living as a hermit or reconciling with the Chantry then it shouldn't matter nearly as much to each of them what others decide to do.

Some mages might personally feel those who go back to the Chantry are nuts, but if they really are fighting for freedom, then that means freedom to be nuts as well.