201 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonflight288]

The people who are going to be most put out are going to be the templars. They're so used to going around doing whatever they please without any fear of repercussion that they're completely unprepared for life as regular people. Imagine the horror of the first templar who is actually brought on trial for rape or murder!

The current Divine may even do that, but the current Templar and Seeker Leadership will having nothing to do with it. If a templar is held accountable for his abuse and cruelty, it's somehow or another going to be blamed on the mages and the Right of Annulment will be called again.

Wait.....that sounds familiar.

[GavrielKay]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Free mages will not work. It CANNOT work.

Except for all the times and places where it has and does.

Even the Chantry after defeating Tevinter didn't immediately lock up all mages.  For (I think it was) 20 years after the war, mages were simply restricted to performing magic at the Chantry's request.  They kept the eternal fires burning and cleaned rafters.  They were not imprisoned until later and only becaues the mages naively thought that agreeing to segregation in return for being allowed to practice more magic sounded good.  The inital agreement wasn't about how mages were too dangerous to live outside circles, or how newly discovered mage children should be kidnapped or how entire circles should be murdered if the Templars decide they have good enough reason.  All that came later.

The original agreement was that the mages would sequester themselves and the Seekers would join the Chantry and become Templars to act as guards over the mages to protect them from themselves and others while allowing them freedom to practice magic now that they were away from mundane folks.

It is interesting to note that the incident which precipitated the formation of the circles was a peaceful protest on the part of the mages which the Divine responded to by nearly declaring an Exalted March on her own cathedral.  It was the Chantry which was inclined to violence and destruction, not the mages.

See:  http://dragonage.wik...y_of_the_Circle and
http://dragonage.wik...eekers_of_Truth

[EricHVela]

I change my stance. There is no peaceful cooperation.

Mages will be persecuted simply because people will fear them using wild, unreasonable accusations as justification as many responses in this thread have shown.

Such a pity to have the cowards continue to cause all the problems. C'est la vie.

[DPSSOC]

ReggarBlane wrote...

I change my stance. There is no peaceful cooperation.

Mages will be persecuted simply because people will fear them using wild, unreasonable accusations as justification as many responses in this thread have shown.

Such a pity to have the cowards continue to cause all the problems. C'est la vie.

Have we had a single mage express a desire for peaceful cooperation?  I mean we've had those calling for mage dominance like Tarohne, and those who just want to be left alone like Niall in DA:O, but I can't think of a single mage we encounter who's expressed a desire to just live along side normal people.  Maybe it's just cause it's late and it's bee a while since I've played the games but I can't think of one.  Anders certainly doesn't, I mean he may not be opposed to the idea but it's quite clear his desires and concerns don't extend beyond getting rid of the Templars (if I'm being generous).

It's all well and good (and not entirely inaccurate) to say it won't work because the common folk will never accept the mages, but the flip side is do we have any mages who actually want their acceptance?

[Plaintiff]

DPSSOC wrote...

ReggarBlane wrote...

I change my stance. There is no peaceful cooperation.

Mages will be persecuted simply because people will fear them using wild, unreasonable accusations as justification as many responses in this thread have shown.

Such a pity to have the cowards continue to cause all the problems. C'est la vie.

Have we had a single mage express a desire for peaceful cooperation?  I mean we've had those calling for mage dominance like Tarohne, and those who just want to be left alone like Niall in DA:O, but I can't think of a single mage we encounter who's expressed a desire to just live along side normal people.  Maybe it's just cause it's late and it's bee a while since I've played the games but I can't think of one.  Anders certainly doesn't, I mean he may not be opposed to the idea but it's quite clear his desires and concerns don't extend beyond getting rid of the Templars (if I'm being generous).

It's all well and good (and not entirely inaccurate) to say it won't work because the common folk will never accept the mages, but the flip side is do we have any mages who actually want their acceptance?

Because they're human beings, and companionship is a biological imperative? I mean, that's like saying "It's all very well to say that kid is a loner because nobody wants to play with him, but how do we know he even wants friends?"

We know there are some (not many) mages that are out in the world, concealing their talent so that they might live normal lives. Why would they do that if not out of a desire for acceptance? Sure, there are the more imminent concerns like being imprisoned or possibly killed, but those are symptoms of society's intolerance and any mage who wants to avoid those consequences is implicitly asking for acceptance from society at large, whether they realize it themselves or not.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 06 juillet 2012 - 05:23 .

[DPSSOC]

Plaintiff wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
Have we had a single mage express a desire for peaceful cooperation?  I mean we've had those calling for mage dominance like Tarohne, and those who just want to be left alone like Niall in DA:O, but I can't think of a single mage we encounter who's expressed a desire to just live along side normal people.  Maybe it's just cause it's late and it's bee a while since I've played the games but I can't think of one.  Anders certainly doesn't, I mean he may not be opposed to the idea but it's quite clear his desires and concerns don't extend beyond getting rid of the Templars (if I'm being generous).

It's all well and good (and not entirely inaccurate) to say it won't work because the common folk will never accept the mages, but the flip side is do we have any mages who actually want their acceptance?

Because they're human beings, and companionship is a biological imperative? I mean, that's like saying "It's all very well to say that kid is a loner because nobody wants to play with him, but how do we know he even wants friends?"

Well yes it is, and I've met a number of people who genuinely answer no to that question.  However you're dodging the point; we've had mages express the desire to dominate and isolate, have we had a single mage express the desire to integrate?

EDIT: I've actually found a better comparisson.  Going to school, and indeed throughout my hometown, we have a number of insular ethnic communities.  While it's fair to say these communities are insular because others don't try to associate with them, it also can't be denied that they have no desire, nor make any effort, to associate with anyone else.

I'm wondering, rather than accusing, if the case with the mages is similar in that while yes the common folk aren't welcoming of mages the mages themselves have no real desire to be welcomed.

Plaintiff wrote...
We know there are some (not many) mages that are out in the world, concealing their talent so that they might live normal lives. Why would they do that if not out of a desire for acceptance? Sure, there are the more imminent concerns like being imprisoned or possibly killed, but those are symptoms of society's intolerance and any mage who wants to avoid those consequences is implicitly asking for acceptance from society at large, whether they realize it themselves or not.

I think you might be stretching here.  The desire not to be killed or harmed is not an implicit desire for acceptance.  When I evade or engage an attacker I don't want their acceptance I want them to stop harming me.  Morrigan certainly didn't want or need people's acceptance, neither did Malcolm from what we here about him, his actions being those of someone who wants to be left in peace rather than someone who wants to be appreciated and accepted for who they are.

Modifié par DPSSOC, 06 juillet 2012 - 05:59 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

GavrielKay wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Free mages will not work. It CANNOT work.

Except for all the times and places where it has and does.

Even the Chantry after defeating Tevinter didn't immediately lock up all mages.  For (I think it was) 20 years after the war, mages were simply restricted to performing magic at the Chantry's request.

Yeah, and that went well. NOT.

It is interesting to note that the incident which precipitated the formation of the circles was a peaceful protest on the part of the mages which the Divine responded to by nearly declaring an Exalted March on her own cathedral.  It was the Chantry which was inclined to violence and destruction, not the mages.

See:  http://dragonage.wik...y_of_the_Circle and
http://dragonage.wik...eekers_of_Truth

Cling to that single, incomplete source like a dying man for all I care.
Mages are dangerous period.

Keepeing them locked up Circles is safer for everyone.

[Lotion Soronarr]

ReggarBlane wrote...

I change my stance. There is no peaceful cooperation.

Mages will be persecuted simply because people will fear them using completely accurate, reasonable accusations as justification as many responses in this thread have shown.

Such a pity to have reality continue to cause all the problems. C'est la vie.

Fixed it for you.

[Chipaway111]

I don't think a war between mages and templar would be as simple as "We win! Ok, now we're free, lets set ourselves up and rule everything" or indeed "We've won! Alright, let's just slip back into anonymity and never be bothered again"

Mages are in a tough position, fight and prove templars 'right' or hide and be hunted for the rest of their lives. How would a mage fearing society view a fighting approach? Mages would need to change opinion/how they are viewed.

Example: Qunari invade, mages swoop in on griffins (shut up they exist) and save the day! That would certainly help them. Outright fighting the Chantry and templars would not.

But how would society function? Given the mages do manage to convince people they're not liable to burn down everything or turn into an abomination then normally I suppose, with the occasional crazy one going mad and kidnapping someones pretty daughter every few months or something. You'd still have the Chantry fanatic because you can't wipe out a massive religion that had preached "Mages are dangerous!" so quickly.

[GavrielKay]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Cling to that single, incomplete source like a dying man for all I care.
Mages are dangerous period.

Keepeing them locked up Circles is safer for everyone.

Keeping them locked up has lead to a massive rebellion which puts several countries at risk of being conquered by the Qun.  Doesn't sound safer to me.

Cling to the idea that everything the Chantry says about mages is true for all I care. 

In game, I don't see evidence that mages are any more dangerous than anyone else.  I'll bet Teyrn Loghain is responsible for far more deaths than Conner. 

How much better off would Redcliffe have been if mages were free and Isolde hadn't wanted to hide Connor's abilities?  Or if other free mages had been living nearby and could rush to help save the village?

[EricHVela]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

ReggarBlane wrote...

I change my stance. There is no peaceful cooperation.

Mages will be persecuted simply because people will fear them using wild, unreasonable accusations as justification as many responses in this thread have shown.

Such a pity to have the cowards continue to cause all the problems. C'est la vie.

I couldn't come up with a reasonable response so I changed your words like the troll I am and pretended that you were wrong.

It still stands that people who view reality with fear will continue to make unreasonable accusations against the innocent as justification for unjust segregation instead of even attempting to understand.

[GodWood]

ReggarBlane wrote...
I change my stance. There is no peaceful cooperation.

Mages will be persecuted simply because people will fear them using wild, unreasonable accusations as justification as many responses in this thread have shown.

Such a pity to have the cowards continue to cause all the problems. C'est la vie.

Common plebeian posts like this really spoil the debates surrounding this morally ambiguous issue.

So long as one side continues to victimise one side and demonise the other, no actual intelligent discussion can be had.

[DPSSOC]

GavrielKay wrote...
How much better off would Redcliffe have been if mages were free and Isolde hadn't wanted to hide Connor's abilities?  Or if other free mages had been living nearby and could rush to help save the village?

Assuming the whole poisoning thing still happened, not much.  I say this for three reasons, #1 Connor would still want to save his father and knowig what he was dealing with might (key word) actually tempt him more because he knows it can do what it promises, so it's really no less likely that he would have taken the deal.  #2 If he had taken the deal in that situation the demon would have been even more powerful because Connor would be more powerful (having a better grasp of his abilities).  #3 Nobody came to aid the village because nobody knew it was in trouble, not because only mages could get there.  Unless one of those free mages you mentioned had reason to be concerned about Redcliffe's silence (and seemingly none of their neighbours did) Redcliffe still wouldn't have gotten any aid until the Warden showed up.

[vixvicco]

DuskWarden wrote...

Do the mages want to be in control or just be free?

Either way, if people can't accept having mages in normal society and start to persecute them, then I guess they'd be forced into becoming another Tevinter Imperium.

Hope they just want freedom. But they are superior to everyone else. That's the big issue. Some of them will feel entitled. Surely...

[TEWR]

There is one example of a society where free mages existed and they didn't begin another Imperium nor fall to Abominations/Demons.

Haven.

For all the insanity that place has -- I'd give it a 9 or 10 on the weird ****-o-meter -- they had like.... thirty to forty free mages all living in their village, and the village didn't suffer from any of the usual things that pro-Templar people argue about -- Imperium 2.0/Abominations.

I mean, they had a lot of free mages. Almost every encounter you have with the Cultists -- from the village hillside to the temple itself -- had at least one mage in it.

They started to go crazy because they wanted to worship a High Dragon, but that's irrelevant really.

And ultimately, their policies on mages probably descend from the first Disciples of Andraste, meaning that their ancestors didn't have a problem with Mages being free. Just a problem with Mages starting up another Imperium.

If that's the case, then Haven has survived centuries with free Mages in its village, and shows no signs of ever having had Abominations.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 08 juillet 2012 - 02:01 .

[Abispa]

My problem with mages is that they ALWAYS seem to be in charge of societies where they're allowed to be "free." Even in a situation like the Dalish, where magic is respected and the mages aren't on a rampage, NONE of the "normal" elves challenges Marathari's authority even when they are concerned about their prolonged camp and they lose valuable hunters. The Chasind are ruled by witches, the Rivani revere the seers (except for the ones conquered by the Qunari I assume).

I grant that the games so far have yet to show if there is some sort of trial of leadership these mages have to undergo before assuming their position of authority, But until the writers decide to detail these societies it appears that mages are in charge by DEFAULT. If you are going to argue that mages deserve EQUAL rights in the Chantry, it would be hypocritical if you aren't arguing that a "normal" elf should have been allowed force Marathari to step down for the good of the clan.

[dragonflight288]

Well yes it is, and I've met a number of people who genuinely answer no to that question. However you're dodging the point; we've had mages express the desire to dominate and isolate, have we had a single mage express the desire to integrate?

EDIT: I've actually found a better comparisson. Going to school, and indeed throughout my hometown, we have a number of insular ethnic communities. While it's fair to say these communities are insular because others don't try to associate with them, it also can't be denied that they have no desire, nor make any effort, to associate with anyone else.

I'm wondering, rather than accusing, if the case with the mages is similar in that while yes the common folk aren't welcoming of mages the mages themselves have no real desire to be welcomed.

How about Wynne or the loyalists? We don't meet many loyalists, but they do exist. Keili is generally used to showcase how little self-esteem mages have about themselves by growing up in a society that tells them they are a curse in the Maker's eyes and their very existence is wickedness and misery. But she is also a mage who follows the Chantry to the letter, and given the events of Asunder, will probably be one of the first to be killed or tranquilized simply for being a mage.

Then we have Finn in Witch Hunt. He was a mage who was more than happy to be in the Circle, and through good behavior managed to get permission to leave for research. It helped that he had a large dislike of the outdoors to begin with, but he is a mage who gets along well with the templars and has an easy-going relationship with the Knight-Captain.

Wynne in the epilogue for a mage warden, should the mage warden decide to rejoin the Circle, says the Warden can change the Circle for the better from the inside and through cooperation.

The college of Cumberland was going to vote on mage independence, but even Anders says total liberation from the Chantry would result in a slaughter (which it has) so the key is compromise and cooperation.

There's the Mages Collective in Ferelden, who take care of problems before the Chantry gets involved, showing the people that mages can be trusted and aren't to be feared just for being mages. They follow the Chantry teachings and police their own, but only want more autonomy than the Chantry grants them.

There's a lot of instances where we see mages act or speak out against total liberation and/or show that free mages aren't another Imperium.

[DPSSOC]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Well yes it is, and I've met a number of people who genuinely answer no to that question. However you're dodging the point; we've had mages express the desire to dominate and isolate, have we had a single mage express the desire to integrate?

EDIT: I've actually found a better comparisson. Going to school, and indeed throughout my hometown, we have a number of insular ethnic communities. While it's fair to say these communities are insular because others don't try to associate with them, it also can't be denied that they have no desire, nor make any effort, to associate with anyone else.

I'm wondering, rather than accusing, if the case with the mages is similar in that while yes the common folk aren't welcoming of mages the mages themselves have no real desire to be welcomed.

How about Wynne or the loyalists? We don't meet many loyalists, but they do exist. Keili is generally used to showcase how little self-esteem mages have about themselves by growing up in a society that tells them they are a curse in the Maker's eyes and their very existence is wickedness and misery. But she is also a mage who follows the Chantry to the letter, and given the events of Asunder, will probably be one of the first to be killed or tranquilized simply for being a mage.

Then we have Finn in Witch Hunt. He was a mage who was more than happy to be in the Circle, and through good behavior managed to get permission to leave for research. It helped that he had a large dislike of the outdoors to begin with, but he is a mage who gets along well with the templars and has an easy-going relationship with the Knight-Captain.

Those would all fall into the isolation category.  They want to maintain the Circle they have no desire to go out and work with the non-mages.  I'm not saying they wouldn't if asked but it's not something, based on the behaviour we've been presented, they're going to do of their own initiative.  Wynne, Finn, and the Loyalists are all happy with things the way they are, not one of them expresses a desire to mingle with the mundanes.

dragonflight288 wrote...
Wynne in the epilogue for a mage warden, should the mage warden decide to rejoin the Circle, says the Warden can change the Circle for the better from the inside and through cooperation.

 
Cooperation with the Templars and the Chantry, not non-mage society at large.

dragonflight288 wrote...
There's the Mages Collective in Ferelden, who take care of problems before the Chantry gets involved, showing the people that mages can be trusted and aren't to be feared just for being mages. They follow the Chantry teachings and police their own, but only want more autonomy than the Chantry grants them.

Hmm didn't think of the Collective.  Are we ever given any indication of whether they just live alongside normal people using their magic in secret, or do they, like the Circle, isolate themselves.

dragonflight288 wrote...
There's a lot of instances where we see mages act or speak out against total liberation and/or show that free mages aren't another Imperium.

Which isn't what I was getting at.  My initial point was that, to my recollection, we've only see two behaviours from mages regarding relations with non-mages.  We have mages who want Tevinter style rule over non-mages (like Tarohne) and we have mages who just want to be left in peace (Niall, Wynne, Finn, etc.).  I was asking if we've, in either game, had a mage explicitly express a desire to actually integrate with non-mage society?  For clarification I mean modern mages, Aldenon seems to have supported this idea but he's long dead, probably.

[TEWR]

DPSSOC wrote...

Hmm didn't think of the Collective. Are we ever given any indication of whether they just live alongside normal people using their magic in secret, or do they, like the Circle, isolate themselves.

Six of one, half dozen of another.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 08 juillet 2012 - 02:32 .

[DPSSOC]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Hmm didn't think of the Collective. Are we ever given any indication of whether they just live alongside normal people using their magic in secret, or do they, like the Circle, isolate themselves.

Six of one, half dozen of another.

How so?  If they're living and working among people it shows a desire to cooperate and coexist with non-mages, they merely hide because they must.  If they're isolating themselves in the vein of the Circle (both physically and socially) it merely indicates a desire for autonomy, and they still harbour the same isolationist attitudes of other mages.

Actually I'm gonna have to go back and really look through the Collective stuff because this would answer my question in full.  At the moment mages don't live or cooperate with non-mages because they can't, the Collective would provide an example to see if they'd want to if they could.

[TEWR]

DPSSOC wrote...

How so?  If they're living and working among people it shows a desire to cooperate and coexist with non-mages, they merely hide because they must.  If they're isolating themselves in the vein of the Circle (both physically and socially) it merely indicates a desire for autonomy, and they still harbour the same isolationist attitudes of other mages.

Actually I'm gonna have to go back and really look through the Collective stuff because this would answer my question in full.  At the moment mages don't live or cooperate with non-mages because they can't, the Collective would provide an example to see if they'd want to if they could.

What I meant really was just that you'll find Mages that are a part of the Collective that live amongst normal society.... and those that just choose to isolate themselves in remote areas. It's really just an even split, more or less. Either way they have autonomy over themselves, but they'll use that autonomy how they personally see fit in accordance with the guidelines of the Collective.

There is at least one quest that will have you interacting with Mages that are in populated areas and go there for business, but others will be "Get me this" or "Kill these maleficarum that are operating near my isolated home please".

Like I said, even split.

But even without having a substantial number of quests to showcase it, the Collective Arming Cowl says that the Mages' Collective makes problems disappear in Ferelden before the Chantry gets involved, thereby increasing pro-mage sentiments. Which means that they're interacting with society.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 08 juillet 2012 - 03:55 .

[dragonflight288]

Which isn't what I was getting at. My initial point was that, to my recollection, we've only see two behaviours from mages regarding relations with non-mages. We have mages who want Tevinter style rule over non-mages (like Tarohne) and we have mages who just want to be left in peace (Niall, Wynne, Finn, etc.). I was asking if we've, in either game, had a mage explicitly express a desire to actually integrate with non-mage society? For clarification I mean modern mages, Aldenon seems to have supported this idea but he's long dead, probably.

Not really. We have the Fraternities in the circle, described in detail in the mage origin and a codex. Mages are quite divided on what they want out of life, irregardless of the Collective and peaceful apostates.

Aequitarians are moderates wanting a code of conduct that all mages should adhere too.

Libertarians want more autonomy, and a group turned into the violent resolutionists...might as well be terrorists.

Lucrosians simply want to make money and are like the merchants.

Isolationists want to be isolated and away from society in general

and Loyalists here what the Chantry says and follow it to the letter.

The fraternities alone speak that mages don't want another Imperium. The heightened magical crime is also a sign of heightened desperation because of the decrease in personal freedoms and increase of templar abuse.

[DPSSOC]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

How so? If they're living and working among people it shows a desire to cooperate and coexist with non-mages, they merely hide because they must. If they're isolating themselves in the vein of the Circle (both physically and socially) it merely indicates a desire for autonomy, and they still harbour the same isolationist attitudes of other mages.

Actually I'm gonna have to go back and really look through the Collective stuff because this would answer my question in full. At the moment mages don't live or cooperate with non-mages because they can't, the Collective would provide an example to see if they'd want to if they could.

What I meant really was just that you'll find Mages that are a part of the Collective that live amongst normal society.... and those that just choose to isolate themselves in remote areas.

Ah my mistake.

dragonflight288 wrote...

Which isn't what I was getting at. My initial point was that, to my recollection, we've only see two behaviours from mages regarding relations with non-mages. We have mages who want Tevinter style rule over non-mages (like Tarohne) and we have mages who just want to be left in peace (Niall, Wynne, Finn, etc.). I was asking if we've, in either game, had a mage explicitly express a desire to actually integrate with non-mage society? For clarification I mean modern mages, Aldenon seems to have supported this idea but he's long dead, probably.

Not really. We have the Fraternities in the circle, described in detail in the mage origin and a codex. Mages are quite divided on what they want out of life, irregardless of the Collective and peaceful apostates.

Aequitarians are moderates wanting a code of conduct that all mages should adhere too.

Libertarians want more autonomy, and a group turned into the violent resolutionists...might as well be terrorists.

Lucrosians simply want to make money and are like the merchants.

Isolationists want to be isolated and away from society in general

and Loyalists here what the Chantry says and follow it to the letter.

 
And with the exception of the Lucrosians none of those demand even interacting with non-mages, let alone working with them.  Yes the mages have a wide array of views represented by the Fraternities however on the specific subject of mage/non-mage relations we've only seen the two.  There are mages who want to dominate non-mages, and mages who just want to be left alone to varying degrees (hermitage - Circle).  Even the Lucrosians just want to trade with them, and the Dwarves are a fine example of how trade doesn't equal cooperation.

dragonflight288 wrote...
The fraternities alone speak that mages don't want another Imperium. The heightened magical crime is also a sign of heightened desperation because of the decrease in personal freedoms and increase of templar abuse.

When have I ever suggested that they do?  The closest I've come is theorizing that upon victory the mages would wish to establish their own nation as opposed to returning to submitting to the rule of non-mages.  I did not assume Tevinter style rule (though it is a possibility) and only pointed out that this nation coming into conflict with the others was inevitable because I expect it to behave like every other nation and seek to expand it's influence, territory, and wealth.

[dragonflight288]

When have I ever suggested that they do? The closest I've come is theorizing that upon victory the mages would wish to establish their own nation as opposed to returning to submitting to the rule of non-mages. I did not assume Tevinter style rule (though it is a possibility) and only pointed out that this nation coming into conflict with the others was inevitable because I expect it to behave like every other nation and seek to expand it's influence, territory, and wealth.

Oh, you haven't said that mages do. But I'm so used to debating Lotion or Emperor that I kind of typed it up without thinking about it.

[GavrielKay]

DPSSOC wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...
How much better off would Redcliffe have been if mages were free and Isolde hadn't wanted to hide Connor's abilities?  Or if other free mages had been living nearby and could rush to help save the village?

Assuming the whole poisoning thing still happened, not much.  I say this for three reasons, #1 Connor would still want to save his father and knowig what he was dealing with might (key word) actually tempt him more because he knows it can do what it promises, so it's really no less likely that he would have taken the deal.  #2 If he had taken the deal in that situation the demon would have been even more powerful because Connor would be more powerful (having a better grasp of his abilities).  #3 Nobody came to aid the village because nobody knew it was in trouble, not because only mages could get there.  Unless one of those free mages you mentioned had reason to be concerned about Redcliffe's silence (and seemingly none of their neighbours did) Redcliffe still wouldn't have gotten any aid until the Warden showed up.

Well, my theory on point #1 is that Connor wouldn't have been in Redcliffe at the time.  He would have been at something resembling a boarding school wherein he'd learn to use and control his mind and abilities.  This being the case because once he "graduates" he'd be allowed to return home to whatever inheritance and family awaited him.  Isolde (who I hated more than almost any other NPC) kept Connor's magic a secret because she was ashamed (as a good little Andrastian) and scared (as a mother who would lose her son) and let those things make her do something stupid.

As for number 2, I've never really been able to ferret out whether demons get more power because a mage knows more, or simply because a mage has more inner strength.  Is there lore on this subject?

For #3, I don't know here either.  Perhaps free mages would have come up with a nice little communication system.  I don't know.

In any case, if my theory on point 1 were true, the rest wouldn't have mattered, except Arl Eamon would have died and perhaps made the politics of the situation different.