1297 réponses à ce sujet

[Fredward]

MartialArtsMaster wrote...
The idea that something is acceptable because it is "natural" is usually called the "Hard, Cruel World" fallacy, the idea that something that would "normally be considered unethical" is suddenly acceptable because the world happens to be a cruel place. The idea isn't a good one, because people who are capable of being mean are also capable of being nice.

I wanna hug you so hard right now man. XD

Also people keep pointing out that because mages can kill ten times more people or whatever than a mundane they should, for some reason, be locked up forever. Because it might happen. But mages can also HELP ten times more than any mundane ever could. I'll admit that we have a stunning lack of mages being altruists but the current setup hardly allows for that, does it? But Anders' clinic helped a LOT of people who would've been dead or maimed otherwise. Mages aren't just engines of destruction, they can help too.

[MisterJB]

Was that meant for me, MAM?

Auintus wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Mages are not "more good than not", And neither are mundanes.

I see. That's all I needed to know. Thank you.

I would like to know what you mean.

[Lotion Soronarr]

MartialArtsMaster wrote...

If I may make a polite confession, I am not usually persuaded by "appeals to human nature". Of course we are naturally greedy and selfish.

But 2,000 years of philosophy, literature, and even religion itself, was devoted to the idea that we were capable of getting PAST that. We can make better choices. We can live up to higher ideals. If we could not, there would be no point in even having a civilization.

Civilzation endures, but it's not because we are logical constructs of pure common sense.
We are not.
Since the dawn of mankind we have struggled to make humans behave, but consistently fail to achive our goal.

Our schools, our propaganda - everything we try, nothing is fully effective, even in combination.
We stil have people smoking. We still have robbery. We still have rape. We still have drunk driving.
We still have people making stupid, bad, brainles decisions all of the time.

The idea that something is acceptable because it is "natural" is usually called the "Hard, Cruel World" fallacy, the idea that something that would "normally be considered unethical" is suddenly acceptable because the world happens to be a cruel place. The idea isn't a good one, because people who are capable of being mean are also capable of being nice.

If you can't do anything about it then you have no choice but to accept it.
If there is no other solution, and doing nothing is even worse, then how can you question the morality of it?

In fact, those of you who support the templars believe the same thing, or you wouldn't be so hard on the mages for what you view as evil choices. So am I to believe that templar actions can be excused by the fact that humans are "naturally" selfish, but if mages behave selfishly, their actions are NOT excused?

Numbers.
100000 mundanes > 100 mages.
It's as simple as that.
To keep the people (and mages) safe there is no other solution that can work.
Mages fight to make their lives better. Mundans fight to make their lives possible.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 26 novembre 2012 - 07:56 .

[MisterJB]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
I wanna hug you so hard right now man. XD

Also people keep pointing out that because mages can kill ten times more people or whatever than a mundane they should, for some reason, be locked up forever. Because it might happen. But mages can also HELP ten times more than any mundane ever could. I'll admit that we have a stunning lack of mages being altruists but the current setup hardly allows for that, does it? But Anders' clinic helped a LOT of people who would've been dead or maimed otherwise. Mages aren't just engines of destruction, they can help too.

And I fear that ten times more than I do their destructive powers.
For when the average mage is capable of doing everything the average mundane can, better and faster, what is preventing mundanes from becoming second class citizens?

[Auintus]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]
I don't close my eyes to anything. Magic is a unique dose of power that can be exercised to any end. Show me how I'm wrong.

An untrained mage is too dangerous to wander on their own. A known maleficar or demon-dealer is too dangerous to let loose. A mage trained in resisting demons and obeying the Chantry's "Magic is meant to serve man and never rule over him," something you see being taught to children in the Circle, is not dangerous, not to the common folk.
[/quote]

Yes he is. He is always dangerous. He isn't prefectly trained. He isn't a brainwashed robot to obey your whims and always act as you want him to.[/quote]

He is as blank a slate as your average human being. Anyone can be good or evil. Mages allow them to take it, both sides, to greater degrees than the average individual.
No, not a brainwashed robot, but a decent human being who has been taught to treat his magic as a gift with which to help others, rather than a curse that will destroy the world should he set foot outside the Circle.
"Perfection" is impossible to attain. The Circle is certainly not perfect. Sometimes good enough is good enough.

[quote]
Sure, but what about the well-being of the mages? Is that worth nothing?
If
I know how to defend myself against demonic influences, I wouldn't be a
threat to anyone. Well, darkspawn and whatever-have-you, but not common
people.
I don't think one should suffer simply because they are perceived as dangerous.

[/quote]

The Circle is there to keep the mages alive. How is that not well-beaing? And how are 100 mages more worth than 100000 mundanes?

And no, you don't know how to defend yourself agaisnt demonic influences. There is no sure-fire defense.
And even without demons, mages are still a danger to everyone.
[/quote]

The Circle is there to keep the mages contained. It places no value on well-being. Cole was left to rot in a cell with a demon as his only company as he died. The templars who found him covered up the whole thing. Mages are treated as dangerous animals to be unleashed whenever the world can't solve their own problems. That is not acceptable.
You imply that 100 free mages would result in the deaths of 100000 mundanes. That is inaccurate. Abominations and maleficar are not so numerous as you claim.

That's what the Harrowing is for. It should be refined a bit, sure, but the entire point is to teach resistance against demons. No, there will never be a sure-fire defense. The Circle as it is is no better. Comparitively few mages go maleficar. We only see the more interesting side because otherwise it'd be boring.

[Auintus]

MisterJB wrote...

Auintus wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Mages are not "more good than not", And neither are mundanes.

I see. That's all I needed to know. Thank you.

I would like to know what you mean.

That single insight into your thoughts is more than enough proof that I will be unable to convince you of anything. I believe the term is misanthrope, but regardless: Your problem is not in distrusting mages. It is distrusting people in general. I can't change that, I won't try.
Have a pleasent day.

[Fredward]

MisterJB wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
I wanna hug you so hard right now man. XD

Also people keep pointing out that because mages can kill ten times more people or whatever than a mundane they should, for some reason, be locked up forever. Because it might happen. But mages can also HELP ten times more than any mundane ever could. I'll admit that we have a stunning lack of mages being altruists but the current setup hardly allows for that, does it? But Anders' clinic helped a LOT of people who would've been dead or maimed otherwise. Mages aren't just engines of destruction, they can help too.

And I fear that ten times more than I do their destructive powers.
For when the average mage is capable of doing everything the average mundane can, better and faster, what is preventing mundanes from becoming second class citizens?

Yah mean still in a better position than mages are now? xp

The idea here is for mages to use their gifts to help those around them, this is just as likely as them deciding to take over the world, more in fact since anti-social personality disorder isn't that common. But ANYWAY. The idea here it to use magic to HELP people not as a tool of subjugation or discrimination. Can you imagine the good a charity run by mages could do? Of course there are going to be mages that go "BWAHAHAHAH NOW THE WORLD WILL BOW BEFORE ME!" but there will also be those disgustingly self sacrificy good ones. Like a lot of you templar supporters have pointed out this is human nature. The mages are like a microcosm of society, they represent every moral scale from good to bad, so why punish them all? The Circle system is crippling any good the mages can do and instead only the crazies get out.

[MisterJB]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
Yah mean still in a better position than mages are now? xp

I'm not going to help the mages at expense of my people, mundanes.

The idea here is for mages to use their gifts to help those around them, this is just as likely as them deciding to take over the world, more in fact since anti-social personality disorder isn't that common. But ANYWAY. The idea here it to use magic to HELP people not as a tool of subjugation or discrimination. Can you imagine the good a charity run by mages could do? Of course there are going to be mages that go "BWAHAHAHAH NOW THE WORLD WILL BOW BEFORE ME!" but there will also be those disgustingly self sacrificy good ones. Like a lot of you templar supporters have pointed out this is human nature.

You're not getting it.
I'm not referring to a system like Tevinter. I'm saying that when mages have capabilties that are evidently superior to those of mundanes; if magic becomes the "oil" of Thedas; if all mundanes come to rely upon magic for something as banal as illuminating a street which already happens in Val-Royeaux; what is preventing mundanes from becoming second class citizens? I'm not talking about slavery here. I'm talking about social inequalities between mages and mundanes similar to the ones that exist between humans and elven today.
Unlike our technology, not everyone can use magic.

The mages are like a microcosm of society, they represent every moral scale from good to bad, so why punish them all? The Circle system is crippling any good the mages can do and instead only the crazies get out.

They're not being punished. Their freedoms are being limited in order to account for the discrepancy that exists between mages and mundanes.
Acid is not the same as water, a nuclear bomb is not the same as a 9mm, a mage is not the same as a mundane. Treating them as if they are is naive and dangerous.

Modifié par MisterJB, 26 novembre 2012 - 08:17 .

[MisterJB]

Auintus wrote...
That single insight into your thoughts is more than enough proof that I will be unable to convince you of anything. I believe the term is misanthrope, but regardless: Your problem is not in distrusting mages. It is distrusting people in general. I can't change that, I won't try.
Have a pleasent day.

I simply accept the world for what it is. But you are right. I do distrust people in general.
Fair enough. Have a pleasant day.

[Fredward]

-snort- Can I just point out how ridiculous it is that you hate the mages for doing bad AND you hate them for doing good? Why aren't you just advocating for their eradicatio- OHWAIT.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Auintus wrote...
He is as blank a slate as your average human being. Anyone can be
good or evil. Mages allow them to take it, both sides, to greater
degrees than the average individual.
No, not a brainwashed robot, but a decent human being who has been taught to treat his magic as a gift with which to help others, rather than a curse that will destroy the world should he set foot outside the Circle.
"Perfection" is impossible to attain. The Circle is certainly not perfect. Sometimes good enough is good enough.

And sometimes it isn't.
And when the mage can take to the other side to redicolous extreemes (abomination, magisters, blight) and it more tempted to go to the other side, it damn well isn't.

The Circle is there to keep the mages contained. It places no value on well-being.
Cole was left to rot in a cell with a demon as his only company as
he died. The templars who found him covered up the whole thing. Mages
are treated as dangerous animals to be unleashed whenever the world
can't solve their own problems. That is not acceptable.

Yes it does. Otherwise they would have no rights and would be killed immediately.
As it is they have almost as much rights as any mundane and live in far beter conditions to boot.

As much you use the "treated as animals" catchphrase it is proven wrong again and again.

You imply that 100 free mages would result in the deaths of 100000 mundanes. That is inaccurate. Abominations and maleficar are not so numerous as you claim.

10000 or 100000...doesn't matter. It's still a far bigger number than the number of mages. and yes, a powerfull abomination can destroy and entire town.

Comparitively few mages go maleficar. We only see the more interesting side because otherwise it'd be boring.

And following your logic templar abuse is rare. We only see a lot of it because otherwise it would be boring.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 26 novembre 2012 - 08:23 .

[MisterJB]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

-snort- Can I just point out how ridiculous it is that you hate the mages for doing bad AND you hate them for doing good? Why aren't you just advocating for their eradicatio- OHWAIT.

I don't hate mages. I hate magic and it way it sets an insurmountable wall for mundanes to climb if they wish to have a place in Thedas.
I have never, ever advocated the eradication of mages. If anything, I've defended the destruction of magic itself.

[Dave of Canada]

MartialArtsMaster wrote...

But 2,000 years of philosophy, literature, and even religion itself, was devoted to the idea that we were capable of getting PAST that. We can make better choices. We can live up to higher ideals. If we could not, there would be no point in even having a civilization.

We try to parade ourselves as civilized creatures but that's not true, thousands of years has seen civilization and ethics rise up and crumble as what is deemed socially acceptable or not is considered unethical. However, mages aren't a problem we're dealing with as a people today.

We're talking about ages past, a civilization which hasn't had our philosophy and growth of theology. In ways, Thedas handles mages far better than our own ignorant civilization would have at the time. A civilization which nobility and guardsmen can rape their people and suffer no consequence.

Yet, Templar--an order devoted to protecting both mundanes and mages--answer for their crimes and answer to a higher authority. They protect their charges who are placed within conditions which others would be jealous of, they fear not the problems of the common man.

A society cannot change itself before it's time. To invite mage freedom without generations of wisdom and socital changes is inviting anarchy and chaos. Let the mages thrive underneath the Circles and let time be the one which decides change, rather than some uprising which will destroy society and invite barbarism.

In fact, those of you who support the templars believe the same thing, or you wouldn't be so hard on the mages for what you view as evil choices.

Personally, I don't see the mages as evil. I view their imprisonment as necessary and for the best of all. Were they not necessary for the survival of society, I'd recommend they'd all be made tranquil.

So am I to believe that templar actions can be excused by the fact that humans are "naturally" selfish, but if mages behave selfishly, their actions are NOT excused?

The good of the many vs the good of the few. Logistics make me side with the Templar, in addition to the fact that society is built around the Circles. Mages are protected until they're needed, nations cannot use mages as a resource and the Chantry and it's armies protect Thedas from the heretics (Qunari / Tevinter).

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 26 novembre 2012 - 08:27 .

[Fredward]

MisterJB wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

-snort- Can I just point out how ridiculous it is that you hate the mages for doing bad AND you hate them for doing good? Why aren't you just advocating for their eradicatio- OHWAIT.

I don't hate mages. I hate magic and it way it sets an insurmountable wall for mundanes to climb if they wish to have a place in Thedas.
I have never, ever advocated the eradication of mages. If anything, I've defended the destruction of magic itself.

You're right, let me rectify my statment. -ahem-

Why aren't you just dooming all mages to a fate worse than death- OHWAIT. XD

[MisterJB]

Did I use the word "Tranquility" anywhere in my post? No.
I would like to find a way to destroy magic that doesn't involve Tranquility. After the Qun is no longer a threat, of course.

[Fredward]

MisterJB wrote...
Did I use the word "Tranquility" anywhere in my post? No.
I would like to find a way to destroy magic that doesn't involve Tranquility. After the Qun is no longer a threat, of course.

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of the whole "permanent incarceration based on birth" thing but yeah. xp

Dave of Canada wrote...

A society cannot change itself
before it's time. To invite mage freedom without generations of wisdom
and socital changes is inviting anarchy and chaos. Let the mages thrive
underneath the Circles and let time be the one which decides change,
rather than some uprising which will destroy society and invite
barbarism.

I threw up a little in my mouth right then. "Yes lets ignore gross injustice and barbarism now because, hey maybe in ANOTHER millenium it might mature into something beautiful! "

Like a freakish hate catepillar turning into a beautiful love butterfly. Cocoon stage give or take two thousand years. XD

[MartialArtsMaster]

First, I'd like to thank you for being polite about this, Lotion Soronnar. Your opinion of other pro-mage supporters is negative by your own admission, I would like to thank you very much for taking my arguments seriously enough to answer them logically. I appreciate it.

That said, I believe there are too many "begged questions" in your post. Your conclusions make sense if I accept the presuppositions behind them, but I believe those presuppositions could be called into question and shouldn't be taken for granted.

For example: 

You argue that we have failed to achieve our goal because we still have robbery, smoking, wars, and the Darwin Award winners who get themselves killed. I would argue, however, that we've actually succeeded in our goal, since not everyone behaves like that. Given that "the average daily citizen", including yourself, does not behave like an **** 24/7, that is something I would consider an improvement to our supposedly "natural" selves.

YOU, for example, clearly don't constantly engage in unethical behavior, and you seem to have chosen to live up to moral ideals to the best extent that you can, or you wouldn't be on this forum arguing ethics with me at ALL, much less arguing that you're more ethical than I am because you support the templars instead of the mages. 

You also begin from the presupposition that a) I "can't do anything about it" and  that we only have two options.

If that were the case, then obviously I would choose to support 10000 mundanes instead of 100 mages.

I don't, however, believe we only have options A and Z. We could also choose options B, C, D...

That was the point of my earlier suggestion that the Circle be modified instead of eradicated. Or was I unclear in my suggestion, sir?

It also is in fact possible to "do something about" societal injustices.

You and I are beneficiaries of people who "did something about it."

We do not currently break our backs laboring for a king eighteen hours a day, because of the rise of the middle class.

You are capable of reading everything I type, and I am capable of reading everything you type, because the Lutherans decided it wasn't fair that only the priests were capable of reading the Bible. Hence the Gutenberg printing press, the Protestants cutting out the middleman in education, etc. We are now a nation of readers, because somebody was courageous enough not to accept a priest-only-literacy-rate as "the way things had to be."

Or take the American revolution. Because people decided to do something about British overreach of power, you and I can live free of the fear that British soldiers will randomly decide to "quarter" in our homes, or that decisions that impact our lives will be made by representatives we did not elect.

So I remain unconvinced that it is not possible to "do something about" injustice, given that historical precedent leads me to the opposite conclusion.

[MisterJB]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of the whole "permanent incarceration based on birth" thing but yeah. xp

Fate worse than death? There are billions of people in our real world who would kill their own mothers to live in those conditions.

[Dave of Canada]

MartialArtsMaster wrote...

YOU, for example, clearly don't constantly engage in unethical behavior, and you seem to have chosen to live up to moral ideals to the best extent that you can, or you wouldn't be on this forum arguing ethics with me at ALL, much less arguing that you're more ethical than I am because you support the templars instead of the mages. 

I'd question this is a side-effect of our lifestyles, rather than any actual ethical change. We don't suffer on the streets, we don't struggle for food and shelter and don't fear our neighbor killing us in our sleep--we only behave unethically when things become worse and the fear of law isn't there.

A starving man will steal the loaf of bred from another man for example, the fear of the law means nothing because starving outweighs ethics and law.

So I remain unconvinced that it is not possible to "do something about" injustice, given that historical precedent leads me to the opposite conclusion.

Circumstance had to be right for these precedents, however. I hate using real world examples but many of the harsh things which we as a species have done wouldn't have been abolished had the movements which triggered change occured before those in charge were ready.

Trying to overthrow religion's grip on the monarchy wouldn't have happened without more wide-spread theology which was the result of education being given out by religions to teach commoners how to read for bible and taxing purposes... etc. Just like how loosening religion's grip on the monarchy severely changes how many nations were ruled lead to different ethics and societal changes.

Mage freedom would bring about chaos and represents overthrowing the current system. We'll either be forced to start from scratch and repeat the Tevinter > Chantry > Tevinter cycle or keep with the Circles. Mages were being given new rights and privledges prior to Anders destroying the Chantry, he set any hope for mage "freedom" back.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 26 novembre 2012 - 09:19 .

[silentassassin264]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Mage freedom would bring about chaos and represents overthrowing the current system. We'll either be forced to start from scratch and repeat the Tevinter > Chantry > Tevinter cycle or keep with the Circles. Mages were being given new rights and privledges prior to Anders destroying the Chantry, he set any hope for mage "freedom" back.

The Inquisition brought about chaos and overthrew the then current system.  It was not just Tevinter back then.  Look at the Disciples of Andraste.  They had mages in the society and they were not Tevinter.  There were many other ways in which mages and mundanes lived together without stripping the rights of the others.   Inquisition came in, wiped out all the heretics that had mages living with mundanes and put in their own order of killing/locking up mages.  You are using a logical fallacy of making things A or B when there are other options.

[DKJaigen]

MisterJB wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
Yah mean still in a better position than mages are now? xp

I'm not going to help the mages at expense of my people, mundanes.

The idea here is for mages to use their gifts to help those around them, this is just as likely as them deciding to take over the world, more in fact since anti-social personality disorder isn't that common. But ANYWAY. The idea here it to use magic to HELP people not as a tool of subjugation or discrimination. Can you imagine the good a charity run by mages could do? Of course there are going to be mages that go "BWAHAHAHAH NOW THE WORLD WILL BOW BEFORE ME!" but there will also be those disgustingly self sacrificy good ones. Like a lot of you templar supporters have pointed out this is human nature.

You're not getting it.
I'm not referring to a system like Tevinter. I'm saying that when mages have capabilties that are evidently superior to those of mundanes; if magic becomes the "oil" of Thedas; if all mundanes come to rely upon magic for something as banal as illuminating a street which already happens in Val-Royeaux; what is preventing mundanes from becoming second class citizens? I'm not talking about slavery here. I'm talking about social inequalities between mages and mundanes similar to the ones that exist between humans and elven today.
Unlike our technology, not everyone can use magic.

The mages are like a microcosm of society, they represent every moral scale from good to bad, so why punish them all? The Circle system is crippling any good the mages can do and instead only the crazies get out.

They're not being punished. Their freedoms are being limited in order to account for the discrepancy that exists between mages and mundanes.
Acid is not the same as water, a nuclear bomb is not the same as a 9mm, a mage is not the same as a mundane. Treating them as if they are is naive and dangerous.

Stop ****ing about this. their is a huge amount people with far greater mental abilities then you do? do you know what they do for a living? they rule YOU. You are a second class citizen. When you see something that is better then you you must embrace it or you remain stagnant. Communist believed the same thing as you did. i dont have to tell you how their societies turned became: stagnant backwaters.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
I threw up a little in my mouth right then. "Yes lets ignore gross injustice and barbarism now because, hey maybe in ANOTHER millenium it might mature into something beautiful! "

Like a freakish hate catepillar turning into a beautiful love butterfly. Cocoon stage give or take two thousand years. XD

Then throw up, because that's how it is.

Things take time. And some thing require certain prequisites - prequisites that simply aren't there.
You cannot simply change things by force without taking those things into acount.

[Adanu]

Auintus wrote...

Adanu wrote...

Blood magic research within the circle is iffy, but this implies blood magic would be unacceptable outside the circle. Is that what you are saying?

Secondly, the definition of 'abuse' would have to be cleared up a bit. It is a subjective term sometimes, but some ground rules would be good.

A mage/Templar Council has merit, but you carry the issue of mages feeling threatened by Templars from history. This comes back to the need for effective IA. You also carry the risk of Phylacteries being abused by Templars.

For most, yes. Blood magic has a little too much temptation for the average mage.

True. I'm thinking an overarching baseline of "using one's magic to benefit oneself, at the expense of others." Needs more refining, but I think it's a good start.

Irving felt no concern arguing with Gregoir. Orsino stood up against Meredith. Both knew that, in the end, the Knight-commander's descision would be the one that mattered. Once they had an official say, I doubt too many would be cowed to silence.
Phylacteries just track mages. I am unsure as to how they can be abused.

Blood magic is not temptation, the temptation is to be 'better' than everyone else. That is it. I would agree to blood magic control being off lmiits to mages for obvious reasons... but other forms of blood magic being allowed. Phylacteries can be used by Templars to track down mages, for good OR ill... and it's that ill that worries me. That being said, if there is a way to be certain that Phylacteries were only used for the purpose of tracking down crimnal mages, it might work.

Being forced into the Circle still doesn't sit right with me... but without control mages can be dangerous, true enough. I'll have to think on it.

[Dave of Canada]

silentassassin264 wrote...

The Inquisition brought about chaos and overthrew the then current system. *snip*

No. The Inquisition was a result of the breaking down of the Tevinter Imperium, they didn't overthrow anything.

The rise of Andraste led to the idea of something other than Tevinter existing, men and women rose up against their oppressors and it didn't go far until Tevinter was overthrown after the Blight begun. It still took hundreds of years.

The destruction of Tevinter led to a large amount of cults devoted to Andraste to be formed and grow strength as the Tevinter faith in the Old Gods weakened, one cult grew beyond the others and eventually became the Chantry. The Chantry grew strength when the Orlesian Emperor embraced it.

The Inquisition were simply mage-hunters who hated everything Tevinter stood for, hunted down magic and was eventually teamed up with the Chantry after the mages protested their inability to learn their abilites aside from lighting candles. Under peaceful circumstances, the mages and the chantry created the Circle system and reigned in the Inqusition to serve as protectors.

The Circle and the Chantry wouldn't have existed if circumstance didn't lead up to it. Starting up a revolution out of nowhere and hoping all of society will change to accomdate it can only end in disaster.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 26 novembre 2012 - 09:41 .

[Sanunes]

Dave of Canada wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

The Inquisition brought about chaos and overthrew the then current system. *snip*

No. The Inquisition was a result of the breaking down of the Tevinter Imperium, they didn't overthrow anything.

The rise of Andraste led to the idea of something other than Tevinter existing, men and women rose up against their oppressors and it didn't go far until Tevinter was overthrown after the Blight begun.

The destruction of Tevinter led to a large amount of cults devoted to Andraste to be formed and grow strength as the Tevinter faith in the Old Gods weakened, one cult grew beyond the others and eventually became the Chantry. The Chantry grew strength when the Orlesian Emperor embraced it.

The Inquisition were simply mage-hunters who hated everything Tevinter stood for, hunted down magic and was eventually teamed up with the Chantry after the mages protested their inability to learn their abilites aside from lighting candles. Under peaceful circumstances, the mages and the chantry created the Circle system and reigned in the Inqusition to serve as protectors.

The Circle and the Chantry wouldn't have existed if circumstance didn't lead up to it. Starting up a revolution out of nowhere and hoping all of society will change to accomdate it can only end in disaster.

Reading your summary really reminds me of the interactions between Christianity and the Roman Empire, minus the magic of course.

Modifié par Sanunes, 26 novembre 2012 - 09:40 .