If the mage rebellion is to have a 'face', whether a nominal leader or leading figure to deal with the protagonist, what sort of person do you think they should be for a better story?
I distinguish the underlined because the sort of person you might want to be the leader of the rebellion might not be the best for a story: either because such a character wouldn't fit well (20th century liberalism and preaching of universal human rights in a socieity which has plenty of empiracle circumstances to suggest not all people are born equal), or because it would easily screw with any attempt at ambiguity, nuance, or moral equivalence between the Mage/Templar factions (if the Mage Leader were terribly reasonable and sincere and sympathetic and all blame fell to those bad unreasonable Templars).
Still, even avoiding setting up a Black/White situation, or a Orisino/Meredith, there could be a lot of different variances of moral imperfection other than 'well-intentioned extremist.' Some of the points that could help shape the virtues and faults of the leaders of either faction would be the sort of compromises that they invoke to further their faction, as well as more modest or subtle flaws. For example, a Mage Leader who knowingly receives aid from hidden Blood Mage cabals, or from the Tevinter Magisters, and continues to accept it as a necessity to protecting the mages, could be tarred by association.
Just to put my own idea out, I think the leader of the Mage Rebellion should be a well-intentioned and far from malevolent leader among the mages... but also a Paternalist, both in terms of their approach to their own forces and to the mundanes. The paternalistic streak is a strong contender for a character trait that can both be a sympathetic virtue and a divisive flaw.
As a virtue, Paternalism emphasizes the benevolent. Authoritarian in a 'for your own good' rather than 'for the better good', Paternalist leaders often seek stronger and more centralized power to advance their ideas, but not necessarily in an oppressive way. Paternalists are often very protective in defending what they consider their own (a good quality for a leader of a mage rebellion seen as being in self-defense), and while a Paternalist leader will enforce their own view over those of the 'children', in this case disagreeing mages and the fearful mundanes, it can at least be mitigated by a benevolent end-goal. A Paternalist Mage Leader would be seeking to protect mages (an excellent sympathy trait for players), and even though they would be seeking to enforce their own views and policies on mundanes it would be coached in what could be very reasonable terms ('they are frightened children who don't know better') rather than in mage-supremacist terms ('they are inferior because they are not like us'). Paternalistic persons often fosters a desire for ideological agreement and conversion rather than eradication of dissidents.
As a flaw, though, Paternalism can easily lead to nepotism, double-standards, arrogance, and active suppression/repression of dissidents and outsiders. Biased towards those in the 'family,' a Paternalist can easily begin to rationalize away flaws of those close to them, even if the same flaws would be unforgivable in someone else: the same sort of viewpoint that forgives a friend for being stressed when they lash out, while a stranger is just an ****, this could lead to a paternalist leader continuing to accept more malevolent or extremist members of the mage rebellion: not agreeing, and even expressing discomfort, but also not trying to stop. A different sort of double-standard also exists for paternalists in the standards for 'parents' versus the 'children': rules, restrictions, and principles that might be applied to the children aren't always held for the reasonable, mature, and implicitly like-minded 'adults': a Paternalist can feel that there are fewer rules to their own conduct and decisions than are held to their subordinates or outsiders, and so see themselves above more mundane laws. These converge into the abuse of the centralization of power and authority and suppressing anyone with the 'wrong' view, which easily turns into 'views that are not mine.' This can be fine when the views are illegitimate (mage extremists, mage supremacists), but far less so when a disagreement is legitimate or even superior to the paternalist's own held views. Internally this could lead to friction within the mage alliance, but externally this could come to be outright enforcement of the paternalist's worldview on others who disagree or would even be harmed by it: not just the Templars, but the lay person who have very real concerns. A 'reform' that benefits the mages to the detriment of mundanes, but is enforced by the 'it's for your own good' morality of a paternalist.
In terms of character interaction, such a Mage Leader would be broadly sympathetic without coming close to being a White Knight. While sympathetic and agreeable to those who sympathize with the mages as the victimized party, the Paternalist would be uninterested or even ambivalent about the perspective of the allies they've chosen, and overall uninterested in a significant compromise that clashes with their preferred outcome. Outlier factions, both good and bad, would justifiably feel ostracized, allowing inter-Mage factional politics, and conditions on the ground of occupied areas could be less than ideal, but most of all despite being mostly sympathetic such a leader could be considered an overall obstacle to a compromise solution, equating 'peace' with 'what I want.'
Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 06 janvier 2013 - 05:49 .
Retour en haut
