231 réponses à ce sujet

[TK514]

I suspect Wynne would suggest the protection the Circle offers extends beyond just training.

The Chantry didn't create fear and mistrust of Mages among the common folk, Mages did. And the common folk continue to react to that fear and mistrust when a gifted child is born into their families and communities. The lucky children are found by or given to the Circle. The unlucky ones don't get that chance.

[Silfren]

Double posted somehow, oops.

Modifié par Silfren, 26 avril 2013 - 05:58 .

[Silfren]

TK514 wrote...

I suspect Wynne would suggest the protection the Circle offers extends beyond just training.

The Chantry didn't create fear and mistrust of Mages among the common folk, Mages did. And the common folk continue to react to that fear and mistrust when a gifted child is born into their families and communities. The lucky children are found by or given to the Circle. The unlucky ones don't get that chance.

It is disingenuous to pretend that the Chantry has not strongly encouraged that fear and mistrust of mages by preaching against them and also by forcibly isolating mages from the general population.

As for the other, I don't think we can rightly say that mages are divided into two groups: lucky ones sent to the Circle, and unlucky ones implied to be killed before that can happen.  Between the Mages' Collective and individual examples like Morrigan and Wilhelm's son, we can see that some mages do avoid being sent to the Circle and yet aren't doomed to a horrible death because angry villagers get to them before the (sarcastic mode on) oh-so-benevolent and protective arms of the Chantry can step in to oh-so-benignly defend mages from their wrath.

The way the Chantry goes out of its way to engender hate and fear in the general population, and then goes on at length about how part of its job is to protect those poor mages....oh no, that's not an obvious sign of a racket, not at all...

Modifié par Silfren, 26 avril 2013 - 05:57 .

[The Elder King]

TK514 wrote...

I suspect Wynne would suggest the protection the Circle offers extends beyond just training.

.

Being protected from the mobs means nothing when there aren't rules to protects mages for the abuse of templars. Or if they are, there aren't methods to make those rules being respected by the templars.
Pro-mages would still complain if the Circle system was the same without the abuse of templars (since there's still the issue of lack of freedom), but they'd lose a great point in the debate if the templars didn't abuse mages, or if in the case abuse happened there'd be someone or something to punish the templars (even if not in all cases, at least in the majority of cases).

[LobselVith8]

TK514 wrote...

I suspect Wynne would suggest the protection the Circle offers extends beyond just training.

Wynne points out how mages are in danger in Andrastian kingdoms because Andrastians blame mages for anything that goes wrong: an infant dying or a drought, for example.

TK514 wrote...

The Chantry didn't create fear and mistrust of Mages among the common folk, Mages did.  

Yet we see that mages aren't treated with the same disdain and hatred in non-Andrastian societies that they are in the Andrastian kingdoms, where the Chantry preaches that mages are cursed and responsible for their version of original sin.

TK514 wrote...

And the common folk continue to react to that fear and mistrust when a gifted child is born into their families and communities. The lucky children are found by or given to the Circle. The unlucky ones don't get that chance.

I wouldn't consider children who are forced into servitude to the Chantry to be 'lucky' by any measure.

[MisterJB]

Silfren wrote...
It is disingenuous to pretend that the Chantry has not strongly encouraged that fear and mistrust of mages by preaching against them and also by forcibly isolating mages from the general population.

Sure but it's not as if people need the "big, bad Chantry" in order to fear those who can burn or control their minds with a fickle of the wrist. They just need common sense.

[azarhal]

hhh89 wrote...

TK514 wrote...

I suspect Wynne would suggest the protection the Circle offers extends beyond just training.

.

Being protected from the mobs means nothing when there aren't rules to protects mages for the abuse of templars. Or if they are, there aren't methods to make those rules being respected by the templars. Pro-mages would still complain if the Circle system was the same without
the abuse of templars (since there's still the issue of lack of
freedom), but they'd lose a great point in the debate if the templars
didn't abuse mages, or if in the case abuse happened there'd be someone
or something to punish the templars (even if not in all cases, at least
in the majority of cases).

The methods to keep the Templars in line is (was) called the Seekers of Truth. Unfortunatly, corruption and mage-hater Seekers like Lambert mean they don't get to do their job. For the check&balance to work, the system require people to be able to send complains about the Templars, so the Seekers get dispatched to investigate. Mages can be easily forbidden to do so, have their mail seized and just locked down without being able to speak out. This leave good Templars/Clerics to turn in the bad Templars (who stop the mages from complaining), but DA2 showed that good Templars/Clerics prefer to keep their head in the sand until its too late.

Letting mages rule themselves bring the exactly same issue, Tevinter is full of it.

[Senya]

^^

Which either means the system needs to be reformed or another way to oversee the mages and police magical crimes is needed.

[BlueMagitek]

hhh89 wrote...

TK514 wrote...

I suspect Wynne would suggest the protection the Circle offers extends beyond just training.

.

Being protected from the mobs means nothing when there aren't rules to protects mages for the abuse of templars. Or if they are, there aren't methods to make those rules being respected by the templars.
Pro-mages would still complain if the Circle system was the same without the abuse of templars (since there's still the issue of lack of freedom), but they'd lose a great point in the debate if the templars didn't abuse mages, or if in the case abuse happened there'd be someone or something to punish the templars (even if not in all cases, at least in the majority of cases).

This does seem to happen in places that are not Kirkwall; a Templar making unwanted passes at Mages at the Circle Tower is transferred to apostate-hunting (which is implied to be an awful job) and Lily is either imprisoned or transferred for breaking her vows.

But this is usually ignored. ~_^

[TK514]

Silfren wrote...

It is disingenuous to pretend that the Chantry has not strongly encouraged that fear and mistrust of mages by preaching against them and also by forcibly isolating mages from the general population.

A little boy almost wiped out an entire town in the shadow of the Arl's castle, after wiping out the castle's inhabitants.
Abominations on the road.
A demon infested orphanage in the middle of Denerim's alienage.
A demon summoned by a mage who should have known better almost possessed a little girl.
And don't even get me started on the insanity of DA2.

The Chantry could say nothing and the people would still burn mages at the stake.

Silfren wrote...

As for the other, I don't think we can rightly say that mages are divided into two groups: lucky ones sent to the Circle, and unlucky ones implied to be killed before that can happen.  Between the Mages' Collective and individual examples like Morrigan and Wilhelm's son, we can see that some mages do avoid being sent to the Circle and yet aren't doomed to a horrible death because angry villagers get to them before the (sarcastic mode on) oh-so-benevolent and protective arms of the Chantry can step in to oh-so-benignly defend mages from their wrath.

Of course there are exceptions.  There are always exceptions, but we don't generally discuss them when talking about general groups.  We don't divide economic classes into "The Haves, the Have Nots, and The People Who Won The Lotto", do we?  Yes, some mages manage to carve out a life outside the Circle, but I hardly think anyone would Morrigan's situation was 'normal', and the Collective is at least partly Circle mages itself.

hhh89 wrote...

Being
protected from the mobs means nothing when there aren't rules to
protects mages for the abuse of templars. Or if they are, there aren't
methods to make those rules being respected by the templars.
Pro-mages
would still complain if the Circle system was the same without the
abuse of templars (since there's still the issue of lack of freedom),
but they'd lose a great point in the debate if the templars didn't abuse
mages, or if in the case abuse happened there'd be someone or something
to punish the templars (even if not in all cases, at least in the
majority of cases).

Why is it everyone assumes that abuse, murder, mistreatment and hell on earth are the norm in Circle life?  There is absolutely nothing to suggest that life inside a Circle is usually anything but strict yet fair.  Kirkwall's Circle was absolutely a nuthouse, but it was also pointed out to be unusual.  Are we to assume because we have one outlier that that's the case for every instance?  We actually have no idea what checks there usually are against Templar abuse, but we do know that normally they are not all powerful in a Circle.

LobselVith8 wrote...

TK514 wrote...

I suspect Wynne would suggest the protection the Circle offers extends beyond just training.

Wynne
points out how mages are in danger in Andrastian kingdoms because
Andrastians blame mages for anything that goes wrong: an infant dying or
a drought, for example.

TK514 wrote...

The Chantry didn't create fear and mistrust of Mages among the common folk, Mages did.  

Yet
we see that mages aren't treated with the same disdain and hatred in
non-Andrastian societies that they are in the Andrastian kingdoms, where
the Chantry preaches that mages are cursed and responsible for their
version of original sin.

Andrastians are hardly the only ones who blame mages when things go wrong.  As for non-Andrastian societies and their view of mages:

The Qunari?  Well, I wouldn't call it disdain, at least...
The Rivaini?  Have Seers, true.  Seers that work with their Circles and Templars.  That are, in fact, often trained in their Circles.
The Dwarves?  Don't have mages.
The Elves?  The first of two that holds up their mages as the upper class.  Of course, the elven mages are the sole arbiters of elven history and culture.  I wouldn't write myself as a tasty target for being possessed by a Pride Demon, either.
Tevinter?  I'd say the Imperial Chantry is different enough from the rest of the world to stand apart.  It also speaks for itself.

So that leaves you with possibly two out of six societies in Thedas (and one of those two recognizes the necessity of Circles) where the common man doesn't hate and/or fear mages, and one that doesn't care because they never have to deal with the issue.  I would hardly call that a compelling argument that mages are only viewed poorly by those nasty Andrastians.

LobselVith8 wrote...

TK514 wrote...

And the
common folk continue to react to that fear and mistrust when a gifted
child is born into their families and communities. The lucky children
are found by or given to the Circle. The unlucky ones don't get that
chance.

I wouldn't consider children who are forced into servitude to the Chantry to be 'lucky' by any measure.

When the alternative is death?  Those poor things, being forced to live with free room and board and receive an education (also free) to help them control their godlike power, instead of being murdered by a mob.  Woe is them.

Now, I'm not saying the Circle system is perfect.  I've never claimed that.  It does need reform, and mages should have more freedom.  But overall, some of the stricter aspects of the Circle are necessary, both for the protection of the citizenry and for the protection of mages themselves.

Modifié par TK514, 26 avril 2013 - 09:04 .

[The Elder King]

BlueMagitek wrote...



This does seem to happen in places that are not Kirkwall; a Templar making unwanted passes at Mages at the Circle Tower is transferred to apostate-hunting (which is implied to be an awful job) and Lily is either imprisoned or transferred for breaking her vows.

But this is usually ignored. ~_^

I don't ignore the facts (though I don't understand why you point Lily, since she wasn't tormeting and abusing mages. I never said that templars or members of the Chantry aren't punished when aiding mages). The fact that one time a templar isn't punished doesn't mean that they are always punished.
For example, Gregoir's law is probably that mages that escape the Circle have to be brought back alive, while before him, templars seemed to have permission to kill even an apprentice (Wynne's apprentice), or the KC of the time didn't care (I assume he was a different KC than Gregoir, otherwise it wouldn't make sense). The dispairity of the situation is unfair. There are to be set rules, and the KC shouldn't have the power to change them unless under extreme circumstances.
Anyway, which was the templar transferred to apostate-hunting? Was in-game or in a book or comics?

TK514 wrote...

Why is it everyone assumes
that abuse, murder, mistreatment and hell on earth are the norm in
Circle life?  There is absolutely nothing to suggest that life inside a
Circle is usually anything but strict yet fair.  Kirkwall's Circle was
absolutely a nuthouse, but it was also pointed out to be unusual.  Are
we to assume because we have one outlier that that's the case for every
instance?  We actually have no idea what checks there usually are
against Templar abuse, but we do know that normally they are not all
powerful in a Circle.

I never said that the situation in the other Circles are the same as in Kirkwall, and I didn't say that abuse, murder and the rest is the norm in a Circle.
The only checks known to the Templar's power is the KC's authority, since he probably has the power to decide what to do to templars who abuse their power, and mages who violate the rule (this, in coordination, probably, with the FE), and the Seekers, who are supposedly to watch over templars's conduct.
As far as I see, the Circle system need more firm rule that the KC can't change unless there are extreme circumstances: a KC can't decide that it's okay to kill apprentices that escape the Circle, while another said that mages that left the CIrcle have to be brought back alive (the example of Wynne's apprentice is even more striking because Meredith didn't kille the Starkhaven's mages but send them to the Gallows).

[LobselVith8]

[quote]TK514 wrote...

[quote]Silfren wrote...

It is disingenuous to pretend that the Chantry has not strongly encouraged that fear and mistrust of mages by preaching against them and also by forcibly isolating mages from the general population.[/quote]

A little boy almost wiped out an entire town in the shadow of the Arl's castle, after wiping out the castle's inhabitants. [/quote]

Which could have been avoided if Isolde wasn't fearful of turning him over to the Chantry controlled Circle of Ferelden, which the mage protagonist can call an "oppressive place".

[quote]TK514 wrote...

Abominations on the road. [/quote]

Abominations are seen as "natural disasters" in other societies where mages aren't controlled, rather than a reason to vilify all mages for the actions of a few.

[quote]TK514 wrote...

A demon infested orphanage in the middle of Denerim's alienage. [/quote]

Where humans massacred elven children because the elves rioted when their women were abducted to be gang-raped by the local Arl. The Veil was already thin there because of this tragedy.

[quote]TK514 wrote...

A demon summoned by a mage who should have known better almost possessed a little girl. [/quote]

Because Wilhelm wanted to study demons in order to better combat them, because the Chantry has done little in this field of study (by his own words).

[quote]TK514 wrote...

And don't even get me started on the insanity of DA2. [/quote]

You're blaming the mages of Kirkwall because they were made insane via Corypheus?

[quote]TK514 wrote...

The Chantry could say nothing and the people would still burn mages at the stake. [/quote]

If that was the case, we wouldn't see non-Andrastian societies treat mages differently. Mages aren't reviled among the Avvar tribes or the Chasind Wilders; mages and magic are revered among the Dalish clans, who descend from the nation of the Dales and the older kingdom of Arlathan; and while the kingdom of Rivain has some ties to the Andrastian Chantry, the seers are revered by the people, and allowed to commune with spirits. Even the morally bankrupt society of Haven (that is descended from one of the Cults of Andraste 900 years ago) has mages living alongside non-mages.

[quote]TK514 wrote...

[quote]Silfren wrote...

As for the other, I don't think we can rightly say that mages are divided into two groups: lucky ones sent to the Circle, and unlucky ones implied to be killed before that can happen.  Between the Mages' Collective and individual examples like Morrigan and Wilhelm's son, we can see that some mages do avoid being sent to the Circle and yet aren't doomed to a horrible death because angry villagers get to them before the (sarcastic mode on) oh-so-benevolent and protective arms of the Chantry can step in to oh-so-benignly defend mages from their wrath. [/quote]

Of course there are exceptions.  There are always exceptions, but we don't generally discuss them when talking about general groups.  We don't divide economic classes into "The Haves, the Have Nots, and The People Who Won The Lotto", do we?  Yes, some mages manage to carve out a life outside the Circle, but I hardly think anyone would Morrigan's situation was 'normal', and the Collective is at least partly Circle mages itself. [/quote]

There was an entire kingdom where mages weren't sent to the Circle of Magi - it was called the Dales. Lanaya even notes that many Keepers are descended by the nobility who governed the Dales, and they had no templars or Chantry controlled Circle. And it was built by the descendants of the greater kingdom of Arlathan, that was reputed to be a nation of mages.

[quote]TK514 wrote...

[quote]hhh89 wrote...

Being protected from the mobs means nothing when there aren't rules to protects mages for the abuse of templars. Or if they are, there aren't methods to make those rules being respected by the templars.

Pro-mages would still complain if the Circle system was the same without the abuse of templars (since there's still the issue of lack of freedom), but they'd lose a great point in the debate if the templars didn't abusemages, or if in the case abuse happened there'd be someone or something to punish the templars (even if not in all cases, at least in the majority of cases). [/quote]

Why is it everyone assumes that abuse, murder, mistreatment and hell on earth are the norm in Circle life?  There is absolutely nothing to suggest that life inside a Circle is usually anything but strict yet fair.  Kirkwall's Circle was absolutely a nuthouse, but it was also pointed out to be unusual.  Are we to assume because we have one outlier that that's the case for every instance?  We actually have no idea what checks there usually are against Templar abuse, but we do know that normally they are not all powerful in a Circle. [/quote]

It's pointed out by the mage protagonist that the Circle of Ferelden is an "oppressive place", and Wynne never contests this; in fact, she argues The Warden can change this fact if he returns to the Circle and assumes a leadership position. The Starkhaven Circle mages talked about how monstrous their Circle was, and how much worse the Circle of Kirkwall has turned out to be. Anders notes that he was lucky that he wasn't raped by the templars, and talks about all the mages who committed suicide because of their life in the Circle.

You can argue it's a necessary evil to protect the people, but it's a toxic enviornment for the mages who actually have to live there.

[quote]TK514 wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Yet we see that mages aren't treated with the same disdain and hatred in non-Andrastian societies that they are in the Andrastian kingdoms, where the Chantry preaches that mages are cursed and responsible for their version of original sin.[/quote]

Andrastians are hardly the only ones who blame mages when things go wrong.  As for non-Andrastian societies and their view of mages:

The Qunari?  Well, I wouldn't call it disdain, at least...
The Rivaini?  Have Seers, true.  Seers that work with their Circles and Templars.  That are, in fact, often trained in their Circles.
The Dwarves?  Don't have mages.
The Elves?  The first of two that holds up their mages as the upper class.  Of course, the elven mages are the sole arbiters of elven history and culture.  I wouldn't write myself as a tasty target for being possessed by a Pride Demon, either.
Tevinter?  I'd say the Imperial Chantry is different enough from the rest of the world to stand apart.  It also speaks for itself. [/quote]

The Qunari have the same disdain for mages that's held by the Andrastian kingdoms, I concur.

The kingdom of Rivain had its Circle annuled by foreign templars because the seers interacted with mages outside the Circle, based on the WoT. Hundreds of men, women, and children killed for having relationships outside the Chantry controlled Circle. It wasn't exactly like the other Circles of Magi in the rest of the Andrastian kingdoms.

Orzammar can have an independent Circle of Magi because of Dagna's research, unless the Hero of Ferelden made the mistake to help Brother Burkel or asked the ruler of Ferelden to give the mages of the Circle of Ferelden their independence.

You're not providing an accurate depiction of the elves. According to their history, they all used to be mages, and lost their magic and their immortality because of interaction with human society. Given the longevity of the Dalish who live away from humans, there could be some merit to their history. And regardless of what opinion you hold on them, they stand as an example of a society that doesn't abhor mages or magic.

Tevinter is constantly brought up as the example that free mages will automatically lead to the creation of another Tevinter, while ignoring the fact that societies with free mages haven't done that. 

[quote]TK514 wrote...

So that leaves you with possibly two out of six societies in Thedas (and one of those two recognizes the necessity of Circles) where the common man doesn't hate and/or fear mages, and one that doesn't care because they never have to deal with the issue.  I would hardly call that a compelling argument that mages are only viewed poorly by those nasty Andrastians. [/quote]

We have the Avvar, the Chasind, the Dalish (the remanants of the Dales), and arguably, the kingdom of Rivain. I'd argue that it is an example that the Andrastian Chantry plays an active role in the hatred for mages when it does precisely that. Even Mother Hannah has to assure the Amell Warden that a mob won't attempt to murder him for being a mage when he's there to help the people of Redcliffe.

[quote]TK514 wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

I wouldn't consider children who are forced into servitude to the Chantry to be 'lucky' by any measure.[/quote]

When the alternative is death?  Those poor things, being forced to live with free room and board and receive an education (also free) to help them control their godlike power, instead of being murdered by a mob.  Woe is them. [/quote]

People to die on your feet than live on your knees.

[quote]TK514 wrote...

Now, I'm not saying the Circle system is perfect.  I've never claimed that.  It does need reform, and mages should have more freedom.  But overall, some of the stricter aspects of the Circle are necessary, both for the protection of the citizenry and for the protection of mages themselves. [/quote]

My contention is against having the Chantry of Andraste or the Order of Templars in charge of the mages (especially when the former preaches hatred and intolerance of mages while the latter believes they have "dominion over mages by divine right"), not with the idea of the Circle of Magi.

[BlueMagitek]

hhh89 wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...



This does seem to happen in places that are not Kirkwall; a Templar making unwanted passes at Mages at the Circle Tower is transferred to apostate-hunting (which is implied to be an awful job) and Lily is either imprisoned or transferred for breaking her vows.

But this is usually ignored. ~_^

I don't ignore the facts (though I don't understand why you point Lily, since she wasn't tormeting and abusing mages. I never said that templars or members of the Chantry aren't punished when aiding mages). The fact that one time a templar isn't punished doesn't mean that they are always punished.
For example, Gregoir's law is probably that mages that escape the Circle have to be brought back alive, while before him, templars seemed to have permission to kill even an apprentice (Wynne's apprentice), or the KC of the time didn't care (I assume he was a different KC than Gregoir, otherwise it wouldn't make sense). The dispairity of the situation is unfair. There are to be set rules, and the KC shouldn't have the power to change them unless under extreme circumstances.
Anyway, which was the templar transferred to apostate-hunting? Was in-game or in a book or comics?

Because Lily is a case of rule breaking being punished.  The rule wasn't "You can't help mages", it was "You cannot be romantically involved with mages", as Irving points out to us.  For that, and for helping him break into the Circle Cellar, she was punished.

It appears that apostates are to be brought back, otherwise Anders would have surely been killed (as he escaped 7 times).  A blood crazy Templar (with a fate we know nothing about) is no reason to throw out the entire system.

It was in game, mentioned in one of the codexes when you are fighting abominations in the Circle Tower.  I'll see if I can find the codex entry.

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

Silfren wrote...
It is disingenuous to pretend that the Chantry has not strongly encouraged that fear and mistrust of mages by preaching against them and also by forcibly isolating mages from the general population.

Sure but it's not as if people need the "big, bad Chantry" in order to fear those who can burn or control their minds with a fickle of the wrist. They just need common sense.

People don't need the Chantry to understand that magic is dangerous and that some mages can be ****holes, but we don't need a specialized institution in the real world to tell us that, I dunno, sharp objects can be dangerous and some children can be bullies. 

You're right, the Chantry isn't necessary for people to fear mages.  However, the fact of the matter is, we DO have the institution of the Chantry preaching anti-mage sentiment, not merely as a single tenet of their doctrine, but as an integral part of the entire message, indeed the very reason for the Chantry's existence, and we DO have plenty of reason to think that the reason anti-mage sentiment is at the unreasonable level that it is is directly due to the Chantry's incessant message that magic is evil and dangerous, and mages are a curse, a bomb waiting to go off any second.

We simply do not know how the general population would think of mages if their reality was one of magic known to be potentially dangerous, but lacking the ever-present constancy of the Chantry propaganda.  I'm more than prepared to believe that you'd still have a certain degree of fear, and with it the attendant chances for people to occasionally unfairly and wrongly accuse a mage of something...just as I am also aware that some mages would occasionally abuse their powers...while the general state of things being one of peace, if we had a system where mages were properly trained, and we had a specialized force trained to deal with magical criminals, but without the practice of locking mages up for life.

[Bleachrude]

Silfren wrote...



We simply do not know how the general population would think of mages if their reality was one of magic known to be potentially dangerous, but lacking the ever-present constancy of the Chantry propaganda.  I'm more than prepared to believe that you'd still have a certain degree of fear, and with it the attendant chances for people to occasionally unfairly and wrongly accuse a mage of something...just as I am also aware that some mages would occasionally abuse their powers...while the general state of things being one of peace, if we had a system where mages were properly trained, and we had a specialized force trained to deal with magical criminals, but without the practice of locking mages up for life.

*BLINKS*

Why, in all of these discussions does TEVINTER get ignored? Assuming the chantry was no more, why exactly would Tevinter NOT still exist. Hell, without the Chantry, you get either Tevinter or the Qun. It was only the Chantry that was able to marshall/browbeat the Thedasian nations into an unifying force to stop both the Tevinetrs and the quanari in past ages.

I'm always amused that people think that if the Chantry was no more that somehow Tevinter would become a place of sunshine and light (of course ignoring that Tevinter predates the chantry and was slavers long before Andraste) or that the Qun would treat mages in a fair more equitable manner (of course, again ignores that the Qun was formed independent of the chantry).

[MisterJB]

Silfren wrote...
People don't need the Chantry to understand that magic is dangerous and that some mages can be ****holes, but we don't need a specialized institution in the real world to tell us that, I dunno, sharp objects can be dangerous and some children can be bullies. 

You're right, the Chantry isn't necessary for people to fear mages.  However, the fact of the matter is, we DO have the institution of the Chantry preaching anti-mage sentiment, not merely as a single tenet of their doctrine, but as an integral part of the entire message, indeed the very reason for the Chantry's existence, and we DO have plenty of reason to think that the reason anti-mage sentiment is at the unreasonable level that it is is directly due to the Chantry's incessant message that magic is evil and dangerous, and mages are a curse, a bomb waiting to go off any second.

Comparing magic to sword is simply a flawed argument. Magic is much more powerful and dangerous than sharp objects.
The anti-mage cultural aspect of southern Thedas society is simply the natural evolution of the culture of a people who fought to free themselves from the tyranny of magic. if anything it's the Chantry willingness to use mages that often stand between them and a lynching mob.

We simply do not know how the general population would think of mages if their reality was one of magic known to be potentially dangerous, but lacking the ever-present constancy of the Chantry propaganda.  I'm more than prepared to believe that you'd still have a certain degree of fear, and with it the attendant chances for people to occasionally unfairly and wrongly accuse a mage of something...just as I am also aware that some mages would occasionally abuse their powers...while the general state of things being one of peace, if we had a system where mages were properly trained, and we had a specialized force trained to deal with magical criminals, but without the practice of locking mages up for life.

Tevinter is peaceful. And yes, I'm 100% certain that, with free mages and time, Southern Thedas would naturally turn into an hierarchical society where mages stand at the top. even if practices such as slavery remained outlawed.

Modifié par MisterJB, 26 avril 2013 - 11:37 .

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

Silfren wrote...
People don't need the Chantry to understand that magic is dangerous and that some mages can be ****holes, but we don't need a specialized institution in the real world to tell us that, I dunno, sharp objects can be dangerous and some children can be bullies. 

You're right, the Chantry isn't necessary for people to fear mages.  However, the fact of the matter is, we DO have the institution of the Chantry preaching anti-mage sentiment, not merely as a single tenet of their doctrine, but as an integral part of the entire message, indeed the very reason for the Chantry's existence, and we DO have plenty of reason to think that the reason anti-mage sentiment is at the unreasonable level that it is is directly due to the Chantry's incessant message that magic is evil and dangerous, and mages are a curse, a bomb waiting to go off any second.

Comparing magic to sword is simply a flawed argument. Magic is much more powerful and dangerous than sharp objects.
The anti-mage cultural aspect of southern Thedas society is simply the natural evolution of the culture of a people who fought to free themselves from the tyranny of magic. if anything it's the Chantry willingness to use mages that often stand between them and a lynching mob.

We simply do not know how the general population would think of mages if their reality was one of magic known to be potentially dangerous, but lacking the ever-present constancy of the Chantry propaganda.  I'm more than prepared to believe that you'd still have a certain degree of fear, and with it the attendant chances for people to occasionally unfairly and wrongly accuse a mage of something...just as I am also aware that some mages would occasionally abuse their powers...while the general state of things being one of peace, if we had a system where mages were properly trained, and we had a specialized force trained to deal with magical criminals, but without the practice of locking mages up for life.

Tevinter is peaceful. And yes, I'm 100% certain that, with free mages and time, Southern Thedas would naturally turn into an hierarchical society where mages stand at the top. even if practices such as slavery remained outlawed.

But this is just your opinion, based on your extremely negative perspective of people in general.  You insist that mage domination is inevitable.  I see no reason why it has to be.  But that's the difference between my considerably more objective viewpoint of people than your altogether misanthropic one.

[MisterJB]

Magic, like all other advantages, will be used to raise one's position in society. Non-mages will be unable to keep up and thus, be left at the bottom of society.
Refusing to accept this does not make your viewpoint more objective. Or do you think that mages will agree to not use magic, regardless of how much benefit it could bring them, to give non-mages a fair chance?

Modifié par MisterJB, 27 avril 2013 - 12:31 .

[-TC1989-]

Silfren wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Silfren wrote...
People don't need the Chantry to understand that magic is dangerous and that some mages can be ****holes, but we don't need a specialized institution in the real world to tell us that, I dunno, sharp objects can be dangerous and some children can be bullies. 

You're right, the Chantry isn't necessary for people to fear mages.  However, the fact of the matter is, we DO have the institution of the Chantry preaching anti-mage sentiment, not merely as a single tenet of their doctrine, but as an integral part of the entire message, indeed the very reason for the Chantry's existence, and we DO have plenty of reason to think that the reason anti-mage sentiment is at the unreasonable level that it is is directly due to the Chantry's incessant message that magic is evil and dangerous, and mages are a curse, a bomb waiting to go off any second.

Comparing magic to sword is simply a flawed argument. Magic is much more powerful and dangerous than sharp objects.
The anti-mage cultural aspect of southern Thedas society is simply the natural evolution of the culture of a people who fought to free themselves from the tyranny of magic. if anything it's the Chantry willingness to use mages that often stand between them and a lynching mob.

We simply do not know how the general population would think of mages if their reality was one of magic known to be potentially dangerous, but lacking the ever-present constancy of the Chantry propaganda.  I'm more than prepared to believe that you'd still have a certain degree of fear, and with it the attendant chances for people to occasionally unfairly and wrongly accuse a mage of something...just as I am also aware that some mages would occasionally abuse their powers...while the general state of things being one of peace, if we had a system where mages were properly trained, and we had a specialized force trained to deal with magical criminals, but without the practice of locking mages up for life.

Tevinter is peaceful. And yes, I'm 100% certain that, with free mages and time, Southern Thedas would naturally turn into an hierarchical society where mages stand at the top. even if practices such as slavery remained outlawed.

 You insist that mage domination is inevitable.  I see no reason why it has to be.  But that's the difference between my considerably more objective viewpoint of people than your altogether misanthropic one.

Personally to me, it isn't so much about mages themselves that would make me cautious. It's the fact that certain people who have the potential to wield a tremendous amount of power, all have the chance of abusing it, and thus holding themselves above everyone else. Templars can do it sometimes with authority, just like mages can with simple power in their minds. I think no matter who you are, or what you have, we have a responsibility to respect what we're given, and respect others who don't, or whatever.

If I did live in a world where there were mages, I'd be nervous around them. I wouldn't cast them out, or call for their heads, but I'd be cautious. Knowing someone who has the power to literally set you ablaze because you annoyed them, or they simply thought they could, is pretty damn terrifying. I think they should attend some kind of schooling system to protect themselves from either possession, or simply knowing their magical limits, or finding out what blood magic is, etc.

To me all that isn't racism, it's simply keeping the world civil. To know it could only take one mage to cause city/state wide panic, what else could you do?

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

Magic, like all other advantages, will be used to raise one's position in society. Non-mages will be unable to keep up and thus, be left at the bottom of society.
Refusing to accept this does not make your viewpoint more objective. Or do you think that mages will agree to not use magic, regardless of how much benefit it could bring them, to give non-mages a fair chance?

I'm not refusing to accept anything except the idea that mage supremacy is inevitable.  So I'm not going to answer your question asking me what I think because you're trying to frame the issue in a specific way by asking leading questions.  Whether I answer it yes or no you'll twist my answers into something I don't mean.

What I DO think is that if we have safeguards in place to guard against magical abuses and to hunt down and punish mages who use their magic to hurt others, there is no reason to think that Tevinter 2.0 will inevitably stem from choosing not to lock mages away in confined, isolated spaces. 

What I also note is that you have moved away from discussing whether free mages will result in abominations and demons running amok and are focused now on the idea of mages having political power at all.  I'm not mentioning this to debate whether giving mages political power will result in Tevinter 2.0, but because I've noted that when people mention free mage societies, such as the Dalish, you focus on the idea that the Dalish have a magocracy.  Clearly you seem to think that mages having political power at all is a bad thing.

It may not be worth mentioning since it appears that this potentiality is not going to be addressed (and I'm aware that it can't be for practical reasons), but maybe it should be pointed out that a Hero of Ferelden could potentially be a mage--an elf mage, even!--and become the Teyrna of Gwaren AND the Arlessa of Amaranthine.  There's an argument to be made that any such situation would result in either place, but especially Amaranthine, given that Wardens are not beholden to secular or Chantry law, becoming a haven for free mages.

Modifié par Silfren, 27 avril 2013 - 02:47 .

[MisterJB]

Silfren wrote...
I'm not refusing to accept anything except the idea that mage supremacy is inevitable.  So I'm not going to answer your question asking me what I think because you're trying to frame the issue in a specific way by asking leading questions.  Whether I answer it yes or no you'll twist my answers into something I don't mean.

What I DO think is that if we have safeguards in place to guard against magical abuses and to hunt down and punish mages who use their magic to hurt others, there is no reason to think that Tevinter 2.0 will inevitably stem from choosing not to lock mages away in confined, isolated spaces. 

What I also note is that you have moved away from discussing whether free mages will result in abominations and demons running amok and are focused now on the idea of mages having political power at all.  I'm not mentioning this to debate whether giving mages political power will result in Tevinter 2.0, but because I've noted that when people mention free mage societies, such as the Dalish, you focus on the idea that the Dalish have a magocracy.  Clearly you seem to think that mages having political power at all is a bad thing.

I have no issue with mages having political power so long as that power is not granted specifically because s/he was a mage.
You speak of safeguards against magical abuse but those safeguards are pointless when the mages are the ones writing them. And they will be writing them because mages are the natural ruling class of Thedas. Unfortunately, mages are superior to non-mages.
Magic based technology already illuminates Val-Royeaux. Let's take it a step foward and say that mages become the sole providers of the thedosian equivalent of oil.
Now, mages are the new nobles. They are the wealthiest people in Thedas with the money to persuade templars to ignore their crimes.
And even if the mages don't commit crimes; which is impossible, every social group commits crimes; non-mages still have been relegated to being lower class citizens who have no chance to earn as much as the mages.

Which is why I find Abominations and demons trivial when compared to the simple fact that magic is an advantage.

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Wynne points out how mages are in danger in Andrastian kingdoms because Andrastians blame mages for anything that goes wrong: an infant dying or a drought, for example.

She doesn't say Andrastian kingdoms. She talks about small towns and villages. 

Given that she's a pretty ardent Andrastian herself, it's obvious that her point is about ignorance, rather than religion.

[In Exile]

Silfren wrote...
But this is just your opinion, based on your extremely negative perspective of people in general.  You insist that mage domination is inevitable.  I see no reason why it has to be.  But that's the difference between my considerably more objective viewpoint of people than your altogether misanthropic one.

This might come as a shock to you, but domination by intelligent people is inevitable. Pick a human society and compare the intelligence of the leaders - in law, medicine, business, government. The people are at the top, generally, much smarter than the people at the bottom. 

Magic is like that, only it gives you an even greater advantage over others. But that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. I think most of us would agree we'd rather have smart people lead us rather than idiots. 

Hell, look at the Dalish - they're a society run by mages. That's not per se good or bad. But it doesn't make it less true that mages accrue power and status in virtue of what they can do. 

[LobselVith8]

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Wynne points out how mages are in danger in Andrastian kingdoms because Andrastians blame mages for anything that goes wrong: an infant dying or a drought, for example.

She doesn't say Andrastian kingdoms. She talks about small towns and villages. 

Given that she's a pretty ardent Andrastian herself, it's obvious that her point is about ignorance, rather than religion.

Wynne is talking about societies with religiously Andrastian people, and we only need to see the difference between the mage-hating Andrastians and the mage-tolerant Dalish to see that there's a stark difference between the two, particularly when the religion of the people is demonizing mages and magic. It's why we have Andrastians from Keili to Bethany thinking that magic is a curse. It's why Mother Hannah has to assure the Amell Warden that no harm will come to him for being a mage. The Chantry has certainly played a role in the way mages are perceived by their faithful.

[Silfren]

In Exile wrote...

Silfren wrote...
But this is just your opinion, based on your extremely negative perspective of people in general.  You insist that mage domination is inevitable.  I see no reason why it has to be.  But that's the difference between my considerably more objective viewpoint of people than your altogether misanthropic one.

This might come as a shock to you, but domination by intelligent people is inevitable. Pick a human society and compare the intelligence of the leaders - in law, medicine, business, government. The people are at the top, generally, much smarter than the people at the bottom. 

Magic is like that, only it gives you an even greater advantage over others. But that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. I think most of us would agree we'd rather have smart people lead us rather than idiots. 

Hell, look at the Dalish - they're a society run by mages. That's not per se good or bad. But it doesn't make it less true that mages accrue power and status in virtue of what they can do.

I'm not sure that it's valid to talk about having intelligent people in the medical field when the question is whether mages will accrue power such to dominate.  You're talking about having intelligent people dominate various fields that require intelligent people.  I'm talking about domination in an entirely different sense, specifically the Tevinter model where mages rule by might makes right, at the expense of others.

I do not believe any society of free mages MUST inevitably go down this road such that having free mages means that sooner or later, mages will subjugate all others.