398 réponses à ce sujet

[Antigone2283]

DanaScu wrote...

The non-possessed mages and the children locked in the tower *with* the abominations by the Templars who ran instead of fighting? They sure weren't protected. Irving and the other non-possessed mages imprisoned and tortured at the top of the tower while the righteous templars waited for reinforcements to slaughter everything in the tower weren't protected. When their reinforcements arrived, they would have gone in and killed everyone, including the children and the other non-possessed mages, which is the exact opposite of "protected", imo.

Yes, yes, yes, and also yes!  I don't recall seeing any Templars making a last stand - the mages seem to have done pretty well for themselves, and probably could have done better if they weren't all trapped, and had had some way to get less experienced mages out of harms way.  As it was, all of those apprentices were just left to be slaughtered, one by one.

This is kind of how it played out in my head when I finished that quest:

Templars: *staring*
Mage PC:   "Hey, yeah, guys, no worries! The big bad scawry mages are all under control now. That took me, what, a couple of hours? Hey, Irving, see you at the final battle."
Mage PC: *flips Gregoir the bird and walks out*

[Starcrunchy]

Antigone2283 wrote...

Starcrunchy wrote...

To be honest almost every Templar my mage met in the game treated me with respect and seemed reasonable. Aside from Cullen, and it's hardly fair to blame him when he's been tortured. I started out pretty chafed by their control of the circle, but as events unfold my mage gained a much different view of the Templars and the guilded cage of the circle. While at the beginning he strained to break free of his bonds, by the mid game it was impossible to look at it the same way.

One boy not yet ten years did more damage in Redcliffe than could possibly be imagined. That he did it out of love for his father and never meant it to be doesn't change that a lot of good people lost their lives. I don't hate Connor. It was an eye opening experience for my PC that made him finally understand why the things that were done to him when he was a done. Some things can't be explained properly in books and it wasn't until this moment that this character and me as the player "got it". He understood that what happened to Connor was something that could easily have happened to him. I don't know about others but when I was a boy Connor's age, I'd have made the deal Connor was offered in a heart beat were my father dying, and that ruin would have been mine... There is nobody in this game that I felt better about giving a second chance than Connor.

Isolde, a non-mage, really bears responsibility for a GREAT deal of the destruction at Redcliffe:  her fear of her boy being taken away from her (and probably made Tranquil or killed outright, having already proved his "weakness" and susceptibility for being possessed) kept her from telling anyone what was happening.  The demon went unchecked for days because of fear of the Chantry's system.  Connor's complete and utter lack of proper training no doubt also played a role in his susceptibility, and that lack of trraining was, AGAIN, the result of fear of the system set up for mages.

As for the Templars you met being "reasonable" and respectful, you interacted with them as a Grey Warden, and mage or no, everyone starts treating you differently once you're a Grey Warden.  In the mage origin, the templars you can talk to are cold and disdainful.  When you return later and complete the Circle quest, you can later overhear a couple of Templars in the hall wondering to each other why they have to take the dead mages across the lake and burn them...they'd rather just throw them in the lake. Yes, veeeeery respecful.  Cullen's writer, Sheryl Chee, just recently described the potential Cullen relationship (with FemPC mage, in Origin - he expresses some sort of crush on her) this way: "Yes, there's nothing romantic about the scenario in my mind. I imagine it would be very quick, very violent, and only undertaken as a way to get her out of his system." 

(Edited for formatting silliness.)

That Isolde bares responsibility for Connor hardly changes the fact that a mage not under Chantry observation/ circle training caused major mayhem because he loved his father and wanted him  to live which is a pretty natural reaction that could occur anywhere. Isolde is responsible because she didn't send him to the Chantry/Circle... I'm sorry but if a small boy can wreck the world some system must exist to control or mitigate that. Is the Circle/Templar method the only one imaginable? No, or course not, but is it particularly abhorrent given the way magic works in Thedas? No, not really. I understand how being locked inside the tower can be chafing but that has to be balanced against understanding that having my family and everyone I know wiped out by an angry or terrified 6 year old is also off putting.

[Lord Phoebus]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Lord Phoebus wrote...
Which is bad writing. If the tranquils really have no emotions they can't be hurt by your words and can't feel insulted.  They may intellectually recognise an insult, but they can't feel hurt or angry.  Similarly, without desire, they can't actually want anything, so I question whether they have will.  If they did have will you would probably see tranquils that left the circle (they aren't a danger anymore, so why can't they leave?).  They really aren't people.  Owain, for example, doesn't seem to have any survival instinct of which to speak.

No, ti's not bad writing. You have no idea how it would be to be Tranquil, since you aren't one. You can't really say that couldn't or shouldn't act like X.
They are alive, they think and are concious of themselves.

From the codex entry on Tranquil:

The actual procedure, like the Harrowing, is secret, but the results are just as well known. The rite severs connection to the Fade. The Tranquil, therefore, do not dream. This removes the greatest danger that threatens a weak or unprepared mage, the potential to attract demons across the Veil. But this is the least of Tranquility's effects. For the absence of dreams brings with it the end of all magical ability, as well as all emotion.

If they have no emotion, they can't take offense anymore than a table can if you insult it.  If they do take offense it's bad writing because it contradicts in game lore.

That they are alive is true.  That they think is also true.  To what degree they are concious of themselves is another question and isn't sufficient to show that they have free will.  In Freudian terms they have no id and possibly no super ego.  Why do they enchant for the Circle?  They can't enjoy it or derive any satisfaction from the process.  Nor can they find it distasteful. More than likely they do so because they are told to and can find no logical reason not to. 

[Antigone2283]

Starcrunchy wrote...

Antigone2283 wrote...

Starcrunchy wrote...

To be honest almost every Templar my mage met in the game treated me with respect and seemed reasonable. Aside from Cullen, and it's hardly fair to blame him when he's been tortured. I started out pretty chafed by their control of the circle, but as events unfold my mage gained a much different view of the Templars and the guilded cage of the circle. While at the beginning he strained to break free of his bonds, by the mid game it was impossible to look at it the same way.

One boy not yet ten years did more damage in Redcliffe than could possibly be imagined. That he did it out of love for his father and never meant it to be doesn't change that a lot of good people lost their lives. I don't hate Connor. It was an eye opening experience for my PC that made him finally understand why the things that were done to him when he was a done. Some things can't be explained properly in books and it wasn't until this moment that this character and me as the player "got it". He understood that what happened to Connor was something that could easily have happened to him. I don't know about others but when I was a boy Connor's age, I'd have made the deal Connor was offered in a heart beat were my father dying, and that ruin would have been mine... There is nobody in this game that I felt better about giving a second chance than Connor.

Isolde, a non-mage, really bears responsibility for a GREAT deal of the destruction at Redcliffe:  her fear of her boy being taken away from her (and probably made Tranquil or killed outright, having already proved his "weakness" and susceptibility for being possessed) kept her from telling anyone what was happening.  The demon went unchecked for days because of fear of the Chantry's system.  Connor's complete and utter lack of proper training no doubt also played a role in his susceptibility, and that lack of trraining was, AGAIN, the result of fear of the system set up for mages.

As for the Templars you met being "reasonable" and respectful, you interacted with them as a Grey Warden, and mage or no, everyone starts treating you differently once you're a Grey Warden.  In the mage origin, the templars you can talk to are cold and disdainful.  When you return later and complete the Circle quest, you can later overhear a couple of Templars in the hall wondering to each other why they have to take the dead mages across the lake and burn them...they'd rather just throw them in the lake. Yes, veeeeery respecful.  Cullen's writer, Sheryl Chee, just recently described the potential Cullen relationship (with FemPC mage, in Origin - he expresses some sort of crush on her) this way: "Yes, there's nothing romantic about the scenario in my mind. I imagine it would be very quick, very violent, and only undertaken as a way to get her out of his system." 

(Edited for formatting silliness.)

That Isolde bares responsibility for Connor hardly changes the fact that a mage not under Chantry observation/ circle training caused major mayhem because he loved his father and wanted him  to live which is a pretty natural reaction that could occur anywhere. Isolde is responsible because she didn't send him to the Chantry/Circle... I'm sorry but if a small boy can wreck the world some system must exist to control or mitigate that. Is the Circle/Templar method the only one imaginable? No, or course not, but is it particularly abhorrent given the way magic works in Thedas? No, not really. I understand how being locked inside the tower can be chafing but that has to be balanced against understanding that having my family and everyone I know wiped out by an angry or terrified 6 year old is also off putting.

A mage UNDER Chantry observation/circle training can cause mayhem, ala Uldred!  In fact, the two major instances of magical abuse we're offered in the game both come about BECAUSE of the Chantry's system.  Connor was stoppable (and redeamable), and Uldred and the other mages helping him justified their actions based on wanting to escape the system.  The conversation I thought was compelling is the one you have with one of the blood mages you encounter on your way up the tower:  she begs you for her life, and says she thought she was doing the right thing, and that history had shown that great change often only comes through extreme measures.  She wasn't lusting after power: she was lusting after freedom. 

The problem with the Chantry's system is that ONLY the Templars know anything about stopping a renegade mage.  Mages aren't taught how to repell demonic attack, theyr'e just expected to be "up to it", and if they're not - too bad.  The Templars aren't a useless institution - there should be people prepared to stop dangerous magic. But just because you have the POTENTIAL to be dangerous doesn't mean you should have all your rights taken away, and live your life imprisoned.  Remember, Templars don't just slaughter abominations - they slaughter malificar, and apostates.  Apostates haven't even done anything wrong - they're deemed evil for not wanting to be imprisoned.  Mages seemed best prepared to fight/redeem aboniminations anyway:  if anything, there should be an army of mages supervising other mages. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Antigone2283 wrote...
if anything, there should be an army of mages supervising other mages. 

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will guard the guardians?)

[Yard Waste]

Basically, they are the KKK of the magic world.

[Xandurpein]

Yard Waste wrote...

Basically, they are the KKK of the magic world.

Because they resent a lost civil war? Because they are racists? Because they burn crosses? Because they resent that mages are no longer slaves?
you are not making a lot of sense really...

[Antigone2283]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Antigone2283 wrote...
if anything, there should be an army of mages supervising other mages. 

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will guard the guardians?)

It feels like everybody seems to be assuming that mages are all a bunch of ticking time bombs just waiting for the opportunity to explode and destroy the world as abominations!  You know, it was the Tevinter mageocracy and that whole invading the Golden City thing that got the Chantry's panties in a bunch to begin with - history doesn't tell that a bunch of abominations started wreaking havoc on the world, forcing the Chantry to lock them up for ever and ever.  Funny that it was only AFTER a bunch of mages took the blame for having created evil in the world that it was suddenly neccessary to keep EVERY mage EVER AGAIN locked up.  The whole mage-turned-abomination thing doesn't even seem to be of historical concern...

[KnightofPhoenix]

Antigone2283 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Antigone2283 wrote...
if anything, there should be an army of mages supervising other mages. 

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will guard the guardians?)

It feels like everybody seems to be assuming that mages are all a bunch of ticking time bombs just waiting for the opportunity to explode and destroy the world as abominations!  You know, it was the Tevinter mageocracy and that whole invading the Golden City thing that got the Chantry's panties in a bunch to begin with - history doesn't tell that a bunch of abominations started wreaking havoc on the world, forcing the Chantry to lock them up for ever and ever.  Funny that it was only AFTER a bunch of mages took the blame for having created evil in the world that it was suddenly neccessary to keep EVERY mage EVER AGAIN locked up.  The whole mage-turned-abomination thing doesn't even seem to be of historical concern...

You didn't answer my question. A question that has been in the head of political theorists since forever. Who will guard the guardians?
Don't make it sound so easy (mages can supervise mages). It's never that easy.

[Creature 1]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
lol Yea I live in such an oppressive society, where I am not allowed to own a gun. I am very sad. Please invade Canada and give me my rights

I prefer to have as much liberty as possible.  I find it extremely odd that you find this strange. 

And there is no human rights in a medieval context. Don't try to force your modern view on a medieval setting.

This comment is just stupid.  China has flagrant human rights violations.  The reason for this is because the Chinese government doesn't really have much of a concept of human rights.  Does that mean that the people there have no rights?  No, their rights are just being violated.  You don't get your rights from having them given to you by some collective of people sitting around going, "Shall we let them have the right to freedom of speech?  Oh, why not."  People have rights inherently as members of the human species and as free moral agents.  Having the notion that you only get rights when they're given to you is asinine.  When I run across this attitude it makes me very angry because this idea can be used to argue that the mistreatment of people in other cultures is just dandy because it's not against the local rules, so it's not a violation of their rights.  Honor killing?  Well, it's not against the law there.  Female genital mutilation?  They've been doing it forever, why change now!  You'd better hope that your rights are inherent and not just given to you, because if they're just given to you they can be just taken away equally easily, and no one can say that that's wrong. 

But mages are potentially much more dangerous than everyone else.

Loghain seems to have been pretty damn dangerous to me, but he wasn't locked up. 

Never said that. As a Sith fan I find the tranquils abhorent. But they are not like forced labor.

Strange, as a human I find Tranquilization abhorrent. 

Completely different. That little girl is not dangerous, does not possess magic, and you are using her solely for your own benefit. While the Circle as a whole benefits from the tranquils and we know this from one of the mage Fraternities (forgot the name) that in fact encourages this act and stresses that the Circle must accumulate money and wealth. 

Ok, so if I find River Tam, can I pimp her out and use the proceeds to purchase her sedatives, a new dress, and contribute the rest to charity?  Is that specific enough for you to determine whether it's a violation of human rights?  

Complaining about human rights in a setting where there is no such conception, is foolish.

Bull****.  I think you need a trip to some nice war-torn third world nation to get an attitude adjustment regarding human rights. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ Creature 1, I am not going to go back on all points, since most of them have already been discussed.
However, you cannot use a modern conception of human rights in a medieval setting. To have to explain that, is just redundant. Back then, there was no conception of human rights or individual rights as we today understand them. The first declaration of human rights was, arguably, in 1789. You can't possibly judge the medieval setting by using this as a starting point. What you can do is encourage and work for change. But you can't look back and judge people who had no such conceptions centuries or millenia before.

Likewise, Ferelden doesn't have a modern conception of human and individual rights (what they do have is rights and responsabilities afforded by the law and by the Divine in which case the Maker, but the philosophy of human and individual rights was absent in the medieval world). So it is foolish to try to impose a modern view on a setting such as this one. Don't resort to foolishness like "go to a third world and see". It's nonsense, for I was born with the ideas of human rights in my society and culture. But go to a medieval setting and talk that way and they will laugh at you.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 janvier 2010 - 10:55 .

[Xandurpein]

Creature 1 wrote...

This comment is just stupid.  China has flagrant human rights violations.  The reason for this is because the Chinese government doesn't really have much of a concept of human rights.  Does that mean that the people there have no rights?  No, their rights are just being violated.  You don't get your rights from having them given to you by some collective of people sitting around going, "Shall we let them have the right to freedom of speech?  Oh, why not."  People have rights inherently as members of the human species and as free moral agents.  Having the notion that you only get rights when they're given to you is asinine.  When I run across this attitude it makes me very angry because this idea can be used to argue that the mistreatment of people in other cultures is just dandy because it's not against the local rules, so it's not a violation of their rights.  Honor killing?  Well, it's not against the law there.  Female genital mutilation?  They've been doing it forever, why change now!  You'd better hope that your rights are inherent and not just given to you, because if they're just given to you they can be just taken away equally easily, and no one can say that that's wrong. 

Human rights is a doctrine, that has been elevated to international law by the signing of the charter of United Nations. It's a creed, not a a law of nature. During the middle ages this creed had not yet been invented, so I think it is fair to say that there was no human rights then. It's not stranger than saying there where no New Testament before Jesus.

[SusanStoHelit]

If you say that people cannot or should not be upset by or opposed to institutions that are accepted as 'normal' in a given time or place, you've got problems. If you say that because there is no conception of something in a given time or place, you can't complain about its lack, you've got problems.



In some times, places, and cultures, torture is seen as okay, so is rape, mutilation, slavery, genocide, and a whole swag of nasty, nasty stuff. To say, however, that we cannot be opposed to this whenever and wherever it happens, regardless of local conceptions, is just plain wrong.



Do the locals think they are in the right, behaving correctly, because what they are doing fits in with their rules, laws, mores, and conventions? Yes. Is it then permissible to say "Oh well, that's alright then."? No.

[JTBehnke]

robertthebard wrote...

Actually, I believe it's because the Chantry teaches that once the Chant of Light is spread to all of Thedas, then the Maker would return.  So yeah, I have no idea why they would want to declare war against people that reject them.

Exactly so, and I think that's why the Chantry has the opinions on mages that they do.  In the Chantry's mind, mages are responsible for the Maker leaving the world in the first place, the first time by learning magic from the Old Gods, and the second time by trying to usurp him and entering the Golden City.  So the Chantry places restrictions on mages to punish them.  The rules aren't so much for protection as they are for revenge.  By basically imprisoning the mages and killing them when they please, they can feel better since they don't get to live in a perfect world where their god is there.

[KnightofPhoenix]

SusanStoHelit wrote...

If you say that people cannot or should not be upset by or opposed to institutions that are accepted as 'normal' in a given time or place, you've got problems. If you say that because there is no conception of something in a given time or place, you can't complain about its lack, you've got problems.

In some times, places, and cultures, torture is seen as okay, so is rape, mutilation, slavery, genocide, and a whole swag of nasty, nasty stuff. To say, however, that we cannot be opposed to this whenever and wherever it happens, regardless of local conceptions, is just plain wrong.

Do the locals think they are in the right, behaving correctly, because what they are doing fits in with their rules, laws, mores, and conventions? Yes. Is it then permissible to say "Oh well, that's alright then."? No.

And when did I ever say that?
Of course you can attempt to change them.

But to use a doctrine that has been invented in 1789, in order to judge practises done in 1200 is just a waste of time (except if the criticism is done for the simple reason to end such practises). Likewise, to use the conception of human rights (a philosophy and doctine), in a setting like Ferelden where it did not exist is also anachronistic and competlely out of place.
So you can push for change in Ferelden. Just don't use concepts and doctrines that didn't exist at that time. Work with what you have.
 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 janvier 2010 - 11:07 .

[SusanStoHelit]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

But to use a doctrine that has been invented in 1789, in order to judge practises done in 1200 is just a waste of time. Likewise, to use the conception of human rights (a philosophy and doctine), in a setting like Ferelden where it did not exist is also anachronistic and competlely out of place.
So you can push for change in Ferelden. Just don't use concepts and doctrines that didn't exist at that time.
 

I didn't use the term myself. But I'm sure those who did so used it because it's a familiar term that they understand. A kind of 'translation', if you will.

Some of us oppose or despise (or whatever) the Chantry - and by extension its military arm, the Templars - because of their treatment, not just of mages, but of elves too and indeed of anyone who does not worship their Maker. And because of the methods they use to achieve their ends. They, like Loghain, seem to believe that the end justifies the means. I personally find such a philosophy utterly abhorrent. And will oppose it at each and every turn, regardless of when or where it occurs, and regardless of whether you call it 'abuse of human rights', 'immoral and unethical', 'cruel and inhumane', or just plain 'evil'.

[Xandurpein]

SusanStoHelit wrote...

If you say that people cannot or should not be upset by or opposed to institutions that are accepted as 'normal' in a given time or place, you've got problems. If you say that because there is no conception of something in a given time or place, you can't complain about its lack, you've got problems.

In some times, places, and cultures, torture is seen as okay, so is rape, mutilation, slavery, genocide, and a whole swag of nasty, nasty stuff. To say, however, that we cannot be opposed to this whenever and wherever it happens, regardless of local conceptions, is just plain wrong.

Do the locals think they are in the right, behaving correctly, because what they are doing fits in with their rules, laws, mores, and conventions? Yes. Is it then permissible to say "Oh well, that's alright then."? No.

Can we please try and differentiate beween roleplaying and real life here. Is it acceptable to roleplay a human good well meaning nobleman in Fereldan and think it's acceptable for him to think that he is entitled liberties ordinary folk don't have -yes, because that is the moral code of Fereldan. Is it acceptable act like that in real life, of course not.

Why can't people see the difference between roleplaying, and real life?

[Xandurpein]

SusanStoHelit wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

But to use a doctrine that has been invented in 1789, in order to judge practises done in 1200 is just a waste of time. Likewise, to use the conception of human rights (a philosophy and doctine), in a setting like Ferelden where it did not exist is also anachronistic and competlely out of place.
So you can push for change in Ferelden. Just don't use concepts and doctrines that didn't exist at that time.
 

I didn't use the term myself. But I'm sure those who did so used it because it's a familiar term that they understand. A kind of 'translation', if you will.

Some of us oppose or despise (or whatever) the Chantry - and by extension its military arm, the Templars - because of their treatment, not just of mages, but of elves too and indeed of anyone who does not worship their Maker. And because of the methods they use to achieve their ends. They, like Loghain, seem to believe that the end justifies the means. I personally find such a philosophy utterly abhorrent. And will oppose it at each and every turn, regardless of when or where it occurs, and regardless of whether you call it 'abuse of human rights', 'immoral and unethical', 'cruel and inhumane', or just plain 'evil'.

You really aren't into roleplaying are you...

/Edit. You forget Alistair if/when he becomes King. Don't you despise him for depriving the people of Ferelden of their rights to hold free elections?

Modifié par Xandurpein, 16 janvier 2010 - 11:29 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

SusanStoHelit wrote...
I didn't use the term myself. But I'm sure those who did so used it because it's a familiar term that they understand. A kind of 'translation', if you will.

Some of us oppose or despise (or whatever) the Chantry - and by extension its military arm, the Templars - because of their treatment, not just of mages, but of elves too and indeed of anyone who does not worship their Maker. And because of the methods they use to achieve their ends. They, like Loghain, seem to believe that the end justifies the means. I personally find such a philosophy utterly abhorrent. And will oppose it at each and every turn, regardless of when or where it occurs, and regardless of whether you call it 'abuse of human rights', 'immoral and unethical', 'cruel and inhumane', or just plain 'evil'.

I know you didn't use it.
Well if they want to judge someone else, maybe they need to start using a term that the other party can understand, instead of resorting to arrogant half arsed thinking, expecting people different from us to understand what we are talking about.

And if you take this position, then I think you must hate humanity for its history, no?
The greatests of things, achievements and even doctrines was built upon nasty means. Heck, the human rights doctrine was not really built in a pleasant context (see French Revolution).
With all due respect, but I find your position to be very naive. But that's just me. I assume you would find me abhorrent.  

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 janvier 2010 - 11:23 .

[Antigone2283]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Antigone2283 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Antigone2283 wrote...
if anything, there should be an army of mages supervising other mages. 

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will guard the guardians?)

It feels like everybody seems to be assuming that mages are all a bunch of ticking time bombs just waiting for the opportunity to explode and destroy the world as abominations!  You know, it was the Tevinter mageocracy and that whole invading the Golden City thing that got the Chantry's panties in a bunch to begin with - history doesn't tell that a bunch of abominations started wreaking havoc on the world, forcing the Chantry to lock them up for ever and ever.  Funny that it was only AFTER a bunch of mages took the blame for having created evil in the world that it was suddenly neccessary to keep EVERY mage EVER AGAIN locked up.  The whole mage-turned-abomination thing doesn't even seem to be of historical concern...

You didn't answer my question. A question that has been in the head of political theorists since forever. Who will guard the guardians?
Don't make it sound so easy (mages can supervise mages). It's never that easy.

That exact same question can be posed of the Chantry and Templars, who have completely unchecked powers in "dealing" with mages: no trial, no accountability, no explanation needed.  They have the right to kill any mage at any time (or all mages at once) without having to justify themselves to anyone.  And it all goes hidden away from the general populace.  At least if the mages being slaughtered were family, friends and neighbors, the Templars would be accountable to the general populace.  As it is, no one knows or cares.  Gregoir could have wiped out the entire Circle and everybody would have shaken their heads sadly, and said "What a pity it had to come to that."  And from game canon, we KNOW it didn't have to come to that.

So, to answer your question, in the absence of some grand conspiracy in which every capable mage becomes corrupted and evil and unable or unwilling to stop their fellow mage in the event of an evil uprising, the guardians become the mages, the Templars, and the people of Ferelden: it's a joint effort giving no individual entity absolute power over the other. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Antigone2283 wrote...
That exact same question can be posed of the Chantry and Templars, who have completely unchecked powers in "dealing" with mages: no trial, no accountability, no explanation needed.  They have the right to kill any mage at any time (or all mages at once) without having to justify themselves to anyone.  And it all goes hidden away from the general populace.  At least if the mages being slaughtered were family, friends and neighbors, the Templars would be accountable to the general populace.  As it is, no one knows or cares.  Gregoir could have wiped out the entire Circle and everybody would have shaken their heads sadly, and said "What a pity it had to come to that."  And from game canon, we KNOW it didn't have to come to that.

So, to answer your question, in the absence of some grand conspiracy in which every capable mage becomes corrupted and evil and unable or unwilling to stop their fellow mage in the event of an evil uprising, the guardians become the mages, the Templars, and the people of Ferelden: it's a joint effort giving no individual entity absolute power over the other. 

The Templars are being checked, by their addiction to Lyrium. Who guards the Chantry? No one. Kind of a Hobbesian view. No one guards the Leviathan. I believe that has always been true in our history, with varying degrees.

Thank you for trying to think about it and provide an answer. It's a good change and I appreciate it. So you propose a system of checks and balances. I am not sure that's feasable in a medieval context (or even in a renaissance context, for the 3rd Estates system in France was useless), but not impossible.
What would the people of Ferelden do however? You must remember that the "people" are under Banns, Arls and Teyrns and are not really an active political agent (it's the nobility rather that is). So what do you propose?
 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 janvier 2010 - 11:48 .

[SusanStoHelit]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And if you take this position, then I think you must hate humanity for its history, no?

No. That would be hating the whole for the wrongs of particular individuals or groups - the very thing the Chantry does that I dislike. I detest particular actions by particular people and groups, yes.

With all due respect, but I find your position to be very naive. But that's just me. I assume you would find me abhorrent.  

The term 'with all due respect' is generally used to indicate a lack of respect, not that I care, you understand. My position isn't naive - I'm aware of why things have happened, I'm aware that sometimes there are no 'good' choices only the lesser of two or more evils, I'm aware that sometimes people are greedy, selfish, cruel, mistaken, fill in whatever adjective you like. I'm aware that not all choices are black or white, and that we cannot somehow 'magically' know the consequences of our actions ahead of time. My position is idealistic, though, I'll grant you that.

Yes *shouts from the mountaintop* "I am an idealist!"

Can I make this world, or can my characters make Ferelden, into a more 'ideal' world? Perhaps not - but we can certainly try, instead of just saying, "Well, that's the way things are around here, tough cookies for you."

Edit: and no I don't find you abhorrent - I find your ideas 'abhorrent' if you think the end does justify the means, and that's an entirely different kettle of fish. I'm against the chantry and the templars and what they do to the mages - but I'm also against what those who turned to blood magic did, because they thought the end justifies the means.

Modifié par SusanStoHelit, 16 janvier 2010 - 11:53 .

[Antigone2283]

Xandurpein wrote...

SusanStoHelit wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

But to use a doctrine that has been invented in 1789, in order to judge practises done in 1200 is just a waste of time. Likewise, to use the conception of human rights (a philosophy and doctine), in a setting like Ferelden where it did not exist is also anachronistic and competlely out of place.
So you can push for change in Ferelden. Just don't use concepts and doctrines that didn't exist at that time.
 

I didn't use the term myself. But I'm sure those who did so used it because it's a familiar term that they understand. A kind of 'translation', if you will.

Some of us oppose or despise (or whatever) the Chantry - and by extension its military arm, the Templars - because of their treatment, not just of mages, but of elves too and indeed of anyone who does not worship their Maker. And because of the methods they use to achieve their ends. They, like Loghain, seem to believe that the end justifies the means. I personally find such a philosophy utterly abhorrent. And will oppose it at each and every turn, regardless of when or where it occurs, and regardless of whether you call it 'abuse of human rights', 'immoral and unethical', 'cruel and inhumane', or just plain 'evil'.

You really aren't into roleplaying are you...

/Edit. You forget Alistair if/when he becomes King. Don't you despise him for depriving the people of Ferelden of their rights to hold free elections?

The OP didn't ask "What does your character think of the Templars?"  Certainly, in roleplaying my mage PC is going to react much differently than my dwarven noble PC.  Neither changes why we might personally abhor one philosophy or another.  It certainly might affect what sort of a character we choose to roleplay - I wouldn't enjoy playing an obsequious character. 

The game doesn't address the issue of democracy vs monarchy, but it DOES address other issues of morality.  Given that the game is TRYING to provoke thought about moral decision making, why on earth wouldn't someone consider their own personal philosphy?

The post wasn't directed at me, but those are my thoughts on it.

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ Susan. I sincerily did not mean any lack of respect. I do not know how to prove it to you. The fact that you are civil and polite is enough to gain my respect (I am not sure it's worth much though). And you just explained your position well and I find it more realistic than the other idealists I have seen, which is good imo.

I personally agree with this: "We ought to take man as we find him" - David Hume.

That includes everything "good" and eveything "bad" about man. But that's only my belief, or philosophical taste.

[Antigone2283]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Antigone2283 wrote...
That exact same question can be posed of the Chantry and Templars, who have completely unchecked powers in "dealing" with mages: no trial, no accountability, no explanation needed.  They have the right to kill any mage at any time (or all mages at once) without having to justify themselves to anyone.  And it all goes hidden away from the general populace.  At least if the mages being slaughtered were family, friends and neighbors, the Templars would be accountable to the general populace.  As it is, no one knows or cares.  Gregoir could have wiped out the entire Circle and everybody would have shaken their heads sadly, and said "What a pity it had to come to that."  And from game canon, we KNOW it didn't have to come to that.

So, to answer your question, in the absence of some grand conspiracy in which every capable mage becomes corrupted and evil and unable or unwilling to stop their fellow mage in the event of an evil uprising, the guardians become the mages, the Templars, and the people of Ferelden: it's a joint effort giving no individual entity absolute power over the other. 

The Templars are being checked, by their addiction to Lyrium. Who guards the Chantry? No one. Kind of a Hobbesian view. No one guards the Leviathan. I believe that has always been true in our history, with varying degrees.

Thank you for trying to think about it and provide an answer. It's a good change and I appreciate it. So you propose a system of checks and balances. I am not sure that's feasable in a medieval context (or even in a renaissance context, for the 3rd Estates system in France was useless), but not impossible.
What would the people of Ferelden do however? You must remember that the "people" are under Banns, Arls and Teyrns and are not really an active political agent (it's the nobility rather that is). So what do you propose?
 

If anything, Lyrium addiction makes the Templars MORE corruptible!  Addiction very rarely drives people to make decisions based on right and wrong -  on the contrary, addiction usually drives people to behave in ways they otherwise wouldn't.  The addiction makes the Templars puppets of the Chantry, which in no way lessens the potential for abuse against the mages.  Given that both Wynne and Alistair confess to having their doubts about the truth of the Chantry's story about the Golden City,  I really don't think it's safe to assume the Chantry is looking out for everyone's best interests, or being entirely honest in their methods.

As for feasability of a checks and balances system, except for the fact that the Tevinter Imperium was RULED  by mages, there doesn't seem to be any indication that free-roaming mages were a problem.  Most mages would probably be content to live a quiet life, have a family, use their powers to serve their community as healers and protectors - you know, like normal people, who just happen to have abilities others don't.  You don't have to be an active political agent to notice there's something fishy about that mage that lives next door: you report the behavior to the authorities, it is investigated by people who are trained to deal with such things, and life goes on.  Does someoen occasionally get murdered by an abomination? Most certainly, but people get murdered by non-abominations too.