398 réponses à ce sujet

[SusanStoHelit]

Xandurpein wrote...

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?

Yes, I am into roleplaying - but I have to be able to feel some kind of 'connection' with the character I play. They may not have my personality, they may not make the same choices I would, they may be thieves, and so on and so forth, but there has to be something there I can like - or it's no fun.

Monarchy vs democracy is not an issue of 'human rights', of 'right' or 'wrong', of 'ethical' and 'unethical'. There is nothing inherently good or bad in either system. Both can be prone to manipulation and abuse. Democracy is a very poor form of government - it's just better than anything else we've come up with so far. So, no, I don't despise Alistair.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Antigone2283 wrote...
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. 

By saying that the Templars are checked by lyrium, I meant that the Templars can't rebel and destroy the system. That's what I mean by checked by the Chantry.

I think that's waaaayyyy too simplistic.
What's to stop the people from basically acting like informants for the Templars and denounce every mage on sight? Tyranny's best friend against dissidents is usually the people, who are pron to fear and hate alot with or without reason (Eg, the people in conquered Europe helped the German or Vichy authorities catch Jews for instance. People helped the Inquisition catch Muslims and Jews in Iberia, French Revolution...etc).
That in mind, what's to stop mages from rallying together and take over the monarchy and create a new Magocracy? (I know I would do that if I was a mage).
So while your plan could lead to a better situation, it could also degenerate into a catastrophe.  

But I realise I have been way too annoying with my questions, so you don't have to answer. No system can ever be perfect. I just wanted people to think about it, instead of just criticize. I too am against the system.
I thank you for civicly presenting your alternative solution.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 17 janvier 2010 - 12:16 .

[SusanStoHelit]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@ 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.

Thank you. I'm sorry if I got snarky, but I've had some problems on these boards with people twisting what I say to mean what they want it to say, and then flaming me about it. You have also been civil, and I appreciate it.

I disagree with Hume. I believe we should accept humanity as it is - and then do our best to make the world a better place anyway (a combination of realism and idealism, I suppose). After all, some people are able to show very positive, humane, tolerant, life-affirming behaviour - why not try to change things so that more and more people are like that?

[The Capital Gaultier]

It's hard to like someone who stands in your classroom monitoring you for signs of corruption all day.

[KnightofPhoenix]

SusanStoHelit wrote...
Thank you. I'm sorry if I got snarky, but I've had some problems on these boards with people twisting what I say to mean what they want it to say, and then flaming me about it. You have also been civil, and I appreciate it.

I disagree with Hume. I believe we should accept humanity as it is - and then do our best to make the world a better place anyway (a combination of realism and idealism, I suppose). After all, some people are able to show very positive, humane, tolerant, life-affirming behaviour - why not try to change things so that more and more people are like that?

No don't worry about it. I realise I am annoying sometimes.

You can always believe that. But be careful. The desire to change human nature, or steer it in a direction, has always ended up causing atrocities.
I think Maximilien Robespierre is a very interesting character to read and know about. He was very idealistic, he initially was very opposed to the death penalty and the guillotine (hard to believe I know). But his desire to change people and create a Republic of Virtue (a utopia), led him to do awful things and in the process, reaffirm that humanity cannot change. Quite tragic. Yet so human.  

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 17 janvier 2010 - 12:25 .

[robertthebard]

Well, after more reading, I'd say that people that do hate the Templars hate them for being the military arm of the Chantry. If we want to be in character for this, then as far as the mages are concerned, the Templars are the Chantry. There can be no division, since the Chantry controls them. Unlike in our modern society, here in the US anyway, where the Church does not control the army, at least not directly, the Templars are under direct control of the Chantry, and despite how we may want to view it, they are very definitely an Army. Their abilities may not be especially tailored to non-mage combat, but they are far from incapable warriors.

[errant_knight]

infernoASH wrote...

 I don't get it after all thats happened the circle and there blood mages taking over the tower i think having templars around is a good idea it only further proves that they need more templars. They may be extreme in there methods but i do think the mages need to be controlled anyone else agree?

whenever a templar is spoken about its usually negative how they are addicted to lyrium or how they are control freaks over the mages.

Not bad, but they don't ever question orders or methods. That's never a good thing. Of course, that's probably why the chantry keeps them addicted to lyrium, so they don't have that option. They're kind of like Jaffa. Then there's the years of indoctrination....

Modifié par errant_knight, 17 janvier 2010 - 01:22 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

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?)

Given the nature of the Templars, that is a question I ask myself in reference to them and the Chantry. Who watches the watchers indeed. When it comes to mages, the Chantry gives the templars free reign, with very little rules on how to deal with them.

I agree that some sort of safety net/monitoring mechanism is needed in regards to mages. I simply do not believe an ethically dubious organization such as the Chantry should be doing the job.

And I personally see nothing wrong with mages policing themselves. After all, first and foremost, they have a vested self-interest in doing so. Unless one is seriously screwed in the head, I don't think mages really want to become abominations, destroying their bodies, minds, and souls. Nor do they want to have to deal with such things amongst their ranks. It's self-interest and self-preservation. Thus, they would be more interested in addressing these problems and working on ways to deal with them, perhaps even developing techniques superior to the ones currently used.

The Chantry itself really doesn't show that much interest in working to help mages overcome the dangers of their gift/curse. If anything, they really do not want this, because if mages became less dangerous and more in control of their powers and well being, it takes away a powerbase of the Chantry, an area of control. the fear of magic and the people who wield it benefits the Chantry, and everything I've seen in game leads me to believe they encourage this mentality, which further creates a need based on perception, in the whole of society. In effect, they create the market for their wares.

In the end, it's all about power and control for the Chantry. Without the iron grip on the mages, and enforced fanatical loyalty of the templars through lyrium addiction, the Chantry is really nothing more than an organization of self righteous, puritan females squaking their holy texts, and dependant on the absolute belief of the current ruler and the population, something which can shift with the times and moods of a society.

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ Skadi. Mages do not have to resort to blood magic and demons in order to be dangerous / powerful. Or maybe they can use blood magic without succumbing to demons (Tevinter mages seemed to be able to do that quite well, at least initially). So self-preservation is not going to check them fully. They can always decide to create a new Magocratic Empire (and why shouldn't they? I know I would).

At the end, it's power and control for everyone and not just the Chantry. That's politics.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 17 janvier 2010 - 02:06 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@ Skadi. Mages do not have to resort to blood magic and demons in order to be dangerous / powerful. Or maybe they can use blood magic without succumbing to demons (Tevinter mages seemed to be able to do that quite well, at least initially). So self-preservation is not going to check them fully. They can always decide to create a new Magocratic Empire (and why shouldn't they? I know I would).

At the end, it's power and control for everyone and not just the Chantry. That's politics.

Power, naturally. That, in my opinion, is really the nature of the Chantry's need to control magic. Everyone wants power, certainly. But ideally, checks and balances are needed.

Self preservation isn't the only incentive for mages to behave, but it certain would be the strongest motivator. There certainly would be other factors and motivations, depending on the nature of the leadership. And, as far as a magocracy, I didn't say mages should be running the country. Secular laws and traditions could still be adhered to. In otherwords, no titles or major positions of power (i.e. nobility). And, I think that having units of soldiers trained in templar abilities, minus the religous dogma and fanatic loyalty and addiction mechanics employed currently in the templars. Units of mage destroyers in secular armies, as well as similarly trained guards kept nearby in mage enclaves, just in case someone gets out of hand. 

After all, it's not the abilities of the templars, or the necessity, I have a problem with, but the mentality they follow and the dogma that drives them, couipled by an institution that practically encourages their more questionable behavior that I have the problem with.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Yes I understand your position and I think your plan is feasible, except the removal of titles and nobility, I am not sure that's possible in Ferelden, at its current stage. It would require a massive (most probably violent) removal of the current system.

I personally do not really oppose a magocratic empire in principle (especially if I was a mage). I am an elitist in many ways, and if the mages happen to be enlightnened and powerful, then naturally they should rule, for the benefit of everyone else. Of course, eventually something bad will happen and the system will collapse and be replaced by another. Naturally, Aristocracies tend to turn into vain oligarchies.

But I think the Chantry is placing itself as the protectors of the non-mage majority from mage tyranny (that was Andraste's discourse afterall). So the Chantry could say that it oppresses the mages, in order to protect the majority. Now whether the chantry is necessary for this, or if that's truly its intention is highly debatable. But that's how I would imagine they would explain their position.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 17 janvier 2010 - 02:33 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

That's how I see the Chantry justifying their position. They preach the dangers of magic, constantly remind people of Tevinter and the Fall of the Golden City, ect. Whether or not they really believe it as such, I wonder. I tend to think they practice a form of doublethink, to use an Orwellian term, where they can hold two opposing viewpoints, yet believe that neither really contradicts or cancels each other out.



I believe that they do, however, encourage a commoner/peasant fear of magic and like to foster ignorance of magic and what it can and can't do, which helps win the minds of the commoners to help support their cause further. If the non-magical population either stopped seeing mages as an unholy threat, or perhaps considered that they could be more useful if integrated in society, the Chantry's position might falter. But yes, that is what I gather in game: that the Chantry promotes itself as the only thing between mankind and magical armageddon or whatever.



I don't know about a magaocracy, but I would like to see mages more intergrated with society as a whole, provided they have passed training/Harrowing and are deemed suitable to join the world at large. I think that having a sort of national "phylactery database" where phylacteries of mages are stored, just in case one gets out of hand and starts causing mayhem, would be another good check in keeping mages under some resonable form of control.



Were mages permitted to live normal lives, such as family, marriage, children, career, ect, that might also help stabilize them and reduce some of the threat factor involved in their existance.

[Antigone2283]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Antigone2283 wrote...
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. 

By saying that the Templars are checked by lyrium, I meant that the Templars can't rebel and destroy the system. That's what I mean by checked by the Chantry.

I think that's waaaayyyy too simplistic.
What's to stop the people from basically acting like informants for the Templars and denounce every mage on sight? Tyranny's best friend against dissidents is usually the people, who are pron to fear and hate alot with or without reason (Eg, the people in conquered Europe helped the German or Vichy authorities catch Jews for instance. People helped the Inquisition catch Muslims and Jews in Iberia, French Revolution...etc).
That in mind, what's to stop mages from rallying together and take over the monarchy and create a new Magocracy? (I know I would do that if I was a mage).
So while your plan could lead to a better situation, it could also degenerate into a catastrophe.  

But I realise I have been way too annoying with my questions, so you don't have to answer. No system can ever be perfect. I just wanted people to think about it, instead of just criticize. I too am against the system.
I thank you for civicly presenting your alternative solution.

Oh, my description of an alternative was definitely simplistic - mostly because I have no incentive for developing a realistic, complex social analysis and solution for an imaginary world, when in the real world people get 4 year degrees specializing in policy making and social justice.   Buuuuuuut, to answer your other questions, you can't deny an entire group of people freedom just because a few of them might be bad apples.  People who are seeking power don't generally band together with a bunch of other people seeking power, so if such a group of mages were inclined to take over the monarchy, I sincerely doubt they would do it as some kind of grand alliance.  That just doesn't happen.  There'd be crazy in-fighting.  And to assume that every mage, or even that a majority of mages would have some inclination to WANT to take over is a bit paranoid. Some mages may be so inclined, but there's absolutely nothing to indicate that an equal number wouldn't be just as willing to stand up to them.  Mages are flesh and blood people - not demigods! They're not all powerful!  Just because they CAN set you on fire doesn't mean they're going to, anymore than a man with a sword is going to run you through just because he can.

Historically, when people have been inclined to rat one another out, or to make false accusations, it usually stems from fear, either for their own lives, or fear born of prejudice.  Regardless, you deal with that the same way you deal with any accusation of a crime:  trial and investigation.  That's a big part of what's missing in the Chantry's system.  Do I have the perfect solution?  No.  I'm a science major; that's not my bag, baby.   I'd also prefer to spend my time writing angsty fic resolving Alistair dumping my mage PC. BUT to me it is obvious that the Chantry's solution is unethical.  My mage PC's boon was to free the Tower from the Chantry's control, and after that, it was totally someone else's problem working out the logistics.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Yea, someone like me (Political Science major) would have to deal with that sort of thing, which is why I keep asking for ideas and show a general interest in this particular theme. And, of course I need to have someone to blame if / when that fails 

To assume that the majority of mages could want to rule may be paranoia. To assume that they won't is imprudence. In politics and State building, one can afford to be paranoid, but not imprudent. And the Tevinter Mages were quite capable of ruling, while being allied with each other. They ruled as an Aristocracy (or Oligarchy, depends on perspective).

But integrating mages into society is definately a step in the right direction in my opinion.  Historically speaking, States during their culture's Golden Age tend to be more inclusionary then exclusionary.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 17 janvier 2010 - 03:07 .

[ReubenLiew]

We need to sacrifice Mages to the Golden Throne of the Emperor, or soul-bind them to him.



... No wait...

[KnightofPhoenix]

ReubenLiew wrote...

We need to sacrifice Mages to the Golden Throne of the Emperor, or soul-bind them to him.

... No wait...

"Suffer not the witch to live!"

[ReubenLiew]

In the name of the Emperor's Holy Grey Wardens, I denounce thee Witch, and sentence ye to burn!

For the Emperor!

[KnightofPhoenix]

Grey Wardens in the 41th millenium

[ReubenLiew]

This was exactly my vision when I first heard the term Grey Wardens.

Brother Captain Duncan will be my favourite!

[KnightofPhoenix]

Eh, I bet most people here will see the Chantry as a cute bunny club, if they compare it to the Ecclesiarchy in Warhammer 40K.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 17 janvier 2010 - 03:51 .

[wizardryforever]

It seems that a lot of people, both in Ferelden and on this forum, commit the fallacy of overgeneralization. In other words, because of the actions of notable individuals, we hereby judge all of the (insert arbitrary group here) to be evil and descpicable! The people of Ferelden do this with mages, ie the Tevinter mages invading the Golden City. The people on this forum do this with Templars, ie looking at individuals like Gregoir and Cullen and then applying the same mentality to all Templars. The truth is that any group that someone may belong to does not automatically apply characteristics to that someone. So, not all mages are going to destroy society because they can and not all Templars want to exterminate mages. Case in point, look at the Templars in Lothering and Ser Otto in the Alienage. In Lothering, the Templars are concerned entirely with protecting the people and maintaining order. In fact, if you ask the head Templar (whose name escapes me) what he would do if he saw an apostate, he says that he has more important things to worry about right now, even though Morrigan practically declares that she is an apostate to his face. Ser Otto is genuinely concerned for the welfare of the people in the Alienage, and when he senses "something wicked" he doesn't automatically assume that mages are responsible, although he does mention malificar (not apostates, important distinction) might be responsible.



Now, do I think that Templars, or the idea behind them, are good? Certainly they serve an important function, regulating mages. But I don't believe the current system is the best one. I don't really have a clear idea what a better system would be at this point, as any I try to come up with have the same problems. It's analogous to what Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried."



Interesting side note, if you side with the Templars in the tower and DON'T allow Brother Burkel to build his Chantry in Orzammar, you get an interesting ending. Essentially, the Circle rebuilds itself in Orzammar for three reasons: to be outside of the Chantry's jurisdiction, to be among those who do not fear them, and unrestricted access to lyrium. Naturally, the Chantry is furious about this, but they can't drum up enough support for an Exalted March (I think I remember that correctly).



PS: I just realized how ironic it is for me to be defending Templars with a user name like mine

[Antigone2283]

wizardryforever wrote...

Interesting side note, if you side with the Templars in the tower and DON'T allow Brother Burkel to build his Chantry in Orzammar, you get an interesting ending. Essentially, the Circle rebuilds itself in Orzammar for three reasons: to be outside of the Chantry's jurisdiction, to be among those who do not fear them, and unrestricted access to lyrium. Naturally, the Chantry is furious about this, but they can't drum up enough support for an Exalted March (I think I remember that correctly).

PS: I just realized how ironic it is for me to be defending Templars with a user name like mine

Do you have to side with the Templars to get that ending?  It seems like a logical place to rebuild if the boon granted is to free the Circle from the Chantry, as well. I've always helped Burkel, so I guess that's never been an option. Regardless, that's awesome! I didn't know about that ending. (Burkel, you'll never again get your Chantry in subsequent play-throughs. Sorry. I was only indugling you for XP, anyway.)

You make a good point, though, and in looking back at my language, I can see where I've over-generalized the issue. For what it's worth, I do realize that ALL Templars aren't evil, bad people by default. They do belong to, in my opinion, a BAD institution, and commit unethical acts.  As other people have mentioned, in many ways the Templars are as much victims as the mages: Alistair was begging the Maker for Duncan to take him, and he later admits that after seeing his first Harrowing (and the execution that resulted) he didn't want to be a Templar. He also says it's possible lyrium doesn't actually do anything except make the Templars slaves to the Chantry.  I'm sure he's not the only one with those kinds of thoughts and feelings, but like the mages, there's no recourse if you don't like your lot in life. So I guess the real enemy is the Chantry...but that doesn't exonerate the "profession" so much as reveal the tragedy of those forced into it.

[Zerbin]

Incredibly interesting conversation. In my first playthrough , I played as a human noble and, after seeing how things turned out at Redcliffe, I grabbed the Templar specialization as soon as it was available. It seemed to me that there should indeed be a defense for the general population in the event that a mage goes bad, gets possessed, etc. (Plus I like playing the paladin type, Knights of Virtue and all that). However, and major props to the writers for this, the Chantry is a bit of a mixed bag. While at the local level it seems to be devout people doing their best to serve the world in which they live, as an organization it is responsible for a great deal of suffering that seems to be more in the service of securing and maintaining power than in service of a great ideal ( although, in their defense, having power <would> make it easier to spread the Chant). Especially disconcerting (to me, at least) was that Templars tend to be chosen not for their high moral character, but for unshakable faith in the Maker and obedience to orders, making them less the shining knights that the Codex says that the people like to think of them as, and more like a really dependable private army, made even more dependable by the fact that are kept addicted to lyrium, which, of course, the Chantry keeps a firm check on. This mindset, that the Chantry (as a whole) is always right, combined with the Andrastian attitude towards mages, which ranges from unease, fear, and mistrust all the way to out and out hatred, tends to lead to the Templars being seen (especially by mage players) as a type of Gestapo, peresecuting the magically-gifted populace, deriding them and just <aching> for a chance to execute bloody justice upon them. While one Templar commander in the codex notes that many apostates resort to blood magic and become abominations because they can not hope to escape the Templars come to kill or imprison them (as many have noted in this thread), as an institution, the Chantry seems to count this as the price of keeping mages in check. All in all, a fairly complex and intersting situation, but one which has a considerable downside.

[SandiKay0]

I always thought of the Chantry and Templars as fanatics. That is why I thought the world hated on them.

[Xandurpein]

SusanStoHelit wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

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?

Yes, I am into roleplaying - but I have to be able to feel some kind of 'connection' with the character I play. They may not have my personality, they may not make the same choices I would, they may be thieves, and so on and so forth, but there has to be something there I can like - or it's no fun.

Monarchy vs democracy is not an issue of 'human rights', of 'right' or 'wrong', of 'ethical' and 'unethical'. There is nothing inherently good or bad in either system. Both can be prone to manipulation and abuse. Democracy is a very poor form of government - it's just better than anything else we've come up with so far. So, no, I don't despise Alistair.

I beg to differ. Article 1. of the humn rights declaration clearly states "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."  I simply cannot see how people can be equal in rights, when someone one  person is a dictator, solely because of their birth or who they married. So is the concept of hereditary nobility with special priviliges.

The main point about this argument isn't of course that I think that you pick and choose which human rights you want to uphold, or even that you seem to have a very misantropic view of democracy. The main point is that there is no such thing as a inherently "good" or "bad" in ANYTHING. It is us human beings who choose to decide what we believe in and what we judge "good" or "evil". You and I believe slavery is a crime, other people believed differently before. Your fallacy is that you believe some of your opinions is somehow an eternal truth, and not just your opinion.

Of course we must all strive to make the world a better place, but we must do so with some humility too. Our democratic political process is where we strive to ackomodate different views of what "good" and "evil" is and how to punish or convince those who break the rules we agree upon. That is why democracy is so important, to let every persons view of "good" and "evil" be heard, and why totalitarianism is so seductive - wouldn't it be so much easier if one good person (who thought like I do) decided what is "good" and "evil".

You can choose a credo, that for example slavery is by definition bad, but that is only a belief - it doesn't become an eternal truth, because you think it should be. Try arguing why any human rights is a "truth" and you'll either end up with a personal feeling, a political decision or a religious text, neither of which I accpet as an "eternal truth".