1082 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

I'll bear that in mind when the PC has to end the Mage-Templar war (which we all know there's a 75% chance of.)

If I play DA:I at all (an open question at this point), I certainly will.  Any solution that has to be tried as to at least respect the human rights of all parties.  That should be the foundational minimum.

-Polaris

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

IanPolaris wrote...

I also completeyy reject the idea that just because you have one set of injustice for one group, that this somehow justifies anothe injustice for another, yet this is the argument you seem to be making.  ALL of the people you refer to should be held accountable, and any future system should at least try to do so.  When I mean accountability as a goal, I mean accountability for everyone.

-Polaris

They should be held accountable, but Thedas doesn't seem to do that very often. What I'm saying is that might well be the way things end up despite all our PCs best efforts. (Because I'm certainly going to try to hold everyone accountable to whatever extent can be done. The difference is that I'm well aware it might just be a drop in the bucket given the way Thedas is.)

[Hazegurl]

garrusfan1 wrote...
the elves attacked hawk was he supposed to sit down and let them kill him. ..

I'm talking about their reasons for doing what they are doing. The city elves were angry because they have been constantly abused and raped with no one caring about their plight. We have witnessed this more than once. In the origins story, where a noble got a free pass to rape them and murder them without punishment and in Kirkwall. A noble's son is murdering and possibly raping elf children because they are "beautiful". There are a team of city guards there to return this murderer to his father safely. Yet I see no out cry at how Aveline is condoning rape and murder of city elves like apparantly Meredith, who has been accused of condoning the acts of the Templars under her.

Anyway, the city elves lashed out because they have no freedom AND they were being abused. Seems similar to the mages rebellion due to lack of freedom and abuse. Yet city elves get slaughtered without a moments thought about it then we move on to Act 3 where there is nothing but Mage and Templar problems. Personally, I would have liked to have focused a bit more on the lot of the city elves and their freedom from abuse before dealing with a bunch of mages summoning demons and demanding to roam unchecked in Thedas.  But whatever, the elves were endangering Kirkwall and I put them down gladly and I'll do the same for the mages. IMO, that is treating both groups equally.  Now if I got a chance to choose whether or not to side with the Arishok and city elves and if I picked to side with them I would have probably felt better about siding with mages and helping them.  Although I would still like to have a chance to kill the Arishok as I wouldn't want to live under some Qun either.

[LobselVith8]

BlueMagitek wrote...

I was referring to your latest comment on playing a more militant mage than your Surana/Hawke for Inquisition.

I don't like playing the same characters. I figure a militant protagonist would be different than my Warden and apostate Champion.

BlueMagitek wrote...

Which is, unfortunately, not really something you can express in the game.  But Hawke is Andrastian, and as such should be horrified by what Anders is and what he does.

For Hawke? No, unfortunately; thinking that the Maker doesn't exist was limited to The Warden. However, my apostate protagonist condemned the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery, so I guess he saw the institution as the enemy regardless.

BlueMagitek wrote...

Apparently not, but people commit suicide in despair from real life, and while the Circle system does have its own problems, there is no evidence that there will be any sort of solution with rebellion, or that Mages will have any better lives.

The point is, I would rather try to help create a better system than endorse the one that doesn't work.

BlueMagitek wrote...

That is what you have told me, yes. 

I know enough about the Chantry and the templars at this point to realize I have no interest in having my protagonist help them.

[IanPolaris]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

I'll bear that in mind when the PC has to end the Mage-Templar war (which we all know there's a 75% chance of.) Though bear in mind that since you're arguing lack of evidence, the game could as easily prove you wrong as right.

I'll bear that in mind, but I do think that a lot of the evidence we have right now strongly suggests that I am not wrong.  Even if the circles do turn out to be safer (a point I am not conceding right now in any way), the question would be "by how much".  Bear in mind too, that if it's too much, then the entire Willing Suspension of Disbelief goes out the window (because if mages were too likely to become abominations, there wouldn't have been any civilizations to start with).

-Polaris

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

IanPolaris wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

I'll bear that in mind when the PC has to end the Mage-Templar war (which we all know there's a 75% chance of.)

If I play DA:I at all (an open question at this point), I certainly will.  Any solution that has to be tried as to at least respect the human rights of all parties.  That should be the foundational minimum.

-Polaris

That is something I'm bearing in mind. The problem is that it might well come down to the rights of the mundane majority vs. the rights of the magical minority. If it turns out you're right and we don't have to choose, good. If you aren't, then there's only one choice I can make, isn't there? (Well, assuming I'm not playing a villain or morally flawed character...)

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 02 juin 2013 - 07:33 .

[In Exile]

Hazegurl wrote...

Here is the entire Quote from Gaider:

Thanks! In light of the context, I think that Lob is right and that the Chantry can outright institute a policy barring mages from marrying/fraternizing within the ranks. 

[Tenshi]

Please stop portraying mages as victims and templars as villians

but i can see where are you coming from, all that AWESOME magic. Lets just hate all templars for doing their job.

Mages are locked up. for a good reason. as was proved in redcliffe, tevinter, kirkwall and more.

Modifié par xxx2emo4Uxxx, 02 juin 2013 - 07:35 .

[BlueMagitek]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The point is, I would rather try to help create a better system than endorse the one that doesn't work.

I know enough about the Chantry and the templars at this point to realize I have no interest in having my protagonist help them.

Except the alternatives offered have been unworkable.  And the Chantry *is* the working system.  Would you prefer the Qun or Tevinter as your model? 

So our bias is showing again.  Again, who would you rather help?  The Qun?  Tevinter?

[IanPolaris]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

That is something I'm bearing in mind. The problem is that it might well come down to the rights of the mundane majority vs. the rights of the magical minority. If it turns out you're right and we don't have to choose, good. If you aren't, then there's only one choice I can make, isn't there? (Well, assuming I'm not playing a villain or morally flawed character...)

Now we are speaking in hypotheticals.  I would still argue that there are steps short of social isolation and imprisonment.  Just to spout out purely hypothetical numbers, if you had two possible solutions, one of which is say 80% as effective as the other, but the 80% solution does not require problemetic treatment of any given group of people while the 100% solution is extremely draconian (perhaps even calling for the extermination of one or more groups), I'd say the 80% solution is the better solution.

-Polaris

[In Exile]

IanPolaris wrote...
In any event, whether it is good or not is a moot issue now. So are any discussions about how the circle system should evolve or change. The circle system is GONE and it's never coming back. The proper question is when the dust settles, what can satisfy (or at least dissatisfy the least all sides without violating the human rights of any one side).

I expect a lot of blood will be shed until people are willing to sit down and talk. Too much bad blood.

-Polaris

I can't see anything short of a new mage state working out, on the mage side. The abuse of the Chantry is too new for mages to just switch jailers by submitting to national jurisdiction. 

Whereas the templars, if they win, would clearly want to crack down on them even harder. But for the templars to win, they'd have to absolutely break the mages. 

IanPolaris wrote...
If you are saying that people in power are going to do bad things, sure, but ultimately that's what accountability is for.  The huge thing that has to change is that at some level, people with power have to be accountable for that power and the Chantry has proven it can not and will not do this.  On the other hand, most of the crowned heads, have proven to at least be reasonable about this (esp in places like the Free Marches, Nevarra, and Fereldan).

-Polaris

But no one in Thedas is accountable. The rule of law is tenous at the best of times and in the best societies. There's no evidence that any of the monarchs at at all reasonable about this. There's no accountability for the nobles in Ferelden unless it comes the point of a sword when someone oversteps their bounds. Howe was going to get sent to the Gallows for murdering the Couslands, but if he just executed some peasants in his own land, there'd be no consequences. 

Vaughn was free to rape and pillage the alienage every time he had a hard on. 

[Zanallen]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are virtually no examples outside of the Circle systems and the Qunari of societies where mages are not in control. Mages rule Tevinter. Mages make up the leaders of the Dalish clans. Mages are the leaders of the various barbarian tribes we have heard about. All across Thedas, mages are either in control or controlled. There are virtually no examples of peaceful cohabitation.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

IanPolaris wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

That is something I'm bearing in mind. The problem is that it might well come down to the rights of the mundane majority vs. the rights of the magical minority. If it turns out you're right and we don't have to choose, good. If you aren't, then there's only one choice I can make, isn't there? (Well, assuming I'm not playing a villain or morally flawed character...)

Now we are speaking in hypotheticals.  I would still argue that there are steps short of social isolation and imprisonment.  Just to spout out purely hypothetical numbers, if you had two possible solutions, one of which is say 80% as effective as the other, but the 80% solution does not require problemetic treatment of any given group of people while the 100% solution is extremely draconian (perhaps even calling for the extermination of one or more groups), I'd say the 80% solution is the better solution.

-Polaris

Well now one thing I'm never doing is exterminating the mages. Not only would that be evil, but I've already gone into detail on this thread about how incredibly stupid that would be.

Now, in that oddly specific hypothetical, I might take the 80% solution in order to cause the least pain for all concerned. What I'm saying, though, is that if it turns out in the epilogue that ten generations later the countries effected are ruled by magisters as bad as the ones in Tevinter (and I do not put a surprise bad ending for the feel-good solution past Bioware, they did just that with Harrowmont), guess what I'm not doing in subsequent playthroughs?

[Hazegurl]

IanPolaris wrote...

If you sacrifice freedome for security, then you deserve neither. Benjamin Franklin said that once, and he is right.

LOL!!! You think we are free now? We have all already sacrificed freedom in exchange for security.  And considering the fact that Ben Franklin doesn't live in a world where demons can be set loose that point is moot.

What's more, there is no evidence at all that the circle system actually does make anyone safer and a lot of suggestive evidence that implies that it actually doesn't.

You mean safe for mages.

If the circle system actually makes mages become abominations at a rate where you actually have more problems with abominations than you would without it, then you'd have to call the circle system a failure, and honestly in almost all the abomination cases we are familiar with, the blame can be laid at least in part on the circle system itself.

The world of Thedas is worse than the Circle. Living in the slums where nobles can rape you at will, the monarchy can use you at will, where you can get robbed and killed by bandits randomly. Yeah lets see how many abominations get created by a bunch of uneducated mages who have never had to be tested against the influence of a demon when their dying in the streets. Let's put all the mages in alienages and let's see how long that last. Does the circle need work? Certainly. Is it a failure? The only way to know for sure is if all mages are set free and Templar control is reduced. Then we can see if the rate of abominations and blood magic use decreases. If it continues to rise or even rage out of control then who can you blame but the mages themselves? The only example we truly have of mage freedom and a reduction of Templar control is Tevintar. 

If the circle system is better, then the Chantry should be able to PROVE it. Don't assert it. PROVE IT.

One word: Tevintar. Now if Gaider takes us deeper into other areas of Thedas where mages are free and Templar control is reduced and the mage population is on par with Tevintar then you would finally have something to show proof of. Right now I have my proof in Tevintar.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Zanallen wrote...

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are virtually no examples outside of the Circle systems and the Qunari of societies where mages are not in control. Mages rule Tevinter. Mages make up the leaders of the Dalish clans. Mages are the leaders of the various barbarian tribes we have heard about. All across Thedas, mages are either in control or controlled. There are virtually no examples of peaceful cohabitation.

The Keepers are a better support for Polaris's point than ours, at least on the whole. The Dalish respect and love their Keepers. Marethari is so beloved that her entire clan loses their minds when she dies.

[IanPolaris]

Zanallen wrote...

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are virtually no examples outside of the Circle systems and the Qunari of societies where mages are not in control. Mages rule Tevinter. Mages make up the leaders of the Dalish clans. Mages are the leaders of the various barbarian tribes we have heard about. All across Thedas, mages are either in control or controlled. There are virtually no examples of peaceful cohabitation.

Apparently (per F. Day), some Dalish Keepers aren't mages.  In addition, I don't see how anyone can look at the Dalish clans we see honestly and don't see peaceful cohabitiation between mundanes and mages.  To the Dalish it's simply not all that important.  Too many seem to think that just because a mage is more likely to be part of the ruling class, that mudanes are automatically downtrodden minorities.  'Tis not so.  That is true in Tevinter, but not anywhere else.

I also point out that Haven had mages and mundanes living side by side peacefully (and so did the Rivvain), and Haven was lead by a mundane (Father Kolgrim).

The point is it is possible, and near as I can tell no one in the modern era has even TRIED.

-Polaris

[In Exile]

Zanallen wrote...

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are virtually no examples outside of the Circle systems and the Qunari of societies where mages are not in control. Mages rule Tevinter. Mages make up the leaders of the Dalish clans. Mages are the leaders of the various barbarian tribes we have heard about. All across Thedas, mages are either in control or controlled. There are virtually no examples of peaceful cohabitation.

That's not a fair characterization at all. The Dalish regime is most certainly peaceful. The problem is that the mages are the effective ruling class of the people, not that they're opressive tyrants. The worry is that the Dalish effectively exclude non-mages from the leadership of their people with the manner in which they select Firsts and Keepers. Even if non-mages could be Keepers (and we've seen nothing to say that's the case), the divide in power is worrying.

The other problem is the offensively racist things the Dalish believe about mundane elves, but that's totally different from the system in principle. 

[Zanallen]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are virtually no examples outside of the Circle systems and the Qunari of societies where mages are not in control. Mages rule Tevinter. Mages make up the leaders of the Dalish clans. Mages are the leaders of the various barbarian tribes we have heard about. All across Thedas, mages are either in control or controlled. There are virtually no examples of peaceful cohabitation.

The Keepers are a better support for Polaris's point than ours, at least on the whole. The Dalish respect and love their Keepers. Marethari is so beloved that her entire clan loses their minds when she dies.

She is still in charge. The Dalish are ruled by mages. Younbg mages are groomed to become leader when the old leader dies. If one clan has too many mages, the excess are sent to clans who don't have a mage. Are they far less douchebagy than the Tevinters? Yes. Well, not Zatharian...But the fact remains that it is another example of rule or be ruled.

[Hazegurl]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

I'll bear that in mind when the PC has to end the Mage-Templar war (which we all know there's a 75% chance of.)

If I play DA:I at all (an open question at this point), I certainly will.  Any solution that has to be tried as to at least respect the human rights of all parties.  That should be the foundational minimum.

-Polaris

That is something I'm bearing in mind. The problem is that it might well come down to the rights of the mundane majority vs. the rights of the magical minority. If it turns out you're right and we don't have to choose, good. If you aren't, then there's only one choice I can make, isn't there? (Well, assuming I'm not playing a villain or morally flawed character...)

I do hope there is a solution that could appease both sides realistically, I'm not giving up on my Mage school idea.

But if not and I HAVE to choose, then off to the Circles or worse until better policies can be created to ensure everyone's safety and well being.

[IanPolaris]

Hazegurl wrote...

One word: Tevintar. Now if Gaider takes us deeper into other areas of Thedas where mages are free and Templar control is reduced and the mage population is on par with Tevintar then you would finally have something to show proof of. Right now I have my proof in Tevintar.

You have too much Tevinter on the brain.  Tevinter doesn't prove anything of the sort.  In fact if mages really were as dangerous as some suggest, Tevinter should have been a smoking ruin long since.  I also note that Tevinter culture is different than other cultures.  Just because Tevinter became an evil magocracy doesn't mean it always has to happen to all societies that permit mage participation.

-Polaris

[kinderschlager]

jeeze this convo keeps going *humbly bows out of said nerd fest*

[In Exile]

IanPolaris wrote...
Too many seem to think that just because a mage is more likely to be part of the ruling class, that mudanes are automatically downtrodden minorities.  'Tis not so.  That is true in Tevinter, but not anywhere else.

Unless you're about to give us a moral argument for an entrenched nobility, or why (IRL), the rich and wealthy should serve as our ruling class, it's a serious social problem that mages are an inherent ruling class. It's a separate argument from peace, but tiered societies are bad. 

Look at what happened with Witherfang - in the end, a great deal of innocent Dalish elves died because of Zathrian's autocratic and secretive nature, and the scope of power and harm that he could wield as a mage. 

To the extent that magic can exacerbate all of the dangerous flaws we have as people, we have a great deal to be worried about when there are socities with an inborn ruling class.

Modifié par In Exile, 02 juin 2013 - 08:00 .

[Zanallen]

IanPolaris wrote...

Apparently (per F. Day), some Dalish Keepers aren't mages.  In addition, I don't see how anyone can look at the Dalish clans we see honestly and don't see peaceful cohabitiation between mundanes and mages.  To the Dalish it's simply not all that important.  Too many seem to think that just because a mage is more likely to be part of the ruling class, that mudanes are automatically downtrodden minorities.  'Tis not so.  That is true in Tevinter, but not anywhere else.

I also point out that Haven had mages and mundanes living side by side peacefully (and so did the Rivvain), and Haven was lead by a mundane (Father Kolgrim).

The point is it is possible, and near as I can tell no one in the modern era has even TRIED.

-Polaris

Haven is a society of crazed cultists who murder and sacrifice outsiders to their dragon god. Do you really want to use them to prove your point? And the seers hold a fair amount of power within Rivain. They aren't exactly living side by side with their non-mage brethern,

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

IanPolaris wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

One word: Tevintar. Now if Gaider takes us deeper into other areas of Thedas where mages are free and Templar control is reduced and the mage population is on par with Tevintar then you would finally have something to show proof of. Right now I have my proof in Tevintar.

You have too much Tevinter on the brain.  Tevinter doesn't prove anything of the sort.  In fact if mages really were as dangerous as some suggest, Tevinter should have been a smoking ruin long since.  I also note that Tevinter culture is different than other cultures.  Just because Tevinter became an evil magocracy doesn't mean it always has to happen to all societies that permit mage participation.

-Polaris

What you're missing is that the Tevinters have largely the same system as the White Chantry, as per Gaider. So they aren't very strong evidence for your point that abominations aren't that dangerous, and are reasonably strong evidence for anyone scared of a mage takeover.

[IanPolaris]

Zanallen wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are virtually no examples outside of the Circle systems and the Qunari of societies where mages are not in control. Mages rule Tevinter. Mages make up the leaders of the Dalish clans. Mages are the leaders of the various barbarian tribes we have heard about. All across Thedas, mages are either in control or controlled. There are virtually no examples of peaceful cohabitation.

The Keepers are a better support for Polaris's point than ours, at least on the whole. The Dalish respect and love their Keepers. Marethari is so beloved that her entire clan loses their minds when she dies.

She is still in charge. The Dalish are ruled by mages. Younbg mages are groomed to become leader when the old leader dies. If one clan has too many mages, the excess are sent to clans who don't have a mage. Are they far less douchebagy than the Tevinters? Yes. Well, not Zatharian...But the fact remains that it is another example of rule or be ruled.

Apparently (and this is very recent info), not all Dalish keepers are mages (new to me too this is per Felicia Day).  I also note that the Dalish love their keepers and volunatarily live in it.  Furthermore there is nothing in the Dalish Tribes that suggest that mages are treated any better or worse than non-mages, or that mages and non-mages have any problems living alongside each other.

The Keeper is first among equals and the Keeper is (usually) a mage, but being a mage is the least part of being a Keeper.   In fact Dalish clans apparently have many mages in them that aren't keepers and never will be.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 02 juin 2013 - 08:01 .