1082 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

BlueMagitek wrote...

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? 

The alternatives haven't been put into practice; they have been discussed in threads. The Chantry controlled Circles lead to a continental rebellion. And I don't have to endorse the Qun or Tevinter to oppose having mages submit to the templars and the Chantry.

[IanPolaris]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

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.

Modern Tevinter yes.  Ancient Tevinter no.  What Ancient Tevinter called "circles" were really like our Masonic Lodges.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Zanallen wrote...

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,

I am perfectly happy to.  I am not saying that the Haven people aren't evil, but just because they are evil cultists does not in any way diminish or disprove my point.  In that society, mages and mundanes DO live alongside each other peacefully, and a mundane is in charge.

Just because we may find the society reprehensible in other ways does not diminish that.  Futhermore there is no evidence that the aspects of what make the Havenites reprehensible have anything to do with how mages and magic is treated.

-Polaris

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

IanPolaris wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

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.

Modern Tevinter yes.  Ancient Tevinter no.  What Ancient Tevinter called "circles" were really like our Masonic Lodges.

-Polaris

Do we have that written out or heavily implied in the Codex? That mages freely mingled? And that the populace wasn't constantly afraid of being massacred in groups of 70-100 at a time by abominations before the other mages put it down? If you can demonstrate all of that, it would be a pretty good argument for your point.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 02 juin 2013 - 08:06 .

[IanPolaris]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The alternatives haven't been put into practice; they have been discussed in threads. The Chantry controlled Circles lead to a continental rebellion. And I don't have to endorse the Qun or Tevinter to oppose having mages submit to the templars and the Chantry.

Of course you do Lob.  Everyone* (the Templar supporters I mean) know that the only possible way to control magic is by using the Tevinter system, Circle system, or the Qun system.  There is absolutely no other possibilities, and we are foolish to even discuss them.

(above post written in full sarcasm mode)

-Polaris

[Zanallen]

Filament wrote...

Maybe the dalish believe one who is studied enough to wield the cosmic power at their disposal and not succumb to spiritual temptation would be the one who is best able to lead their clan in a world full of magic and spirits.

Possible. Though we only have two examples of Keepers from the games. One is great and the other is a lunatic. Obviously, being a trained mage doesn't really make you any better at being a leader. I would think that the added stress of ruling might make you even more succeptible to corruption.

[In Exile]

Filament wrote...

Maybe the dalish believe one who is studied enough to wield the cosmic power at their disposal and not succumb to spiritual temptation would be the one who is best able to lead their clan in a world full of magic and spirits.

Whether or not it's a good idea for mages to be leaders, it doesn't change the inherent problems with creating a ruling class out of a group of people. The qunari think that people should be assigned a role at birth, but that's not such a hot system either.

[BlueMagitek]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The alternatives haven't been put into practice; they have been discussed in threads. The Chantry controlled Circles lead to a continental rebellion. And I don't have to endorse the Qun or Tevinter to oppose having mages submit to the templars and the Chantry.

Actually if the Chantry's laws had been followed, there wouldn't have been a continental rebellion.  Had the Wardens killed Anders or the Chantry simply suffered not an abomination to live, this problem would not have occurred. 

Well, the Chantry is in between the Qun and Tevinter, it is the compromise between killing or enslaving all mages and keeping the Mages as the ruling class. 

And no, the Chantry is not enslavement, at worst it is imprisonment.

[LobselVith8]

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

True. I don't see why some people think Tevinter is the only outcome if mages aren't brutally subjugated by the Chantry. We know about several societies that didn't emulate Tevinter: the kingdom of the Dales and their nomadic descendants, the Avvar tribes, the Chasind Wilders, and the seers in the kingdom of Rivain who live alongside the non-mages. Even the morally bankrupt society of Haven had mages living alongside non-mages. History disproves the idea that free mages automatically emulate Tevinter.

[IanPolaris]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Do we have that written out or heavily implied in the Codex? That mages freely mingled? And that the populace wasn't constantly afraid of being massacred in groups of 70-100 at a time by abominations before the other mages put it down? If you can demonstrate all of that, it would be a pretty good argument for your point.

You know perfectly well that this is an unreasonable demand.

We do know from the History of the Circle, Codex Entry that the Andrastian Circle system was the first time in the history of Thedas ANYWEHRE that mages were seperated from non-mages in society.  We also know that the Ancient Tevinters tracked the bloodline for magic of almost every family in the Imperium.  That being so, it sure strongly suggests that in Ancient Tevinter mages and non-mages did freely intermingle (although in ancient Tevinter being a mage tended to make you part of the upper class...a point I don't dispute for Tevinter).

As for the fear of abominations, apparently they weren't that afraid.  Otherwise Minrathus during the Height of the Ancient Imperium couldn't have been a true Metropolis (ie have a population of nearly a million people or more).   IF abominations were really that big a danger, there is no way a city of that size should have been able to form at all and that can be shown by fairly simple statistics.

-Polaris

[The Hierophant]

BlueMagitek wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The alternatives haven't been put into practice; they have been discussed in threads. The Chantry controlled Circles lead to a continental rebellion. And I don't have to endorse the Qun or Tevinter to oppose having mages submit to the templars and the Chantry.

Actually if the Chantry's laws had been followed, there wouldn't have been a continental rebellion.  Had the Wardens killed Anders or the Chantry simply suffered not an abomination to live, this problem would not have occurred. 

Well, the Chantry is in between the Qun and Tevinter, it is the compromise between killing or enslaving all mages and keeping the Mages as the ruling class. 

And no, the Chantry is not enslavement, at worst it is imprisonment.

It's like a mass quarantine. (think Mary Mallon)

[IanPolaris]

Zanallen wrote...

Filament wrote...

Maybe the dalish believe one who is studied enough to wield the cosmic power at their disposal and not succumb to spiritual temptation would be the one who is best able to lead their clan in a world full of magic and spirits.

Possible. Though we only have two examples of Keepers from the games. One is great and the other is a lunatic. Obviously, being a trained mage doesn't really make you any better at being a leader. I would think that the added stress of ruling might make you even more succeptible to corruption.

There is no evidence.  Zathrian was a bloodmage but had been a bloodmage for at least three centuries.  Even at the very end, no matter what you think about him otherwise, he never showed any signs of becoming an abomination...and that's even with openly practicing bloodmage in areas where the Viel was Thin (Brecilian Forest).

Merethari didn't become an abomination because she couldn't handle the reponsibilities of a leader.  She became an abomination because she was an idiot who trusted the whispers of a Pride Demon over her own adopted daughter.

-Polaris

[In Exile]

BlueMagitek wrote...
Actually if the Chantry's laws had been followed, there wouldn't have been a continental rebellion.  Had the Wardens killed Anders or the Chantry simply suffered not an abomination to live, this problem would not have occurred.  

Anders or not, that rebellion was unvoidable. We already saw it in the works in DA:O - Uldred, for all his faults, was challenging an opressive regime. The mages, in Awakening, were already moving for greater freedoms, and Divine Justinia would have started her anti-tranquil research.

Well, the Chantry is in between the Qun and Tevinter, it is the compromise between killing or enslaving all mages and keeping the Mages as the ruling class.  

I'm sure there's a middle ground between the two extremes. At the very least, using the anti-magic runes etc. that were available at the base of the Circle tower in every settlement would be a start.

And no, the Chantry is not enslavement, at worst it is imprisonment.

It's a pretty thin line, given the serious restrictions on mage freedom and the enchantment business the Chantry has going with mentally shattered mages via tranquility.

[IanPolaris]

The Hierophant wrote...

It's like a mass quarantine. (think Mary Mallon)

The disease model doesn't work.  Been through that years ago. For starts you don't become mage by being in contact with another mage.

-Polaris

[Zanallen]

LobselVith8 wrote...

True. I don't see why some people think Tevinter is the only outcome if mages aren't brutally subjugated by the Chantry. We know about several societies that didn't emulate Tevinter: the kingdom of the Dales and their nomadic descendants, the Avvar tribes, the Chasind Wilders, and the seers in the kingdom of Rivain who live alongside the non-mages. Even the morally bankrupt society of Haven had mages living alongside non-mages. History disproves the idea that free mages automatically emulate Tevinter.

What history does prove is that the mages typically gain power and keep it unless forceably removed from power. Whether they all end up abusing that power is up for debate. But history has shown that the mages invariably become the ruling class.

Haven is one counter example, though Kolgrim rules both by being a direct descendant of the original cultists and by being arguably the most powerful member of the cult.

[BlueMagitek]

In Exile wrote...

Anders or not, that rebellion was unvoidable. We already saw it in the works in DA:O - Uldred, for all his faults, was challenging an opressive regime. The mages, in Awakening, were already moving for greater freedoms, and Divine Justinia would have started her anti-tranquil research.

I'm sure there's a middle ground between the two extremes. At the very least, using the anti-magic runes etc. that were available at the base of the Circle tower in every settlement would be a start.

It's a pretty thin line, given the serious restrictions on mage freedom and the enchantment business the Chantry has going with mentally shattered mages via tranquility.

And, as Wynne points out in DA:O, only made it worse for everyone involved.  And then there's a Divine in the Chantry who actually seems to care about expanding Circle rights, and this is seen as "not enough" by so many on here.  Though, I'm not sure why anti-Tranquil research is the big deal when the research should be on alternative ways of removing magic.

Currently, this *is* the middle ground.

While the Tranquil do fund the Circles, where are they forced to work for or bend knee, as it is, to Chantry demands?  When called to war, is it not the Circle's decision?

[Nole]

I just finished reading Asunder and I can't believe that anyone could actually believe that Bioware is trying to put the templars as heroes when it's completely the other way around: They look like the main villains of Thedas LOL.

[The Hierophant]

IanPolaris wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

It's like a mass quarantine. (think Mary Mallon)

The disease model doesn't work.  Been through that years ago. For starts you don't become mage by being in contact with another mage.

-Polaris

Switch the disease with a mage's potential to be possessed. 

[Zanallen]

IanPolaris wrote...

There is no evidence.  Zathrian was a bloodmage but had been a bloodmage for at least three centuries.  Even at the very end, no matter what you think about him otherwise, he never showed any signs of becoming an abomination...and that's even with openly practicing bloodmage in areas where the Viel was Thin (Brecilian Forest).

Merethari didn't become an abomination because she couldn't handle the reponsibilities of a leader.  She became an abomination because she was an idiot who trusted the whispers of a Pride Demon over her own adopted daughter.

-Polaris

I didn't say abomination. I said corrupt. Zathrian's actions were pretty damn corrupt.

[Hazegurl]

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

How do you know that about the Chantry? Because some butthole Templars exist? You mean to tell me Fereldan is a good example of people with power being held accountable for their bad actions? Maybe we just have a different perception on Thedas. I see nobles who are not held accountable for their actions unless made to so by the PC.  I see city guards protecting child murderers, where people are going hungry in the streets of a Viscount controlled city, and city guards covering up rapes and abuses of the elves in the alienages they are supposed to protect.  What I see on these forums is posters showing bias against the Chantry and Templars and holding them up to a standard no one else in Thedas is held up to. 

A few bad Templars means Meredith and the entire Templar order is corrupt along with the Chantry.
A few bad nobles is just a few bad nobles.
A few bad city guards still means Aveline is doing her job and just working with what she has.

Oh and while I'm saying hi to Ser Alrik you can give a shout out to Danarius. 

Modifié par Hazegurl, 02 juin 2013 - 08:21 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

IanPolaris wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Do we have that written out or heavily implied in the Codex? That mages freely mingled? And that the populace wasn't constantly afraid of being massacred in groups of 70-100 at a time by abominations before the other mages put it down? If you can demonstrate all of that, it would be a pretty good argument for your point.

You know perfectly well that this is an unreasonable demand.

Says the pot. How does it feel?

The obvious ad hominem aside, my point was that in the absence of what I wanted you to show, all you can show is that its been done. You can't show thats a remotely good idea.

We do know from the History of the Circle, Codex Entry that the Andrastian Circle system was the first time in the history of Thedas ANYWEHRE that mages were seperated from non-mages in society.  We also know that the Ancient Tevinters tracked the bloodline for magic of almost every family in the Imperium.  That being so, it sure strongly suggests that in Ancient Tevinter mages and non-mages did freely intermingle (although in ancient Tevinter being a mage tended to make you part of the upper class...a point I don't dispute for Tevinter).

And which is half the point the Circle system's defenders raise.

As for the fear of abominations, apparently they weren't that afraid.  Otherwise Minrathus during the Height of the Ancient Imperium couldn't have been a true Metropolis (ie have a population of nearly a million people or more).   IF abominations were really that big a danger, there is no way a city of that size should have been able to form at all and that can be shown by fairly simple statistics.

-Polaris

The argument that if abominations were overly dangerous Minrathous wouldn't have formed is a reasonably well thought out argument, but the problem is that the existence of Kirkwall tends to dispove it. They go on rampages in Kirkwall with enough frequency to be worthy of note by scholars, with Meredith's sister apparently killing 70 people, and yet there's still a city there.

[In Exile]

BlueMagitek wrote...
And, as Wynne points out in DA:O, only made it worse for everyone involved.  

Whether or not it made it worse, the mages still tried, and would have tried further. 

And then there's a Divine in the Chantry who actually seems to care about expanding Circle rights, and this is seen as "not enough" by so many on here.  Though, I'm not sure why anti-Tranquil research is the big deal when the research should be on alternative ways of removing magic.

I'm not saying that what Justinia did was bad per se, just that all of these actions which sparked the pouderkeg in Asunder didn't require Anders. 

Currently, this *is* the middle ground.

I just don't see any way where the mages return to the authority of the Chantry, and the templars. 

While the Tranquil do fund the Circles, where are they forced to work for or bend knee, as it is, to Chantry demands?  When called to war, is it not the Circle's decision?

It's still close to forced labour. 

Modifié par In Exile, 02 juin 2013 - 08:25 .

[IanPolaris]

BlueMagitek wrote...

And, as Wynne points out in DA:O, only made it worse for everyone involved.  And then there's a Divine in the Chantry who actually seems to care about expanding Circle rights, and this is seen as "not enough" by so many on here.  Though, I'm not sure why anti-Tranquil research is the big deal when the research should be on alternative ways of removing magic.

This was before the Templars made if very clear (see Meredith and Lambert) that they'd only follow the Chantry laws they liked and would ignore the ones they didn't.  This sort of thing is almost inevitable when you give a group like the Templars almost total oversight power with no (apparently) accountability.

Currently, this *is* the middle ground.

No it's not.  Right now it is code for "Let the Templars do whatever they want".  It is also a moot point.  The mages will never accept a return of the circle system, and teh Templars will never accept anything less than total control (to the point of slavery) over all mages amnd magic.
.

While the Tranquil do fund the Circles, where are they forced to work for or bend knee, as it is, to Chantry demands?  When called to war, is it not the Circle's decision?

Some Tranquil did volunteer, but once a mage is tranquil they loose all self-will and become pupplets.  It's like killing a person, but the body is still useful and still follows orders.  As for the decision, the Circls has always had the technical legal power to dispense with Chantry oversight.

-Polaris

[Hazegurl]

LobselVith8 wrote...

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

True. I don't see why some people think Tevinter is the only outcome if mages aren't brutally subjugated by the Chantry. We know about several societies that didn't emulate Tevinter: the kingdom of the Dales and their nomadic descendants, the Avvar tribes, the Chasind Wilders, and the seers in the kingdom of Rivain who live alongside the non-mages. Even the morally bankrupt society of Haven had mages living alongside non-mages. History disproves the idea that free mages automatically emulate Tevinter.

I'll address you both.  I never said Tevinter is the only outcome. I used a place like Tevinter where we know Templar rule was weakened as an example of what could happen, it is simply a possible outcome. You can't tell someone to prove something then ho hum an example of it when you feel like it. If any scientist was conducting research on a topic they better consider all variables or the research means nothing. You can't just dismiss undesirable outcomes when it suits you to do so.