1799 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Also, you missed a good use: Alain waking up your sibling. Cleansing the Eluvian of darkspawn taint was also objectively good.

That's a very silly statmenet, given that we have no idea what the Eluvian actually does.

Whatever it does, it's better without tainting the land around it.

[The Red Onion]

@Lotion Soronnar

Not to disagree with you as far as certainty goes. You are right that it's not necessarily good "objectively," but there can be some (pure) conjectures that are quite salient. Consider the following:

[1] Elven magics seem to posses some capacity for travel; a mystery that has eluded the Tevinters at least for some time, as well as many other canon practitioners of magic even now. In some playthroughs the half-elven mage Feynriel can "portal" to Tevinter to master his dreamer abilities, although it is unclear whether his studies in Tevinter directly enhance his porting skills. Nevertheless, codices in both DA1 and DA2 hint that the canon discourse on magic does not know of a means to travel using it.

[2] The Warden-Commander's return to Cadash Thiag in Witch Hunt details Elvhan history that, if I recall correctly, extend almost back to the days of Arlathan. While it is generally mentioned in codices and DA2 loading screens that Tevinters sacked Arlathan during its heydays, the chapter in Cadash specifically connects the sacking to the Eluvian (and the Elves hiding it). Recall also that the Tevinter statue in the Mage Tower basement recoiled at the mention of the Eluvian. What horrors it held, we can but guess.

[3] The Eluvian, being a mirror, raises a question when it's combined with the idea of "travel." What kind of travel is so special that it requires the aid of optics? What can light and sight accomplish, where brute walking has failed? What place is it that can never be walked to, yet "always" be seen at a fixed distance no matter where you are?

Maybe it's not objectively good. I in fact suspect the contrary.

[Herr Uhl]

MisterJB wrote...

The event is only instigated if the Warden-Commander didn't already kill the instigators through the Dark Wolf's info.
Oh and the history of Thedas is filled to the brim with revolts from the slave revolts in Kirkwall to Andraste's own rebellion. Plus, there are more revolts the Warden can witness or caused beyond humans attacking the Alienage such as elves revolting if Soris marries a human or a mob of the people of Amaranthine attacking the Vigil if the city is destroyed by the Commander,

You also have the Stolen Throne and Warden's Keep. Granted, they involve nobility.

Mage revolts tend to be led by senior enchanters though, so that is something I guess.

[MisterJB]

Plaintiff wrote...
Mages earn their way of life through the use of their abilities. That is exactly equality.

By that logic, mages and non-mages are equal in Tevinter which is, of course, absurd.
"Equality" that lends to people being unequal is no true equality. I'm certain the mages would absolutely love the freedom to use their superior abilities to place themselves above all non-mages. Hey, it's not their fault some are born with it and some are not. Deal with it, peasant.
But it should come as no suprise that those who actually care about the non-mage population of Thedas have a problem with this.

[The Red Onion]

In reply to the debates that question whether mages are entitled to critique the establishment in light of other, seemingly more grave oppressions against other groups:

The only way for this to erode the mages's own right to critique, is if you assume a paradigm where your suffering is measured purely relative to that of others, and not by how far you are absolutely from a healthy life. But it seems absurd, at least to me, to suggest that oppressions against different groups can cancel each other out this way. Because if this cancellation mechanic holds, I can hypothetically do the following:

[1] I issue an edict that oppresses elves.
[2] I issue an edict that oppresses mages more than elves. This removes the elven claims to justice.
[3] I issue an edict that oppresses serfs more than mages. This removes the mage claims to justice.
[4] I issue an edict that oppresses slaves more than serfs. This removes the serf claims to justice.
[5] I issue an edict that oppresses nugs more than slaves. This removes the slave claims to justice.
[6] Nugs are dumb and don't complain. I win.

I should dare guess there that there is something amiss here. If you don't think the problem is what I think it is, tell me of it cordially and none will be more happy than I.

Modifié par alexbing88, 15 juin 2013 - 02:33 .

[Herr Uhl]

alexbing88 wrote...

In reply to the debates that question whether mages are entitled to critique the establishment in light of other, seemingly more grave oppressions against other groups:

The only way for this to erode the mages's own right to critique, is if you assume a paradigm where your suffering is measured purely relative to that of others, and not by how far you are absolutely from a healthy life. But it seems absurd, at least to me, to suggest that oppressions against different groups can cancel each other out this way. Because if this cancellation mechanic holds, I can hypothetically do the following:

[1] I issue an edict that oppresses elves.
[2] I issue an edict that oppresses mages more than elves. This removes the elven claims to justice.
[3] I issue an edict that oppresses serfs more than mages. This removes the mage claims to justice.
[4] I issue an edict that oppresses slaves more than serfs. This removes the serf claims to justice.
[5] I issue an edict that oppresses nugs more than slaves. This removes the slave claims to justice.
[6] Nugs are dumb and don't complain. I win.

I should there that there is something amiss here. If you don't think the problem is what I think it is, tell me of it cordially and none will be more happy than I.

It doesn't erode suffering. But the ones further down the ladder might not care about your suffering.

[Lokiwithrope]

I can see why Templars fear Mages. Not only is there a risk of demons slipping into the world, but Mages can defy the laws of reality. Normal people, even today, would fear a power like that, even if it's in the right hands. If as much as one person snaps, it would be... catastrophic.

[Xilizhra]

MisterJB wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
Mages earn their way of life through the use of their abilities. That is exactly equality.

By that logic, mages and non-mages are equal in Tevinter which is, of course, absurd.
"Equality" that lends to people being unequal is no true equality. I'm certain the mages would absolutely love the freedom to use their superior abilities to place themselves above all non-mages. Hey, it's not their fault some are born with it and some are not. Deal with it, peasant.
But it should come as no suprise that those who actually care about the non-mage population of Thedas have a problem with this.

Question: is magocracy an inherently bad thing, even? None of Thedas' governments are democratic, and bloodline seems to be important for all of them. And even in democracies, for the vast majority of their history, only a few people could vote, or at least not all of them. We in my only got to full voting equality without various extralegal means screwing other people over in 1954... possibly later, I forget exactly. Even then, the only people who can realistically be elected are rich people who play to other rich people for financial backing, and all of those people got rich either through natural ability or inheritance... exactly the same qualities that the mages get. So while I hardly think magocracy is inevitable if the templars are gone, I have a hard time seeing it as an inevitable step down.

[The Red Onion]

Herr Uhl wrote...

alexbing88 wrote...

In reply to the debates that question whether mages are entitled to critique the establishment in light of other, seemingly more grave oppressions against other groups:

The only way for this to erode the mages's own right to critique, is if you assume a paradigm where your suffering is measured purely relative to that of others, and not by how far you are absolutely from a healthy life. But it seems absurd, at least to me, to suggest that oppressions against different groups can cancel each other out this way. Because if this cancellation mechanic holds, I can hypothetically do the following:

[1] I issue an edict that oppresses elves.
[2] I issue an edict that oppresses mages more than elves. This removes the elven claims to justice.
[3] I issue an edict that oppresses serfs more than mages. This removes the mage claims to justice.
[4] I issue an edict that oppresses slaves more than serfs. This removes the serf claims to justice.
[5] I issue an edict that oppresses nugs more than slaves. This removes the slave claims to justice.
[6] Nugs are dumb and don't complain. I win.

I should there that there is something amiss here. If you don't think the problem is what I think it is, tell me of it cordially and none will be more happy than I.

It doesn't erode suffering. But the ones further down the ladder might not care about your suffering.

Hmm, agreed. If your claim is actually regarding pragmatic sympathy and not correctness in principle, then of course I acknowledge and concede wholeheartedly.

On a side note, in this case I personally believe that freedom ought to begin with slaves. A utopian model, which never works in reality, is supposed to be one where it all begins with the slaves. They somehow work to free the serfs, which then somehow work to free the mages, which then somehow frees the elves. Revolution begins at rock bottom, so some sayings go. Sadly it doesn't work, because those groups hate each other, a fact which you've at least hinted at.

That's not to say however that they can't begin by rebuilding burned bridges along that ladder. One can hope

Modifié par alexbing88, 15 juin 2013 - 02:44 .

[Herr Uhl]

alexbing88 wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

It doesn't erode suffering. But the ones further down the ladder might not care about your suffering.

Hmm, agreed. If your claim is actually regarding pragmatic sympathy and not correctness in principle, then of course I acknowledge and concede wholeheartedly.

Most people bringing up the suffering are doing it to highlight why mages would have trouble gaining popular support.

Unless they have some kind of incentive to the peasants, I don't see why they'd join in on the side of mages.

[MisterJB]

alexbing88 wrote...

In reply to the debates that question whether mages are entitled to critique the establishment in light of other, seemingly more grave oppressions against other groups:

The only way for this to erode the mages's own right to critique, is if you assume a paradigm where your suffering is measured purely relative to that of others, and not by how far you are absolutely from a healthy life. But it seems absurd, at least to me, to suggest that oppressions against different groups can cancel each other out this way. Because if this cancellation mechanic holds, I can hypothetically do the following:

[1] I issue an edict that oppresses elves.
[2] I issue an edict that oppresses mages more than elves. This removes the elven claims to justice.
[3] I issue an edict that oppresses serfs more than mages. This removes the mage claims to justice.
[4] I issue an edict that oppresses slaves more than serfs. This removes the serf claims to justice.
[5] I issue an edict that oppresses nugs more than slaves. This removes the slave claims to justice.
[6] Nugs are dumb and don't complain. I win.

I should dare guess there that there is something amiss here. If you don't think the problem is what I think it is, tell me of it cordially and none will be more happy than I.

The problem here is, of course, that most suggested improvements to the lives of mages pose a risk to the common peasantry of Thedas. Meaning that if we are to discuss the merits of a mage rebellion and which side to support, we must take into account how this rebellion will negativelly affect the lives of the non-mage population which are already full of hardship to begin with.
Meaning this: "Is it worth to start a war that will severelly afect the quality of live of most people in Thedas to improve the quality of life of a particular group that already, in many ways, lives better than most people in Thedas?"

I don't believe so.

Modifié par MisterJB, 15 juin 2013 - 02:41 .

[Xilizhra]

The problem here is, of course, that most suggested improvements to the lives of mages pose a risk to the common peasantry of Thedas. Meaning that if we are to discuss the merits of a mage rebellion and which side to support, we must take into account how this rebellion will negativelly affect the lives of the non-mage population which are already full of hardship to begin with.
Meaning this: "Is it worth to start a war that will severelly afect the quality of live of most people in Thedas to improve the quality of life of a particular group that already, in many ways, lives better than most people in Thedas?"

I don't believe so.

Yeah, Lambert really should have thought twice before starting that war.

[IanPolaris]

Xilizhra wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
Mages earn their way of life through the use of their abilities. That is exactly equality.

By that logic, mages and non-mages are equal in Tevinter which is, of course, absurd.
"Equality" that lends to people being unequal is no true equality. I'm certain the mages would absolutely love the freedom to use their superior abilities to place themselves above all non-mages. Hey, it's not their fault some are born with it and some are not. Deal with it, peasant.
But it should come as no suprise that those who actually care about the non-mage population of Thedas have a problem with this.

Question: is magocracy an inherently bad thing, even? None of Thedas' governments are democratic, and bloodline seems to be important for all of them. And even in democracies, for the vast majority of their history, only a few people could vote, or at least not all of them. We in my only got to full voting equality without various extralegal means screwing other people over in 1954... possibly later, I forget exactly. Even then, the only people who can realistically be elected are rich people who play to other rich people for financial backing, and all of those people got rich either through natural ability or inheritance... exactly the same qualities that the mages get. So while I hardly think magocracy is inevitable if the templars are gone, I have a hard time seeing it as an inevitable step down.

Here's a dirty little secret:  If a Templar supporter can prove a society is a magocracy, he or she then will automatically equate it to Tevinter in all it's 'glory'.  "Magocracy" is code for: Free Mages will automatically turn the world into Tevinter at it's most hateful.

It's a bogus argument but there it is.

-Polaris

[Ieldra]

alexbing88 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@alexbing:
I do not agree that there is no recognizable theme to the mages you can positively identify with. Mages embody the theme of empowering the individual, templars the theme of subsumption under the will of a community established by tradition. It is very apparent in the extremes of both sides - Tevinter, where the powerful enjoy unrestricted freedom by their own innate power which cannot be separated from them (i.e. it does not lie in a role, and thus is not dependent on the agreement of your social environment like other kinds of power), and qunari society, where everyone's bound to fixed roles. Both extremes are painted as bad of course, which makes it possible for anyone to define themselves apart from the extreme positions but still take a position on the line between the extremes.

What you call "no identification" is exactly the point here, since individuals become empowered if they can define themselves apart from, and in opposition to, established traditions and their restrictions. There can be no common theme apart from the autonomy itself on the mages' side because that there is no such thing is exactly the point. To expect a cohesive philosophy from the mages' side is like expecting one from real-world atheists.

I appreciate the critique, and I'll attempt a defense. (and hope I haven't misinterpreted your points)

I agree that the individualism / collectivism dichotomy is a somewhat well-grilled one in discourses of social conflict. But the Collectivist aspect of the Templars is so overwhelmed by the Religious aspect that the former carries little literary effectiveness. (Or is that just my subjective perception? I can defer to your judgement on this one.)

Well....yes and no. Religion and collectivism are entwined. Religion, from a functionalist perspective, can be defined as a system of ideas and rituals which gives cohesion to a community. I'd go so far as to say that this is the primary social role of religion. Individualism will, almost by definition, clash with religion at some point. 

This dichotomy also extends to ethics. There is a moral domain some call "ethics of autonomy" which concerns itself with the moral obligations people have to each other as individuals. This is the dominant domain in the western hemisphere, and its ruling principle is where there is no harm or injustice to an individual, there is no evil, and where there is, there is evil which must be addressed. A second domain encompasses "ethics of community" which is concerned with moral obligations an individual has to a group they belong to, such as a religion or a nation. The ruling principle here is that where damage is done to the community, even if it's intangible like a loss of reputation or cohesion, then there's evil. It's easy to see how the latter applies to religion in its role of giving cohesion to a community (On a sideline, imagine my standard rant against "ethics of divinity" and the role of the "corruption" theme here, which is beside the point but I can't avoid mentioning).

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that while real-life individualism is reasonably cohesive, the in-game mage position is actually a mish-mash of real-life schools that a traditional theist would lump together, but in truth are altogether diffuse.

That may be because historically, politically influential individualist philosophies are relatively new, and the creators of Thedas didn't want to introduce elements which could be seen as anachronistic. Didn't you notice how Anders notion of justice, his affirmation of a natural right of individuals to be free, seems a little anachronistic? 

If i may also ask: does it weaken the mage position, as a story element, that it isn't based on a cohesive system of thought? It was the point I wanted to make that it does not weaken it as a story element. It may weaken the mages' position within the story, but that's yet another typical element movements based on the idea of individual autonomy have to deal with. I find it rather realistic that "the mage position" cannot be presented as a system, and I think this makes the story stronger, not weaker.

The mages are actually a stiching of disparate schools that are only connected by the one thread: that they run afoul of religion (not tradition or collectivism, but religion per se). For example, despite how the actions of Anders and the actions of Tevinter might evoke a similar disgust in some characters and fans, we cannot simply reduce Tevinter to an "extreme Anders" or vice versa. And that one might respect Anders a tad more than the Tevinters cannot simply be reduced to "a matter of degree" but rather a matter of basics.

You think so? I don't have the means to prove it, but if you could make a poll "which is less evil: Tevinter or the qunari" and a second one "Do you side with the mages or the templars", I'm reasonably sure that there would be a statistically significant correlation between Tevinter/mages and qunari/templars.

There's also this: religion encompasses a number of themes: sacredness,
rightness, tradition, community, to name a few. There is no other social
system which does that, so of course unless you want to write about a
clash between two religions, there will by definition be a disparity in
the cohesiveness of the underlying philosophies. I would find it rather 
boring if the mage/templar conflict could be written as a conflict
between religions.  

That's why I think the narrative covertly has a "Chantry gaze" - its critique of the Chantry notwithstanding. And it's also why I feel that the mages' position is precisely one of opposition WITHOUT autonomy, because whatever cohesive stance they muster is purely contingent on a Chantry.

I think this is wrong. The various mage positions exist independently from the existence of a Chantry, it's just that they cannot be subsumed under one position. The mage positions lack not autonomy, but a unifying identity.  Yet again, I think this is very appropriate.

[MisterJB]

Xilizhra wrote...
Question: is magocracy an inherently bad thing, even? None of Thedas' governments are democratic, and bloodline seems to be important for all of them. And even in democracies, for the vast majority of their history, only a few people could vote, or at least not all of them. We in my only got to full voting equality without various extralegal means screwing other people over in 1954... possibly later, I forget exactly. Even then, the only people who can realistically be elected are rich people who play to other rich people for financial backing, and all of those people got rich either through natural ability or inheritance... exactly the same qualities that the mages get. So while I hardly think magocracy is inevitable if the templars are gone, I have a hard time seeing it as an inevitable step down.

This assumes that I support other government in Thedas or even that I am proponent of democracy.
But there are different degrees in which a small group of people can opress the larger group. Equality is, of course, a pipe-dream not just in Thedas but in our world as well.
But, our world does not create situations where biology is the ultimate determinant factor regarding how much one can rise in life. Certainly, natural predisposition towards certain traits such as intelligence plays a large role in life and there are, of course, many societal constraints that can impair one's life and that are determined by one's birth.
However, all technology on Earth can be used by anyone; all knowledge can be learned regardless of where you were born; money does not care about your biology. Society may make it easier for some to earn money/knowledge/technology than it is for others but money/knowledge/technology itself can just as easily be held by anyone.

Magic, on the other hand, is exclusive to a privileged few. And unlike with technology where anyone can operate any kind of machinery, magic can't be wielded by anyone who was not born with the talent for it.
Which ultimately means that if, for example, magic were to become so deeply ingrained in the infrastructure of Thedas that the very thought of living without magic would be akin to living without electricity in a first-world country, mages would become an higher strate of society that is exclusively determined by birth and to which non-mages can never hope to raise to.

Whether or not I support the autocracy of Orlais (I don't) is irrelevant regarding my feelings against a magocracy. And, of course, given the usefulness of magic, it is inevitable that, in a world where mages are allowed to use their powers in any form they wish so long as it doesn't harm other citizens, mages take over the infrastructure of society. Even if they don't become the rulers, they become the wealthy which means they are the de-facto rulers, anyway.

[MisterJB]

Xilizhra wrote...
Yeah, Lambert really should have thought twice before starting that war.

And Adrian and Fiona had nothing to do with it, I'm sure.

[MisterJB]

IanPolaris wrote...
Here's a dirty little secret:  If a Templar supporter can prove a society is a magocracy, he or she then will automatically equate it to Tevinter in all it's 'glory'.  "Magocracy" is code for: Free Mages will automatically turn the world into Tevinter at it's most hateful.

It's a bogus argument but there it is.

-Polaris

That's not true, IanPolaris. See my answer to Xilizhra, you'll notice I made not a single mention of the manner in which mages use their power. That is because I find it irrelevant.
What I oppose is the very existence of a magocracy which doesn't mean I necessarely believe that the mage-dominated society that I envision would be any more brutal than modern America.

[DKJaigen]

MisterJB wrote...

alexbing88 wrote...

In reply to the debates that question whether mages are entitled to critique the establishment in light of other, seemingly more grave oppressions against other groups:

The only way for this to erode the mages's own right to critique, is if you assume a paradigm where your suffering is measured purely relative to that of others, and not by how far you are absolutely from a healthy life. But it seems absurd, at least to me, to suggest that oppressions against different groups can cancel each other out this way. Because if this cancellation mechanic holds, I can hypothetically do the following:

[1] I issue an edict that oppresses elves.
[2] I issue an edict that oppresses mages more than elves. This removes the elven claims to justice.
[3] I issue an edict that oppresses serfs more than mages. This removes the mage claims to justice.
[4] I issue an edict that oppresses slaves more than serfs. This removes the serf claims to justice.
[5] I issue an edict that oppresses nugs more than slaves. This removes the slave claims to justice.
[6] Nugs are dumb and don't complain. I win.

I should dare guess there that there is something amiss here. If you don't think the problem is what I think it is, tell me of it cordially and none will be more happy than I.

The problem here is, of course, that most suggested improvements to the lives of mages pose a risk to the common peasantry of Thedas. Meaning that if we are to discuss the merits of a mage rebellion and which side to support, we must take into account how this rebellion will negativelly affect the lives of the non-mage population which are already full of hardship to begin with.
Meaning this: "Is it worth to start a war that will severelly afect the quality of live of most people in Thedas to improve the quality of life of a particular group that already, in many ways, lives better than most people in Thedas?"

I don't believe so.

Yes. I have no respect for the weakilings among the mundane because the mundanes choose not to improve themselves. Be it improving the rights of mages or a demonic invasion the mundanes will always suffer because they choose not to embrace magic, you dont see many reavers spirit wariiors or people with lyrium tatoes.

So why should the mages pay for the weakness, cowardice and stupidity of the mundanes? They live in a world where human beings are nowhere near on top of the food chain yet dont prepare themselves what so ever.

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Here's a dirty little secret:  If a Templar supporter can prove a society is a magocracy, he or she then will automatically equate it to Tevinter in all it's 'glory'.  "Magocracy" is code for: Free Mages will automatically turn the world into Tevinter at it's most hateful.

It's a bogus argument but there it is.

-Polaris

That's not true, IanPolaris. See my answer to Xilizhra, you'll notice I made not a single mention of the manner in which mages use their power. That is because I find it irrelevant.
What I oppose is the very existence of a magocracy which doesn't mean I necessarely believe that the mage-dominated society that I envision would be any more brutal than modern America.

Of course it's true.  In fact the Chantry in the game itself uses the same bogus argument so it's not a suprise.  Fenris even voices it:  Loosen up on mages even a little bit and the next thing you know they are running things, and it's Tevinter all over again.  Fenris in the game actually says this.

-Polaris

[MisterJB]

DKJaigen wrote...
Yes. I have no respect for the weakilings among the mundane because the mundanes choose not to improve themselves. Be it improving the rights of mages or a demonic invasion the mundanes will always suffer because they choose not to embrace magic, you dont see many reavers spirit wariiors or people with lyrium tatoes.

So why should the mages pay for the weakness, cowardice and stupidity of the mundanes? They live in a world where human beings are nowhere near on top of the food chain yet dont prepare themselves what so ever.

You know, for a society to exist there needs to be people practicing all forms of activities. Some grow food, others make clothes and others still protect the citizens.
Warriors like Cassandra Pentaghast are capable of killing High Dragons and mages and Abominations because they spent their entire lives honing their skill to the point of perfection which, of course, means these people don't have to dedicate to tend to the earth to produce an harvest, for instance.

Nowadays, only a small percentage of the population are trained soldiers. If Earth was invanded tomorrow by aliens, would you support them because not every human is a trained killer?

[Herr Uhl]

IanPolaris wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Here's a dirty little secret:  If a Templar supporter can prove a society is a magocracy, he or she then will automatically equate it to Tevinter in all it's 'glory'.  "Magocracy" is code for: Free Mages will automatically turn the world into Tevinter at it's most hateful.

It's a bogus argument but there it is.

-Polaris

That's not true, IanPolaris. See my answer to Xilizhra, you'll notice I made not a single mention of the manner in which mages use their power. That is because I find it irrelevant.
What I oppose is the very existence of a magocracy which doesn't mean I necessarely believe that the mage-dominated society that I envision would be any more brutal than modern America.

Of course it's true.  In fact the Chantry in the game itself uses the same bogus argument so it's not a suprise.  Fenris even voices it:  Loosen up on mages even a little bit and the next thing you know they are running things, and it's Tevinter all over again.  Fenris in the game actually says this.

-Polaris

MisterJB is literally using a different argument. He is a templar supporter. You say ALL templar supporters use Tevinter.

Hence it is untrue.

[MisterJB]

IanPolaris wrote...
Of course it's true.  In fact the Chantry in the game itself uses the same bogus argument so it's not a suprise.  Fenris even voices it:  Loosen up on mages even a little bit and the next thing you know they are running things, and it's Tevinter all over again.  Fenris in the game actually says this.

-Polaris

Are you aware you are now not speaking of the same subject you started with? You claimed that pro-mages always claim that any magocracy will, inevitably, lead to all the depravaties of Tevinter but one post later; you are now speaking of in-game claims of how if one doesn't control the mages, they will start running things.

The possibility of mages dominating society is not the same thing as the possiblity of any magocracy being an exact copy of Tevinter. Are you understanding how the subjects are different?

I believe that, if mages are free, it is inevtiable that magic dominates society but I also acknowledge that there examples of benevolent magocracies such as the Dalish. What I oppose is the system of magocracy itself, regardless of how benevolent it is.

[The Red Onion]

MisterJB wrote...

alexbing88 wrote...
...

The problem here is, of course, that most suggested improvements to the lives of mages pose a risk to the common peasantry of Thedas. Meaning that if we are to discuss the merits of a mage rebellion and which side to support, we must take into account how this rebellion will negativelly affect the lives of the non-mage population which are already full of hardship to begin with.
Meaning this: "Is it worth to start a war that will severelly afect the quality of live of most people in Thedas to improve the quality of life of a particular group that already, in many ways, lives better than most people in Thedas?"

I don't believe so.

I hear you on that - and as long as I consistently follow a utilitarian paradigm, I would agree for the most part.

My lingering doubt though, even assuming this emprical-utilitarian lens, would be this. If the common peasantry is already leading such risky lives even with (presumably) many mages interred, their existing risks cannot be attributed to mages. (Or can it? You'll probably have an explanation here.) And as is, should it ever be proven that the interred mages and poor serfs share a similar set of oppressors, analysis of the social dymanics would prove quite different. Furthermore, should it ever be proven that a mage-serf society has more collective benefits over that of the templar-serf society, social conclusions would again prove quite different. Whether what I said is proven or not, is an emprical question, and not one of a priori conjecture. (You may disagree on this point, though, given justification.) Lastly, Chantry states have a number of stock models of governance in place, such as Orlais, the new Ferelden, "Free" Marches and the Antivan Islands, whereas Mage states, whether or not due to Chantry blockade, posesss only one emprical model of governance. On one hand, it provides comparatively less evidence for a benevolent mage state. On the other hand, it provides comparatively less evidence for a necessarily violent one as well. Thus, assuming I haven't made a mistake along my reasoning, you'd have to stick to a tactic where you insist that magical governance has more *inherent* problems than chantry governance, independent of empirical evidence. I think that's actually a tall order.

---------------------
PS: Scratch that, I just read your above post.

Okay - so you said quite clearly that you are not opposed to the emprical effects of mageocracy, but that of the concept itself. I guessed as much I suppose, since that will evade what I said above quite elegantly. But then the question becomes, whether your opposition to mageocracy is an epistemological foundation, or something that can be derived from other arguments that yet still have an empirical or theoretical basis.

If it's an epsitemological foundation, meaning that you hold the invalidity of mageocracy as a "basic fact" that cannot be questioned, then I of course cannot proceed this debate, because that basic fact amounts to a "belief" and I'd back off with respect, as a I would respect a faith.

-----------------------
PPS: okay, I'm just scrolling up the page to understand your postion - sorry if I look inattentive but I can only read your posts in between edits...

Okay - so we do agree that your priciple position against mageocracy is contingent on something else. Namely, if I read your above posts correctly, you are opposed to the idea of a Ontological Monopoly over the right of governance. And yes, I agree that this tenet has merit. However, if there are no alternatives to Ontological Monopolies, can we brand anyone a tyrant?

You can, of course, raise two counter arguments. First, you will say that Chantry rule is right in front of us, and their agents are not of an Ontological elite. I will then disagree, because just as "mage" is an ontology, "not-mage" is also an ontology. In a regieme where any ontology is systematically disempowered, its opposing ontology automatically has the monopoly. You will then counter me by saying that non-mages, by virtue of being in the majority, cannot be an ontological ELITE. But still I'd doubt when it comes to ontological monopolies, numbers is a final arbiter. The act of preventing ontological elitism cannot be weighed in a vacuum, but has to be placed in the context of the ontological oppression that it seems to entail.

At this philosophical impasse I can rest easy and give my own blunt opinion in simple words. A wrong world cannot be goverened rightly. In terms of action, I will have multiple playthroughs side with a variety of factions and making a variety of choices. But that will not a be a blase decision based on entertainement. I actually mean the mumbo jumbo that I say.

Modifié par alexbing88, 15 juin 2013 - 03:50 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
That's a very silly statmenet, given that we have no idea what the Eluvian actually does.

Whatever it does, it's better without tainting the land around it.

Id say that if it's something bad...like a portal to hell...it's better for it to be NOT working.

[MisterJB]

alexbing88 wrote...
PS: Scratch that, I just read your above post.

Before I asnwer the rest of your post; and I fully intend to; might I ask just which post you are referring to so I know upon which basis you've constructed your argument?

Modifié par MisterJB, 15 juin 2013 - 03:35 .