1799 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

alexbing88 wrote...
Do humor my doubts on your prediction of statistical significance; because many religous stances are so mutually hostile, that my hypothesis over the poll might contradict yours. I had hoped to evade naming RL religion in their specificity, but seems like I can't talk coherently now without doing so. (Forum forgive me.) My point is this: if the Chantry seems like an abstract, hypothetical religion, with its real life analogues unclear, then I submit to your hypothesis. But as is, the Chantry depiction is not only pan-Christian, but so obviously Catholic in its specificity, that it would potentially evoke defensiveness in the fanbase. Such consumers, if I may venture to guess, might (but not necessarily) react more violently to a Qunari with a clear real analogue, rather than a Tevinter without. This possibility cannot be overlooked. It arises out of a natural defensiveness, that is in turn due to the deployment of a transcendental symbol.

That's quite possible. However, observing forum behaviour, I don't see many defenses of the Chantry as a religion and all the more pragmatic defenses of the templars. Even more so, I know the staunchest defenders of the templars to be not driven by a religious impulse, taken from their posts here and in the ME forums. Also, so far I have yet to see a defense of Chantry doctrine which refers to religious themes. The predominant lines of arguments appear to refer to politics and practical rational ethics. I cannot discount that there may be religious impulses underlying the seemingly practical arguments, but the evidence is lacking. 

This also relates to other parts of my stance in some ways. It's just my own taste and nothing more, but I actually think of freedom as the mobility between paradigms, rather than the ability to operate "without one." Because (and I may be wrong on this) it seems to me that the only way to operate autonomously is to do so in a vacuum, which seems like a tall order.

True. However, the mages are not operating on "no paradigm", they are operating on multiple paradigms. If freedom means mobility between paradigms, then - not by coincidence - this strengthens the freedom theme. A unifying paradigm would be alien to a movement based on the idea of individual autonomy.

Lastly a minor minor quibble is that there are anti-traditionalist schools, which, though its braches are diffuse, altoghether provide a toolbox from which a fairly cohesive stance can be wrung. I think I have conflated "cohesion" with "robustness," and I at least should have been more clear. Pragmatically though, both coherence and robustness are forms of legitimation, and I perfer such things because I actually care about some form of "positional victory" rather than just having "a way to be."

Now I'm curious. I still have to find an anti-traditionalist school of thought which could easily be applied to the mage position on Thedas. I have the impression that there is a connection somewhere, but couldn't put the finger on one so far. Do you have any insight here?

You probably guessed by now that I am actually a quasi-collectivist, and that what I extol in an individual is not her capacity to critique all traditions as concepts, but her capacity to do so against the specific traditions that have socialized her own life. Our possible divergence in position notwithstanding, I do yield to most your points and appreciate your lesson.

I have described myself as an anti-traditionalist radical. I've come to this position because I think there exists an underlying theme of sacredness which is common to most traditions (even those created within the last two hundred years), and which has its roots in the evolution of our minds throughout the biological history of the human species. Without going into detail about how this works, my fundamental rejection of this theme comes from the fact that if you accept it, it's possible that a living entity can be an offense to all that's right and true without ever having done anything to merit such judgment. I'm sure you can see the connection to Thedas' mages as viewed through the lens of the story of the Golden City. While the official Chantry position after the events of Asunder is actually acceptable, such an ideology fosters an us vs. them mindset that ultimately results in events like those in Kirkwall. The fight against such mindsets, that's a primary example of struggling with our nature, since they are rooted in our biology.

BTW, this has been a very interesting discussion. Thank you.

[Plaintiff]

MisterJB wrote...
What if magic becomes the equivalent of electricity and oil? Only a minority of people; when compared to the world; dominate those sectors.

What if it does? Either the mages share the "electricity" and "oil" (most likely in exchange for money) and many people benefit. Or the mages hoard the "electricity" and "oil' for themselves, and the lives of mundanes continue exactly as they always have, with the ever-present possibility of devleoping their own alternatives.

Imaginary? Well, imagine this situation. Elves like in alienages exactly as they are now. But humans simply stay in their part of town. No human bothers the elves, they have equal rights (as they do now, actually). There is simply an enormous pro-human bias that impossibilitates any elf from gaining any employment beyond the lowest steps of the ladder. But again, no violence.

Is their opression imaginary?

I didn't say violence, I said "harm'. Employee discrimination based on race is harmful and is obviously oppression, and in real life our law establishes countermeasures against that. If a wealthy class of mages did racially discriminate, instead of employing based on merit alone, that would be oppression, but that type of oppression is already occuring regardless, so I don't understand how it's relevant to the issue of mages at all.

[Qyla]

Story never repeat itself so carefully. Even if mages would win the war I highly doubt they will be able to have a place in any spot (politically speaking). As the elf are still considered servant and inferior even thought they are free from slavery so mages will be trated as dangerous for a very long time, at least as the ones that started this war and blew up Kirkwall's Chantry.

[MisterJB]

Plaintiff wrote...
What if it does? Either the mages share the "electricity" and "oil" (most likely in exchange for money) and many people benefit. Or the mages hoard the "electricity" and "oil' for themselves, and the lives of mundanes continue exactly as they always have, with the ever-present possibility of devleoping their own alternatives.

And the people who would benefit the most would be the mages. On the other hand, if Thedas actually developed electricity like it exists in our world, both mages and non-mages could benefit equally.

I didn't say violence, I said "harm'. Employee discrimination based on race is harmful and is obviously oppression, and in real life our law establishes countermeasures against that. If a wealthy class of mages did racially discriminate, instead of employing based on merit alone, that would be oppression, but that type of oppression is already occuring regardless, so I don't understand how it's relevant to the issue of mages at all.

And yet, that would be the inevitable result of a world where mages are free. Their abilities would be harnessed which, in the short run sounds good, but would also mean that the most lucrative businesses in the world would not only be all owned by mages but could also only employ mages due to the fact that only they would be able to produce the magic necessary to keep them running.
The result is, of course, a world where non-mages can only attain a certain level of quality of life and always bellow that of mages.

[Plaintiff]

MisterJB wrote...
And the people who would benefit the most would be the mages. On the other hand, if Thedas actually developed electricity like it exists in our world, both mages and non-mages could benefit equally.

If Thedas actually developed electricity like it exists in our own world, it would probably still be labelled as magic, because that is what it would look like, and the supplier of it would probably be considered a mage.

And there would not be "equal benefit". Those that controlled the electricity would still create a wealth-based class division, but I guess that doesn't actually bother you. You just want to stop certain types of people from getting rich.

And yet, that would be the inevitable result of a world where mages are free. Their abilities would be harnessed which, in the short run sounds good, but would also mean that the most lucrative businesses in the world would not only be all owned by mages but could also only employ mages due to the fact that only they would be able to produce the magic necessary to keep them running.
The result is, of course, a world where non-mages can only attain a certain level of quality of life and always bellow that of mages.

This presupposes a world where magic can literally do everything, and mundanes could not possibly serve any useful function. I don't think that's the kind of world Thedas is. There are plenty of things mages need (or want) currently, that magic does not provide, and a human could acheive wealth and comfort in any of those industries.

[Dave of Canada]

DKJaigen wrote...

You need to aquire knowledge to survive. if the eluvian is good you can use it if its bad  you can control it. if you remain ignorant to its abilities it can spiral out of control or fall in the wrong hands.

Thank heavens it's spiraling out of control by being shattered in Merrill's house after I yelled to her about it for seven years.

[MisterJB]

Plaintiff wrote...
If Thedas actually developed electricity like it exists in our own world, it would probably still be labelled as magic, because that is what it would look like, and the supplier of it would probably be considered a mage.

Thedosians are not braindead. They can see the difference between a magical fireball and a cannon ball fired by a qunari.
Here's a good example: When Sigrun is gifted a spyglass and thinks it's magical, the Warden can explain how it works.

And there would not be "equal benefit". Those that controlled the electricity would still create a wealth-based class division, but I guess that doesn't actually bother you. You just want to stop certain types of people from getting rich.

It doesn't bother me because both mages and non-mages would be able to get rich off of it. Meaning, it would actually be an equal opportunity business.
If electricity in Thedas is magical based, then only the mages can provide it and thus economically benefit from it.

This presupposes a world where magic can literally do everything, and mundanes could not possibly serve any useful function. I don't think that's the kind of world Thedas is. There are plenty of things mages need (or want) currently, that magic does not provide, and a human could acheive wealth and comfort in any of those industries.

I'm open to suggestions how people are supposed to compete with a group of people capable of conjuring things from thin air.

Modifié par MisterJB, 15 juin 2013 - 06:28 .

[DKJaigen]

Dave of Canada wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

You need to aquire knowledge to survive. if the eluvian is good you can use it if its bad  you can control it. if you remain ignorant to its abilities it can spiral out of control or fall in the wrong hands.

Thank heavens it's spiraling out of control by being shattered in Merrill's house after I yelled to her about it for seven years.

So you remain ignorant. But the ignorant will either die or be conquered . In fact before that it HAD spiraled out of control because that shard was tainting everything around it. Merril cleansed it. Its very likely saved some people in the future if they ever stumbeld into the ruins. 

And the people who would benefit the most would be the mages. On the
other hand, if Thedas actually developed electricity like it exists in
our world, both mages and non-mages could benefit equally.

Who says that the chantry will alllow that?

Modifié par DKJaigen, 15 juin 2013 - 06:51 .

[Who is that Masked Man]

Of all the arguments I could have imagined about why Dragon Age mages ought to be forced to continue living in isolation under Chantry rule, this economic argument is by far the most boring.

DRAGON AGE 4: MONOPOLY

Peasant: "Please, ser, you can't foreclose on us! I know it ain't much compared to what you got, but all our friends from the village all pooled their money, and we scraped together ten whole silvers! Surely that's enough to--"

Mage: *slaps coins out of the peasants' hand* "Fool! We mages can create silver out of water, as we did when creating the legendary Silver Mail of King Calenhad! Now get off our land! We need it to plant elfroot, which we magically transform into fine cigars, which we then refuse to share with you."

Peasant: "Blast it all! Now I'll have to live in the Sorporati-nage, which used to be called an Alienage, but is now the place where all the poor non-mages have to stay while the mages live in luxury all around us. It wouldn't be this way if you lot were still locked up and getting beaten and raped by them templars!"

Mage: "Well, we aren't."

*CUE DRAGON AGE THEME SONG*

[GodWood]

Who is that Masked Man wrote...

Of all the arguments I could have imagined about why Dragon Age mages ought to be forced to continue living in isolation under Chantry rule, this economic argument is by far the most boring.

DRAGON AGE 4: MONOPOLY

Peasant: "Please, ser, you can't foreclose on us! I know it ain't much compared to what you got, but all our friends from the village all pooled their money, and we scraped together ten whole silvers! Surely that's enough to--"

Mage: *slaps coins out of the peasants' hand* "Fool! We mages can create silver out of water, as we did when creating the legendary Silver Mail of King Calenhad! Now get off our land! We need it to plant elfroot, which we magically transform into fine cigars, which we then refuse to share with you."

Peasant: "Blast it all! Now I'll have to live in the Sorporati-nage, which used to be called an Alienage, but is now the place where all the poor non-mages have to stay while the mages live in luxury all around us. It wouldn't be this way if you lot were still locked up and getting beaten and raped by them templars!"

Mage: "Well, we aren't."

*CUE DRAGON AGE THEME SONG*

Dragon Age 4: Revolución

[Who is that Masked Man]

GodWood wrote...

Who is that Masked Man wrote...

Of all the arguments I could have imagined about why Dragon Age mages ought to be forced to continue living in isolation under Chantry rule, this economic argument is by far the most boring.

DRAGON AGE 4: MONOPOLY

Peasant: "Please, ser, you can't foreclose on us! I know it ain't much compared to what you got, but all our friends from the village all pooled their money, and we scraped together ten whole silvers! Surely that's enough to--"

Mage: *slaps coins out of the peasants' hand* "Fool! We mages can create silver out of water, as we did when creating the legendary Silver Mail of King Calenhad! Now get off our land! We need it to plant elfroot, which we magically transform into fine cigars, which we then refuse to share with you."

Peasant: "Blast it all! Now I'll have to live in the Sorporati-nage, which used to be called an Alienage, but is now the place where all the poor non-mages have to stay while the mages live in luxury all around us. It wouldn't be this way if you lot were still locked up and getting beaten and raped by them templars!"

Mage: "Well, we aren't."

*CUE DRAGON AGE THEME SONG*

Dragon Age 4: Revolución

The hero of the game will be a poor, starving templar who was arrested after breaking into a shop to steal a lyrium potion.

Years later, after his escape, he is pursued relentlessly by an obsessed mage inspector.

Modifié par Who is that Masked Man, 15 juin 2013 - 06:54 .

[The Red Onion]

MisterJB wrote...

alexbing88 wrote...
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.

Actually, it's not, precisely, about the possibility of a state where only mages are allowed to rule. I don't actually consider that to be an inevitability.
It's also not about ontology; at least not in the sense where the differences between the ontology "human" and the ontology "elf" are nearly objectivelly irrelevant in any fashion beyond societal constructs.
Rather, it's about the possibility; or inevitabilty; of most of society's infrastructure becoming reliant on magic meaning that mages control the infrastructure. And when that, avenues for the improvement of non-mages are simply closed off and they can't even try to lower the mage elite; which can and has been done to the noble elite; without reinventing society as a whole.
Therefore, we can say my doubts come from empirical effects. Now, you can say our own world today has its own elites despite the inexistence of magic i our world. And that's true. But, in theory, anyone can rise because knowledge, money and technology are not, unlike magic, exclusive to the bloodlines of certain people. Technology; once again, unlike magic; can be used by everyone (which brings us back to that remark of yours).
Chances are that if DA happened in a 21st century setting, I would be less pro-templar than I am today.

Ultimately, this also means I don't believe a middle term; or equality, if you will; is a possibility. One side must, inevitably, dominate the other. Given my own existance as a human without acess to any magical ability plus non-mages making up the majority of people in Thedas, I have chosen to side with the non-mages which also means siding with the Templars.

I see... that's well-argued by and large. But here's my last 2 coppers for what it's worth, now strictly in the realm of positional belief. Coming from a philosophical school that makes a living out of documenting the monopolization of seemingly "unbaised" social currencies, I must respecfully disagree. This "control of vitals" has already happened in the realm of crops, and a quasi-bloodline-like monopoly on many rights and freedoms persist, even in the West. But I think this derails too far from the topic at hand, so I desist in pursing these lines.

I could also quibble on the falliability in viewing any side on a conflict as a static category, on the falliability of a such a side's complete dominance as the end product of history, (i.e. citing the absence of an ahistorical equality sets up equality as a straw man) but I'd expect you to have a defense ready and the dust won't clear until things get derailed.

The only salient point that remains worthy of mention is how we've shifted between the "symbols" and "reals," where magic as a category represented LITERAL magic. (Keep in mind that I *do* believe that magic, insofar as its aforementioned abuse, has isomorphisms in real life, so I reject the tenet that magic must be interpreted literally.) This ambiguous literality arises from the fact that "Chantry" is a symbol that is too literal, which creates the impression that its symbolic opposite is open to a similar literalization.

All in all, you pretty much plugged every hole I am willing persue, and I call that a day. Good discussion, though, I'm certainly grateful.

[Dave of Canada]

GodWood wrote...

Who is that Masked Man wrote...

Of all the arguments I could have imagined about why Dragon Age mages ought to be forced to continue living in isolation under Chantry rule, this economic argument is by far the most boring.

DRAGON AGE 4: MONOPOLY

Peasant: "Please, ser, you can't foreclose on us! I know it ain't much compared to what you got, but all our friends from the village all pooled their money, and we scraped together ten whole silvers! Surely that's enough to--"

Mage: *slaps coins out of the peasants' hand* "Fool! We mages can create silver out of water, as we did when creating the legendary Silver Mail of King Calenhad! Now get off our land! We need it to plant elfroot, which we magically transform into fine cigars, which we then refuse to share with you."

Peasant: "Blast it all! Now I'll have to live in the Sorporati-nage, which used to be called an Alienage, but is now the place where all the poor non-mages have to stay while the mages live in luxury all around us. It wouldn't be this way if you lot were still locked up and getting beaten and raped by them templars!"

Mage: "Well, we aren't."

*CUE DRAGON AGE THEME SONG*

Dragon Age 4: Revolución

Personally, I can't wait to overthrow the oppressive mages. Not a single one of them is good, they're all part of a corrupt system and must all be slaughtered because they're evil. Non-mages will finally be free from mage oversight and can live their lives without a mage having any say in it, we'll create a better system where non-mages and mages can co-exist and live in peace but only after we've wiped out the mages off the face of Thedas.

Anyone who doesn't support me is scum who supports genocide and doesn't believe in human rights.

Viva la revolución.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 15 juin 2013 - 07:16 .

[Who is that Masked Man]

Dave of Canada wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Who is that Masked Man wrote...

Of all the arguments I could have imagined about why Dragon Age mages ought to be forced to continue living in isolation under Chantry rule, this economic argument is by far the most boring.

DRAGON AGE 4: MONOPOLY

Peasant: "Please, ser, you can't foreclose on us! I know it ain't much compared to what you got, but all our friends from the village all pooled their money, and we scraped together ten whole silvers! Surely that's enough to--"

Mage: *slaps coins out of the peasants' hand* "Fool! We mages can create silver out of water, as we did when creating the legendary Silver Mail of King Calenhad! Now get off our land! We need it to plant elfroot, which we magically transform into fine cigars, which we then refuse to share with you."

Peasant: "Blast it all! Now I'll have to live in the Sorporati-nage, which used to be called an Alienage, but is now the place where all the poor non-mages have to stay while the mages live in luxury all around us. It wouldn't be this way if you lot were still locked up and getting beaten and raped by them templars!"

Mage: "Well, we aren't."

*CUE DRAGON AGE THEME SONG*

Dragon Age 4: Revolución

Personally, I can't wait to overthrow the oppressive mages. Not a single one of them is good, they're all part of a corrupt system and must all be slaughtered because they're evil. Non-mages will finally be free from mage oversight and can live their lives without a mage having any say in it, we'll create a better system where non-mages and mages can co-exist and live in peace but only after we've wiped out the mages off the face of Thedas.

Anyone who doesn't support me is scum who supports genocide and doesn't believe in human rights.

Viva la revolución.

And then, the straw men!

...Oh, wait.

[Xilizhra]

MisterJB wrote...

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.

You've said it yourself that mages can never be wholly equal with mundanes. And mages are a relatively small part of the population; moreover, by focusing on magic, there are other trades and services they don't focus on. There will always be niches for mundanes, and for the vast majority, they won't be any farther away from positions of power than they were before. That said, if we can find a way to somehow infuse magical powers into mundanes (which I think Allure might have done to Lady Harriman, though that wasn't explained very well), it'd be the optimal solution.

In short, I side with the mages because even if it inconveniences a majority of the population in some way, I believe that inconvenience is far less than what mages are forced under if the mundanes are dominating them.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 15 juin 2013 - 09:02 .

[coldSnap]

both are pretty bad, but i'd probably side with the mages mostly because for the idea of freedom

[Arakiel12409]

Redcliffe did prove what a single untrained boy with magical talent can unleash on mundanes. By breaking away from the templars, each mage will find himself in situations where his passions, feelings and desires will get the better of them and will be exploited by demons to wreak havoc. Not every mage has the luck of being born into a family with someone else who has magical talents that can educate them like Hawke or (in a more wider use of the term) the Dalish Clans and Chasind tribes have. As a result, these mages who are initially unaware of their powers will weaken the Veil accidentally and be lured by demons in their sleep and used by them.

And so, I would support the Templars. I am not willing to let innocents without means to defend themselves suffer under the whims of mages that think their "freedom" allows them to break away from restriction and supervision.

[The Red Onion]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Now I'm curious. I still have to find an anti-traditionalist school of thought which could easily be applied to the mage position on Thedas. I have the impression that there is a connection somewhere, but couldn't put the finger on one so far. Do you have any insight here?

Mm, this might be a touchy one, but I treasure this discussion so I'll try. At some point in the past two pages, I've said a similar idea to JB, which he rejected on fairly meritable grounds regarding constructed categorizations. I still stand by this idea though, and I'll repeat it bluntly for the mere sake of curiosity and thought-exercise.

Basically I would stand by my tenet that "mage" is an ontological category, which allows me to construct "mage" as an ontological identity. Then I will use radical equity theories to begin analysis. As a stock description in an formal equity discourse, it would sound something like this:

"We have Thedas, a society in which certain "ontologies" are outlawed on the basis of their "deviant behaviours." Actions and institutions that discipline these behaviours are funded by political agencies, a fact which casts their very bodies as objects of politics. As such bodies under surveilliance, they are denied access to private life, something otherwise potentially accessible to the most basic of serfs. As this surveillance is legally and thus politically in effect at the moment of a mage's birth, a living mage, Circle or not, is always already an object of politcs. As beings on the margins of legitimation, their very existence is a political act. A mage cannot abide the law, for to do so she must first live, and in living she already breaks it. Yet even as these ontologies are scrutinized and delegitimated, the institutions that do so continue to procure labour and production from the very ontologies they outlaw. Furthermore, the policing and interrment is often justified on the basis of posession. What is posession? The loss of agency. Thus, posesssion is documented as a means to prove that mages do not, in fact, have agency, which weakens their claim on even being human. Thus first and foremost, the mage is not a human prisoner, but an object of politics and then production. However, power is diffuse, and even in this case the mage is not powerless. Through its policing, surveillance, and control, magic has been appropriated as a force of production, and an essential means to reduce the society's cost of labour. It is still in the mage's power to withold what is already exploited from her, and resist in participatin in the institutions' essential functions. Prevalent also, is the Chantry practice of playing the common public against the mage. But this too is falliable, because the fewer stakes the mage has in the public, the less she has to lose in acts of resistance. Also, the collegial socilaization of Circles often see very low frequencies in sexual behaviour, and incidents that do occur are often policed. When put into a conjunction with Tranquility rites - a process where a mage is deprive of her agency and will, permanetly and literally - the Circle situation is altogther one where a mage's body can taken away from her soul, and her soul can be taken away from her body. Insofar as one minds the materiality of a serfs's meal, they cannot ignore the materiality of the mage's body, which is yet more immediate. To be partial in this matter is to deploy a frame of war, to pick and choose at leisure select moments where life is grievable."

Note here that despite the talk of mages, there are no overt borrowings from individualist frames.

Ieldra2 wrote...

I have described myself as an anti-traditionalist radical. I've come to this position because I think there exists an underlying theme of sacredness which is common to most traditions (even those created within the last two hundred years), and which has its roots in the evolution of our minds throughout the biological history of the human species. Without going into detail about how this works, my fundamental rejection of this theme comes from the fact that if you accept it, it's possible that a living entity can be an offense to all that's right and true without ever having done anything to merit such judgment. I'm sure you can see the connection to Thedas' mages as viewed through the lens of the story of the Golden City. While the official Chantry position after the events of Asunder is actually acceptable, such an ideology fosters an us vs. them mindset that ultimately results in events like those in Kirkwall. The fight against such mindsets, that's a primary example of struggling with our nature, since they are rooted in our biology.

BTW, this has been a very interesting discussion. Thank you.

As for the labels and titles of traditionalist, radical, right, left, anti-traditional, centrist, or what have you, no matter what others call me, I have general misgivings about these terminologies as a whole. The total system of these words not only have the potential to add and subtract value from you or your community, but more dangerously they police, prescribe, and reinforce fixed relations of friendship, rivalry, or power between those perceived as their adherents. I am especially wary of other calling me "radical," because even if it's meant as praise, it frames the "moderate" or "centrist" position as positively absolute.

Your last piece is basically a critique of "isms." You're basically saying that even if you find no problem in the concept of a doctrine, you still find problems in its effects. But the thing is, beyond the questions of what is a tradition, and whether there are essences common to traditions, I think all deontological approaches in general (i.e. courses of action that are chosen based on adherence to an a priori principle) can run afoul of your critique. And so it need not be a religion, a tradition, or a religious tradition. Which brings me a last bit of Wynne-nagging... biological determinism can be just as regressive - the internment of mages might itself be an example.

In any case yes, interesting discussion indeed. Thanks to you!

[Ieldra]

alexbing88 wrote...
Your last piece is basically a critique of "isms." You're basically saying that even if you find no problem in the concept of a doctrine, you still find problems in its effects.

Not so. I deny the legitimacy of "sanctity" as a moral category. It is - or rather should be - an aesthetic category only, and as a corollary I also deny the validity of linking aesthetics and ethics. One of those tendencies rooted in our biology is to link the evil to the disgusting or the disfigured, and the good to the harmonious and graceful. I think this is a very dangerous delusion. Nonetheless it is ubiquitous in storytelling, and especially in Bioware's storytelling. See ME's Reaper minions and DA's darkspawn. The theme of "corruption" strengthens the delusion. I call it "abomination aesthetic", and I find it irresponsible to underscore evilness by physical disfiguration. It is actually the biggest issue I have with Bioware's storytelling in general.

Consequently, with regard to Thedas' mages, the most important issue is not practical politics, but aesthetics and ideology. Chantry ideology links the mages to one of the worlds greatest evils (setting aside, for the moment, the question of whether the mostly mindless darkspawn can reasonably be called evil). The real insult to the mages is not that they are kept at all - people have made reasonable arguments for the Circle system or something comparable - but that they are kept by an organization that institutionally dehumanizes them.

But the thing is, beyond the questions of what is a tradition, and whether there are essences common to traditions, I think all deontological approaches in general (i.e. courses of action that are chosen based on adherence to an a priori principle) can run afoul of your critique. And so it need not be a religion, a tradition, or a religious tradition.

Tradition is the most common means to justify adherence to an a priori principle which is not pragmatic in its nature. Also, see above.    

Which brings me a last bit of Wynne-nagging... biological determinism can be just as regressive - the internment of mages might itself be an example.

Indeed. My point is exactly that we should move beyond certain tendencies we have because of our evolution as a species. The implication is that we *can* do that, i.e. that there is no determinism in this. I would submit, however, that for these things to cease to be a problem at all, we'd need to change the tendencies we are born with. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 juin 2013 - 10:40 .

[LobselVith8]

Qyla wrote...

Story never repeat itself so carefully. Even if mages would win the war I highly doubt they will be able to have a place in any spot (politically speaking).

I'm not sure about that; I think mages should be afforded the opportunity to be leaders, and I can see it happen if the mages are successful in the Mage-Templar War.

Qyla wrote...

As the elf are still considered servant and inferior even thought they are free from slavery so mages will be trated as dangerous for a very long time, at least as the ones that started this war and blew up Kirkwall's Chantry.

That's because of the war the kingdom of the Dales had with the Chantry of Andraste and the Orlesian Empire. The elves lost a lot because of that conflict - including their new homeland. It's a different scenario this time around.

[KainD]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Personally, I can't wait to overthrow the oppressive mages. Not a single one of them is good, they're all part of a corrupt system and must all be slaughtered because they're evil. Non-mages will finally be free from mage oversight and can live their lives without a mage having any say in it, we'll create a better system where non-mages and mages can co-exist and live in peace but only after we've wiped out the mages off the face of Thedas.

Anyone who doesn't support me is scum who supports genocide and doesn't believe in human rights.

Viva la revolución.

Mages - people. All different.
Templars - organisation. All stand for ideals that the templar order represents. 

See the difference?

[Dave of Canada]

KainD wrote...

Mages - people. All different.
Templars - organisation. All stand for ideals that the templar order represents. 

See the difference?

Yes. Templars have ideals.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 16 juin 2013 - 01:38 .