1799 réponses à ce sujet

[Asdrubael Vect]

LolaLei wrote...

Dark Korsar wrote...

The Baconer wrote...

Whichever side that can more readily put the Qunari to the flames.

Coincidentally, mages appear to be good at making fires.

Welcome to the Tevinter  Empire

Poor things, I'm gonna let them all out!

so release them from Qun bul**** of their Tammasarants-kill Tammasarants and burn Tome of Koslun-help Tal Vasgots rebellions

Modifié par Dark Korsar, 21 juin 2013 - 11:30 .

[LolaLei]

Dark Korsar wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

Dark Korsar wrote...

The Baconer wrote...

Whichever side that can more readily put the Qunari to the flames.

Coincidentally, mages appear to be good at making fires.

Welcome to the Tevinter  Empire

Poor things, I'm gonna let them all out!

so release them from Qun bul**** of their Tammasarants-kill Tammasarants and burn Tome of Koslun-help Tal Vasgots rebellions

Only if they wanted to be released. You know how stubborn the Qunari can be, lol. 

[DPSSOC]

IanPolaris wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
Ok as I said this is a completely separate argument but when is this shown?  We see two Keepers in DA:O making unilateral decisions with regards to the clan.  They might not admit it, might not even think of it in these terms, but the mages of the Dalish ultimately rule.

The keepers may ultimately rule (albeit loosely as first among equals) but that doesn't mean mages do.  By the accounts we get from Merrill and Lanaya, being magically aware is perhaps the least important part of being a keeper and apparently a Keeper can have many suplicants to be his or her first but only takes one.  [Not only that but I've heard rumor of late from Felia Day that Dalish Keepers might not always be mages.]

Except there's a character (I think it's Merril but not sure) who mentions that all Keepers know the old magic.  A non-mage can't learn magic (unless the Dalish know something we don't), and certainly can't teach others to use it.

IanPolaris wrote...
To call the Dalish system a magocracy, you have to show it's the virtue of being a mage that puts one into a leadership position, and not some other thing, and the Dalish system as such doesn't quality.  (Even if being a mage is a necessary quality to be keeper, it's not sufficient.  That means that being a mage isn't the quality the Dalish look for for leadership, and so it's not a magocracy).

No to qualify as a magocracy the Dalish system simply needs to be ruled by mages.  An aristocracy is no less an aristocracy if the aristocrats consult the common people and seek their input.  The determining factor in classifying a government is who has the power.

IanPolaris wrote...
Edit:  That's especially so for the Dalish since we know that mundane Dalish can and do have leadership polsitions within the various clans.  This means the Dalish system is not a magocracy per se.

-Polaris

I have a leadership position at my work, I'm still not management.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
You can say that it's probably a rarity to have a non-mage Keeper. Maybe that's true (though again, with the whole "magic must be spread around thing, maybe not if there are no mages around) and it'd be fair, but it wouldn't be fair to say Mages always rule the clans.

No it'd be unfair to say Mages will always rule like Tevinter or at the very least with an iron fist.  It's not unfair to say Mages always rule the clans until we see or hear about a clan where the Keeper is a) not a mage and/or not able to make unilateral decisions with regards to the clan.  Maybe it's in one of the books, or the comic, or Redemption, I don't know but it certainly isn't in the games.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
EDIT: Never mind, it seems to heavily imply Iloren was a Mage as well. Even so, the non-Mages in the clans are just as instrumental in the clan's survival as the rest.

Yes but we haven't seen any of them stand up and say, "This is how we're going to do things." and be followed, or even, "This is how we should do things." and be heeded.  They're valued of course and the mages need them to survive as you point out, but from what we've been shown they only have as much real power as the Keeper allows them to.

Celene II wrote...

Mages all the way.

They have been subjugated, imprisoned, murder, and treated like animals  for the sins of one nation now for ever.


Time for a new era where mages are treated as equals

Except mages aren't equals.  Here's my position on mages in a nutshell; for all their power they are still only human, and that's not good enough.  Mages need to be held to a higher standard because they have such a greater capacity to do harm, intentionally or not, and they consistently fail to measure up.

[Xilizhra]

Except mages aren't equals. Here's my position on mages in a nutshell; for all their power they are still only human, and that's not good enough. Mages need to be held to a higher standard because they have such a greater capacity to do harm, intentionally or not, and they consistently fail to measure up.

Even if so, they should have the chance, and that chance is what the templars have never given. And that's one of several reasons why they must fall and never rise again.

[Travie]

All will find their place within the Qun.

[TEWR]

I don't know but it certainly isn't in the games.

Felicia Day seemed to talk about non-mages being Keepers, as has been mentioned by Lob, IanPolaris, and myself.

Except there's a character (I think it's Merril but not sure) who mentions that all Keepers know the old magic. A non-mage can't learn magic (unless the Dalish know something we don't), and certainly can't teach others to use it.

Knowing a bit of magic isn't the same as being capable of performing magic.

[TEWR]

Felicia Day is also not a Bioware writer.

No, but when writing Redemption she worked with the Bioware staff on lore regarding the world, always asking questions.

This is something David Gaider or some other dev talked about, how they expected basic questions and she started talking about some really heavy questions they weren't expecting regarding DA's lore.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 22 juin 2013 - 02:39 .

[DPSSOC]

Xilizhra wrote...

Except mages aren't equals. Here's my position on mages in a nutshell; for all their power they are still only human, and that's not good enough. Mages need to be held to a higher standard because they have such a greater capacity to do harm, intentionally or not, and they consistently fail to measure up.

Even if so, they should have the chance, and that chance is what the templars have never given. And that's one of several reasons why they must fall and never rise again.

Sadly it's not something you can give a chance on, you can do it once and if it doesn't work out, if the mages aren't able to meet the standard they must be held to because of the power they hold, you're kind of screwed.  Can't put the genie back in the bottle kind of thing.  As such the mages have to demonstrate an ability to meet that standard before you can really consider letting them out, and as I said from what we see they consistently fail to meet it because, at the end of the day, they're only human.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I don't know but it certainly isn't in the games.

Felicia Day seemed to talk about non-mages being Keepers, as has been mentioned by Lob, IanPolaris, and myself.

Ok is this just an abstract, "Oh yeah of course there are non-mage Keepers." or is this actually something that's going to come up in a book, comic, Redemption, etc.  Felicia Day or even David Gaider can talk about there being polka dot unicorns running wild across the Anderfels but until it comes up in an official release (book, comic, game, etc.) it's just talk.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Except there's a character (I think it's Merril but not sure) who mentions that all Keepers know the old magic. A non-mage can't learn magic (unless the Dalish know something we don't), and certainly can't teach others to use it.

Knowing a bit of magic isn't the same as being capable of performing magic.

Ok imagine this for a moment; how hard would it be to teach someone who doesn't dream, has never and will never dreamed and doesn't even sleep, not only what a dream is, but how to induce dreaming well enough that they could teach someone else who is capable of dreaming.  Magic is an innate thing, it's something mages can do without thinking.  Like dreaming it's something that just happens until they learn to control it.  I just don't see a mundane teacher being well versed enough in magic that they could teach a spell to a mage.

[In Exile]

DPSSOC wrote...
Maybe it's in one of the books, or the comic, or Redemption, I don't know but it certainly isn't in the games.

Some guy said he heard with from Felicia Day who allegedly asked DG about it, and all we have as proof is that person's word in some thread a few weeks ago.

[In Exile]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
No, but when writing Redemption she worked with the Bioware staff on lore regarding the world, always asking questions.

This is something David Gaider or some other dev talked about, how they expected basic questions and she started talking about some really heavy questions they weren't expecting regarding DA's lore.

Except Felicia Day didn't say anything about this on-record. Some guy on a forum did. I'd rather the Dalish be less unbelievably racist, so I'd be nice if their society didn't actually have nothing but mage leaders to go along with their belief that true elves have to all become mages, but we don't have any evidence for it. 

Hell, I might as well say that Felicia Day told me in a PM that DG confirmed that the Dales were a mageocracy. That's about as authoritative as the thing we're relying on. 

[TEWR]

Ok is this just an abstract, "Oh yeah of course there are non-mage Keepers." or is this actually something that's going to come up in a book, comic, Redemption, etc. Felicia Day or even David Gaider can talk about there being polka dot unicorns running wild across the Anderfels but until it comes up in an official release (book, comic, game, etc.) it's just talk.

I can't speak to Redemption, as I haven't watched that more then once and I honestly found the writing to be bland, predictable, and kinda cheesy at times in regards to the characters (well, the Reaver girl and the Dalish Mage were pretty good, but Tallis' whole "fall in love with Templar only for him to die so swiftly" was just... blegh).

Maybe it came up there, I can't say.

Regardless, at this point yes it's just a spoken note. Should we take it into consideration though? Certainly. If we exclude even one iota of information, then there is no discussion to be had.

I just don't see a mundane teacher being well versed enough in magic that they could teach a spell to a mage.

Dagna was a very studious non-Mage, having understood a lot of the core concepts of magic and even went on to author her own book that garnered a lot of attention.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Hah! That would be me. I once posted a mostly rhetorical question on episode three of Redemption not really expecting any response. But I seemed to get one from Felicia herself. I did say when I first posted it, that I'm not 100% sure if it's true because Felicia Day's word isn't gospel but given her research I'm willing to believe it's likely true.

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 22 juin 2013 - 02:58 .

[IanPolaris]

[quote]DPSSOC wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
[quote]DPSSOC wrote...
Ok as I said this is a completely separate argument but when is this shown?  We see two Keepers in DA:O making unilateral decisions with regards to the clan.  They might not admit it, might not even think of it in these terms, but the mages of the Dalish ultimately rule.[/quote]

The keepers may ultimately rule (albeit loosely as first among equals) but that doesn't mean mages do.  By the accounts we get from Merrill and Lanaya, being magically aware is perhaps the least important part of being a keeper and apparently a Keeper can have many suplicants to be his or her first but only takes one.  [Not only that but I've heard rumor of late from Felia Day that Dalish Keepers might not always be mages.][/quote]

Except there's a character (I think it's Merril but not sure) who mentions that all Keepers know the old magic.  A non-mage can't learn magic (unless the Dalish know something we don't), and certainly can't teach others to use it.
[/quote]

Knowing a bit of the old magic doesn't necessarily mean that all keepers are mages even if Merrill has complete information here (which she may not).  I note that the Litany of Adralla is magic and so are healing potions but they can be used by anyone, and for that matter enchantment can not be done by something with a magic connection of their own, but I'd call enchanting magic.

You are reading far too much into a simple statement and making assumptions.

[quote]
[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
To call the Dalish system a magocracy, you have to show it's the virtue of being a mage that puts one into a leadership position, and not some other thing, and the Dalish system as such doesn't quality.  (Even if being a mage is a necessary quality to be keeper, it's not sufficient.  That means that being a mage isn't the quality the Dalish look for for leadership, and so it's not a magocracy).[/quote]

No to qualify as a magocracy the Dalish system simply needs to be ruled by mages.  An aristocracy is no less an aristocracy if the aristocrats consult the common people and seek their input.  The determining factor in classifying a government is who has the power.
[/quote]

You haven't proven that.  In Dalish society you can apparently rise to leadership  positions including authority over others without any magical talent at all.  Furthermore just because you are a mage doesn't insure that you are treated differently in that society.  Thus you can not say that the Dalish are ruled by mages.  At most they are ruled by people who happen also to be mages (and that's if your interpretation of some remarks are true and they very well might not be).  There is a difference.

[quote]
[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
Edit:  That's especially so for the Dalish since we know that mundane Dalish can and do have leadership polsitions within the various clans.  This means the Dalish system is not a magocracy per se.

-Polaris[/quote]

I have a leadership position at my work, I'm still not management.
[/quote]

I would say that "Chief Crafter" is management (he certainly has apprentices working for him or her and certainly does *manage* the clans' logistics, but we know for a fact you don't have to be a mage to be Chief crafter.

[quote]
[quote]The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
You can say that it's probably a rarity to have a non-mage Keeper. Maybe that's true (though again, with the whole "magic must be spread around thing, maybe not if there are no mages around) and it'd be fair, but it wouldn't be fair to say Mages always rule the clans.[/quote]

No it'd be unfair to say Mages will always rule like Tevinter or at the very least with an iron fist.  It's not unfair to say Mages always rule the clans until we see or hear about a clan where the Keeper is a) not a mage and/or not able to make unilateral decisions with regards to the clan.  Maybe it's in one of the books, or the comic, or Redemption, I don't know but it certainly isn't in the games.
[/quote]

No, Ethereal has it right.  Having magic simply isn't that important for the Dalish in determining who leads and who is important and who isn't.  At least that's what I've been able to gather.  The information coming from Felecia Day seems to confirm it.


[quote][quote]The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
EDIT: Never mind, it seems to heavily imply Iloren was a Mage as well. Even so, the non-Mages in the clans are just as instrumental in the clan's survival as the rest.
[/quote]

Yes but we haven't seen any of them stand up and say, "This is how we're going to do things." and be followed, or even, "This is how we should do things." and be heeded.  They're valued of course and the mages need them to survive as you point out, but from what we've been shown they only have as much real power as the Keeper allows them to.
[/quote]

This is an unfair standard and you know it.  We haven't been given much opportunity to observe Dalish culture.

[quote]
[quote]Celene II wrote...

Mages all the way.

They have been subjugated, imprisoned, murder, and treated like animals  for the sins of one nation now for ever.


Time for a new era where mages are treated as equals
[/quote]

Except mages aren't equals.  Here's my position on mages in a nutshell; for all their power they are still only human, and that's not good enough.  Mages need to be held to a higher standard because they have such a greater capacity to do harm, intentionally or not, and they consistently fail to measure up.[/quote]

People aren't equal in real life either.  That doesn't mean they should be treated as people with individual rights and responsibilities.  If individuals turn their greater potential into something ill, then that individual should be held accountable.  You don't generalize and find the group guilty for the acts of the individual.  In fact, doing so is called collective punishement and it has a dark stain and is considered a war crime for a reason.

-Polaris

[TEWR]

In Exile wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
No, but when writing Redemption she worked with the Bioware staff on lore regarding the world, always asking questions.

This is something David Gaider or some other dev talked about, how they expected basic questions and she started talking about some really heavy questions they weren't expecting regarding DA's lore.

Except Felicia Day didn't say anything about this on-record. Some guy on a forum did. I'd rather the Dalish be less unbelievably racist, so I'd be nice if their society didn't actually have nothing but mage leaders to go along with their belief that true elves have to all become mages, but we don't have any evidence for it. 

Hell, I might as well say that Felicia Day told me in a PM that DG confirmed that the Dales were a mageocracy. That's about as authoritative as the thing we're relying on. 

Actually, a thread talking about DG's talks with a fan of the series brought this thing up, one DG himself took part in and he never refuted the notion of Felicia Day's questioning on the matter. And he was there for a while, not just a single post.

The thread talked about how Felicia Day asked some heavy questions and I'll take it under consideration if the man upstairs didn't refute the idea.

Will I say it's hard evidence? No. But I will take it under consideration.

[IanPolaris]

I just don't see a mundane teacher being well versed enough in magic that they could teach a spell to a mage.

Dagna was a very studious non-Mage, having understood a lot of the core concepts of magic and even went on to author her own book that garnered a lot of attention.

Indeed, if we take that, along with the Litany of Adralla (which could be used by anyone), along with potions and other enchanted items, and even the fact that mundanes like Lady Harriman could be granted mage-like powers under the right conditions, then we see that you don't necessarily have to be a mage to know magic, or for that matter even to use magic (depending on how loosely we define it).  Given that Templar abilities are really spells, I daresay you don't even need to be a mage to technically cast spells.

-Polaris

[In Exile]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

Hah! That would be me. I once posted a mostly rhetorical question on episode three of Redemption not really expecting any response. But I seemed to get one from Felicia herself. I did say when I first posted it, that I'm not 100% sure if it's true because Felicia Day's word isn't gospel but given her research I'm willing to believe it's likely true.

It's like any kind of testimony - do you believe she's credible?

Personally, I'd take her word for it. Anything from that is still speculatively - she says that keepers don't necessarily have to be mages - which could just mean that there's no rule that a keeper has to be a mage, but it could still be that a non-mage keeper is unheard of. 

[In Exile]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
The thread talked about how Felicia Day asked some heavy questions and I'll take it under consideration if the man upstairs didn't refute the idea.

Will I say it's hard evidence? No. But I will take it under consideration.

That online establishes that Felicia asked hard questions, and assuming the thread mentioned the Keeper thing directly, it establishes only that she asked about the Keepers. 

If we take her youtube phrasing, you guys are really stretching what the comment could mean. 

[TEWR]

EDIT: never mind, got it.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 22 juin 2013 - 03:11 .

[IanPolaris]

In Exile wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

Hah! That would be me. I once posted a mostly rhetorical question on episode three of Redemption not really expecting any response. But I seemed to get one from Felicia herself. I did say when I first posted it, that I'm not 100% sure if it's true because Felicia Day's word isn't gospel but given her research I'm willing to believe it's likely true.

It's like any kind of testimony - do you believe she's credible?

Personally, I'd take her word for it. Anything from that is still speculatively - she says that keepers don't necessarily have to be mages - which could just mean that there's no rule that a keeper has to be a mage, but it could still be that a non-mage keeper is unheard of. 

Which getting to the point certainly seems to strongly imply that the Dalish are not a magocracy in the sense that a lot of pro-templar posters here want to paint them.  If being a mage is not really a mandatory requirement for being a keeper, then there really is nothing more to be said.  The Dalish simply aren't an example where "mages are in charge".  At most the mage-keepers are in charge of different clans because the Dalish in those clans desire this.

-Polaris

[TEWR]

In Exile wrote...

If we take her youtube phrasing, you guys are really stretching what the comment could mean. 

I don't think so. Her comment says that Keepers don't necessarily have magic, ergo not all Keepers are Mages. It's perhaps a rarity as I talked about earlier, but that doesn't negate the actual premise itself. She then established that this was a point of her research.

I don't see any stretching happening here.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 22 juin 2013 - 03:14 .

[Dave of Canada]

DKJaigen wrote...

Yeah put the mundanes into quarantine for being weak and useless.

Said mundanes managed to keep gods-amongst-men imprisoned and culled for thousands of years. 

[Xilizhra]

Dave of Canada wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

Yeah put the mundanes into quarantine for being weak and useless.

Said mundanes managed to keep gods-amongst-men imprisoned and culled for thousands of years. 

Under a thousand, actually.

[DPSSOC]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
[quote]DPSSOC wrote...
No to qualify as a magocracy the Dalish system simply needs to be ruled by mages.  An aristocracy is no less an aristocracy if the aristocrats consult the common people and seek their input.  The determining factor in classifying a government is who has the power.
[/quote]

You haven't proven that.  In Dalish society you can apparently rise to leadership  positions including authority over others without any magical talent at all.  Furthermore just because you are a mage doesn't insure that you are treated differently in that society.  Thus you can not say that the Dalish are ruled by mages.  At most they are ruled by people who happen also to be mages (and that's if your interpretation of some remarks are true and they very well might not be).  There is a difference.

[quote]
[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
Edit:  That's especially so for the Dalish since we know that mundane Dalish can and do have leadership polsitions within the various clans.  This means the Dalish system is not a magocracy per se.

-Polaris[/quote]

I have a leadership position at my work, I'm still not management.
[/quote]

I would say that "Chief Crafter" is management (he certainly has apprentices working for him or her and certainly does *manage* the clans' logistics, but we know for a fact you don't have to be a mage to be Chief crafter.[/quote]

Ok and the Chief Crafter can do what if he/she disagrees with the Keeper?  If the Keeper makes a decision the Chief Crafter disagrees with and refuses to hear him/her out or consider an alternative the Chief Crafter has two choices; deal with it, or leave.

No one in the clans we've seen, not the Chief Crafter, not the Hallah herder, not the Hahren, not the Lead Hunter has demonstrated or even suggested that they have the ability to contest and over turn a Keeper's decision.  Not individually and not collectively; their power over the clan extends as far as the Keeper agrees or can be convinced to agree with them.

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
[quote]
[quote]The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
You can say that it's probably a rarity to have a non-mage Keeper. Maybe that's true (though again, with the whole "magic must be spread around thing, maybe not if there are no mages around) and it'd be fair, but it wouldn't be fair to say Mages always rule the clans.[/quote]

No it'd be unfair to say Mages will always rule like Tevinter or at the very least with an iron fist.  It's not unfair to say Mages always rule the clans until we see or hear about a clan where the Keeper is a) not a mage and/or not able to make unilateral decisions with regards to the clan.  Maybe it's in one of the books, or the comic, or Redemption, I don't know but it certainly isn't in the games.
[/quote]

No, Ethereal has it right.  Having magic simply isn't that important for the Dalish in determining who leads and who is important and who isn't.  At least that's what I've been able to gather.  The information coming from Felecia Day seems to confirm it.[/quote]

And yet every Keeper and every First we've come across (far as I know in all media) has been a mage; saying being a mage doesn't factor in to who leads the Dalish is like saying being male doesn't factor in to who becomes the Prime Minister of Canada (we've had one woman for 6 months because the elected PM resigned).  It may very well be true but the evidence doesn't speak for it.

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
[quote][quote]The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
EDIT: Never mind, it seems to heavily imply Iloren was a Mage as well. Even so, the non-Mages in the clans are just as instrumental in the clan's survival as the rest.
[/quote]

Yes but we haven't seen any of them stand up and say, "This is how we're going to do things." and be followed, or even, "This is how we should do things." and be heeded.  They're valued of course and the mages need them to survive as you point out, but from what we've been shown they only have as much real power as the Keeper allows them to.
[/quote]

This is an unfair standard and you know it.  We haven't been given much opportunity to observe Dalish culture.[/quote]

Not much opportunity?  A full Origin and a main story quest in the first game and an entire character plot in the second isn't much opportunity?  We haven't been given much opportunity to observe the Dwarves, or the Qunari, or even the mages, we've had plenty of opportunity with the Dalish.

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
If individuals turn their greater potential into something ill, then that individual should be held accountable.  You don't generalize and find the group guilty for the acts of the individual.  In fact, doing so is called collective punishement and it has a dark stain and is considered a war crime for a reason.

-Polaris[/quote]

It's not about guilt or innocence it's about weakness.  Mages cannot be granted the luxury of being merely human because their weakness kills people.  A mage who lashes out in anger, or sorrow, or fear can level a building if not an entire village.  This isn't about bad people using their greater potential for ill, this is about what happens when people with the power of gods fall prey to the same weaknesses we do.  We must demand more from them because the cost if they do is so much greater.

[quote]The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...



[quote]Ok is this just an abstract, "Oh yeah of course there are non-mage Keepers." or is this actually something that's going to come up in a book, comic, Redemption, etc. Felicia Day or even David Gaider can talk about there being polka dot unicorns running wild across the Anderfels but until it comes up in an official release (book, comic, game, etc.) it's just talk.[/quote]

I can't speak to Redemption, as I haven't watched that more then once and I honestly found the writing to be bland, predictable, and kinda cheesy at times in regards to the characters (well, the Reaver girl and the Dalish Mage were pretty good, but Tallis' whole "fall in love with Templar only for him to die so swiftly" was just... blegh).

Maybe it came up there, I can't say.

Regardless, at this point yes it's just a spoken note. Should we take it into consideration though? Certainly. If we exclude even one iota of information, then there is no discussion to be had.[/quote]

A fair point and I'm not just casting aside the idea of non-mage Keepers but I'm just not seeing the evidence for it.  It's possible I suppose I'd just like to see something to support the notion.

Modifié par DPSSOC, 22 juin 2013 - 03:34 .