1656 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonflight288]

Ieldra2 wrote...

DAA established that the Chantry's authority supersedes secular authority in matters of magic. That, however, means nothing more that they can try and invoke that authority, not that they always must. In Ferelden, they chose not to interfere.

But after the third blight, all the nations, including the Chantry, recognized the Wardens right of conscription, and the Chantry has always been suspicious of the Wardens ever sense, seeing them as a haven of apostates and blood mages that they can't touch.

I get the impression that the Chantry and the templars interfering with the Wardens and their mages is a recent thing.

[TEWR]

It's worth noting that Rylock wasn't taking it upon herself, but actually was told by Chantry personnel to bring in Anders. Anders' tenure in the Wardens was short-lived in part not only due to Justice but also because the Templars and Chantry had apparently adamantly insisted one of their own be conscripted into the Order -- as a means to keep an eye on Anders.

Then you have DAII's Avernus side quest where the bandits' remarks tell us that someone hired them to keep Avernus' research from getting to its destination.

It seems evident that the Chantry and/or Templars/Seekers were moving against the Wardens.

[Ieldra]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

DAA established that the Chantry's authority supersedes secular authority in matters of magic. That, however, means nothing more that they can try and invoke that authority, not that they always must. In Ferelden, they chose not to interfere.

But after the third blight, all the nations, including the Chantry, recognized the Wardens right of conscription, and the Chantry has always been suspicious of the Wardens ever sense, seeing them as a haven of apostates and blood mages that they can't touch.

I get the impression that the Chantry and the templars interfering with the Wardens and their mages is a recent thing.

I wasn't referring to Anders when I said they didn't choose to interfere, but to the Fereldan rebellion against Orlais brought up abovethread. Fereldan Circle mages took part, and the Chantry, which is based in Orlais, could have tried to intervene on a technicality, trying to get those mages back into their Circle.

I agree that the Chantry's/templars' interference with the Wardens is likely more recent. More to the point, they *did* try to interfere, which exactly wasn't the point I was trying to make.

[dragonflight288]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

DAA established that the Chantry's authority supersedes secular authority in matters of magic. That, however, means nothing more that they can try and invoke that authority, not that they always must. In Ferelden, they chose not to interfere.

But after the third blight, all the nations, including the Chantry, recognized the Wardens right of conscription, and the Chantry has always been suspicious of the Wardens ever sense, seeing them as a haven of apostates and blood mages that they can't touch.

I get the impression that the Chantry and the templars interfering with the Wardens and their mages is a recent thing.

I wasn't referring to Anders when I said they didn't choose to interfere, but to the Fereldan rebellion against Orlais brought up abovethread. Fereldan Circle mages took part, and the Chantry, which is based in Orlais, could have tried to intervene on a technicality, trying to get those mages back into their Circle.

I agree that the Chantry's/templars' interference with the Wardens is likely more recent. More to the point, they *did* try to interfere, which exactly wasn't the point I was trying to make.

Ah.

Well, after the war with Orlais, the Chantry had to walk a fine-line considering Maric and Loghain were only a hair away from tossing the Chantry out of Ferelden entirely because it was seen as an Orlesian organization before a religious one.

[GodWood]

Plaintiff wrote...
I will laugh and laugh and laugh if DA:I ends with the "return of magic" and everybody being made a mage. I can just imagine the apoplectic rage that will ensue from the pro-Templar side.

The fact that you think this shows just how much you fail to understand the "pro-Templar" side.

Besides,  if everyone does end up becoming a mage at the end of DA:I that'd simply make the hundreds and thousands of deaths instigated by the "pro-mage" side completely pointless.

[Fredward]

GodWood wrote...
Besides,  if everyone does end up becoming a mage at the end of DA:I that'd simply make the hundreds and thousands of deaths instigated by the "pro-mage" side completely pointless.

Not if the hundred and thousands of deaths caused it.


Personally I don't want everyone to become a mage. It seems weird and contrived. Then again it could mean I could finally play a class that's more rogue than mage...

[Solmanian]

IceHawk-181 wrote...

I somehow do not equate putting a Serial Killer or Rapist to death with forcibly ripping someone's soul and emotions from them due to a possibility.

A more apt comparison would be to claim it is morally acceptable to force Men to become Eunuchs because there is a possibility they might commit rape...

Tranquility is not a penal action, period. The events kirkwall were troubling because it was used as such; no difference than a regime placing dissidents in asylums. It was certainly not the norm.

If a mage is considered to be unable to fend off demonic possession (a constant danger to mages, who act as beacons demons), than tranquility is invoked; it's to prevent them from becoming a danger to themselves and others. If there was a way to strip a mage of his powers, without cutting him completely from the fade, they would've used it, and much often also. If the KC and FE let a person undergo the harrowing (which is a neccessary "trial by fire"), when they believe he's unable to pass it successfuly, it would be murder and also needlessly endanger those administering the test.

[Ieldra]

GodWood wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
I will laugh and laugh and laugh if DA:I ends with the "return of magic" and everybody being made a mage. I can just imagine the apoplectic rage that will ensue from the pro-Templar side.

The fact that you think this shows just how much you fail to understand the "pro-Templar" side.

Besides,  if everyone does end up becoming a mage at the end of DA:I that'd simply make the hundreds and thousands of deaths instigated by the "pro-mage" side completely pointless.

There are always two sides to this. The templars could back down, then their would be no deaths. Mages will kill templars before they'll let themselves be imprisoned again, templars will kill mages before they'll let them go free. Somehow, inexplicably, I find that considering the mages didn't do anything to deserve imprisonment, the former is rather more acceptable.

[GodWood]

Ieldra2 wrote...
There are always two sides to this. The templars could back down, then their would be no deaths.

And a section of the mage community could have not instigated a violent war that sacrifices the safety of the majority to improve the already privileged lives of a small minority.

A revolution is not a tea-party and expecting the other side to simply close their eyes and bend over is monstrously stupid. No matter the cause a revolution will cause people to die in catastrophic numbers. When starting a revolution you must accept this and then ask yourself is this particular revolution worth the deaths of countless innocent non-combatants.

Of course this is completely out of context to my initial point of why the mage war would be pointless.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IceHawk-181 wrote...

The extensive historiographic studies I have reviewed in the process of developing mastery over Early American History, Civil War History, and Western Philosophy leads me to quite simply point out that there is a fundamental difference between a system of government and slavery.

Ahh...the great history of MURICA (f*** yeah!)
Slavery was abolished in my coutnry 500 years before America was born.
And my ****ry is young compared to some other countries.

On the topic of servitude.
The Mages are forced to work; the Chantry and the Templars require every Mage to undergo a forced education in Magical abilities that ends in their subjection to The Harrowing.

And children are technicly required by law to go to school.
Of course mages require education. EVeryone requiress education. And to a mage his life litteraly depends on it due to his nature.

Mages are not like normal poeple, ergo, any rules and definitions are
not direcly applicable to them wihotu due consideration to the
differences.

Whether or not you find the system of education a moral necessity or not, it is still a forced system of labor of which the Mages' only recourse is capital punishment.

Either you are concirned with the letter of hte law and the definiton, or the spirit. It cannot be both.
You cannot argue for and agaisnt morals.
If a system of education is a moral necesity, then how can it be condemend based on morals?

However, the Chantry denies Mages the agency to choose whether or not they are to go to a Circle, whether or not they want to educate themselves in Magic, whether or not they are allowed to maintain family ties, and whether or not they are to be subjected to capital punishment.

So? I see no problem there. I don't get to choose most of that stuff in my life either.
I can't tell the state to go f*** tiself and that I refuse to be subject to it's laws (and capital punishment)

Furthermore, the Rite of Annulment authorizes a Templar Knight Commander to execute innocent Mages in the case of a general uprising in a Circle, thereby demonstrating that an individual Mage need not actually violate any Chantry rules in order to be subject to Capital Punishment.

There are words for that: regretabble collateral damage. Quarantene. Better safe than sorry.

[Ieldra]

GodWood wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
There are always two sides to this. The templars could back down, then their would be no deaths.

And a section of the mage community could have not instigated a violent war that sacrifices the safety of the majority to improve the already privileged lives of a small minority.

The mages don't want a violent war. They want nothing more than to be left alone by the templars. If you want to get away from a bully and the bully gets violent, the blame for the fight rests squarely with the bully.

A revolution is not a tea-party and expecting the other side to simply close their eyes and bend over is monstrously stupid.

It is also monstrously stupid to expect that the people you've oppressed for a thousand years will back down and trust your goodwill again after those thousand years of oppression.

No matter the cause a revolution will cause people to die in catastrophic numbers. When starting a revolution you must accept this and then ask yourself is this particular revolution worth the deaths of countless innocent non-combatants.

The "don't rock the boat" argument is used by reactionaries all the time. That doesn't make it more valid. You actually don't know that many innocents will be killed. The revolution in East Germany 1989 killed no one. A large-scale slave uprising in Tevinter would probably kill a great many people, but how many innocent victims there would be is impossible to say. It's perfectly possible the violence will be mostly restricted to the fighting parties. In fact, doing everything to avoid the deaths of innocents is usually a good move from either side to garner sympathy from the populace. In the case of the mage rebellion, most people aren't party in it, so why should they become victims? The Orlesian civil war is much more likely to take its toll on the general populace, because everyone can be said to be party.

Edit:
I also don't accept blame for deaths of innocents caused by the other side. Should some extremist templars walk the land, killing rumored "mage supporters", accusing them of hiding blood mages and rejecting any protests with "they could be mind controlled", those deaths cannot be laid at the mages' feet.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 26 juin 2013 - 11:05 .

[MisterJB]

Ieldra2 wrote...
It is also monstrously stupid to expect that the people you've oppressed for a thousand years will back down and trust your goodwill again after those thousand years of oppression.

Hence why there is a Circle system in the first place and why the Templars are not willing to just "let the mages ago" after one thousand and nine hundred years of Tevinter opression.

[Xilizhra]

MisterJB wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
It is also monstrously stupid to expect that the people you've oppressed for a thousand years will back down and trust your goodwill again after those thousand years of oppression.

Hence why there is a Circle system in the first place and why the Templars are not willing to just "let the mages ago" after one thousand and nine hundred years of Tevinter opression.

None of whom, of course, have anything to do with Tevinter or its peculiar culture, the bad parts of which have nothing to do with magic-induced motivations.

[Reaverwind]

dragonflight288 wrote...


Well, after the war with Orlais, the Chantry had to walk a fine-line considering Maric and Loghain were only a hair away from tossing the Chantry out of Ferelden entirely because it was seen as an Orlesian organization before a religious one.

Too bad they didn't ala Henry VIII. 

[Ieldra]

MisterJB wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
It is also monstrously stupid to expect that the people you've oppressed for a thousand years will back down and trust your goodwill again after those thousand years of oppression.

Hence why there is a Circle system in the first place and why the Templars are not willing to just "let the mages ago" after one thousand and nine hundred years of Tevinter opression.

There is no ideological or cultural continuity between the ancient magisters and today's mages in the lands outside of Tevinter. The templars oppress people who have nothing to do with those who maintained the Imperium. Example in question: would you really expect someone like Anders to take up the role of a slave-owning magister using human sacrifice to power his magic? He may be a misguided radical, but he never struck me as hypocritical. He's also very much opposed to blood magic.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 26 juin 2013 - 12:37 .

[MWImexico]

Bleachrude wrote...

I'm honestly shocked that people think mages are slaves because their rights are restricted.

I'm not, it can be a figure of speech. Anyway, it is not worse than compare mages to objects or animals or contagious patients.
What bothers me is the evocation of some killings in the past. What's the point? Was it morally justified in the past and not now? Can we use it as an excuse to do the same during the game?

And templars (or to be more specific, some of them) are abusing their power. If nothing is done about that, then I can't envisage to send back the mages in their towers. Or I'll be very disgusted.

[MisterJB]

Ieldra2 wrote...
There is no ideological or cultural continuity between the ancient magisters and today's mages in the lands outside of Tevinter. The templars oppress people who have nothing to do with those who maintained the Imperium. Example in question: would you really expect someone like Anders to take up the role of a slave-owning magister using human sacrifice to power his magic? He may be a misguided radical, but he never struck me as hypocritical. He's also very much opposed to blood magic.

Magic in the Imperium helped fuel megalomaniac and egomaniac sentiments that already existed but megalomania and egomania are present in elements of every culture everywhere; even in freedom loving Ferelden there's people like Vaughann and Ser Temmerly. There is a very real danger of Southern Thedas becoming very much like the North, especially since we've already seen Southerner Mages who held the same belief of Tevinters such as Tahrone, Idunna, Uldred, Adrian, Huon.
Not to mention that at the time the Circle was extablished, there ws barely any culture beyond Tevinter's.


As for Anders, he is a huge hypocrite.
"Fenris let one bad example color his entire world view." If we are going to call a lifetime being opressed and witnessing his kind opressed by mages "one bad example", the same thing can be said of Anders.

"Anders: Everyone born in Thedas deserves freedom as a matter of principle.
2 Acts later
Danarius: I'll give you ten sovereigns for Fenris.
Anders: Am I the only one who thinks this is a good idea?" Self-explanatory really.

Modifié par MisterJB, 26 juin 2013 - 12:57 .

[Medhia Nox]

Does anyone question though that the templars have abused their power? Especially in Kirkwall?

Does anyone on the BSN (I'm sure there's "someone") actually say: Oh yeah, Meredith was totally in her right mind... and that Alrik dude had the right idea!

For myself - the major point(s) is(are) this(these):

- A mage has no real world analogue so throwing around real world acumen about politics or history is irrelevant (and counter productive).

- Were I a mage in the DA universe, I believe it would be wisdom to understand that I am capable of great and terrible dangers if not constantly vigilant. And I would consider the epitome of arrogance to think that I'll always be "fine".

For all my criticism of Thedas mages being the absolute stupidest mages I've ever seen written - Wynne is particularly wise I believe and is the voice of mage truth in the story. She is the reality a mage "should" see.

Wynne isn't "Yeah! Tranquility!" but she also isn't "Yeah, I'm feeling bad - blow something up!"

Wynne tries to change perspective by positive example. That takes time - isn't always successful and is FAR less glamorous than being a terrorist or revolutionary. I also happen to think it's both the most pragmatic and the most morally upstanding.

- If real world historical "themes" are to be used (as opposed to solid definitions of any specific event/time/culture) I believe that this Revolution was totally counter productive to any sort of reform. If the story simply accepts mage civil liberties as sacrosanct AFTER mages are seen committing atrocities in a world where they are already feared and loathed... I think that the DA universe will be a weaker IP for it.

[Xilizhra]

Magic in the Imperium helped fuel megalomaniac and egomaniac sentiments that already existed but megalomania and egomania are present in elements of every culture everywhere; even in freedom loving Ferelden there's people like Vaughann and Ser Temmerly. There is a very real danger of Southern Thedas becoming very much like the North, especially since we've already seen Southerner Mages who held the same belief of Tevinters such as Tahrone, Idunna, Uldred, Adrian, Huon.

Idunna was very easily broken and probably easily led, Uldred and Adrian have shown no signs of mage supremacy and only desired mage freedom, and Huon was both completely insane and seemed to be driven solely by a desire for personal power with a tinge of elf supremacy, not mage. Only Tahrone really qualifies.

As for Anders, he is a huge hypocrite.
"Fenris let one bad example color his entire world view." If we are going to call a lifetime being opressed and witnessing his kind opressed by mages "one bad example", the same thing can be said of Anders.

He had the example of one culture that doesn't extend beyond a single nation. The Circle extends through several and is nigh-universal outside Tevinter.

"Anders: Everyone born in Thedas deserves freedom as a matter of principle.
2 Acts later
Danarius: I'll give you ten sovereigns for Fenris.
Anders: Am I the only one who thinks this is a good idea?" Self-explanatory really.

Fenris is an enemy, or at least a very strong potential one. Anders values life, but has never hesitated to kill when that was necessary.

Wynne tries to change perspective by positive example. That takes time - isn't always successful and is FAR less glamorous than being a terrorist or revolutionary. I also happen to think it's both the most pragmatic and the most morally upstanding.

She winds up fighting the templars directly when she realizes just how low they've sunk, and throwing in with the nascent rebellion. She dies shortly thereafter though.

- If real world historical "themes" are to be used (as opposed to solid definitions of any specific event/time/culture) I believe that this Revolution was totally counter productive to any sort of reform. If the story simply accepts mage civil liberties as sacrosanct AFTER mages are seen committing atrocities in a world where they are already feared and loathed... I think that the DA universe will be a weaker IP for it.

You assume that the rebels will commit systematic atrocities.

[Xilizhra]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Fenris is an enemy, or at least a very strong potential one. Anders values life, but has never hesitated to kill when that was necessary.

And also shows that he is a massive hypocrite who will literally sell you into slavery if you disagree with him. All the while ranting about how slavery is evil

I'm giving an example of his thought process, not condoning it. Fenris, in turn, would love to kill Anders if he got the chance; it's hardly a one-sided animosity.

[Ieldra]

Medhia Nox wrote...
- A mage has no real world analogue so throwing around real world acumen about politics or history is irrelevant (and counter productive).

Real-world analogies can illustrate similarities and thus be useful. They can also serve as a reminder that blaming all evils caused by mages on the fact that they're mages may be a tad shortsighted. 

- Were I a mage in the DA universe, I believe it would be wisdom to understand that I am capable of great and terrible dangers if not constantly vigilant. And I would consider the epitome of arrogance to think that I'll always be "fine".

Here I agree. However, while that may lead me to accept a non-mage companion with templar abilities who has the task of preventing disasters while I'm traveling, I do not see any reason to accept an ideological enemy to fulfil that role rather than someone who could be a friend who doesn't assume that I actually want to sacrifice humans and control minds the first opportunity I get, and I see no reason to accept perpetual isolation.

For all my criticism of Thedas mages being the absolute stupidest mages I've ever seen written - Wynne is particularly wise I believe and is the voice of mage truth in the story. She is the reality a mage "should" see.

Wynne isn't "Yeah! Tranquility!" but she also isn't "Yeah, I'm feeling bad - blow something up!"

Wynne tries to change perspective by positive example. That takes time - isn't always successful and is FAR less glamorous than being a terrorist or revolutionary. I also happen to think it's both the most pragmatic and the most morally upstanding.

Since Wynne doesn't justify the Circle system, but only speaks against radical opposition on the grounds that this would be couterproductive, I can see your point. I'm not sure, though, if there could've been a nonviolent solution given the attitude of people like Lambert, even without the radicals on the mage side.

If real world historical "themes" are to be used (as opposed to solid definitions of any specific event/time/culture) I believe that this Revolution was totally counter productive to any sort of reform. If the story simply accepts mage civil liberties as sacrosanct AFTER mages are seen committing atrocities in a world where they are already feared and loathed... I think that the DA universe will be a weaker IP for it.

It is possible you are completely correct in this. Even if you are, however, and even though I agree that a perfect solution which isn't also a compromise could possibly compromise the thematic integrity of the world, it has no bearing on arguments justifying the status quo, since "revolution vs. reform" is a question of which methods are preferrable towards a change of the system. Both Wynne and Adrian want a significant change. They disagree on how to get there.

I do not believe that there will be a perfect solution, but I also don't believe that the mage rebellion is doomed to committing atrocities to reach their goals. 

Edit:
Sorry, I mistook you for someone else. Ignore anything you might have read about your "other posts" before I deleted it.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 26 juin 2013 - 01:36 .

[Xilizhra]

Since Wynne doesn't justify the Circle system, but only speaks against violent opposition on the grounds that this would be couterproductive, I can see your point. I'm not sure, though, if there could've been a nonviolent solution given the attitude of people like Lambert, even without the radicals on the mage side.

The mage solution was nonviolent; the templars made it violent.

[MisterJB]

Xilizhra wrote...
Idunna was very easily broken and probably easily led,

And that changes the fact she is a mage supremacist how? This is the exact defense of murderers and rapists "It's not my fault, I was led into it by a domineering personality."
Apparently, all non-mages can hope is that mages are not easily led or they'll just become mage supremacists.

Uldred and Adrian have shown no signs of mage supremacy and only desired mage freedom,

Yeah, Uldred was only preaching about mages being the larval form of something greater and Adrian shoved fire into the face of a non-mage to prove how mages are "pretty impressive". Her own words.

Huon was both completely insane

Bad templars are sadists and deserve punishment but bad mages are insane and it's thus not their fault.
Gotcha.

and seemed to be driven solely by a desire for personal power with a tinge of elf supremacy, not mage.

His race definitely colored his view but the basis of his argument was the magic elves held inside. Meaning he is a elven mage supremacist.

He had the example of one culture that doesn't extend beyond a single nation. The Circle extends through several and is nigh-universal outside Tevinter.

He suffered consistent abuse his entire life and witnessed mages beyond his master opressing non-mages. It's not one example and it's hardly different from what Anders claims he went through.
To accuse Fenris is to be an hypocrite.

Fenris is an enemy, or at least a very strong potential one. Anders values life, but has never hesitated to kill when that was necessary.

"Slavery is evil unless you disagree with me in which case, it's good."

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...

Since Wynne doesn't justify the Circle system, but only speaks against radicalviolent opposition on the grounds that this would be couterproductive, I can see your point. I'm not sure, though, if there could've been a nonviolent solution given the attitude of people like Lambert, even without the radicals on the mage side.

The mage solution was nonviolent; the templars made it violent.

Conceded. Changed "violent" to "radical".