1656 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

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.

Your first quote was actually spoken by a demon (that Uldred didn't want in his body, if the prior screaming was any indication), and the latter was during a fight instigated by the nonmage. It had nothing to do with supremacism.

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

I'm saying that he's not indicative of any societal trends. I was fine with killing him.

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 only seemed to want to suck the magic out of all other elves to add to his own power, and I don't think that quite counts as supremacism.

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.

All mages in said culture that doesn't extend into other nations. I don't think that Anders is necessarily right in doing so, but it doesn't make him a horrible person either.

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

Slavery is never good, but my Hawke never had Anders say anything indicating otherwise and would not take a nonexistent line into account.

[Medhia Nox]

@Ieldra2: But mages aren't "gays" or "African American slaves" or this - or that. They're certainly not "just another minority". They're a group of people possessing otherworldly powers and providing entrance into the world of even greater otherworldly powers. There simply is NO comparison to truly be made.

Note: Which is why I make the distinction of using history "thematically" vs. "factually" at the end of my post.

Where did I say that I support templar authority over mages? I do not.

Just because I won't use fiery speech like "slavery" or "genocide" doesn't mean I'm Pro-Templar.

To me - there's not even a question that the Templars should be destroyed.

It is with regret that I feel the revolutionaries must also be destroyed as a faction. But destroy them I will (and as a mage) - unless I receive some form of new information in Inquisition - and ONLY if there are still very strict regulations placed on mages. This notion of a mage utopia is both 1) totally uninteresting to me on a story level 2) grossly irresponsibly and doomed to failure given what we know about mages on Thedas.

Lastly, my point has always been that in the last thousand years - has there been ANY attempt at peaceful reform - and if so, why haven't we been shown to provide a more complex tapestry of events?

Instead - we're only shown mages freaking out at every little thing until finally - the true problems happen, and they're justifiably freaking out - but to me, it just looks like they're  way WAY too shortsighted and now are going to just resort to violent revolution to solve their problems (which I don't believe it would or should).

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 26 juin 2013 - 01:43 .

[MisterJB]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I do not believe that there will be a perfect solution, but I don't believe that the mage rebellion is doomed to committing atrocities to reach their goals. 

It's unrealistic to believe that no mage in this rebellion will comit attrocities.
Mages who will use the blood of entire villages to power themselves, mages who will use towns as base of operations and take liberties with the population or simply mages who will simply fall into temptation and become an abomination.
These will not be universal but neither will they be absent in any realistic setting. And I fully expect templars to commit attrocities as well.

[Xilizhra]

It is with regret that I feel the revolutionaries must also be destroyed as a faction. But destroy them I will (and as a mage) - unless I receive some form of new information in Inquisition - and ONLY if there are still very strict regulations placed on mages. This notion of a mage utopia is both 1) totally uninteresting to me on a story level 2) grossly irresponsibly and doomed to failure given what we know about mages on Thedas.

Would you side with the revolution if you knew that they'd actually build up a decent society? Not necessarily a utopia without any problems, but a decent one.

Lastly, my point has always been that in the last thousand years - has there been ANY attempt at peaceful reform - and if so, why haven't we been shown to provide a more complex tapestry of events?

Because we've only ever seen the Dragon Age, which is the age of violent change.

These will not be universal but neither will they be absent in any realistic setting. And I fully expect templars to commit attrocities as well.

And if there are no systematic atrocities committed?

[Ieldra]

Medhia Nox wrote...
@Ieldra2: But mages aren't "gays" or "African American slaves" or this - or that. They're certainly not "just another minority". They're a group of people possessing otherworldly powers and providing entrance into the world of even greater otherworldly powers. There simply is NO comparison to truly be made.

Note: Which is why I make the distinction of using history "thematically" vs. "factually" at the end of my post.

Yet, you need examples to illustrate a theme. I agree that the spirit in which comparisons are made is not always apparent.

Where did I say that I support templar authority over mages? I do not.

Just because I won't use fiery speech like "slavery" or "genocide" doesn't mean I'm Pro-Templar.

To me - there's not even a question that the Templars should be destroyed.

Sorry about that, as I said, I mixed you up with someone else.

Lastly, my point has always been that in the last thousand years - has there been ANY attempt at peaceful reform - and if so, why haven't we been shown to provide a more complex tapestry of events?

Instead - we're only shown mages freaking out at every little thing until finally - the true problems happen, and they're justifiably freaking out - but to me, it just looks like they're  way WAY too shortsighted and now are going to just resort to violent revolution to solve their problems (which I don't believe it would or should).

That there haven't been any effects from peaceful reform is the point here. It is implausible to assume that there have never been any attempts. They just were not successful, which is why things now escalate. Why they weren't told - well, Bioware has never been overly complex in their storytelling. Perhaps they'll make the attempt to show us a more complex picture, but unfortunately, too many players wouldn't know subtlely when it hits them on the head, so they might not consider it worth the effort to add things.

Also, there have been successful revolutions - successful in that they got things to change for the better, even if they rarely got the envisioned ideal. I don't see any compelling reason why there shouldn't be an outcome acceptable for most mages. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 26 juin 2013 - 01:55 .

[Medhia Nox]

@Xilizhra: You see, herein lies the problem. Why do mages get to build a society at all? Are they inherently better than anyone else? IF they believe they are - then the problem will never solve itself.

If you mean one where non-mages and mages live in more amicable conditions. The answer would still probably be no.

I do not support the reasons why the revolution was undertaken. As we've discussed before - Anders IS a catalyst, even if not THEE catalyst for the war. I am adamantly opposed to doing anything under a banner that supports (even if only by association) what he did in Kirkwall.

In fact - I would say now is specifically NOT the time to revolt.

I don't support mages over non-mages. I support on an individual basis. A cause - I feel - blinds me to true discernment.

I cannot say: Sure, mages have done bad BUT....
I cannot say: Sure, Templars have oppressed BUT...

But you can bet I'll take a side if it's available - and that's crushing the cause heads of both factions. I state it this way not because I actually do support violence - but because that's the language of video games. I am positive I would not be able to play DA: I without killing - so, killing becomes part of the morality with which I use to judge the game world I'm in.

[Xilizhra]

I do not support the reasons why the revolution was undertaken. As we've discussed before - Anders IS a catalyst, even if not THEE catalyst for the war. I am adamantly opposed to doing anything under a banner that supports (even if only by association) what he did in Kirkwall.

The revolution exists for no other reason but that the templars tried to kill them all. If not for that, it would have been an utterly bloodless secession.

[Medhia Nox]

@Xilizhra: Bloodless other than Kirkwall you mean?

Even if I were to take the information in the book into consideration (and I am less inclined to do so). I cannot separate those events to what precipitated world-wide Templar fascism.

You seem to state that mages are blameless in nearly every rebuttal - I cannot side with that.

[Ieldra]

Medhia Nox wrote...
I don't support mages over non-mages. I support on an individual basis. A cause - I feel - blinds me to true discernment.

Ah...I actually agree with you in that.

"The essence of balance is detachment.
To embrace a cause, to grow fond or spiteful,
is to lose one's balance,
after which, no action can be trusted.
Our burden is not for the dependent of spirit."
    -- Keeper quote from "Thief: The Dark Project"

The fact that I wrote the OP as a manifesto might mask this somewhat, and the fact that BSN in general tends to factionalize doesn't help in realizing the proper detachment. I am party in this conflict because I tend to play mages and identify with them, but I try to keep an open mind. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 26 juin 2013 - 02:10 .

[MisterJB]

Xilizhra wrote...

Your first quote was actually spoken by a demon (that Uldred didn't want in his body, if the prior screaming was any indication),

That admitted it was partially Uldred. It's not outside of the realm of possibility Uldred did want to become a Pride Abomination because he envisioned a future where mages became "something greater".
The prior screaming is not hard to explain given they're torturing mages hoping to break them.

and the latter was during a fight instigated by the nonmage. It had nothing to do with supremacism.

It had everything to do with it. Certainly, the guy was being a douche but his point tha non-mages needn't be impressed by magic was a valid one. By flashing fire in a threatening manner in order to prove a point; that point being "mages are impressive; shows that Adrian believes mages are superior to non-mages.
Not to mention her earlier remark of how "they should be grateful".

I'm saying that he's not indicative of any societal trends. I was fine with killing him.

My point was never that it was a societal trend, only that Huon, a southerhner mage shows indications of being a mage supremacist.
Saying that "he is insane" is actually a trend amongst pro-mages. Whenever we see bad mage, be him Quentin or Tahrone or Huon, it's always "s/he's insane, it's not his/her fault".

He only seemed to want to suck the magic out of all other elves to add to his own power, and I don't think that quite counts as supremacism.

"Your blood will bring new life to our people...I'm a visionary, I've seen our destiny. I know what fate holds for the elves."
Seems to me that he had plans.

All mages in said culture that doesn't extend into other nations. I don't think that Anders is necessarily right in doing so, but it doesn't make him a horrible person either.

It does make him an hypocrite.

Slavery is never good, but my Hawke never had Anders say anything indicating otherwise and would not take a nonexistent line into account.

I don't care what your Hawke does. But the line exists and is part of Anders' character and personality.

[The Spirit of Dance]

For some reason I thought the title said a mage mafioso... carry on.

[Medhia Nox]

@supremebloodwolf: That's the Lucrosians!

See - mages are into organized crime too! Does their evil know no end!?

Instead of the Sapranos - "The Amells"

[Xilizhra]

That admitted it was partially Uldred. It's not outside of the realm of possibility Uldred did want to become a Pride Abomination because he envisioned a future where mages became "something greater".
The prior screaming is not hard to explain given they're torturing mages hoping to break them.

It's a demon, why are you trusting it?

It had everything to do with it. Certainly, the guy was being a douche but his point tha non-mages needn't be impressed by magic was a valid one. By flashing fire in a threatening manner in order to prove a point; that point being "mages are impressive; shows that Adrian believes mages are superior to non-mages.
Not to mention her earlier remark of how "they should be grateful".

It's not indicative of supremacist desires, only anger in that specific situation.

My point was never that it was a societal trend, only that Huon, a southerhner mage shows indications of being a mage supremacist.
Saying that "he is insane" is actually a trend amongst pro-mages. Whenever we see bad mage, be him Quentin or Tahrone or Huon, it's always "s/he's insane, it's not his/her fault".

I don't see him as being a supremacist, just "I want more of everything for me."

"Your blood will bring new life to our people...I'm a visionary, I've seen our destiny. I know what fate holds for the elves."
Seems to me that he had plans.

Probably with him being the single elf left as some sort of blood god.

It does make him an hypocrite.

No more than Fenris.

I don't care what your Hawke does. But the line exists and is part of Anders' character and personality.

And only exists after Hawke suggests it, I should point out. He doesn't advocate it on his own.

[MWImexico]

Medhia Nox wrote...
- 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.

I totally agree, but ideally the Templars should do the same about their own power / authority over mages.

Medhia Nox wrote ....
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.

But I would not condemn all mages because they are not Wynne. Only if they are uncontrollably dangerous. And it could be detected thanks to personality tests.

Medhia Nox wrote ...
- 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.

I'm not sure. It's hard to say. Had I been a mage in the Magi circle of Asunder, I think I would have react badly by learning, for example, that the circle of Kirkwall was canceled after years of abuse perpetrated against mages. At times, people will naturally rebel even if in the long run it is "perhaps" not in their interest.

[The Spirit of Dance]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@supremebloodwolf: That's the Lucrosians!

See - mages are into organized crime too! Does their evil know no end!?

Instead of the Sapranos - "The Amells"

Wow I completely forgot that the mage fraternities existed.


They should really do something with them in DA:I, like turn them into different factions of the mage army.

[MWImexico]

MisterJB wrote...
"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.

I think Anders sees that like some sort of payback, you know, Fenris wants to send back every apostate/mage he meets in the circle. So Anders want to send back the elf to slavery. This is disgusting, of course.

[MisterJB]

Xilizhra wrote...
It's a demon, why are you trusting it?

It matches Anders own willing possession.
And it has no reason to lie.

It's not indicative of supremacist desires, only anger in that specific situation.

Except she didn't use her magic as a way of defending herself, she wanted to awe the "peasants" with her "impressivness".
Which coupled with her later attempt to incinerate the very person who stood between the mages and the mob shows she simply believes mages are superior to non-mages.
By the end of that book, even Rhys was ready to throw her off a roof.

Probably with him being the single elf left as some sort of blood god.

Or, you know, he is just an elven supremacist who believes mages should rule because of "the magic within them".

No more than Fenris.

Fenris has never been a hypocrite.

And only exists after Hawke suggests it, I should point out. He doesn't advocate it on his own.

But he says he was thinking about meaning he was actually thinking how awesome it would be if Danarius just enslaved Fenris again.

[Xilizhra]

It matches Anders own willing possession.
And it has no reason to lie.

We have no evidence that it was willing, and a couple pieces of counterevidence. And it controls Uldred's body and magic.

Except she didn't use her magic as a way of defending herself, she wanted to awe the "peasants" with her "impressivness".
Which coupled with her later attempt to incinerate the very person who stood between the mages and the mob shows she simply believes mages are superior to non-mages.
By the end of that book, even Rhys was ready to throw her off a roof.

He started the fight and would have escalated it on its own. And said person was a templar and on the mob's side by definition, even if she left later.
Rhys' emotional reaction is understandable; what's important is that he didn't kill her.

Or, you know, he is just an elven supremacist who believes mages should rule because of "the magic within them".

Who knows?

Fenris has never been a hypocrite.

He completely is over the mage issue and glossing over any issues of oppression provided its of a group he dislikes.

[Medhia Nox]

@MWImexico: Well, sure - I get to be a third party outsider.

But specifically in crisis situations I tend to be very methodical and not prone to emotional overreaction. Weirdly - I portray myself as far more emotional when I don't perceive the situation as dire.

I'm not saying that every mage should act "this way" - that would be poor writing.

I'm just saying that I don't think the choice lends itself to ending well and I will be very disappointed if this knee-jerk emotional reaction gets the: "Plucky Revolutionaries Win!" treatment.

I would suggest that even the American revolution was in danger until they started thinking a little more methodically and less emotionally.

After all - who rebels without a trained army - that was dumb (even if fanatical patriotism and romanticized liberation cloud the judgement to suggest it was "right")

[Ieldra]

supremebloodwolf wrote...
For some reason I thought the title said a mage mafioso... carry on.

I'm sure they exist. This thread, however, is not about them.

[Ieldra]

Medhia Nox wrote...
After all - who rebels without a trained army

Maric Theirin did. And he was successful.

So while I'm not saying anything about how desirable a "mage win their freedom" outcome would be from a worldbuilding perspective and a basis for future storytelling, it's not necessarily less coherent than any other.

[Medhia Nox]

@Ieldra2: I'm not really saying nobody does it - nor is it doomed to failure - just that without a LOT of extenuating circumstances it's really just started a conflict in the worst possible position.

If there MUST be a mage victory - I would hope it's a pyrrhic one.

I think only an emotional fanatic would do such a thing (opinion).

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 26 juin 2013 - 03:13 .

[Ieldra]

Medhia Nox wrote...
@Ieldra2: I'm not really saying nobody does it - nor is it doomed to failure - just that without a LOT of extenuating circumstances it's really just started a conflict in the worst possible position.

I'm not so sure. The Chantry is at its weakest, there's civil war in Orlais. They may be in an excellent position to say "We'll help you if you help us" to everyone but Lambert's faction. The strategic situation isn't so bad, only the immediate situation doesn't look exactly promising. And then the Veil tear provides more opportunity. It's a random circumstance, but if they help save everyone's asses people might view them in a different light.

The main problem is that we don't know the strength of Lambert's faction. Being a conventional army, they may be in a better position to do the same. Until the Veil tear, at least. That's the real game-changer.

If there MUST be a mage victory - I would hope it's a pyrrhic one.

I think only an emotional fanatic would do such a thing (opinion).

Would want what? A pyrrhic victory? Nobody wants that, but the price of losing may be even greater.

[LobselVith8]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Xilizhra: Bloodless other than Kirkwall you mean?

Even if I were to take the information in the book into consideration (and I am less inclined to do so). I cannot separate those events to what precipitated world-wide Templar fascism.

You seem to state that mages are blameless in nearly every rebuttal - I cannot side with that.

Considering that Anders isn't even a member of the Circle, how are his actions in Kirkwall an example?