Ieldra2 wrote...
About coexistence: I would actually have promoted mages creating their own nation and culture, leaving the lands where they'd been oppressed behind, but there are mage children born to non-mages and vice versa so that won't work.
Plus, any mage nation would eventually dominate those around it either militarily or economically so, yeah. It doesn't work.
As for the real-world comparisons: those don't work because we don't have people with destructive powers which can't be separated from them, but the difference between "locking away someone because they might use their fists to kill someone" and doing the same with a mage is one of degree, not quality. Where you draw the line is by default arbitrary,
True but a line must be drawn. The differences between using a sword or using magic are obvious; this because it's not a matter of "a non-mage soldier can just as easily kill with a sword as a mage can with a fireball" but it's a matter of "a mage child accomplished what only a trained small army of warriors could have".
but regardless of where you draw it or if you draw one at all, it does not justify subjecting people to the treatment mages get in circles - see frostajulies' comment.
That, itself, is arbitrary. I can say the Circly employs only what is utmost necessary to protect the people when the subject in question is so vague.
Also, you appear to disregard some of the psychological effects. There is no better means to make mages lose any consideration for the non-mages than segregating them by force. If you want mages to keep the well-being of non-mages in mind and not take reckless risks with their powers in their presence, there is no better means than letting them make connections. Isolation breeds disregard. That goes both ways. Isolation breeds suspicion on the non-mage side. The only rationale for segregation I can accept is for training, and that only until the mage has learned control
I'm actually in full agreement with this. I've argued in the past that the Circle needs to act more as a bridge between these two groups of people.
What I've always balked at was the notion of mages living outside of the Circle and having roles in society.
without representatives of an enemy ideology hovering over them constantly.
Only non-mages not paid by the mages can be trusted with watching over mages. The use of religion simply helps ensure their commitment to their duties and not to gold.
About Tranquility: some mages are so much in fear of their power that they ask for it. I don't have a problem with that. The problems start when you make people Tranquil forcibly who never did anything to merit it, without any kind of precedent, just on the possibility that they might do something. That's not acceptable. Jowan practiced blood magic, but he never caused any harm until he was cornered.
Sometimes, mages are simply too dangerous. For instance, Feynriel. He doesn't seem like a particularly bad person; just a regular one with vices and virtues. But that doesn't mean he should be trusted with the power to reshape the world at will.
Jowan, likewise, it's not a bad person. But blood magic is just too corruptible. The very nature of it encourages people to kill others in gruesome fashion (WoT page 109). It has its uses, certainly but it should be used only by experienced and trustworthy mages and in controled environments. Not a randow apprentice who is just as likely to fry an egg as bringing the tower down.
Therefore, the templars had to take a stance. Blood magic is forbidden, period. Tranquilise him.
About Fade spirits: the classifications follow Chantry doctrine, and Chantry doctrine is dominated by its notions of sin. The events in "Asunder" show us that this might just be a little narrow-minded and that we might want to look at the nature of Fade spirits anew. Rhys' statement in "Asunder" points in the same direction. In modern language, we're looking for a new scientific paradigm because the old one is too biased. A paradigm dominated by an ideological doctrine usually leads to suppression. Lambert's behaviour is just a piece of hard evidence for something you can expect to exist much more pervasively.
I think that now you are seeing what you expect to see than what it's actually there. Have you considered the possibility that the classifications of demons is what originated Chantry doctrine (as in, observe the demons and due to that realize they embody certain negative characteristics of humanity).
Just because it's what usually happens, doesn't mean it's happening here.
Retour en haut
