137 réponses à ce sujet

[Auintus]

I always figured it was intended as "magic(the power, not the mage) is meant to serve man(the common people) and never rule over him(a mage should not be ruled by their power, or the drive to obtain more).
I feel like I'm writing up a contract.

So, if pro-Chantry characters want to quote Andrastian scripture at me, hoping it will convince me to do what they want, my Vashoth mage reserves the right to break composure and roll around laughing until he can no longer breathe properly. Then get back up and pretend it never happened.

[Siegdrifa]

I do not play games in my language, i use english instead of french, so may be i got the meaning wrong.

I though that "magic exist to serve man and never rule over him" meant that mages had to keep their power in check in order to use it in a way to favor human intrest with wisedome rather than being consumed by this power that could corrupt the mage in the long run and would lead to become an abomination, which is what mankind fear from mages.

So, i though it was more about about self control rather than politic rule.

[Dean_the_Young]

Plaintiff wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
You've never understood why overwhelmingly powerful forces choose not to involve themselves in the affairs of others?

Huh. I thought potential reasons would be obvious, especially since some are given in the lore.

I have trouble believing that a being with such power would give a **** about Thedas at all. But the Chantry claims that the Maker does, in which case, his presence should be felt, but it's not.

Luckily, they have an excuse for that.

Not aimed at you, but-

One of the more amusing forum conversations I've seen was a person who made similar arguments against the idea of god ('if he's so powerful, and doesn't act, he must not exist'), while the the other person was making not-too-subtle analogies to international relations of great powers and minor ones. It was hilarious because the person's anti-divinity arguments were amusingly applicable to a certain global superpower and the third world country of the day.

[Dean_the_Young]

Siegdrifa wrote...

I do not play games in my language, i use english instead of french, so may be i got the meaning wrong.

I though that "magic exist to serve man and never rule over him" meant that mages had to keep their power in check in order to use it in a way to favor human intrest with wisedome rather than being consumed by this power that could corrupt the mage in the long run and would lead to become an abomination, which is what mankind fear from mages.

So, i though it was more about about self control rather than politic rule.

It can definitely be read that way: it's a metaphor that can be interpreted as literally or broadly as you want. A certain amount of rhetorical flourish is implicity: magic by itself does not 'rule' anyone, so obviously it refers to some extent about the usage of it. Past that, though, cheers.

[Daerog]

The Chant of Light, like many songs out there, seem to have many interpretations depending on the listener.

[Martyr1777]

mikeymoonshine wrote...

Rogue group! In opposition to the Chantry! Has an army apparently!

The Warden wasn't really an Arl, Technically he/she had the power of an Arl but the power came from being Warden Commander and we know mages can be Wardens without having to answer to templars and mage restriction laws.

The Chantry has little to no Power atm, The Templars are divided and at war, The seekers are also divided.

Who is going to be able to stop you?

Oh and a mage isn't a Hypocrite if they support the Templars and the Chantry. Some mages believe that they are dangerous and should be kept in circles.

I will give you the Seb thing but DA2 handled Hawke being a mage terribly.

I beleive the POs point isnt about being stopped, but that it would spark quite a bit more dialogue the others wouldn't have. And its an excellent point, but I do beleive they are indeed working with that in mind from what I've been reading.

[leaguer of one]

I think the line"SHOULD NOT RULE OVER THEM" is miss understood. In a proper government the ones in charge are in service to the people, not the people to the government. It just mean magic should not be used to control people not mages can't be part of the government.

[leaguer of one]

Siegdrifa wrote...

I do not play games in my language, i use english instead of french, so may be i got the meaning wrong.

I though that "magic exist to serve man and never rule over him" meant that mages had to keep their power in check in order to use it in a way to favor human intrest with wisedome rather than being consumed by this power that could corrupt the mage in the long run and would lead to become an abomination, which is what mankind fear from mages.

So, i though it was more about about self control rather than politic rule.

In truth your not wrong. It a concept of person reading the statement makes their own meaning. The chantry belive it to mean "no mage must rule" while tevintor has a differnent interpetation.

Your interpertation is one a wish the people of thedis adopt.

[Silfren]

azarhal wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

That line doesn't mean mages can't be in positions of rulership. It just means you can't organize a magocracy. Which he's not.

Though if he did, good luck stopping him.

That's an interpretation. But I do not believe it's the one that is held outside Tevinter

http://dragonage.wik...mperial_Chantry

The Maker's second commandment, "Magic must serve man, not rule over him," never held the same meaning within the ancient Tevinter Imperium
as it did elsewhere. The Chantry there interpreted the rule as meaning
that mages should never control the minds of other men, and that
otherwise their magic should benefit the rulers of men as much as
possible.
...
The Circle of the Magi today rules Tevinter directly, ever since the Archon
Nomaran was elected in 7:34 Storm directly from the ranks of the
enchanters, to great applause from the public. He dispensed with the old
rules forbidding mages from taking part in politics, and within a
century, the true rulers within the various imperial houses-the
mages-took their places openly within the government

Indeed, the Chantry doctrine says that a mage cannot unduly rule or become rulers themselves. The Inquisitor is ruling keeps and land as we can see in the pre-alpha demo. This would mean that a mage Inquisitor is going against the Chantry rule on mages, but I suspect BioWare is going to ignore this like they ignored apostate mage Hawke running around Kirkwall doing blood magic in DA2...or it's temporary.

It doesn't have to have anything to do with Bioware ignoring its own lore. The Chantry is in it up to its neck, if you haven't noticed, and the Inquisition is an independent organization formed of individuals whose goal is to arrest the chaos--the Inquisitor isn't going to give a rat's ass whether the Chantry cares that a mage has acquired political power. The Chantry isn't in any position to quibble over one individual disregarding its laws, all things considered.

[Dean_the_Young]

leaguer of one wrote...

I think the line"SHOULD NOT RULE OVER THEM" is miss understood. In a proper government the ones in charge are in service to the people, not the people to the government. It just mean magic should not be used to control people not mages can't be part of the government.

That's a culturally chauvinistic opinion that not all cultures agree with, you realize.

Understandable and common in western culture, to be sure, but presumptuous none the less.

[leaguer of one]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

I think the line"SHOULD NOT RULE OVER THEM" is miss understood. In a proper government the ones in charge are in service to the people, not the people to the government. It just mean magic should not be used to control people not mages can't be part of the government.

That's a culturally chauvinistic opinion that not all cultures agree with, you realize.

Understandable and common in western culture, to be sure, but presumptuous none the less.

I understand. It is an opinion but you have to note that in most dogmatic governement it's less fair to the people they govern. Of course, other cultures may disagree but in those cultures they have a far less fair government.

[Xilizhra]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

I think the line"SHOULD NOT RULE OVER THEM" is miss understood. In a proper government the ones in charge are in service to the people, not the people to the government. It just mean magic should not be used to control people not mages can't be part of the government.

That's a culturally chauvinistic opinion that not all cultures agree with, you realize.

Understandable and common in western culture, to be sure, but presumptuous none the less.

Obviously not everyone will agree, but it'd be interesting to bring up in-game: that a political leader should by definition already be serving the people, and as such magic itself is not being used to rule over everyone.

[azarhal]

Silfren wrote...

azarhal wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

That line doesn't mean mages can't be in positions of rulership. It just means you can't organize a magocracy. Which he's not.

Though if he did, good luck stopping him.

That's an interpretation. But I do not believe it's the one that is held outside Tevinter

http://dragonage.wik...mperial_Chantry

The Maker's second commandment, "Magic must serve man, not rule over him," never held the same meaning within the ancient Tevinter Imperium
as it did elsewhere. The Chantry there interpreted the rule as meaning
that mages should never control the minds of other men, and that
otherwise their magic should benefit the rulers of men as much as
possible.
...
The Circle of the Magi today rules Tevinter directly, ever since the Archon
Nomaran was elected in 7:34 Storm directly from the ranks of the
enchanters, to great applause from the public. He dispensed with the old
rules forbidding mages from taking part in politics, and within a
century, the true rulers within the various imperial houses-the
mages-took their places openly within the government

Indeed, the Chantry doctrine says that a mage cannot unduly rule or become rulers themselves. The Inquisitor is ruling keeps and land as we can see in the pre-alpha demo. This would mean that a mage Inquisitor is going against the Chantry rule on mages, but I suspect BioWare is going to ignore this like they ignored apostate mage Hawke running around Kirkwall doing blood magic in DA2...or it's temporary.

It doesn't have to have anything to do with Bioware ignoring its own lore. The Chantry is in it up to its neck, if you haven't noticed, and the Inquisition is an independent organization formed of individuals whose goal is to arrest the chaos--the Inquisitor isn't going to give a rat's ass whether the Chantry cares that a mage has acquired political power. The Chantry isn't in any position to quibble over one individual disregarding its laws, all things considered.

The Chantry wasn't in it up its neck in Awakening when a mage Warden was appointed Arl of Aramanthine (even a standard Warden should have been a cause of unrest going by the lore) or in DA2 when the Templars named (blood) mage Hawke Viscount of Kirkwall. It's also not just about the Chantry, Connor couldn't not inherit Redcliff the moment his magical power showed up, it's part of the feudal law. It's part of all none-Tevinter/none-Dalish countries social cultures. In fact, it's not the Chantry would should be annoyed, it's all the peasants and nobles who should act like BioWare said people are supposed to act toward mages: affraid.

BioWare just has a bad case of gameplay vs lore/story segregation. I personally don't care, but sometimes you wonder why they bother with making a complex lore to ignore some of the finer points in the end.

[Daerog]

Amaranthine was granted to the Grey Wardens. It is Grey Warden territory now. The Wardens have an understanding with the Chantry. They place a mage there, who is considered a Grey Warden by the current policy.

Mage Hawke...ya, I could never do a full playthrough as one, it just never felt like it fit.

[Silfren]

azarhal wrote...

Silfren wrote...

azarhal wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

That line doesn't mean mages can't be in positions of rulership. It just means you can't organize a magocracy. Which he's not.

Though if he did, good luck stopping him.

That's an interpretation. But I do not believe it's the one that is held outside Tevinter

http://dragonage.wik...mperial_Chantry

The Maker's second commandment, "Magic must serve man, not rule over him," never held the same meaning within the ancient Tevinter Imperium
as it did elsewhere. The Chantry there interpreted the rule as meaning
that mages should never control the minds of other men, and that
otherwise their magic should benefit the rulers of men as much as
possible.
...
The Circle of the Magi today rules Tevinter directly, ever since the Archon
Nomaran was elected in 7:34 Storm directly from the ranks of the
enchanters, to great applause from the public. He dispensed with the old
rules forbidding mages from taking part in politics, and within a
century, the true rulers within the various imperial houses-the
mages-took their places openly within the government

Indeed, the Chantry doctrine says that a mage cannot unduly rule or become rulers themselves. The Inquisitor is ruling keeps and land as we can see in the pre-alpha demo. This would mean that a mage Inquisitor is going against the Chantry rule on mages, but I suspect BioWare is going to ignore this like they ignored apostate mage Hawke running around Kirkwall doing blood magic in DA2...or it's temporary.

It doesn't have to have anything to do with Bioware ignoring its own lore. The Chantry is in it up to its neck, if you haven't noticed, and the Inquisition is an independent organization formed of individuals whose goal is to arrest the chaos--the Inquisitor isn't going to give a rat's ass whether the Chantry cares that a mage has acquired political power. The Chantry isn't in any position to quibble over one individual disregarding its laws, all things considered.

The Chantry wasn't in it up its neck in Awakening when a mage Warden was appointed Arl of Aramanthine (even a standard Warden should have been a cause of unrest going by the lore) or in DA2 when the Templars named (blood) mage Hawke Viscount of Kirkwall. It's also not just about the Chantry, Connor couldn't not inherit Redcliff the moment his magical power showed up, it's part of the feudal law. It's part of all none-Tevinter/none-Dalish countries social cultures. In fact, it's not the Chantry would should be annoyed, it's all the peasants and nobles who should act like BioWare said people are supposed to act toward mages: affraid.

BioWare just has a bad case of gameplay vs lore/story segregation. I personally don't care, but sometimes you wonder why they bother with making a complex lore to ignore some of the finer points in the end.

I agree that in Awakening and DA2 that a mage could attain political power and not have this addressed by the story, given the lore about mages being barred from holding office, it was a problem.  I agree that Bioware should have written the story to address this, since it wouldn't have been THAT hard to write it into the story with a plausible explanation for the Chantry not arresting Hawke or the Warden, etc. 

But for the purpose of DA;I, there's an already built-in reason for why the Chantry has more pressing concerns than the Inquisitor.  I WOULD like to see the point acknowledged rather than completely ignored as if it doesn't exist, but it's true that we already have a plausible, working explanation for why the Chantry can't make it an issue.

[Maria Caliban]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

That's a culturally chauvinistic opinion that not all cultures agree with, you realize.

Understandable and common in western culture, to be sure, but presumptuous none the less.

Ethnocentric, you mean?

I suppose the question is whether or not that's a viewpoint held in Thedas. If people believe that rulers gain their position due to superior blood or because of divine right, it's unlikely governments believe it's the duty of rulers to 'serve the people.'

The Theron(sp?) bloodline is literally superior to that of other humans because they have 'dragon blood' or something, which suggests rulership = breeding in Thedas.

[leaguer of one]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...



Mage Hawke...ya, I could never do a full playthrough as one, it just never felt like it fit.

Of course it fit . It was more personal.  It's like your stuck on 2 sides.

[Eterna]

Who cares what some Chantry Waschlappens thinks about magic.

Modifié par Eterna5, 12 septembre 2013 - 02:49 .

[leaguer of one]

Eterna5 wrote...

Who cares what some Chantry Waschlappens think about magic.

^This...
-**** the Divine.
Finona in DA:Asunders.

[Maria Caliban]

Eterna5 wrote...

Who cares what some Chantry Waschlappens thinks about magic.

I wish there were more RPGs where you have to care about what some **** thinks if you want to be successful.

If Renegade Shepard greeted the Citadel Council by defecating in the Council Chambers, an hour later they'd be singing his praises and making him a SPECTRE.

[Shadow Fox]

azarhal wrote...

Silfren wrote...

azarhal wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

That line doesn't mean mages can't be in positions of rulership. It just means you can't organize a magocracy. Which he's not.

Though if he did, good luck stopping him.

That's an interpretation. But I do not believe it's the one that is held outside Tevinter

http://dragonage.wik...mperial_Chantry

The Maker's second commandment, "Magic must serve man, not rule over him," never held the same meaning within the ancient Tevinter Imperium
as it did elsewhere. The Chantry there interpreted the rule as meaning
that mages should never control the minds of other men, and that
otherwise their magic should benefit the rulers of men as much as
possible.
...
The Circle of the Magi today rules Tevinter directly, ever since the Archon
Nomaran was elected in 7:34 Storm directly from the ranks of the
enchanters, to great applause from the public. He dispensed with the old
rules forbidding mages from taking part in politics, and within a
century, the true rulers within the various imperial houses-the
mages-took their places openly within the government

Indeed, the Chantry doctrine says that a mage cannot unduly rule or become rulers themselves. The Inquisitor is ruling keeps and land as we can see in the pre-alpha demo. This would mean that a mage Inquisitor is going against the Chantry rule on mages, but I suspect BioWare is going to ignore this like they ignored apostate mage Hawke running around Kirkwall doing blood magic in DA2...or it's temporary.

It doesn't have to have anything to do with Bioware ignoring its own lore. The Chantry is in it up to its neck, if you haven't noticed, and the Inquisition is an independent organization formed of individuals whose goal is to arrest the chaos--the Inquisitor isn't going to give a rat's ass whether the Chantry cares that a mage has acquired political power. The Chantry isn't in any position to quibble over one individual disregarding its laws, all things considered.

The Chantry wasn't in it up its neck in Awakening when a mage Warden was appointed Arl of Aramanthine (even a standard Warden should have been a cause of unrest going by the lore) or in DA2 when the Templars named (blood) mage Hawke Viscount of Kirkwall. It's also not just about the Chantry, Connor couldn't not inherit Redcliff the moment his magical power showed up, it's part of the feudal law. It's part of all none-Tevinter/none-Dalish countries social cultures. In fact, it's not the Chantry would should be annoyed, it's all the peasants and nobles who should act like BioWare said people are supposed to act toward mages: affraid.

BioWare just has a bad case of gameplay vs lore/story segregation. I personally don't care, but sometimes you wonder why they bother with making a complex lore to ignore some of the finer points in the end.

There are always exceptions to the rule but regardless The Warden almost single handly saved Ferelden from a Blight I don't think they care about his/her magic.

[In Exile]

Maria Caliban wrote...
I wish there were more RPGs where you have to care about what some **** thinks if you want to be successful. 

It's amazing how much RPGs ignore basic socialization. Combined with the uber-power they give protagonists, and it's basically ignoring all fundamental aspects of human interaction (need to cooperate with others and the corresponding need to respective social norms). 

[Eterna]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Who cares what some Chantry Waschlappens thinks about magic.

I wish there were more RPGs where you have to care about what some **** thinks if you want to be successful.

If Renegade Shepard greeted the Citadel Council by defecating in the Council Chambers, an hour later they'd be singing his praises and making him a SPECTRE.

If they won't willingly help you can always make them.

[Shadow Fox]

In Exile wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
I wish there were more RPGs where you have to care about what some **** thinks if you want to be successful. 

It's amazing how much RPGs ignore basic socialization. Combined with the uber-power they give protagonists, and it's basically ignoring all fundamental aspects of human interaction (need to cooperate with others and the corresponding need to respective social norms). 

Power Fantasy

[Daerog]

*You have created too many powerful enemies*
*You don't have enough allies to counter the threat*
*You fail in your goals!*