935 réponses à ce sujet

[Br3admax]

Xilizhra wrote...

As a mundane, she'd frankly have to be insane not to think that Circles are necessary. The idea that most of the mundanes in Thedas could get behind mage freedom to be seems entirely unrealistic, even if they're all convinced that mages could resist demon temptation and blood magic.

Isabela doesn't fear mages.

And? Isabela is hardly the poster child for the mundane.

Mage freedom means mages vs. mundanes in some fashion or another.

I don't believe it has to be forced like that, any more than anyone competing with anyone else.

What game have you been playing?

I don't follow part of your post. What do you mean by loyalist?

Loyal to the Chantry.

So what? There are much bigger fish to fry than what one's religious views are. 

[LobselVith8]

hhh89 wrote...

@Lobsel: if a dalish Inquisitor could have problems with Cassandra and the hypothetical templar, it could have the same type of problem with the magister that might join the Inquisition. Are you fine with that?

I think a Dalish Inquisitor would have problems with a Magister, too. It's the possibilities with playing as one of the People that interests me with an elven protagonist. I certainly hope the friction isn't glossed over between the Dalish and members of the Chantry's (former) military arm. I'd imagine a templar companion would certainly have issues with the idea of having a Dalish mage in authority.

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...
Isabela doesn't fear mages.

To be fair, she's busy being afraid of mundane things like Castillon and his thugs. 

And I didn't say that all mundates had to be afraid of mages - just that they're acting against their own self-interest if they're not pro-Circles.

I don't believe it has to be forced like that, any more than anyone competing with anyone else.

Competition is nothing but conflict, especially when it's closr to zero-sum. For th mundantes, mage freedom is like that, because mages are an oligarchic ruling class. 

I mean, I'm personally quite pro-mage given the circumstances in Thedas, but I don't think there's any illusion here that once the idea of mages being victimized by the abusive templars fades into the background, conflict and tensions will very much heat up between mundanes and mages. 

Loyal to the Chantry.

I wonder if she's loyal to the Chantry, or personally loyal to the Divine.

Modifié par In Exile, 20 septembre 2013 - 05:11 .

[Vilegrim]

Br3ad wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

As a mundane, she'd frankly have to be insane not to think that Circles are necessary. The idea that most of the mundanes in Thedas could get behind mage freedom to be seems entirely unrealistic, even if they're all convinced that mages could resist demon temptation and blood magic.

Isabela doesn't fear mages.

And? Isabela is hardly the poster child for the mundane.

Mage freedom means mages vs. mundanes in some fashion or another.

I don't believe it has to be forced like that, any more than anyone competing with anyone else.

What game have you been playing?

I don't follow part of your post. What do you mean by loyalist?

Loyal to the Chantry.

So what? There are much bigger fish to fry than what one's religious views are. 

 

For the first time ever the chantry is weak and you say bigger fish to fry? Hell no let them bleed out against the demons come in at the end to 'save the day' then bring them down at the victory feast. This chance will never come again

[Xilizhra]

And I didn't say that all mundates had to be afraid of mages - just that they're acting against their own self-interest if they're not pro-Circles.

I seriously doubt that mage freedom will disenfranchise all nonmages by itself. It's like expecting the simple presence of white people in an African country to cause apartheid, instead of that being an effect of many other policies.

Competition is nothing but conflict, especially when it's closr to zero-sum. For th mundantes, mage freedom is like that, because mages are an oligarchic ruling class.

I mean, I'm personally quite pro-mage given the circumstances in Thedas, but I don't think there's any illusion here that once the idea of mages being victimized by the abusive templars fades into the background, conflict and tensions will very much heat up between mundanes and mages.

Every nation on Thedas has an oligarchic ruling class that's either almost or completely impossible for most people to get into.

I wonder if she's loyal to the Chantry, or personally loyal to the Divine.

Who can say? But how much does it matter?

[LobselVith8]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'd simply refer to have the choice to say no, like I did in Origins, rather than having to accept it.

Can you rebuke Alistair and deny him joining your party?

Technically, my Surana protagonist joined him as a fledgling Grey Warden, although I could refuse Leliana, Sten, Zevran, Shale, and Wynne. I could also ask Morrigan to leave as well. Having a Dalish protagonist simply accept a templar or a Magister as an ally (as hypothetical scenarios for possible companions) seems odd to me.

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...

That still doesn't make her pro-Templar

And Cassandra isn't a Templar or pro-Templar either

She's a Seeker, under the same general umbrella.

But Cassandra did not abandon the Chantry as most of the other templars did.  Remember, the current Divine has shown an interest in addressing the mages' grievences.  Unfortunately, we don't know to what degree she's willing to reform things, as the war broke out before it could happen.

Law and order. Aveline is all about protecting the civies, enforcing law and order and making sure dangers are put down. You expect that type of person to work with Orsino? Aveline is a complex character, she is not so one sided like Anders and Fenris.

Well, ultimately, she did. I think she was just a bit nervous about going up against another form of technically legitimate authority, but saw reason in the end.

The city guard was greatly outnumbered by the templars both in numbers and training.  Aveline'sall about protecting people and seeing justice done, but knew she couldn't stand against them if it came to a showdown  She clearly wasn't happy with Meredith being the de facto viscount.

Remember, in seven years, Aveline never turned in mageHawke, Merrill, or even Anders.

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...
I seriously doubt that mage freedom will disenfranchise all nonmages by itself. It's like expecting the simple presence of white people in an African country to cause apartheid, instead of that being an effect of many other policies.

I don't think mage freedom will disenfranchise non-mages immediately. But it's difficult to deny that mages are, unlike any comparator group we might find IRL, objectively better at things when compared with mundates. A mage is a better warrior on account of all the possible magical spells available. A mage is a better healer. 

All of these things will accrue prestige and power. And over time, centralizing power in a particular group that you're excluded from at birth will lead to lots of social tension. So I think it's perfectly understandable for mundanes to be terrified of being left out, even where everyone is acting in good faith and no one wants to create an actually exploitative society.

It's a kind of fantasy glass ceiling.

Every nation on Thedas has an oligarchic ruling class that's either almost or completely impossible for most people to get into.

Yes. And IRL, that led to serious political unrest and instability, and still leads to political unrest and instability.

Who can say? But how much does it matter?

Because if she's loyal to a person rather than an ideology, it means that she's not really related to the templar aim of subdoing mages. 

[Br3admax]

Vilegrim wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

As a mundane, she'd frankly have to be insane not to think that Circles are necessary. The idea that most of the mundanes in Thedas could get behind mage freedom to be seems entirely unrealistic, even if they're all convinced that mages could resist demon temptation and blood magic.

Isabela doesn't fear mages.

And? Isabela is hardly the poster child for the mundane.

Mage freedom means mages vs. mundanes in some fashion or another.

I don't believe it has to be forced like that, any more than anyone competing with anyone else.

What game have you been playing?

I don't follow part of your post. What do you mean by loyalist?

Loyal to the Chantry.

So what? There are much bigger fish to fry than what one's religious views are. 

 

For the first time ever the chantry is weak and you say bigger fish to fry? Hell no let them bleed out against the demons come in at the end to 'save the day' then bring them down at the victory feast. This chance will never come again

How many times must I teach you this lesson, heathen? Accept the Maker in his glory blood mage/elf/dwarf/I'm an angry Templar!

[Br3admax]

In Exile wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
I seriously doubt that mage freedom will disenfranchise all nonmages by itself. It's like expecting the simple presence of white people in an African country to cause apartheid, instead of that being an effect of many other policies.

I don't think mage freedom will disenfranchise non-mages immediately. But it's difficult to deny that mages are, unlike any comparator group we might find IRL, objectively better at things when compared with mundates. A mage is a better warrior on account of all the possible magical spells available. A mage is a better healer. 

All of these things will accrue prestige and power. And over time, centralizing power in a particular group that you're excluded from at birth will lead to lots of social tension. So I think it's perfectly understandable for mundanes to be terrified of being left out, even where everyone is acting in good faith and no one wants to create an actually exploitative society.

It's a kind of fantasy glass ceiling.

Every nation on Thedas has an oligarchic ruling class that's either almost or completely impossible for most people to get into.

Yes. And IRL, that led to serious political unrest and instability, and still leads to political unrest and instability.

Who can say? But how much does it matter?

Because if she's loyal to a person rather than an ideology, it means that she's not really related to the templar aim of subdoing mages. 

Exactly. 

[LobselVith8]

Mr.House wrote...

I had Merrill help Meredith, getting Aveline to help Orsino is not hard in DA2 because the game made it possible for people to drop their ideals(though Merrill suddenly supporting the mage plight was just plain lazy)

Merrill supports protecting the Starkhaven mages from the templars, to the point of killing Thrask if necessary.

[vertigomez]

Do we know for sure if Iron Bull is a warrior? He could be a rogue.

eta: bringing this up because of the "too many warriors" talk.

Modifié par mutant_anemone, 20 septembre 2013 - 05:24 .

[Xilizhra]

I don't think mage freedom will disenfranchise non-mages immediately. But it's difficult to deny that mages are, unlike any comparator group we might find IRL, objectively better at things when compared with mundates. A mage is a better warrior on account of all the possible magical spells available. A mage is a better healer.

All of these things will accrue prestige and power. And over time, centralizing power in a particular group that you're excluded from at birth will lead to lots of social tension. So I think it's perfectly understandable for mundanes to be terrified of being left out, even where everyone is acting in good faith and no one wants to create an actually exploitative society.

It's a kind of fantasy glass ceiling.

I've had some ideas about this that involve a separation of powers between mage and nonmage rulers, and perhaps a separation of jurisdiction as well, but they're still in progress.

Yes. And IRL, that led to serious political unrest and instability, and still leads to political unrest and instability.

True, but it's not worse than what we have already.

Because if she's loyal to a person rather than an ideology, it means that she's not really related to the templar aim of subdoing mages.

If she's still acting in favor of that...

[Iakus]

Personally I would love to see templars like Cullen or Evangeline, who can demonstrate the necessity of protecting the mundane world from misused magic while still seeing mages as human beings (or elven beings, as the case may be)

[Iakus]

mutant_anemone wrote...

Do we know for sure if Iron Bull is a warrior? He could be a rogue.

eta: bringing this up because of the "too many warriors" talk.

"Iron Bull" doesn't really sound roguely 

Assuming Iron Bull is still in of course.

[In Exile]

iakus wrote...
The city guard was greatly outnumbered by the templars both in numbers and training.  Aveline'sall about protecting people and seeing justice done, but knew she couldn't stand against them if it came to a showdown  She clearly wasn't happy with Meredith being the de facto viscount.

Remember, in seven years, Aveline never turned in mageHawke, Merrill, or even Anders.

Aveline was still suggesting to side with the group that was about to massacre innocents - including children. Frankly, I think there's a lot of in-game evidence that Aveline is about protecting her guards first, and Kirkwall second. And when it comes to certain groups, they're even lower on scale.

Not to say that she's not generally for law and order... but I think the idea that Aveline is wedded to justice or not biased agianst group runs into trouble with what we see in-game. 

[vertigomez]

iakus wrote...

mutant_anemone wrote...

Do we know for sure if Iron Bull is a warrior? He could be a rogue.

eta: bringing this up because of the "too many warriors" talk.

"Iron Bull" doesn't really sound roguely 

Assuming Iron Bull is still in of course.

I dunno, man. Assumptions are killer. I never really thought of dwarves as being all that roguish until DAO came around...

[Xilizhra]

Personally I would love to see templars like Cullen or Evangeline, who can demonstrate the necessity of protecting the mundane world from misused magic while still seeing mages as human beings (or elven beings, as the case may be)

Keep in mind that Evangeline's realization of this made her stop being a templar.

So what happens when a mage child has non mage parents or vice versa? Or a mage is married to a non-mage?

Ideally I won't have power be inherited by blood directly.

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...
I've had some ideas about this that involve a separation of powers between mage and nonmage rulers, and perhaps a separation of jurisdiction as well, but they're still in progress.

Putting my lawyer cap on for a second, it's very hard to actually create a system that can manage division of powers well IRL. 

Again, let me emphasize that I agree with you generally, and that none of this changes the imperative of ending templar tyrrany. I just don't think the final outcome is less conflict between mundanes and mages, just a different - and more balanced - form of tension.

True, but it's not worse than what we have already.

Again, totally agree. The sexual violence alone is a good enough reason to tear all of the Circles apa

If she's still acting in favor of that...

Then she's amoral? 

[vertigomez]

Xilizhra wrote...


I've had some ideas about this that involve a separation of powers between mage and nonmage rulers, and perhaps a separation of jurisdiction as well, but they're still in progress.

Like the Isolationist fraternity?

[In Exile]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...
So what happens when a mage child has non mage parents or vice versa?  Or a mage is married to a non-mage?

The idea of having people answerable to two different systems of justice is not problematic at all in theory. The real problem is not having power and wealth accrue to one group.