1420 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

That also says that if there is no acess to Chantry leadership, then that someone like a Knight Commander can call for it. The Seekers should have the same authority.
If the Grand Cleric of Rivain was aware of what was happening and allowed it, then she was unworthy of her position and they couldn't just send word to Antiva while there were Abominations killing Templars and Seekers.

I don't think that Seers can accurately be called abominations.  I would agree that templars and Chantry hard-liners would likely be loathe to make the distinction, but I do NOT think at all that a person who retains control of their mind can be considered to be the same thing as one of those abomination-meatsacks. 

You're summarizing Rivain as if it was exactly the same situation as Ferelden, with mindless abominations running amok and every scrap of info we have indicates the precise opposite.

[MisterJB]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...
even Kont-aar and other Rivaini Qunari settlements have seers.

Source?
And are they actual Seers or just people like Isabela's mother?

[Reaverwind]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

Reaverwind wrote...

Actually, the entry states that Rivain was freed from the Darkspawn at the Battle of Ayesleigh. You probably confused it with the entry above, where it describes the Fourth Blight starting in Antiva.

Actually I was thinking of the section on the Fourth Blight in World of Thedas. It says "Antiva was freed from darkspawn during the infamous battle in 5:24 Exalted at the city of Ayseleigh, where Garahel died striking Andoral's killing blow." But I suppose that's probably a fair indicator that Ayseleigh is in Rivain.

Yep - looks like there are contradictory entries on this one, so hopefully DA:I comes with a map to clear this up. 

[Silfren]

wcholcombe wrote...

We don't know. The account in WOT makes it sound like the Templars didn't come to Annul them and that only happened when they refused to step in line with how the Seekers expected a circle to behave. When the mages fought back a ROA was called. It would make sense to think with a GC so close they would have gone through proper channels, but if they were getting their butts handed to them a seeker may have over stepped his authority in panic.

It also indicates that the mages fought back because the templars' means of trying to bring them in line involved bloodshed.  Can we drop the pretense that the templars were totally trying to just TALK them into playing nice and the mages decided to attack them?

[Jedi Master of Orion]

World of Thedas says that "the influence of the Qun, if not strict adherence to it's teachings, is present throughout Rivain."

There have also been a couple of times the devs have stated that Rivaini Qunari aren't considered "true" Qunari by the Qunari of Par Vollen. As such I don't believe they are technically under the "rule" of the ox-men or part of "the nation that must be" as the Arishok called it. The Kingdom of Rivain is still legally a sovereign entity that isn't under the authority of the Qunari Triumvirate.

MisterJB wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...
even Kont-aar and other Rivaini Qunari settlements have seers.

Source?
And are they actual Seers or just people like Isabela's mother?

In DA 2 in the Tal'Vashoth Codex Entry, Genetivi describes taking shelter in a Qunari village in northern Rivain where the matriarch is known only as "Seer". The Saarebas And Qunari entries are also from "The Writings of the seer of Kont-aar."

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 24 octobre 2013 - 08:33 .

[Jaison1986]

Silfren wrote...

wcholcombe wrote...

We don't know. The account in WOT makes it sound like the Templars didn't come to Annul them and that only happened when they refused to step in line with how the Seekers expected a circle to behave. When the mages fought back a ROA was called. It would make sense to think with a GC so close they would have gone through proper channels, but if they were getting their butts handed to them a seeker may have over stepped his authority in panic.

It also indicates that the mages fought back because the templars' means of trying to bring them in line involved bloodshed.  Can we drop the pretense that the templars were totally trying to just TALK them into playing nice and the mages decided to attack them?

That's pretty much Rivain history by now. Every time Rivain population refused to obey Chantry laws, they got slaughtered by an army of zealots.

[wcholcombe]

Silfren wrote...

wcholcombe wrote...

We don't know. The account in WOT makes it sound like the Templars didn't come to Annul them and that only happened when they refused to step in line with how the Seekers expected a circle to behave. When the mages fought back a ROA was called. It would make sense to think with a GC so close they would have gone through proper channels, but if they were getting their butts handed to them a seeker may have over stepped his authority in panic.

It also indicates that the mages fought back because the templars' means of trying to bring them in line involved bloodshed.  Can we drop the pretense that the templars were totally trying to just TALK them into playing nice and the mages decided to attack them?

That was not my point. Yes, it says with a little bloodshed. I never said the Templars tried to talk them into behaving.  But the First Enchanter herself by her writting makes it pretty clear that neither side was expecting the ROA to be used.

I am definitely not defending the Seeker on this one.  The ROA was a gross overeaction.

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Given that the available lore on Rivain indicates that it is extremely community oriented and there is considerable focus on the general welfare of the people, I'd stop clinging to literalistic dogma here.  Yes, the Circle of Rivain was technically in violation of rules.  However, by ALL appearances, it was working well to the benefit of Rivain as a whole.  The silly argument of "the people were going along with it doesn't mean it wasn't a bad practice" is a stupid one.  We have a fair amount of info on Rivain and NONE of it even hints that the people are routinely terrorized by demons or blood mages or rampaging abominations.  All evidence points to Rivain's system being peaceful and acceptable to everyone.

The irony here is that the act of Annulling the Circle may well have created the rebellion it was ostensibly aiming to prevent.

The extent of the evidence we have are the statements that certain segments of the Rivain population feel attached to their Seers. However, given the fact that Rivain is divided between traditionalists; who like mages; and Andrastians and Qunari; who don't; it's obvious that that love is not universal.

If we assume that there must be reasons for these traditionalists Rivains to like their Seers; then the opposite must also be true. That Andrastian and Qunari Rivain have their reasons for disliking the Seers.

Also, the fact that people accept it doesn't mean it isn't a bad practice. After all, the Dalish are an authoritarian system where supreme executive power is given to someone who possesses an attribute that in no way should make him/her suitable for government: magic. And the elves seem to like it.

Check your info on Rivain again.  Per WoT, page 80:

"Rivain is home to the only peaceful Qunari settlement on the continent. The influence of the Qun, if not strict adherence to its teachings, is present throughout Rivain...."

"The Chant of Light  never truly reached the ears of these people...Resistance to the Chant goes deeper than the Qunari Wars. The Rivaini refuse to be parted from their seers...."

Page 80-82

"The nation's relative acceptance of magic, at least in the areas occupied by more traditional Rivaini, has led to an odd relationship with the Chantry and the Circle of Magi.  The Circle of Rivain fuctions much like those elsewhere and are supported by the Andrastian nobility.  However, they tolerate and work with the seers, allowing the wise women to keep apprentices and remain free so long as they aid the nation's templars when required."

"Nowhere in Rivain is the Chantry influence stronger tahn in Dairsmuid, the capital.  Rivaini royalty are Chantry faithful, but also progressive in their beliefs, if only out of necessity.  The nation, with its patchwork of cultures, remains one entity through consensus and compromise."

ALL of this indicates that Andrastianism within Rivain is of a markedly different flavor than elsewhere.  It hints at the same for the Qun.  The entire picture is one of a society that was functioning quite well and had no need of the templars' brutality.

[MisterJB]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...
In DA 2 in the Tal'Vashoth Codex Entry, Genetivi describes taking shelter in a Qunari village in northern Rivain where the matriarch is known only as "Seer". The Saarebas And Qunari entries are also from "The Writings of the seer of Kont-aar."

True but I find it hard to believe that a community described as "It was the most organized village I ever laid eyes on. The houses were identical and arranged along perfectly orthogonal lines. The fields were well tended and apparently communal." would have been allowed to have a mage as leader by the Qunari even if they weren't "proper" qunari. They are obviously already adopting the obssession for order of the Qunari and I dare say "bind the bas that can summon fire from air" is a bigger priority than "arrange the houses along perfectly orthogonal lines".

They might have just allowed them to keep the traditional name.

Modifié par MisterJB, 24 octobre 2013 - 08:41 .

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

Silfren wrote...
It is also quite possible--even very likely--that the Qun in Rivain looks markedly different from the Qun elsewhere, just as the Chantry itself does from other Andrastian states.  Given that the Chantry, free mages, and the Qun all had a presence, and it appeared to be a largely peaceful one, I seriously doubt that people were converting to the Qun en masse in order to escape rogue mages.  If free possessed mages were causing that much of a problem, I maintain that we WOULD have heard about it, because the people themselves would be raising holy hell for the Chantry to do something, or else the Chantry itself would simply have noticed a problem and dealt with it.

It has been said that the rivains see Abominations as natural disasters. This would mean that, rather than rogue mages being entirely absent, the rivains have simply learned to endure it like others endure thypoons.Of course, I don't expect you to believe me since I can't locate the source at the moment.

I do believe you, actually; I've heard you use this reasoning before.  I still don't see what the problem is; I think it's quite a healthy response, personally.  There is never going to be any foolproof method of negating the risks of magic.  Finding a balance between freedom and security and accepting that this means that sometimes you have to deal with a disaster, this is exactly how I think the situation should be handled, rather than fostering the paranoid belief that if you only do x, y, and z, you can live a life totally free of pain.  THAT is the unhealthy mode of living, and I have seen the results of what it can do to people who follow all the rules and get hurt anyway.  

Also, the Qun and the Chantry are very different. The rigidity of the Qun is legendary; I seriously doubt the Qun in Rivain will look any different from the Qun in Seheron. Which would mean any rivain mages would receive the usual treatment and yet, these rivains who are, supposedly, so attached to their Seers seems to accept it.

Too bad.  The WoT is against on you this one.  We know that it isn't strictly adhered to in Rivain, and we know that there are free seers in Qun territory.  

Modifié par Silfren, 24 octobre 2013 - 08:46 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

So it managed to not only kill everyone or at least a sustantial amount of people to allow it to escape the circle, but took a whole year to track down and kill?

And people say these things aren't dangerous.

It took roughly that time for the Warden to bump into Jowan at Eamon's estate, if you do the Redcliff quest last.

I know, slightly out of context, but we don't know how many templars were looking, how many died in their pursuit, and how committed people were on staying on Meredith's sister's heels.

I'm going to assume all of them were out looking for this thing, considering it's a goddamn abomination. Not really something you go, "Oh that's not a big deal. We can put it on the back burner and let someone from the chantry board deal with it."

[Cainhurst Crow]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Well, they would if it was in the game physically and not in the codex. You know how lazy NPCs are.

That always infruiates me. I don't like skyrim, but at least in that game the npc's try to help. They usually suck but still, more proactive than DA NPC's.

[MisterJB]

Silfren wrote...
I do believe you, actually; I've heard you use this reasoning before.  I still don't see what the problem is; I think it's quite a healthy response, personally.  There is never going to be any foolproof method of negating the risks of magic.  Finding a balance between freedom and security and accepting that this means that sometimes you have to deal with a disaster, this is exactly how I think the situation should be handled, rather than fostering the paranoid belief that if you only do x, y, and z, you can live a life totally free of pain.  THAT is the unhealthy mode of living, and I have seen the results of what it can do to people who follow all the rules and get hurt anyway.  

I disagree, it is one of the most unhealthy attitudes possible.
Yes, there needs to be a balance between freedom and security but Abominations are not acts of nature. They are the result of conscious actions taken by thinking individuals that can and should take measures to diminish the risk they pose to others and that should be called to answer for their actions.
I could even accept that everything that can be done to prevent these rampages is being done if I didn't know that Rivain's culture thinks placing alien beings that can be corrupted by human emotions into the souls of mages is a good idea.

So, if an Abomination kills someone's family, is that someone supposed not to be angry at the mages because you can't be angry at a natural disaster? Should they not think about way that could have been prevented such as not placing their lives in the hands of an entire social class of Anders?

Too bad.  The WoT is against on you this one.  We know that it isn't strictly adhered to in Rivain, and we know that there are free seers in Qun territory.  

It's not as rigid, you are right on that one. But I believe the answer I gave Orion suits this post too.

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

Silfren wrote...
I do believe you, actually; I've heard you use this reasoning before.  I still don't see what the problem is; I think it's quite a healthy response, personally.  There is never going to be any foolproof method of negating the risks of magic.  Finding a balance between freedom and security and accepting that this means that sometimes you have to deal with a disaster, this is exactly how I think the situation should be handled, rather than fostering the paranoid belief that if you only do x, y, and z, you can live a life totally free of pain.  THAT is the unhealthy mode of living, and I have seen the results of what it can do to people who follow all the rules and get hurt anyway.  

I disagree, it is one of the most unhealthy attitudes possible.
Yes, there needs to be a balance between freedom and security but Abominations are not acts of nature. They are the result of conscious actions taken by thinking individuals that can and should take measures to diminish the risk they pose to others and that should be called to answer for their actions.
I could even accept that everything that can be done to prevent these rampages is being done if I didn't know that Rivain's culture thinks placing alien beings that can be corrupted by human emotions into the souls of mages is a good idea.

So, if an Abomination kills someone's family, is that someone supposed not to be angry at the mages because you can't be angry at a natural disaster? Should they not think about way that could have been prevented such as not placing their lives in the hands of an entire social class of Anders?

And it is precisely at this point that we have a semi-reasonable comparison to gun control.  Of course the families of victims have a right to be angry.   And yes, it is true that these things wouldn't happen if abominations didn't happen. But I prefer to look at context: Firstly, I do NOT consider a seer to be an abomination from mere possession alone; Wynne is proof that the simple act of possession does NOT equate to a mindless killing machine.  Secondly, since I do not believe these things happen on a huge scale--I would expect the mages themselves to be wary of losing their minds to abominations if it was a significant risk of something that happened often, as well as for the people to demand that the Chantry or the Qun do something--I imagine that the people do this because of some benefit that far outweighs the risks.  I would sooner look at each individual case and figure out WHY it happened, precisely, rather than dismiss the entire practice as too inherently dangerous to continue.  

There are arguments for better control, better training, etc...and the acceptance that sometimes, sh*t just happens.  NOT outright banning.

Modifié par Silfren, 24 octobre 2013 - 09:17 .

[Jedi Master of Orion]

MisterJB wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...
In DA 2 in the Tal'Vashoth Codex Entry, Genetivi describes taking shelter in a Qunari village in northern Rivain where the matriarch is known only as "Seer". The Saarebas And Qunari entries are also from "The Writings of the seer of Kont-aar."

True but I find it hard to believe that a community described as "It was the most organized village I ever laid eyes on. The houses were identical and arranged along perfectly orthogonal lines. The fields were well tended and apparently communal." would have been allowed to have a mage as leader by the Qunari even if they weren't "proper" qunari. They are obviously already adopting the obssession for order of the Qunari and I dare say "bind the bas that can summon fire from air" is a bigger priority than "arrange the houses along perfectly orthogonal lines".

They might have just allowed them to keep the traditional name.

The "mainstream" Qunari don't control Rivain though. The locals developed their own version blended with their own traditions and wouldn't necessarily follow everything the Par Vollen Qunari do.  And in Rivain I think the Rivaini reverence for seers superceds the Qunari fear of mages. I believe that's part of why they aren't considered true Qunari by the Ariqun. They've adopted the "ordered" tenants of the Qun but that doesn't necessarily mean they also adopted to the saarebas treatment for mages.

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 24 octobre 2013 - 09:15 .

[The Hierophant]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...
In DA 2 in the Tal'Vashoth Codex Entry, Genetivi describes taking shelter in a Qunari village in northern Rivain where the matriarch is known only as "Seer". The Saarebas And Qunari entries are also from "The Writings of the seer of Kont-aar."

True but I find it hard to believe that a community described as "It was the most organized village I ever laid eyes on. The houses were identical and arranged along perfectly orthogonal lines. The fields were well tended and apparently communal." would have been allowed to have a mage as leader by the Qunari even if they weren't "proper" qunari. They are obviously already adopting the obssession for order of the Qunari and I dare say "bind the bas that can summon fire from air" is a bigger priority than "arrange the houses along perfectly orthogonal lines".

They might have just allowed them to keep the traditional name.

The "mainstream" Qunari don't control Rivain though. The locals developed their own version blended with their own traditions  And in Rivain I think the Rivaini reverence for seers superceds the Qunari fear of mages. I believe that's part of why they aren't considered true Qunari by the Ariqun. They've adopted the "ordered" tenants of the Qun but that doesn't necessarily mean they also adopted to the saarebas treatment for mages.

What about Kont-aar in the north. I thought it was mentioned that the Qunari's influence is stronger in the north too?

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Well Kont-aar must have a seer too because that's apparently who wrote the codex entries we read about Qunari and Saarebas in Dragon Age 2. And the village that Genetivi found refuge in was in the north of Rivain. I don't think the "true" Qunari have any legal authority over anywhere in Rivain, even the qunari villages. Genetivi also refers to the ox men of Par Vollen as the "allies" of the leaders of Kont-aar, not their superiors.

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 24 octobre 2013 - 09:31 .

[wcholcombe]

Silfren wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Silfren wrote...
I do believe you, actually; I've heard you use this reasoning before.  I still don't see what the problem is; I think it's quite a healthy response, personally.  There is never going to be any foolproof method of negating the risks of magic.  Finding a balance between freedom and security and accepting that this means that sometimes you have to deal with a disaster, this is exactly how I think the situation should be handled, rather than fostering the paranoid belief that if you only do x, y, and z, you can live a life totally free of pain.  THAT is the unhealthy mode of living, and I have seen the results of what it can do to people who follow all the rules and get hurt anyway.  

I disagree, it is one of the most unhealthy attitudes possible.
Yes, there needs to be a balance between freedom and security but Abominations are not acts of nature. They are the result of conscious actions taken by thinking individuals that can and should take measures to diminish the risk they pose to others and that should be called to answer for their actions.
I could even accept that everything that can be done to prevent these rampages is being done if I didn't know that Rivain's culture thinks placing alien beings that can be corrupted by human emotions into the souls of mages is a good idea.

So, if an Abomination kills someone's family, is that someone supposed not to be angry at the mages because you can't be angry at a natural disaster? Should they not think about way that could have been prevented such as not placing their lives in the hands of an entire social class of Anders?

And it is precisely at this point that we have a semi-reasonable comparison to gun control.  Of course the families of victims have a right to be angry.   And yes, it is true that these things wouldn't happen if abominations didn't happen. But I prefer to look at context: Firstly, I do NOT consider a seer to be an abomination from mere possession alone; Wynne is proof that the simple act of possession does NOT equate to a mindless killing machine.  Secondly, since I do not believe these things happen on a huge scale--I would expect the mages themselves to be wary of losing their minds to abominations if it was a significant risk of something that happened often, as well as for the people to demand that the Chantry or the Qun do something--I imagine that the people do this because of some benefit that far outweighs the risks.  I would sooner look at each individual case and figure out WHY it happened, precisely, rather than dismiss the entire practice as too inherently dangerous to continue.  

There are arguments for better control, better training, etc.  NOT outright banning.

Gun control isn't a valid comparison.  An abomination or just a mage can do a lot more damage than someone with a gun.  The comparison I go with is one Gaider used way back when he was first explaining the DA world.  He compared mages to nuclear weapons with the damage they can do.

I agree that seers aren't abominations, however I would also argue that just because someone is trained doesn't mean they can't be possessed.

[MisterJB]

Silfren wrote...
And it is precisely at this point that we have a semi-reasonable comparison to gun control.  Of course the families of victims have a right to be angry.   And yes, it is true that these things wouldn't happen if abominations didn't happen. But I prefer to look at context: Firstly, I do NOT consider a seer to be an abomination from mere possession alone; Wynne is proof that the simple act of possession does NOT equate to a mindless killing machine.  Secondly, since I do not believe these things happen on a huge scale--I would expect the mages themselves to be wary of losing their minds to abominations if it was a significant risk of something that happened often, as well as for the people to demand that the Chantry or the Qun do something--I imagine that the people do this because of some benefit that far outweighs the risks.  I would sooner look at each individual case and figure out WHY it happened, precisely, rather than dismiss the entire practice as too inherently dangerous to continue.  

There are arguments for better control, better training, etc.  NOT outright banning.

If you look at it from a gun control POV, then you're already thinking of it in an entirely different perspective from the rivains themselves. You can't demand for control or training because you can't do those things to a natural disaster. All you can do is hide and hope it doesn't hurt you too much.
Hence, it's an unhealthy attitude.

As for the Seers themselves, we didn't see anything in particular that distinguished Anders or Wynne from non-possessed mages; certainly no benefit that outweighed the risks of having a Fade Being inside your mind.
Maybe the Seers know something I don't but, at this point, given that all we have are risks with no benefits due to a practice that is not essential for anything beyond the respect for tradition, I'd say we should just outright ban it.
Mages are dangerous enough without involving Spirits. 

[Silfren]

wcholcombe wrote...

Silfren wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Silfren wrote...
I do believe you, actually; I've heard you use this reasoning before.  I still don't see what the problem is; I think it's quite a healthy response, personally.  There is never going to be any foolproof method of negating the risks of magic.  Finding a balance between freedom and security and accepting that this means that sometimes you have to deal with a disaster, this is exactly how I think the situation should be handled, rather than fostering the paranoid belief that if you only do x, y, and z, you can live a life totally free of pain.  THAT is the unhealthy mode of living, and I have seen the results of what it can do to people who follow all the rules and get hurt anyway.  

I disagree, it is one of the most unhealthy attitudes possible.
Yes, there needs to be a balance between freedom and security but Abominations are not acts of nature. They are the result of conscious actions taken by thinking individuals that can and should take measures to diminish the risk they pose to others and that should be called to answer for their actions.
I could even accept that everything that can be done to prevent these rampages is being done if I didn't know that Rivain's culture thinks placing alien beings that can be corrupted by human emotions into the souls of mages is a good idea.

So, if an Abomination kills someone's family, is that someone supposed not to be angry at the mages because you can't be angry at a natural disaster? Should they not think about way that could have been prevented such as not placing their lives in the hands of an entire social class of Anders?

And it is precisely at this point that we have a semi-reasonable comparison to gun control.  Of course the families of victims have a right to be angry.   And yes, it is true that these things wouldn't happen if abominations didn't happen. But I prefer to look at context: Firstly, I do NOT consider a seer to be an abomination from mere possession alone; Wynne is proof that the simple act of possession does NOT equate to a mindless killing machine.  Secondly, since I do not believe these things happen on a huge scale--I would expect the mages themselves to be wary of losing their minds to abominations if it was a significant risk of something that happened often, as well as for the people to demand that the Chantry or the Qun do something--I imagine that the people do this because of some benefit that far outweighs the risks.  I would sooner look at each individual case and figure out WHY it happened, precisely, rather than dismiss the entire practice as too inherently dangerous to continue.  

There are arguments for better control, better training, etc.  NOT outright banning.

Gun control isn't a valid comparison.  An abomination or just a mage can do a lot more damage than someone with a gun.  The comparison I go with is one Gaider used way back when he was first explaining the DA world.  He compared mages to nuclear weapons with the damage they can do.

I agree that seers aren't abominations, however I would also argue that just because someone is trained doesn't mean they can't be possessed.

I did say semi-reasonable.

Furthermore, I didn't say anything about being trained to NOT be possessed.  I was referring to Rivaini seers who undergo possession...if one of them ends up being twisted into an abomination, I was suggesting that it could mean that they weren't properly trained.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I think we need to learn more about the Rivaini Seers in order to make a point about them one way or another. I got the sense though that Wynne and Anders were bonded to their spirits in different fashions.

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

Silfren wrote...
And it is precisely at this point that we have a semi-reasonable comparison to gun control.  Of course the families of victims have a right to be angry.   And yes, it is true that these things wouldn't happen if abominations didn't happen. But I prefer to look at context: Firstly, I do NOT consider a seer to be an abomination from mere possession alone; Wynne is proof that the simple act of possession does NOT equate to a mindless killing machine.  Secondly, since I do not believe these things happen on a huge scale--I would expect the mages themselves to be wary of losing their minds to abominations if it was a significant risk of something that happened often, as well as for the people to demand that the Chantry or the Qun do something--I imagine that the people do this because of some benefit that far outweighs the risks.  I would sooner look at each individual case and figure out WHY it happened, precisely, rather than dismiss the entire practice as too inherently dangerous to continue.  

There are arguments for better control, better training, etc.  NOT outright banning.

If you look at it from a gun control POV, then you're already thinking of it in an entirely different perspective from the rivains themselves. You can't demand for control or training because you can't do those things to a natural disaster. All you can do is hide and hope it doesn't hurt you too much.
Hence, it's an unhealthy attitude.

As for the Seers themselves, we didn't see anything in particular that distinguished Anders or Wynne from non-possessed mages; certainly no benefit that outweighed the risks of having a Fade Being inside your mind.
Maybe the Seers know something I don't but, at this point, given that all we have are risks with no benefits due to a practice that is not essential for anything beyond the respect for tradition, I'd say we should just outright ban it.
Mages are dangerous enough without involving Spirits. 

I think you're taking the natural disaster thing way too literally.  I think the only thing the Rivaini mean by it is that sometimes disasters happen no matter how well you prepare for them, and then they simply have to be dealt with.

You can't say there are risks with no benefits: by your own words our information is incomplete.  I think it's obvious the Seers know something we don't.  I certainly don't believe that they're just somehow completely unaware of the danger of abominations.  I think the fact that they are willing to take the risk--don't forget, it's a risk to the seers themselves, too--strongly implies that they know what the hell they're doing.

[The Hierophant]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

Well Kont-aar must have a seer too because that's apparently who wrote the codex entries we read about Qunari and Saarebas in Dragon Age 2. And the village that Genetivi found refuge in was in the north of Rivain. I don't think the "true" Qunari have any legal authority over anywhere in Rivain, even the qunari villages. Genetivi also refers to the ox men of Par Vollen as the "allies" of the leaders of Kont-aar, not their superiors.

Thanks for the clarification, but shouldn't the seer's existence in Kont-aar muddle their relations to Par Vollen?