310 réponses à ce sujet

[Reznore57]

The dwarves also sell lyrium to Tevinter , and the Chantry isn't attacking them ...
There is no larger market for the dwarves , lyrium isn't cheap ...and it's only used by mages , templars , and some rune/magical object crafter (tranquil/dwarves)
I doubt Dalish or most apostates have lots of coins.
The Chantry with its templars and circle consume most of the lyrium ,the only real benefit is with their tranquil crafter , and it seems that money goes directly in the Circle pocket.

[leaguer of one]

Reznore57 wrote...

The dwarves also sell lyrium to Tevinter , and the Chantry isn't attacking them ...
There is no larger market for the dwarves , lyrium isn't cheap ...and it's only used by mages , templars , and some rune/magical object crafter (tranquil/dwarves)
I doubt Dalish or most apostates have lots of coins.
The Chantry with its templars and circle consume most of the lyrium ,the only real benefit is with their tranquil crafter , and it seems that money goes directly in the Circle pocket.

If the chantry did anything to the dwarves for that, tell shot themselves in the foot.  The dwarves obviously would stop giving the chantry Lyrium giving Tevinter an advantage in supply.

[AdamWeith]

KC_Prototype wrote...

Nope, the Inquisitor will be forced to slaughter all elves in order to save humanity.

.....

This.... :police::police:

[Angrywolves]

uh no. Genocide loving is unwarranted.

[TK514]

Thomas Andresen wrote...

The only people having monopoly over lyrium are the dwarves (they are the only race able to mine the stuff without ending up bleeding from every orifice), they sell it to the Chantry and Tevinter.

Actually, that the dwarves only sell lyrium to the Chantry is a decision forced upon them by the Chantry, by which means I do not know. In fact, I don't think there is much known about the lyrium trade other than "the Chantry controls it topside" and "smuggling happens."

But the fact remains that the Chantry has the control of distribution topside(to such an extent that it is indeed a monopoly), and I'd imagine that the Assembly isn't unaware of the fact that there'd be a much larger market if they didn't sell only to the Chantry. Certainly the dwarven general public is aware of it. I don't think the dwarves care enough about mages to sympathise with the Chantry's desire to control lyrium distribution.

Why ascribe nebulous nefarious methods when simple economy will suffice?  The Chantry controls the lyrium trade topside because they can pay top price for the lyrium.  The dwarves set a price, the Chantry agreed to it, and the two parties entered into a contract, one that is probably renewed on a set schedule.

It's unlikely the Chantry could force the dwarves to do anything, as the Dwarves hold all the power in the relationship.  The Chantry NEEDS the lyrium.  To cripple the Chantry's internal fighting arm, all the dwarves have to do it stop shipping and wait.  Given Orzammar's defenses and location, a siege to punish them, even by a March, is really unfeasable.  Assuming the rest of Thedas were able to get into Orzammar and somehow take the city, now they've got to find a way to force the dwarves to mine it, when the dwarves know they can simply refuse and no one can replace them.  Finally, if you do somehow conquer the dwarves, you've now inherited the dwarves largest problem;  The Darkspawn.  Not just a Blight every couple of centuries, but 24/7.  All day, every day, an unreleteing threat the all but obliterated an Empire who's people were born to live and fight underground.  Unlike the rest of Thedas.

As for the quarantine debate, leper colonies worked almost exactly like Circles.  You had a population that was forced to live in isolation.  They had some economic support, but for the most part were internally sufficient.  Individuals were occasionally allowed out of the colony, under supervision, to take care of matters that could not be supplied within the colony itself. Sound familiar?

EDIT:  I also challenge the assertion that the Chantry's control of the lyrium trade topside is in any way profitable.  It might be if they sold it to a secondary market, but we have seen no indication that they do so.  They buy everything they can, and then keep it for their own use.  There is no resale to make it profitable.  It is, in fact, the direct opposite of profitable, since they see no monetary return on their investment.

Modifié par TK514, 01 décembre 2013 - 05:44 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Pre-emptive apologies if I have a double post here- had some computer issues before taking a power nap.

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

If you don't mind I'd like to know what you conisder the main aspects of a quarantine to be. The things needed for it to be considered a quarantine.

Risk-tolerance.

It's not just direct harm, since we actually will conduct quarantines for things that pose no direct harm- customs inspections are as much about economic damages as personal harms, and then there are diseases and such we don't mind (or at least are willing to tolerate) if they spread around.

It's all about how much risk a society is willing to tolerate. Now adays, with modern medicine and relatively tame diseases, we have pretty high social risk tolerance because there aren't many things that can devastate a community. In ye old days, where plagues were far more devastating, or in the DA setting with magic and an extensive history of magical harm, risk tolerance is far, far lower.

They're not considered property but the Chantry claims sole domain over them, by their dictums a mage gets to live or die. What is allowed, what constitutes as "living" is defined by an external source. They don't have to work (besides their training ofc) but their options are so limited by this external source that there is very little else to do. Is it still a choice if the alternative is decades of monotony? Even their fields of potential study are circumscribed. Taking away freedom of choice, or limiting those choices to such a degree is slavery. Or at least it becomes slavery when the beneficiary gains oh-so-much from the relationship.

Uh, no. Slavery is a economic/property relationship, which does not exist in this setting. The money the Circles generate goes to fund the Circles themselves, not the Chantry- that's one of the key foundations of one of the fraternities. The mages have not only the choice of whether to work or not, but also what to work on- they can study, they can produce, they can practice, or they can do nothing and indulge in luxuries most of the world can't. The proper description for the Circles would be internment.


Since the primary 'gain' for the Chantries from the Circle system is 'not having abusive mages on the loose', with the backup of 'mages remain alive to help society in case of emergency', that's not a slavery dynamic either.

Anyway lemme explain what I mean when I say the Chantry builds itself on the back of mages: mages are dangerous and need watchers, thus templars, the Chantry's private strongarm, in turn these watchers need something to put them on an equal playing field thus the Chantry's monopoly on lyrium, an extremely provitable venture. So just from their ownership of mages they have moved from a religious organization to a military and economic force, and that definitely gives them a whole lot more sway than they would have had otherwise. Does this kinda thing typically happen in quarantines?

Yes, actually. Organizations that enforced quarantines often had physical and economic influence as a result. A quarantine requires enforcement to be successful, necessitating military power, and in receiving and distributing the supplies for the quarantine, the organizations could amass financial strenth as well as compensation for the risks they undertook. (It also wasn't uncommon for the property in a quarantine zone to fall to the quarantine providers after the owners died.)

Their entire belief system is built on demonizing and fearing mages, that hate and fear is used as capital to expand Chantry influence.

Cause and effect relationship. Mages aren't demonized and feared by commoners because the Chantry came about- the Chantry came about because mages abused and terrorized commoners. The Chantry's ideological justification for being isn't the Circle system- it's divine revolutionary liberation against the mages.

The Chantry's foundation, both ideological (Andraste) and practical (the period of the initial inquisition) were historic times of mage terrors on the populace. The Chantry filled, not created, that... but modern Chantry cultural expansion is tied far more to their relationship with the Orlesian Empire and other kingdoms than it is by rabblerousing against mages.

Slavery might not fit the dynamic perfectly, but quarantine definitely doesn't either.

Perhaps, but there's a imperfict fit and no fit at all. You're making up definitions of slavery to slap the perjorative fit- quarantine just uses an analogy.

Why do you think this? Mage stress has never been the kind of problem it is with this system. The Circle system started because a mage run society was too successful, not because their was some abomination plague.

I'm not sure by what definition the Tevinter state of terror can be called 'too successful', since it's basically a broken remnant of what it once was and its policies towards the commoners were so atrocious that hundreds of years later people fear the mages who could be stressed or pressed to extreme cruelties for success.

Tevinter has been running itself for millenia, never has it sunken into demonic squalor. Mages potentially turning into abominations has never been the primary aim for the Circle system anyway, it was to curb mages potential misuse of their power.

Not being demonic squallor is a kind of vague, low bar to set for whether abominations are a concern. Remember that Tevinter and other societies have never been presented as not having or suffering abominations- they simply accept the losses and costs of abomination outbreaks as part of the way things are. They let the outbreak burn out, and carry on. That's high social risk tolerance, similar to our attitude to most diseases today. The Andrastian nations, for cultural and historical reasons, have much lower tolerances for these sorts of things- what might be passed off as the equivalent to a natural disaster in, say, Rivian is perceived as unacceptable and preventable in Andrastian culture.


We could talk about how stress drives people to abuse power to advance their interests (apressures to succede in competitive environments, a perceived need for more power and influence, familial concerns and tensions), but I suspect you're not interested in such.

But, as I freely admitted earlier, pre-possession mage abuses is where the quarantine analogy begins to stumble... though it's more because generic mage abuses are 'in addition to' the risk of outbreaks rather than 'instead of.'

A self-sustaining little circle like this is a temporary solution though. It was never going to work forever. It couldn't have worked forever. It's nonsensical. If your system continues to breed the problem you're trying to stop, or contain that doesn't justify it's continued use - it just means its a bad system.

Tell that to people who believe in governance, in police, in militaries for defense. All nations fall, crime doesn't stop, and societies crubmle into dust and are forgotten, but a large part of civilization is that we organize and try to put off the inevitable indefinitely. There are hopeless battles worth fighting.

Of course, there's also the point that the Circles are a system in which research for a more permanent solution can and has been done. Tranquility was a failure, but demonstrative of the attempt. The Chantry's interest in the subject has also been mentioned. But the Circle's don't need to be a permanent solution to be seen as the best possible interim solution.

After all, remember what the Circles were a compromise for at the time- mages not doing anything at all, or mages not living at all. Andrastian societies, which have the overwhelming say in the position of mages in their socities, have already been burned and terrorized off mages being free to use their powers at their own discretion.

Morocco Mole wrote...
Dean_The_Young, you are the best poster on BSN

He is rather smartass isn't he?

Added the inflection I heard, btw.

[Dean_the_Young]

Plaintiff wrote...

There's no inherent value to human life, either, yet here you are arguing in favour of imprisoning mages for the 'greater good' of society.

Indeed. I happen to place value on human life and societies. When the two conflict I often side with a well functioning society that has and can improved itself, but that depends on context and is just prioritization and what I see as long-term effects. Which, yes, are only meaningful in so much as I care.

It might not be inherent, but not being inherent doesn't make it illegitimate.

Can I assume you're cool with me releasing mages and just not giving a **** if mundanes are cleansed from the face of the continent with a never-ending rain of fire?

Why would you assume that? Socipathic and ubermensch implications aside, you'd really just be validating my concerns and fears that mages are too dangerous, willfully or not, to be trusted in open societies.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 01 décembre 2013 - 05:56 .

[Angrywolves]

all this treatise writing.

[Fredward]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
Risk-tolerance.

It's not just direct harm, since we actually will conduct quarantines for things that pose no direct harm- customs inspections are as much about economic damages as personal harms, and then there are diseases and such we don't mind (or at least are willing to tolerate) if they spread around.

It's all about how much risk a society is willing to tolerate. Now adays, with modern medicine and relatively tame diseases, we have pretty high social risk tolerance because there aren't many things that can devastate a community. In ye old days, where plagues were far more devastating, or in the DA setting with magic and an extensive history of magical harm, risk tolerance is far, far lower.[/quote]

But allowing mages to mingle with mundane society won't be a bad thing. Yes there is going to be the risk of the occasional abomination and those who exploit there power but there are ways to curb that. A limited Circle system where mages still have to be taught about their powers and still have to go through the Harrowing and phylacteries are still kept but they're free to go afterwards. Once you've shown you can handle stress on a level most people never have to deal with then I think you've earned a repriever.

Think about it. Mages free in society will be able to better it for EVERYONE. Without the cultural bias the Magisters in Tevinter have that make them think they are better than everyone free mages stand the chance to increase quality of life across the board. Free clinics? Circle education made available to everyone? Imagine Keeper magic and the effect it could have on farming. If the Sending technology they used in Asunder could be made more feasible Thedas could have the magical equivalent of phones.

So if quarantine is about risk managment when do the potential benefits start outweighing (or at least equaling) the risks? When does it become more about short-sightedness and less about protecting people?

[quote]
Uh, no. Slavery is a economic/property relationship, which does not exist in this setting. The money the Circles generate goes to fund the Circles themselves, not the Chantry- that's one of the key foundations of one of the fraternities. The mages have not only the choice of whether to work or not, but also what to work on- they can study, they can produce, they can practice, or they can do nothing and indulge in luxuries most of the world can't. The proper description for the Circles would be internment.

Since the primary 'gain' for the Chantries from the Circle system is 'not having abusive mages on the loose', with the backup of 'mages remain alive to help society in case of emergency', that's not a slavery dynamic either.[/quote]

Just because no one in the Chantry comes up and says straight up "Yoh dawg, your magical ass belongs to me" doesn't mean that slavery isn't taking place. You're smart, so you no doubt know that in the history of slavery some slaves lived in very, very cushy environments. Well above the average freeman on the street. They were still property though. Their owners still got to decide whether lived or died.

And that last bit kinda makes it not be quarantine either tho. If the boundaries of the quarantine are pliable enough that the risk is considered worth it to trot mages out during war (one of the most if not the most stressful environment ever, can you imagine an abomination going crazy in your back lines?) what's stopping it from being considered worth the risk to let those same mages out conditionally in peacetime if not the Chantry's need to sustain their raison d'etre?

[quote]
Yes, actually. Organizations that enforced quarantines often had physical and economic influence as a result. A quarantine requires enforcement to be successful, necessitating military power, and in receiving and distributing the supplies for the quarantine, the organizations could amass financial strenth as well as compensation for the risks they undertook. (It also wasn't uncommon for the property in a quarantine zone to fall to the quarantine providers after the owners died.)[/quote]

Mmmm, okay next question. Any quarantine been going on for a thousand years with no results? It's more like... indefinite containment than quarantine. Because magic is never going to run its course. There are still incidents of the plague outside the quarantine, often. Although I have to say that it does resemble quarantine in that it was never an actual solution, it was transient from the get go.

Maybe if a private quarantine organization had been allowed to run for a millenia they'd also have the kind of influence the Chantry has but I think it's much, much more likely for people to point and cry "EPIC ****ING FAILURE."

[quote]
Cause and effect relationship. Mages aren't demonized and feared by commoners because the Chantry came about- the Chantry came about because mages abused and terrorized commoners. The Chantry's ideological justification for being isn't the Circle system- it's divine revolutionary liberation against the mages.

The Chantry's foundation, both ideological (Andraste) and practical (the period of the initial inquisition) were historic times of mage terrors on the populace. The Chantry filled, not created, that... but modern Chantry cultural expansion is tied far more to their relationship with the Orlesian Empire and other kingdoms than it is by rabblerousing against mages.[/quote]

But that's exactly the problem innit? The Chantry exists because of a thousand year old tyrannical rule by a foreign power. Think about it. Mages in different societies (Dalish, Rivaini, Wilders) are seen as advisors and leaders, not tyrants. Tyranny is not their default state, it's the exception. Funnily enough the only place the Chantry has little influence is the culture that served as its catalyst in the first place.

As for the Chantry's ideology it's irrevecobaly tied with stigma and hate. Dated stigma and hate. No actual mage oppression is required anymore. "We need to spread our influence to all four corners of the world because the Maker turned his gaze from us." "But Mother, why did He turn His gaze from us?" "BECAUSE A BAD MAGE KILLED HIS WAIFU!"

Now you can argue that mage oppression and terror was the default state and the Chantry changed all that, and they did. Kinda. But that oppression and tyranny came from one culture a thousand years ago. A culture where mages hear from birth that they're naturally superior to everyone else. Now again you can argue that it wasn't the culture that bred mages like that but that it was the mages that changed the culture but then I'd like to know why rule by fear and power is not the case in the Dalish, why there's never been a story about a evil shaman controlling all of Rivain. Not that it really matters if mages created the culture or the culture created the mages because at this point it's functionally autonomous. Tevinter mages are always going to have tyrannical leanings. But that paradigm is representative of nothing but Tevinter.

[quote]
Perhaps, but there's a imperfict fit and no fit at all. You're making up definitions of slavery to slap the perjorative fit- quarantine just uses an analogy.[/quote]

Your quarantine analogy was made to take away the perjorative sting tho. And I can still make it sound VERY perjorative, cuz it is. Which is why we're arguing semantics.

[quote]
I'm not sure by what definition the Tevinter state of terror can be called 'too successful', since it's basically a broken remnant of what it once was and its policies towards the commoners were so atrocious that hundreds of years later people fear the mages who could be stressed or pressed to extreme cruelties for success.[/quote]

Yeah no doubt. Dem Tevinters should really go on a hearts-and-minds campaign. Lets keep in mind that they're empire straddled most of Thedas though, and even after it's collapse it survived several Exalted Marches and the Qunari. No other nation can say as much. It's success. Not a nice kind but still.

As for their popular perception heritage, it's justified when it pertains to ancient Tevinter magisters. No, wait. It's justified when it's confined to certain ancient Tevinter magisters. Do I doubt contemporary magisters have changed much the operative word here is Tevinter. And also certain. Individuals should be judged as such.

[quote]
Not being demonic squallor is a kind of vague, low bar to set for whether abominations are a concern. Remember that Tevinter and other societies have never been presented as not having or suffering abominations- they simply accept the losses and costs of abomination outbreaks as part of the way things are. They let the outbreak burn out, and carry on. That's high social risk tolerance, similar to our attitude to most diseases today. The Andrastian nations, for cultural and historical reasons, have much lower tolerances for these sorts of things- what might be passed off as the equivalent to a natural disaster in, say, Rivian is perceived as unacceptable and preventable in Andrastian culture.[/quote]

Or yah know Tevinter can be seen as a feasible alternative to the Circle system. Eh, minus the tyranny ofc. YMMV. Tevinter is still standing, it has withstood more than any other single nation. If we assume the current tread of demonic possession holds true in Tevinter as well (ie largely mindless monster rampage) then it should also be assumed that it's occurence is limited to the level that it presents no threat so large as to destabilize the society as a whole. The magister/several apprentices dynamic works, it's stable. Arguably more stable than the "lets put a band-aid on it!" approach of the Chantry since that is the society that's facing complete collapse. 

[quote]
We could talk about how stress drives people to abuse power to advance their interests (apressures to succede in competitive environments, a perceived need for more power and influence, familial concerns and tensions), but I suspect you're not interested in such.

But, as I freely admitted earlier, pre-possession mage abuses is where the quarantine analogy begins to stumble... though it's more because generic mage abuses are 'in addition to' the risk of outbreaks rather than 'instead of.' [/quote]

Oh? I'm studying psychology actually, so I may have a vague idea of what stress causes people to do. And the thing is the compacted stress of living, for decades, in a situation where you're life is defined by an external locus of control (and hell even a hostile external locus of control), where you can be turned into a soulless automoton for reading the wrong book or where you can be summarily executed on little more than suspicion is going to add up being a WHOLE LOT MORE stressful than living the peasant life. But you knew this, I mean just look at the current situation.

And another things is that mages would probably be in a much better position to deal with daily stress than the common peasant. They're unlikely to run out of work seeing as how they could be entertainers, bodyguards, teachers, doctors, highly successful farmers, builders, I imagine more than one ship would leap at the chance of having a mage on board and novelty eh, courtesans. Whose likely to stress more when being mugged? A random farmer or a mage that can kill them all with his mind?

If a mage has already shown s/he is capable of handling highly stressful situations (the Harrowing) I don't believe that it's justified to imprison ALL of them because the odd mage, the 1%, might snap while living their mundane lives. Not considering all the good they could do.

[quote]
Of course, there's also the point that the Circles are a system in which research for a more permanent solution can and has been done. Tranquility was a failure, but demonstrative of the attempt. The Chantry's interest in the subject has also been mentioned. But the Circle's don't need to be a permanent solution to be seen as the best possible interim solution.

After all, remember what the Circles were a compromise for at the time- mages not doing anything at all, or mages not living at all. Andrastian societies, which have the overwhelming say in the position of mages in their socities, have already been burned and terrorized off mages being free to use their powers at their own discretion.[/quote]

It's never been the best interim solution though. When has any minority ever just kept quiet indefinitely in the face of such oppression? Never. Maybe it was meant as a temporary solution, if so the Chantry quickly decided that the benefits (for them) outweighed a more reasonable approach. The first choice was like telling someone to live but never again open your eyes, the second was death, or worse and their (lets say) interim solution was indefinite imprisonment while the organization maintaining it grew fat on the benefits. The Circle system has collapsed under the weight of the tumescence of its own corruption.

[quote]
[quote]
He is rather smartass isn't he?
[/quote]Added the inflection I heard, btw.
[/quote]

Nah I was actually being sincere. I value intellect. Even if I don't agree with you at all. Though you are a total smartass too. xp

Modifié par Foopydoopydoo, 02 décembre 2013 - 07:38 .

[KC_Prototype]

Let just say, the Inquisition needs to lead a siege on every Dalish clan and slaughter them all. There, happy?

[KC_Prototype]

AdamWeith wrote...

KC_Prototype wrote...

Nope, the Inquisitor will be forced to slaughter all elves in order to save humanity.

.....

This.... :police::police:

What are you saying.

[Hellion Rex]

KC_Prototype wrote...

Let just say, the Inquisition needs to lead a siege on every Dalish clan and slaughter them all. There, happy?

Why?

[Vit246]

eluvianix wrote...

KC_Prototype wrote...

Let just say, the Inquisition needs to lead a siege on every Dalish clan and slaughter them all. There, happy?

Why?

I believe its because based on a total of two Dalish clans in two games, players have decided all clans must die.
Well technically its because of one Keeper and then one entire clan.

Modifié par Vit246, 02 décembre 2013 - 08:22 .

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Foopydoopydoo wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
Risk-tolerance.

It's not just direct harm, since we actually will conduct quarantines for things that pose no direct harm- customs inspections are as much about economic damages as personal harms, and then there are diseases and such we don't mind (or at least are willing to tolerate) if they spread around.

It's all about how much risk a society is willing to tolerate. Now adays, with modern medicine and relatively tame diseases, we have pretty high social risk tolerance because there aren't many things that can devastate a community. In ye old days, where plagues were far more devastating, or in the DA setting with magic and an extensive history of magical harm, risk tolerance is far, far lower.[/quote]

But allowing mages to mingle with mundane society won't be a bad thing. Yes there is going to be the risk of the occasional abomination and those who exploit there power but there are ways to curb that. A limited Circle system where mages still have to be taught about their powers and still have to go through the Harrowing and phylacteries are still kept but they're free to go afterwards. Once you've shown you can handle stress on a level most people never have to deal with then I think you've earned a repriever.[/quote]In principle, I would agree. In practice, what you consider enough and what I consider enough probably won't be compatible. The Harrowing, for example- it really isn't a stress test comparible or superior to the natural stressors of life. But then, few things other than life are, so you'd have a hard time selling that to me.

Given my view on teenagers and the passions of youth, you'd have an extremely hard sell for anyone below the age of 25, to start.
[quote]
Think about it. Mages free in society will be able to better it for EVERYONE. Without the cultural bias the Magisters in Tevinter have that make them think they are better than everyone free mages stand the chance to increase quality of life across the board. Free clinics? Circle education made available to everyone? Imagine Keeper magic and the effect it could have on farming. If the Sending technology they used in Asunder could be made more feasible Thedas could have the magical equivalent of phones.
[/quote]This is a nice, pleasant, but ultimately entirely optimistic vision. It's not a sell for me, because I don't believe it's the Tevinter cultural bias that leads mages to abuse their powers. It's the fact that mages are human beings, and I tend towards the 'human nature naturally tends towards bastardom when empowered' school of thought. Especially when economic realities are considered- there's no such thing as a free lunch, and my faith that liberated mages will devote themselves to charity and good will endeavors and otherwise not seek or exercise power for their own benifit is nill.

As for the benefits of magical advancement, David Gaider has an excellent post on that. I wish I could find it, but it amounts to 'mages could certainly find better ways of transportation, medicine, communication, warfare, mind control, and tearing fade portals and incurring the rath of the heavens.'

[quote]
So if quarantine is about risk managment when do the potential benefits start outweighing (or at least equaling) the risks? When does it become more about short-sightedness and less about protecting people?
[/quote]When the perceived need exceeds the perceived risk.

I'm pretty far from a luddite or a believer in 'some things should never be known', but there isn't much in the Dragon Age setting that convinces me that the unfettering of the circles is a necessity for, well, the things I find important. It's a useful tool, but it's neither a necessity nor a panacea compared to other, mundane advancements or reforms. Guns, steel, and politics are capable of blocking the Qunari, and I don't see mages as a viable solution to the Darkspawn.

Rather than spreading knowledge for all and charity works, the third-wayh alternative to 'Circles' or 'mageocracy' I see would be the nationalization of mages. Not to be used for charity or education, but pretty simply for the purpose of warfare escalation. To me, the longer-sighted play would be to raise the mundanes up (by technology, or political/social advancement, or even magical distribution) rather than to radically reduce the checks on mages.


[quote]
Just because no one in the Chantry comes up and says straight up "Yoh dawg, your magical ass belongs to me" doesn't mean that slavery isn't taking place. You're smart, so you no doubt know that in the history of slavery some slaves lived in very, very cushy environments. Well above the average freeman on the street. They were still property though. Their owners still got to decide whether lived or died.
[/quote]And the mages aren't property. Or owned. They're detainees, but not possessions.
[quote]
And that last bit kinda makes it not be quarantine either tho. If the boundaries of the quarantine are pliable enough that the risk is considered worth it to trot mages out during war (one of the most if not the most stressful environment ever, can you imagine an abomination going crazy in your back lines?) what's stopping it from being considered worth the risk to let those same mages out conditionally in peacetime if not the Chantry's need to sustain their raison d'etre?
[/quote]Can you restate your question? Lepper colonies did allow some lepers limited excusions out of the quarantines to handle benefits, but these were also temporary and generally supervised endeavors.




[quote]
Mmmm, okay next question. Any quarantine been going on for a thousand years with no results? It's more like... indefinite containment than quarantine. Because magic is never going to run its course. There are still incidents of the plague outside the quarantine, often. Although I have to say that it does resemble quarantine in that it was never an actual solution, it was transient from the get go. [/quote]Quarantine is indefinite- leper colonies existed across generations of victims. We don't have long-standing quarantines now because diseases either burned out or were cured. Magic-as-an-analogy is more akin to the Leper colonies.

[quote]
Maybe if a private quarantine organization had been allowed to run for a millenia they'd also have the kind of influence the Chantry has but I think it's much, much more likely for people to point and cry "EPIC ****ING FAILURE."[/quote]If the plague is largely contained to the colonies and outbreaks are both rare and contained, that would be EPIC SUCCESS. Since, you know, that's the goal of a quarantine- to limit outbreaks and spread.

Of course, the old time tradition for plague control when a quarantine was considered too expensive or ineffective was to put the carriers to the sword and torch the place. While the DA games don't dwell on it directly, according to the lore a lot of mages would still be lynched by mobs if it weren't for the templars and the circles giving them a place to be.

(Personally, I think this is a weakness of the franchise as it's a very relevant piece of the lore that isn't reflected in the gameplay experience.)


[quote]
But that's exactly the problem innit? The Chantry exists because of a thousand year old tyrannical rule by a foreign power. [/quote]Plus a significant period of anarchy in which mages were unfettered but not part of Tevinter either. Don't forget, the Chantry didn't spring up until some time after Andraste's rebellion. The period of the Inquisition's formation was far more relevant.

[quote]
Think about it. Mages in different societies (Dalish, Rivaini, Wilders) are seen as advisors and leaders, not tyrants. Tyranny is not their default state, it's the exception. Funnily enough the only place the Chantry has little influence is the culture that served as its catalyst in the first place.[/quote]I'll caution you that we know very little about the Rivaini and Wilders... including how they run things or handle dissent. Authoritarian tendencies are quite compatible with what we've hard and seen (which isn't much).

And if you want to point at an example of peaceful integration for the Andrastian societies to look at, the Dalish are definitely not a case you want to look at. To put it rather unfavorably, the Dalish clans we've seen have been ruled by mages and shown consistent hostility and regular (even unprovoked) clashes with mundanes. The Ferelden Dalish from DAO in particular are not an example of a mage-led society coexisiting with the mundane humans.

(Of course, the Dalish context is so much more about culture than mundane-mages that not even the Templars view them as a priority.)
[quote]
As for the Chantry's ideology it's irrevecobaly tied with stigma and hate. Dated stigma and hate. No actual mage oppression is required anymore. "We need to spread our influence to all four corners of the world because the Maker turned his gaze from us." "But Mother, why did He turn His gaze from us?" "BECAUSE A BAD MAGE KILLED HIS WAIFU!"
[/quote]Actually, it's more like
'Mages can easily abuse their powers and are at constant temptation to do just that. They're dangerous, and shouldn't be simply trusted because of that.'

[quote]
Now you can argue that mage oppression and terror was the default state and the Chantry changed all that, and they did. Kinda. But that oppression and tyranny came from one culture a thousand years ago. A culture where mages hear from birth that they're naturally superior to everyone else. Now again you can argue that it wasn't the culture that bred mages like that but that it was the mages that changed the culture but then I'd like to know why rule by fear and power is not the case in the Dalish, why there's never been a story about a evil shaman controlling all of Rivain. Not that it really matters if mages created the culture or the culture created the mages because at this point it's functionally autonomous. Tevinter mages are always going to have tyrannical leanings. But that paradigm is representative of nothing but Tevinter.
[/quote]
The fact that Tevinter was horrible a thousand years ago is far less
important than that Tevinter is horrible now and mages remain a
potential calamity now. The Andrastian view, with plenty of examples not too distant to draw from, is that mages remain a significant risk even now. Considering that one untrained boy nearly destroyed a major settlement without an ounce of malice in DAO, they'd be entirely correct.

Your arguments about the Dalish and Rivain have two problems. For the Dalish, the fact is that the Dalish mages do have an bad reputation with the vast majority of mundanes of Thedas... because the Dalish as a whole have a bad reputation. That the Dalish mages aren't known for terrorizing Dalish mundanes doesn't challenge or change that the Dalish mages (and Dalish collectively) are a concern for the nations of Thedas.

The problem with arguing on the basis of the Rivain is that there is a lack of information about the Rivain to use. You're basically using an argument of 'I haven't heard bad things so they must not exist', which is not only flawed but could be reversed. We've never had solid lore saying Rivain shamans aren't feared in Rivain.

[quote]
[quote]
Perhaps, but there's a imperfict fit and no fit at all. You're making up definitions of slavery to slap the perjorative fit- quarantine just uses an analogy.[/quote]

Your quarantine analogy was made to take away the perjorative sting tho. And I can still make it sound VERY perjorative, cuz it is. Which is why we're arguing semantics. [/quote]Not really. You're making a claim of categorization and definition. I'm making an analogy. Those are two different rhetorical devices with different intents and uses.

[quote]
Yeah no doubt. Dem Tevinters should really go on a hearts-and-minds campaign. Lets keep in mind that they're empire straddled most of Thedas though, and even after it's collapse it survived several Exalted Marches and the Qunari. No other nation can say as much. It's success. Not a nice kind but still. [/quote]That's like saying Italy is a success because it used to be the Roman Empire. It's not what it used to be, and it failed.

The Tevinter of the Dragon Age is a rump state in a historic low. It is not a success story in its current form.

[quote]
Or yah know Tevinter can be seen as a feasible alternative to the Circle system. Eh, minus the tyranny ofc. YMMV. Tevinter is still standing, it has withstood more than any other single nation. If we assume the current tread of demonic possession holds true in Tevinter as well (ie largely mindless monster rampage) then it should also be assumed that it's occurence is limited to the level that it presents no threat so large as to destabilize the society as a whole. The magister/several apprentices dynamic works, it's stable. Arguably more stable than the "lets put a band-aid on it!" approach of the Chantry since that is the society that's facing complete collapse.  [/quote]Why minus the tyranny? Feasibility is always about what the people who matter are willing to accept. For mages, Tevinter is very feasible.

The Chantry isn't a society, so unless you're exagerated societal collapse for organizational collapse... well, you're just exagerated one for the other.

[quote]
We could talk about how stress drives people to abuse power to advance their interests (apressures to succede in competitive environments, a perceived need for more power and influence, familial concerns and tensions), but I suspect you're not interested in such.

But, as I freely admitted earlier, pre-possession mage abuses is where the quarantine analogy begins to stumble... though it's more because generic mage abuses are 'in addition to' the risk of outbreaks rather than 'instead of.' [/quote]

Oh? I'm studying psychology actually, so I may have a vague idea of what stress causes people to do. And the thing is the compacted stress of living, for decades, in a situation where you're life is defined by an external locus of control (and hell even a hostile external locus of control), where you can be turned into a soulless automoton for reading the wrong book or where you can be summarily executed on little more than suspicion is going to add up being a WHOLE LOT MORE stressful than living the peasant life. But you knew this, I mean just look at the current situation.
[/quote]Welcome ot life in Thedas. Everyone (bar, possibly, a certain Witch of the Wilds) is living in circumstances beyond their control and subject to pressures and authorities that range from indifferent to outright hostile. Executions are also quite easy... such as refusing the demands of your government.

Personally, though, I have little faith that mages will be immune to mundane stresses of the every day life- of wanting love that isn't reciprocated, respect that isn't earned, wealth by means fair or foul, and safety that is in precious short supply anywhere.

[quote]
And another things is that mages would probably be in a much better position to deal with daily stress than the common peasant. They're unlikely to run out of work seeing as how they could be entertainers, bodyguards, teachers, doctors, highly successful farmers, builders, I imagine more than one ship would leap at the chance of having a mage on board and novelty eh, courtesans. Whose likely to stress more when being mugged? A random farmer or a mage that can kill them all with his mind?[/quote]The random farmer- he has less to lose, and doesn't face the prospect of being lynched for conduing a magical massacre.

Being rich and affluent doesn't mean you're free of stress. It doesn't even mean you have less stress, or more happiness.

[quote]
If a mage has already shown s/he is capable of handling highly stressful situations (the Harrowing) I don't believe that it's justified to imprison ALL of them because the odd mage, the 1%, might snap while living their mundane lives. Not considering all the good they could do.[/quote]I don't see the Harrowing as a particularly good measure of long-term stress, so I don't see it as a justification of demonstrating strength of will.

[quote]
It's never been the best interim solution though. When has any minority ever just kept quiet indefinitely in the face of such oppression? Never. Maybe it was meant as a temporary solution, if so the Chantry quickly decided that the benefits (for them) outweighed a more reasonable approach. The first choice was like telling someone to live but never again open your eyes, the second was death, or worse and their (lets say) interim solution was indefinite imprisonment while the organization maintaining it grew fat on the benefits. The Circle system has collapsed under the weight of the tumescence of its own corruption.
[/quote]You're not being clear here. In your historic appeal, for example, you're making a claim without linking it to the situation at hand. No one is claiming the Mages shouldn't speak up and agitate for reform of the system, so that's something of a strawman argument.

If we wanted to make a historical point, though, I could easily bring up historical examples in which peaceful agitation for reform has been more successful than launching revolution. I can also point out cases in which the result of a revolution was worse for the intended recipients than the corruption they rebelled against.

[Kalas Magnus]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I'm going to be an elf, whose specialty is blowing up other elfs and riding qunari and steering them with their horns.

i like this idea. 

biower pls

[I SOLD MY SOUL TO BIOWARE]

I see this thread is still going.

I'll take this time to say elves are all cool, man. Humans and dwarves too. We just gotta get them in a room with some cigaweeds to sort out their differences, man. Nonna dis genocide sheeyut y'all rootin for.

legalize dalish weed tbh

Modifié par SergeantSnookie, 02 décembre 2013 - 09:15 .

[Andraste Take the Wheel]

SergeantSnookie wrote...

I see this thread is still going.

I'll take this time to say elves are all cool, man. Humans and dwarves too. We just gotta get them in a room with some cigaweeds to sort out their differences, man. Nonna dis genocide sheeyut y'all rootin for.

legalize dalish weed tbh

Most important post on BSN

[Angrywolves]

more treatise writing.

[Afro_Explosion]

Its like they're writing a thesis

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

The dalish are really annoying, their pretty much the quarian's of DA. Started a war that they lost & then whined about it for the next few hundred years. City elves are ok tho

[Master Warder Z_]

 The game will likely have a focus upon the elves attempting a retaking of the dales from Orlais given that the elves have sided with Gaspard apparently in the civil war.

Although i would believe that the faction that ultimately emerges victorious in the struggle would depend upon pc impact. 

[Angrywolves]

really. I prefer Celene. She must be a babe for Cailen, although it seems Arl Eamon was more in favor of them getting together than Cailen was it seems.

[DRTJR]

Master Warder Z wrote...

 The game will likely have a focus upon the elves attempting a retaking of the dales from Orlais given that the elves have sided with Gaspard apparently in the civil war.

Although i would believe that the faction that ultimately emerges victorious in the struggle would depend upon pc impact. 

I side with my pointy eared brethren. Let's hope it goes better than Frances June Rebelion 

[Master Warder Z_]

DRTJR wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...

 The game will likely have a focus upon the elves attempting a retaking of the dales from Orlais given that the elves have sided with Gaspard apparently in the civil war.

Although i would believe that the faction that ultimately emerges victorious in the struggle would depend upon pc impact. 

I side with my pointy eared brethren. Let's hope it goes better than Frances June Rebelion 

Personally? 

I don't think they have any right to that land, the deadlands that it is.

Their inaction in a past blight, their vindictive war against humanity and their hostility to humanity in general ended the dales. 

To me? Retaking it is just a matter of ego, Forming a new homeland is a noble goal and a motive i can understand and even somewhat support but that said; Involving themselves in the war this way has made this move a little more then merely retaking the homeland, its an excuse for an invasion of home occupied lands again.

But ultimately as i said prior it will likely be up to the pc to determine if the dales are reclaimed or not, although personally i do prefer Gaspard to Celene. (from the limited information released about them both for the upcoming book and game)

[ShadowLordXII]

Everyone's at war with everyone right now, now's the best time for an elven revolt. It's already happening in Orlais while that country is in a civil war.