1858 réponses à ce sujet

[ireneadler]

i don't think it's a foregone conclusion that mages (if free) will build an oppressive, slave-owning empire, any more than it's a foregone conclusion that non--mages (if free) will build an oppressive, slave-owning empire, just because both (incredibly large and general) categories of people have done so in the past.

behavior by some in a perceived group doesn't justify denying freedom to all members of that group. i think all of this can be handled within the larger political system by outlawing things that are dangerous and providing oversight through whatever system of justice thedas has---just as it's done for everyone else.

outlaw blood magic, magic used harm, control, or diminish life, and so on. but don't imprison people on the basis of what they might do.

[Vandicus]

ireneadler wrote...

i don't think it's a foregone conclusion that mages (if free) will build an oppressive, slave-owning empire, any more than it's a foregone conclusion that non--mages (if free) will build an oppressive, slave-owning empire, just because both (incredibly large and general) categories of people have done so in the past.

behavior by some in a perceived group doesn't justify denying freedom to all members of that group. i think all of this can be handled within the larger political system by outlawing things that are dangerous and providing oversight through whatever system of justice thedas has---just as it's done for everyone else.

outlaw blood magic, magic used harm, control, or diminish life, and so on. but don't imprison people on the basis of what they might do.

Why would mages be willing to live as serfs? Furthermore, why would they want to? As it used to stand, they only needed to fight in Blights. As "free" serfs, they'd be forcibly recruited to fight in every local conflict. It is really only a matter of time before some of them decide they'd rather be the rulers. This has more to do with human nature when people have access to power than anything regarding mages being some sort of special subgroup.

Mages have access to power which would allow them to rather easily overthrow local noble, or at the very least work with other nobles and would be nobles to put them in a position of power. Nobles themselves will want this power and/or fear this power(not to mention your average normal discriminating against mages), resulting in a situation where mages are either recruited or killed. From there, some mages would probably usurp their lords, who they have very little reason to like anyways. Some of the mages will be better people than others after seizing power, but its inarguable that there will be some very bad ones out there(there are always bad people) who resort to blood magic to seize power over their rivals. Because you basically need blood magic to defeat blood magic(unless you're the next Adralla or *insert PC protagonist here) as a mage, the other mages will begin to be forced to resort to blood magic to avoid losing their power and their lives. Not to mention, even assuming they remained subordinate to a non-mage lord, many of those lords would probably demand they use blood magic.


So best case scenario?

Mages bring blood magic to wars and serve loyally under their lords.

The more likely scenario is that they rebel and get drawn into the same cycle of needing blood magic to fight blood magic, which means you need expendable slaves, which means Tevinter Imperium MK 3.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

ireneadler wrote...

i don't think it's a foregone conclusion that mages (if free) will build an oppressive, slave-owning empire, any more than it's a foregone conclusion that non--mages (if free) will build an oppressive, slave-owning empire, just because both (incredibly large and general) categories of people have done so in the past.

behavior by some in a perceived group doesn't justify denying freedom to all members of that group. i think all of this can be handled within the larger political system by outlawing things that are dangerous and providing oversight through whatever system of justice thedas has---just as it's done for everyone else.

outlaw blood magic, magic used harm, control, or diminish life, and so on. but don't imprison people on the basis of what they might do.

I agree that this might work were it not for the problem where they can get possessed; that's the main stumbling block. It doesn't happen often, but when it does there's no telling what will happen.

Edit: Or did I miss a way out of this problem in the several pages I wasn't here for?

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 14 décembre 2013 - 03:46 .

[Lord Raijin]

eluvianix wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Yes but whereas the mages of Kirkwall actually had valid complaints regarding how certain Templars; like Alrik; were not respecting the laws of the Circle, much of the rethoric employed by the mages in that conclave was based on the larger principle of freedom. Fiona gets downright self-rigtheous when she says that mages are done waiting for "the right thing" to be done.
Because she, of all people, has obviously discerned what is the right thing in this complex debate of freedom for some vs security for all.

Honestly, it seems to me there is a double standard here. Meredith is often deemed unfit to be a Knight-Commander because of how her sister killer her family plus over 70 people but Fiona's; who was raped by a non-mage; ability to be the Grand Enchanter is never brought into question.

Part of the issue is a lack of information on our end. We have only been exposed to 3 Circles, out of 14-15 in the White end of Thedas: Gallows, White Spire, and Kinloch Hold. 4, if you wantto include that Starkhaven bunch. We lack a clear picture of the situation and power struggles between other templars and mages within their respective Circles. So I hesistate to answer your first point because we lack a clearer picture.

As for the second point, what you label as a "double standard", if you ignore Raijin, I don't think I have seen anyone say Meredith is unfit because of her history. If anything, I think her experiences made her good at her duty and job. Perhaps a little too good, but that's another topic on its own.

@MisterJB There are no double standards being taken place here. Meredith was not forced to become a Templar after what happen to her family plus the 70 people that her abomination sister had killed. She voluntary went and became who she was; a Templar. Meredith could very well be another victim of the social enginnering of the Chantry that caused her to become so anti mage, and with that alone plus the history of what happen to her sister causes her to be unfit for having such position of great authority over a military organzation.

As far as Fiona goes shes not taking her rage out on the non-mages who raped her. She left the Grey wardens to spend time freeing her brethren from the wrath of the templars, and getting the Circle far away from the Chantry.

Silfren wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Lambert
was willing to introduce the cure for Tranquility in a less tumultous
political climate. He was not opposed to change. he just didn't want the
entire system falling apart around his ears, because some mage didn't
get his third meal that day..

Funnily enough, I read that
same passage, and I didn't believe for an instant he was genuine in his
request to wait for a less tumultuous political climate.  Rather, I
think he was just trying to stall for time.  I seriously doubt he meant
that even slightly: he would have come up with ANY excuse, at ANY time,
to insist on a reason to put off the news about Tranquility being
curable.

IIRC Lambert ordered his Knight-Captain
to kill the three mages after their mission was over with, and sent over
"extra" backup to make sure that the job gets done. No way did he
wanted to introduce the cure for Tranquility.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

eluvianix wrote...

As for the second point, what you label as a "double standard", if you ignore Raijin, I don't think I have seen anyone say Meredith is unfit because of her history. If anything, I think her experiences made her good at her duty and job. Perhaps a little too good, but that's another topic on its own.

While I'm usually not the type to agree with Raijin (at least without qualifications) he has something here. It's unavoidable that the Templars will have a large degree of power over the mages. Putting someone with a credible psychological reason to abuse this power in the position of A: being the Templar this is most true of and B: being the Templar in charge of making sure this doesn't happen? Bad idea. Real life police departments interview just about everyone you've ever known when deciding whether or not to hire you, to try and get the measure of you as a person and figure out if you're potentially a bad seed. And they do this for a reason.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 14 décembre 2013 - 04:56 .

[SgtSteel91]

Wait doesn't the Chantry usually allow the most into their Religion or most anti-magic into the Templars?

[Hellion Rex]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

As for the second point, what you label as a "double standard", if you ignore Raijin, I don't think I have seen anyone say Meredith is unfit because of her history. If anything, I think her experiences made her good at her duty and job. Perhaps a little too good, but that's another topic on its own.

While I'm usually not the type to agree with Raijin (at least without qualifications) he has something here. It's unavoidable that the Templars will have a large degree of power over the mages. Putting someone with a credible psychological reason to abuse this power in the position of A: being the Templar this is most true of and B: being the Templar in charge of making sure this doesn't happen? Bad idea. Real life police departments interview just about everyone you've ever known when deciding whether or not to hire you, to try and get the measure of you as a person and figure out if you're potentially a bad seed. And they do this for a reason.

Fair point. Touche.

[Lord Raijin]

MisterJB wrote...
It is very much an valid equivalency.
First of all, claiming that Meredith is unsuitable for her position because of her past and claiming the same because of her actions is an entirely different thing.
If you oppose Meredith being the KC because her past experiences with mages can lead to her becoming overly antagonistic towards them, then you must apply the same standard to Fiona and be against her being the GE because her past experiences with non-mages can lead to her becoming overly antagonistic towards them.

If you then wish to claim that Meredith's potential for hatred manifested while Fiona's didn't, then do so but realize that that is an entirely different question.
And I will contest the notion Meredith hated mages or that she and Fiona are very different.
Meredith did not hate mages per principle; she believed that compromise with them was impossible and that she had to do whatever it took to protect the people of Kirkwall which is not so different from Fiona's belief that compromise with non-mages is impossible and than mages must to whatever it takes to secure their freedom and safety.
Plus, Fiona's actions were much worse than Meredith because this war will birth horrors that will put to shame anything that ever happened in Kirkwall's Circle as wars are wanton to do.

Thats ridiculous, MisterJB . It makes no sense whatsoever to put such claims on Fiona or make such silly statement of her being unfit to be the Grand Enchanter base on her past history with the mundanes.

“I came to the Circle from the Grey Wardens because I saw something had to be done. In the Wardens, we learn to watch for our moment and seize it — and that moment is now.”

Fiona associated herself with non-mages by being a Grey Warden. She has no beef with them base on her past history. She has a problem with the way the Templars are treating her fellow mages, and she felt that she needed to do something about it, and so she quit the Grey wardens to spend time gaining support from her peers to separate the Circle of Magi from the Chantry.

To blame Fiona and to point out that her actions were far worse than Meredith is OUTRAGOUS. I seriously hope you're not serious about saying that, are you MisterJB? You can't possibly be that closed minded to actually believe this.

[TEWR]

If you oppose Meredith being the KC because her past experiences with mages can lead to her becoming overly antagonistic towards them, then you must apply the same standard to Fiona and be against her being the GE because her past experiences with non-mages can lead to her becoming overly antagonistic towards them.

Her issue wasn't with non-mages, it was with nobility who are anything but. A noble had kept her as a sex slave. And it's an issue she's actually over. Before she viewed all nobility with contempt. After meeting Maric, she understands that to give them all a blanket viewpoint was wrong and that there are indeed some good nobles out there.

Not quite the same thing. Fiona has gotten over her issues from her traumatic past (from what I saw, though she wasn't in Asunder very much to definitively state for sure) while Meredith never did.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 14 décembre 2013 - 05:43 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

eluvianix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Isn't that from when the Mages have already discussed open rebellion, and Lambert have taken all the First Enchanters prisoner?

No, it is during the audience with the Divine.

But at that time the cure research had already been shared with all the Circles, so at this point it was already too late.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

If you oppose Meredith being the KC because her past experiences with mages can lead to her becoming overly antagonistic towards them, then you must apply the same standard to Fiona and be against her being the GE because her past experiences with non-mages can lead to her becoming overly antagonistic towards them.

Her issue wasn't with non-mages, it was with nobility who are anything but. A noble had kept her as a sex slave. And it's an issue she's actually over. Before she viewed all nobility with contempt. After meeting Maric, she understands that to give them all a blanket viewpoint was wrong and that there are indeed some good nobles out there.

Not quite the same thing. Fiona has gotten over her issues from her traumatic past (from what I saw, though she wasn't in Asunder very much to definitively state for sure) while Meredith never did.

So basically you are judging by actions and not their past. Not that it really matters, but if you thnk that Meredith's pat disqualifies her, then Fiona's past should disqualify her aswell. If you are going to look at the past alone as some sort of indicator for merit, then you should do so fairly in all cases, and not start including present(/recent) actions in the judgement. Did Meredith have a traumatic past? Yes. Did Fiona have a traumatic past? Yes. Both then should be unfit for the posistions, if you are judging by past alone.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

So basically you are judging by actions and not their past. Not that it really matters, but if you thnk that Meredith's pat disqualifies her, then Fiona's past should disqualify her aswell. If you are going to look at the past alone as some sort of indicator for merit, then you should do so fairly in all cases, and not start including present(/recent) actions in the judgement. Did Meredith have a traumatic past? Yes. Did Fiona have a traumatic past? Yes. Both then should be unfit for the posistions, if you are judging by past alone.

Except that Fiona's not supposed to have any power over the class those who have wronged her belong to. If she ends up with any power over the nobility, it's not going to be because of Circle or Chantry law.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 14 décembre 2013 - 07:14 .

[The Elder King]

Theorically, Fiona should've been unfit to be a GE for the fact that she was a Warden. Did she say anything about this in Asunder?
Though this rule was already ignored in DAO on multiple occasion.

Modifié par hhh89, 14 décembre 2013 - 07:15 .

[Hellion Rex]

hhh89 wrote...

Theorically, Fiona should've been unfit to be a GE for the fact that she was a Warden. Did she say anything about this in Asunder?

*********************************SPOILERS*********************************




No. She left the Wardens because her Taint was cured.





*(**********************************SPOILERS*********************************

[The Elder King]

Ah yes. I forgot about that. Thanks eluvianix.

[HiroVoid]

But what about all of the Grey Warden secrets that Jory had to die for?

[Hellion Rex]

HiroVoid wrote...

But what about all of the Grey Warden secrets that Jory had to die for?

Nobody liked Jory anyways.

[The Elder King]

HiroVoid wrote...

But what about all of the Grey Warden secrets that Jory had to die for?

Indeed. Both Alistair and Fiona could spill out their secrets (Anders too, in theory).

[The Elder King]

eluvianix wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

But what about all of the Grey Warden secrets that Jory had to die for?

Nobody liked Jory anyways.

I vastly preferred Daveth.

[TEWR]

I don't know that I'd say the past automatically makes one unqualified (I know I've said as much in the past, but I'd like to discuss it rather then go "Yes/No" and then I'll form a definite opinion), but it sure as hell does influence their consideration and means they shouldn't be the immediate choice. Actions and comments speak louder then the past. Sort of.

Do I think Meredith should've taken the post of Knight-Commander? No, not particularly, but that's also due to how she's been a Templar for a long time and was Knight-Captain before the Threnhold Uprising, so she's never really been showcasing how she's overcome what her past signifies of her.

When she became Knight-Commander, she immediately instituted laws that removed much of the freedoms Mages had under Knight-Commander Guylian, her predecessor. Under Guylian, Mages and Templars worked together against Demons and the Circle was a relatively peaceful place. Then factor in all the **** she pulls later on, and it becomes clear that her actions reflect how the past has damaged her considerably.

And as Grand Enchanter is a position where the First Enchanters elect someone to the post (IIRC), it's different then Meredith who was pretty much handed the post.

But I'm not sure where to stand on this. I hate sitting on the fence, however. ****, I dunno anymore. I'm exhausted, so don't take anything I'm saying now 100% seriously.

Except that Fiona's not supposed to have any power
over the class those who have wronged her belong to. If she ends up
with any power over the nobility, it's not going to be because of Circle
or Chantry law.

This also plays a large part in the question.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 14 décembre 2013 - 07:27 .

[Hellion Rex]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I don't know that I'd say the past automatically makes one unqualified (I know I've said as much in the past, but I'm changing that now), but it sure as hell does influence their consideration and means they shouldn't be the immediate choice. Actions and comments speak louder then the past, however.

Do I think Meredith should've taken the post of Knight-Commander? No, not particularly, but that's also due to how she's been a Templar for a long time and was Knight-Captain before the Threnhold Uprising, so she's never really been showcasing how she's overcome what her past signifies of her.

When she became Knight-Commander, she immediately instituted laws that removed much of the freedoms Mages had under Knight-Commander Guylian, her predecessor. Under Guylian, Mages and Templars worked together against Demons and the Circle was a relatively peaceful place. Then factor in all the **** she pulls later on, and it becomes clear that her actions reflect how the past has damaged her considerably.

Were they even truly aware of her upbringing? Just because they killed her sister means that they were aware of Meredith's connection to her? I got the feeling that when she shares that info with Hawke, it was almost like a secret, something that she had never told anyone, or at least hadn't told in a long time.

[EmperorSahlertz]

You could argue that Meredith's past would make her perfect for the job. She had a sister that she LOVED, who was a mage. The sister died to the inherent dangers of magic, not to some blood mage, which would mean that Meredith would see the dangers of magic, the demons, whereas she would see the mages like her sister.

There is no doubt that Meredith was a hardliner, but considering that we don't know how she acted in the 30-40 odd years since her sisters death, it seems rather rushed to claim her past should disqualify her entirely.

[Hellion Rex]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

You could argue that Meredith's past would make her perfect for the job. She had a sister that she LOVED, who was a mage. The sister died to the inherent dangers of magic, not to some blood mage, which would mean that Meredith would see the dangers of magic, the demons, whereas she would see the mages like her sister.

There is no doubt that Meredith was a hardliner, but considering that we don't know how she acted in the 30-40 odd years since her sisters death, it seems rather rushed to claim her past should disqualify her entirely.

True. I have been chewing on this for a few hours, and the more I think on it, someone's past shouldn't necessarily deny them the job. I mean, for all we know, Greagoir could have had a similar experience as a child, and so could have had many other much fairer templars that we have met along the way.

Modifié par eluvianix, 14 décembre 2013 - 07:41 .

[The Baconer]

Vandicus wrote...
So best case scenario?
Mages bring blood magic to wars and serve loyally under their lords.

pfffft. Lords by what authority? The name of their spawning pool? What power does a name hold over fire and lightning?

[HiroVoid]

The Baconer wrote...

Vandicus wrote...
So best case scenario?
Mages bring blood magic to wars and serve loyally under their lords.

pfffft. Lords by what authority? The name of their spawning pool? What power does a name hold over fire and lightning?

A name that if destroyed by magic will cause a collaboration between people to stand against an aggresive magic threat?

[The Baconer]

HiroVoid wrote...
A name that if destroyed by magic will cause a collaboration between people to stand against an aggresive magic threat?

Anyone willing to die for Baron Fatlord les Encule (who, in this hypothetical situation, would have been having his mages conduct blood magic on opposing armies anyway) would be no worse off in chains or giving blood to power some mundane and superfluous magical endeavor. Clearly they are beings of equal importance.