Well not evil exactly, if you widen your perspective its not so different than say renegade shepard. Mages need help and you help them and damn the consequences. If some Templars need to die in process of helping it doesn't matter.
How many have to die (templars, mages and civilians) before it starts to matter?
While true to a point, most of the abuses mages suffer within the circles themselves have little to do with religious doctrine. They occur because that's the sort of thing that happens when you give one group of people total power over another, ever heard of the stanford prison experiment?You can't deny though that the Chantry has had some questionable PR in regards to the Mage-Templar dilemma.
The Chantry's magophobic doctrine is the root of many kinds of evil, yes.
Phobia would imply irrational fear. The Chantry is not irrationally wary of mages. It is completely rational not to want to expose the entire world to the danger that mages pose.
I edited my post shortly before you posted as a response to something you said earlier.
I believe that creating a new organization with different recruitment requirements and no religious affiliation, when the only thing it has in common with the older templars is a few antimagic powers, will lead to significant enough differences. As for the Tranquil, if Karl and Pharamond are any judge, I have my doubts.
I believe it won't lead to any difference.
You seems convinced that everything that is wrong is because of the Chantry (religion), and that removing that will somehow, magicly make everything better.
There will be no prejudices, agendas or power struggles. No, everything will be perfect if we just remove the evil, evil Chantry. This new organizations of yours will be perfect, apolitical and the "templars" there will all be staunch atheists.
I guess one of the requirements will also be that they all must love mages?
So far every system I've seen you propose looks like a pipe dream.
And what is the alternative?
That things remain the same? It worked well for the mundanes for a very long time. But it aint workin' no more.
At this point, non-mages and their templar benefactors will have to be even stricter if they're even able to drag those petulant mages back to their prisons. Thus instilling more hatred and fear amongst some of the mages and the issue will never ever be resolved. The mundanes will create more and more Anders and the chantry will use mage resistance as a proof of mage guilt. How utterly moronic and unnessecary.
How many more resolutionists and blown up chantries would your average mundane like?
And? What do you think would happen otherwise? With all the chaos going on, would mundanes not fear mages more? Would they not hunt the mages down and accuse them of causing all their problems? How many Anders do you think would be created then? As difficult as it may be for some people to believe, the Chantry is not the font of all anti-mage sentiment.And what is the alternative?
That things remain the same? It worked well for the mundanes for a very long time. But it aint workin' no more.
At this point, non-mages and their templar benefactors will have to be even stricter if they're even able to drag those petulant mages back to their prisons. Thus instilling more hatred and fear amongst some of the mages and the issue will never ever be resolved. The mundanes will create more and more Anders and the chantry will use mage resistance as a proof of mage guilt. How utterly moronic and unnessecary.
How many more resolutionists and blown up chantries would your average mundane like?
And? What do you think would happen otherwise? With all the chaos going on, would mundanes not fear mages more? Would they not hunt the mages down and accuse them of causing all their problems? How many Anders do you think would be created then? As difficult as it may be for some people to believe, the Chantry is not the font of all anti-mage sentiment.
So the solution is to pluck our heads in the sand and hope it all goes away?
As difficult as it may be for some to believe, the Chantry is an enemy to mages and has been since the whole damn thing began. Also I agree, the Chantry is not the font of all anti-mage sentiment, but considering how revered it is as an institution to your average pig farmer and how this same institution blames mages for darkspawn...Hmmm I wonder how that ends...
What is true here is that things cannot and will not stay the same. The stranglehold on mages is ending. Time to find a new solution or be stuck in a perpetual cycle of hatred and oppression.
Magic IS to blame for Darkspawn.
You know, I think I have two basic questions for people proposing their own alternatives to the Circle system:
'How would you prevent an effort to turn your system into a Tevinter mageocracy?'
and
'How would you handle someone like Anders?'
Each Circle would be independent of other Circles, and would be vassals of the crown. The Circles would have an establishing charter and their members, mage and templar alike, would have to take an oath. Violations of that oath, including any attempt to rule beyond the bounds of the charter, would be cause for other members of the circle to stop the transgressor, including trial and punishment. If the Circle itself were trying to establish a magocracy, then other Circles would be obliged to defend the kingdom from the threat. If all the mages of all the circles decided to take over, well... much like under the corrupt Andrastean system, there wouldn't be much anyone could do to stop the mages if they somehow all miraculously decided to work together for a common purpose.
I wouldn't handle someone like Anders. A Circle I created would be entirely voluntary, so Anders would either join of his own free will or not be in it. Not hunted. No Templars trying to lure him into a stupid, stupid trap. Of course, if Anders chose not to be part of the Circle, he would not have the Circle's protection, so whatever he did would be subject to the common law. If he were determined to be a danger to the kingdom, the Circles would be obligated to defend the kingdom from that threat.
It might come to pass that mages and templars hunted down Anders and killed him, but it would be in accordance with secular law as a result of crimes committed by Anders, not because Anders was an apostate and simply chose to exist outside of the circle system. If he just wanted to run a free clinic, he would be free to do so.
Edit: Also, while a Circle mage would be prohibited by oath from rule beyond the grant in the Circle's charter, there would be nothing to keep a non-circle mage from inheriting a title, receiving a title from the crown for service therunto, etc. That title would be held by the mage as an individual, and passed to heirs under its own terms (e.g. primogeniture, in accordance with the customs of the kingdom.)
Magic IS to blame for Darkspawn.
According to the Chantry, yes.
And lets say that they are correct(I have my doubts), does that justify holding it over mages' collective heads forever?
Corypheus says hiAccording to the Chantry, yes.
Magic IS to blame for Darkspawn.
No the golden city is. Or the maker himself actually if you read chantry lore. But to be honest we really dont know i simply chlak up the darkspawn as natural magical occurrence
Your right that things can't remain the same if the situation is to improve, but you're mistaken if you think doing away with the chantry would solve anything or that it can't be a part of the solution. The chantry wields great influence and its leadership is not unsympathetic to the mage plight. Doctrine can change. Chantry backing would go a long way to legitimize a new system in the eyes of Thedas' population.So the solution is to pluck our heads in the sand and hope it all goes away?
As difficult as it may be for some to believe, the Chantry is an enemy to mages and has been since the whole damn thing began. Also I agree, the Chantry is not the font of all anti-mage sentiment, but considering how revered it is as an institution to your average pig farmer and how this same institution blames mages for darkspawn...Hmmm I wonder how that ends...
What is true here is that things cannot and will not stay the same. The stranglehold on mages is ending. Time to find a new solution or be stuck in a perpetual cycle of hatred and oppression.
Corypheus says hi
And? It does not prove that him and his comprades were the first ever darkspawn. And didn't he say that the city was black when they got there? And wouldn't that make his little group the first awakened darkspawn and not necessarily the first ever darkspawn according to dwarven lore?
Believe what you like, I need more answers.
Seems as though the "old gods" and the religion that venerated them were responsible for bringing the taint to Thedas. Sure, they required mages to bring their plan to fruition, but it's not like the magisters came up with the idea on their own. Dumat was the mastermind of the whole mess.
Your right that things can't remain the same if the situation is to improve, but you're mistaken if you think doing away with the chantry would solve anything or that it can't be a part of the solution. The chantry wields great influence and its leadership is not unsympathetic to the mage plight. Doctrine can change. Chantry backing would go a long way to legitimize a new system in the eyes of Thedas' population.
Maybe it can be part of the solution; you may be correct.
Given their extremely long history of mage oppression, I have more than my share of doubts. I do not envy Justinia's position, she has a nearly insurmountable amount of suspicion and doubt to overcome.
What he said about the city was ambiguous, I'm pretty sure all he says on the subject is "They said it would be golden... blackness ever since".And? It does not prove that him and his comprades were the first ever darkspawn. And didn't he say that the city was black when they got there? And wouldn't that make his little group the first awakened darkspawn and not necessarily the first ever darkspawn according to dwarven lore?
Believe what you like, I need more answers.
What he said about the city was ambiguous, I'm pretty sure all he says on the subject is "They said it would be golden... blackness ever since".
Its pretty blatantly presented to us in the DLC. Even Anders, the great anti-Chantry fanatic that he is, believed it. I would suggest you find references to these preexisting darkspawn before you start down that road.
He indicated the city was already black when they arrived.
"The light. We sought the golden light. You offered... the power of the gods themselves. But it was... black... corrupt. Darkness... ever since. How long?"
“The city! It was supposed to be golden! It was supposed to be ours!”
Nope, he did not. Here's the quote:He indicated the city was already black when they arrived.
What he said about the city was ambiguous, I'm pretty sure all he says on the subject is "They said it would be golden... blackness ever since".
Its pretty blatantly presented to us in the DLC. Even Anders, the great anti-Chantry fanatic that he is, believed it. I would suggest you find references to these preexisting darkspawn before you start down that road.
Fair enough. The chantry may in fact be correct. That still doesn't justify using it to bludgeon mages into submission for the sins of people a hundred times dead.
I however, need more accounts of the origin of darkspawn. Preferably from an organization that does not demonize mages.
"The dwarves give little credit to Chantry beliefs, but they themselves have no known origin story for the darkspawn. As far as the dwarves are concerned, the darkspawn simply appeared. The darkspawn hordes that invaded the Deep Roads ended up crippling the dwarven empire, leaving only Orzammar and Kal-Sharok, the latter of which was completely isolated from the outside world until recently." - Darkspawn, Dragon age wikia
Anders can believe what he likes, as will I.
Nope, he did not. Here's the quote:
"The light. We sought the golden light. You offered... the power of the gods themselves. But it was... black... corrupt. Darkness... ever since. How long?"
From that quote, he seems to be talking about the power the magisters received for their efforts. That part was certainly corrupted, its called the Taint, but it doesn't directly indicate that the city was necessarily black upon arrival.
Note that he says "it was black, corrupt" and not "it turned black, corrupt."
I don't think there is a distinction between the city and "the power of the gods themselves." I think from Corypheus' perspective they were one and the same.
More accounts would be nice, I will agree to that, and certainly I don't think the darkspawn should be held over the mages' heads. However, Chantry doctrine doesn't seem to use such arguments as the basis for mage imprisonment. While its a cautionary tale about the consequences of mage hubris, the attitude towards magic seems to come mostly from that "Magic shall serve man..." line. They will need to change their interpretation in the future if a new system is implemented.Fair enough. The chantry may in fact be correct. That still doesn't justify using it to bludgeon mages into submission for the sins of people a hundred times dead.
I however, need more accounts of the origin of darkspawn. Preferably from an organization that does not demonize mages.
Anders can believe what he likes, as will I.
This goes too far. Tranquility is vastly too much of a cruel and unusual punishment, and there are ways to handle the enchantment business without actually needing Tranquil (as I've mentioned prior).
The rest of your ideas... are okay, but I believe they still rely too much on the Chantry and the current iteration of templars, neither of whom are at all trustworthy.
I hate the idea of tranquility personally. But if someone is using blood magic to control other people and take away their free will, the punishment must fit the crime. And tranquility or death are the only things I can think of that fit the crime. I hold free will and personal accountability to be the foundations of a just social environment. People must be as free as their environment allows to pursue their own goals, they must be trained if they are gifted with magic so they are not a danger to themselves or others, kind of like that mage who set himself on fire because he panicked upon hearing about injuries in the mage origin, or Wynne setting a bullies head on fire. But people must also be held accountable if they use that freedom to harm others or engage in criminal activities. It doesn't matter if you're a mage or a mundane. A criminal is a criminal and must be punished in a way that fits the crime.
As for the templars. I think you missed the fact that even though I used the word 'templars,' I did not actually mean templars as they exist in the games ad in service to the Chantry. The chantry isn't even involved in my system. You have the circles, the templars/soldiers trained to fight abominations and rogue mages are meant to act as a safeguard
in the event that mages do go bad, and the Inquisition, or at least a branch of it, runs the Seekers. No templar is going to ever be made a Seeker. That wold result in a conflict of interests.
@ Dean the Young
You asked how this prevents a, what was the phrase, Cabal from rising to power and changing the rules? Well, they'd have to rise in the Inquisition for one thing. And yes, there are a few details to work out. But the impression I get from the games and the novels is that most mages simply want to live their lives. As for mages gaining titles or whatever. That would likely be under extenuating circumstances. It only took my mage warden saving a country from a Blight to be made Chancellor after all. And it's all a result of personal merit or accomplishments.
You also have to take into account that most nobles don't want new faces entering the game, as it were. That shifts the balance. As Aveline says in Act 2, the rise of the Amell name again shifted the fortunes of many prominent families, and not all for the better.
And I'm still working out details, but most mages won't have the opportunity to rise as quickly as you seem to think. For example, one of MisterJB's biggest things is his fear that mages will take over the economy based on the girl who was able to enchant a sword to remain ever-sharp in the comics. But that doesn't change the fact that all enchantment needs lyrium. If a mage is on his or her own and doesn't have access to lyrium, then they can't enchant anything.
And yes, some mages say no tranquility at all. I recognize that. I suppose if they want to handle enchantments themselves and deal with the risks of working with raw lyrium, that's there choice, but the Circle's need someone who can more safely handle lyrium, and that means tranquil.
Also, what you said here,
Nor is there much in here about preventing abuses from landing on the mundanes in the first place. You're reacting to when abuses are known after the fact- that does little for the commoners around, and even less in areas where the perpetrator can be long gone by the time a response force arrives.
This is a purely reactive security state, and hardly one in a position to sustain itself. Why should the masses have faith in it preventing a Tevinter?[/quote]
Umm, punishing people when they commit crimes isn't a response to mages abusing mundanes or mundanes abusing mages? I won't punish people for crimes they haven't committed. That's one of the biggest problems with the Circle's is that they simply assume mages will do it if given the opportunity and not that many won't do it because they are still people with a conscience. And the fact that mages can get punished for things they didn't do. If a mage commits a crime or abuses mundanes, they will be punished by the templars, and if necessary, suffer the full weight of the Inquisition's wrath.
As for why the masses would have faith in it preventing another Tevinter? Well, as I said earlier, Tevinter does not have templars who can negate spells. And all mages are required to attend a Circle, doesn't matter if they're nobles or commoners. And as I said, blood magic, if not authorized by templars for whatever research they're doing, would then be under constant observation for the rest of their life, all blood mages would be put to death or made tranquil as they're discovered.
And I never got rid of phylacteries so mages can still be tracked if they choose not to check in with templars and the Inquisition after leaving a Circle, if they so choose. But if they're tracked, probably regularly, and we can see the mage in question isn't hurting anyone, why take away their choices to live freely. If they are hurting others, it'll result in an immediate arrest, trial and punishment, and the punishment will fit the crime.
Modifié par dragonflight288, 05 mars 2014 - 03:16 .
The taint is corrupt. Not the city. What he means exactly is ambiguous.Note that he says "it was black, corrupt" and not "it turned black, corrupt."
More accounts would be nice, I will agree to that, and certainly I don't think the darkspawn should be held over the mages' heads. However, Chantry doctrine doesn't seem to use such arguments as the basis for mage imprisonment. While its a cautionary tale about the consequences of mage hubris, the attitude towards magic seems to come mostly from that "Magic shall serve man..." line. They will need to change their interpretation in the future if a new system is implemented.
Indeed. Justinia is the best shot that the organization has, she's made strides. If the mages can hold their Adrians back, they just might have a chance to win their freedom. With all the necessary provisions discussed in this very thread, of course.
Retour en haut