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?
As a demonstration of the potential consequence of mageocracy? Er, yes. Definitely.
Risk assessment focuses on potential even more than deliberate intent- intent can vary wildly over a person's life and emotional context, but potential is enduring.
As a demonstration of the potential consequence of mageocracy? Er, yes. Definitely.
Risk assessment focuses on potential even more than deliberate intent- intent can vary wildly over a person's life and emotional context, but potential is enduring.
I missed reading your posts Dean
As a demonstration of the potential consequence of mageocracy? Er, yes. Definitely.
Risk assessment focuses on potential even more than deliberate intent- intent can vary wildly over a person's life and emotional context, but potential is enduring.
Because mundane rule is just so much better... Just look at the potential consequences of their rule, being genocidal tendencies, the elves for instance.
Not to mention that the mages responsible for that are culturally alien to Andrastians. The potential is there no doubt. Just as the potential for all the super powers to simultaneously launch nukes in effort to destroy the world is there, very small chance of that happening and it's silly to consider seriously.
I think Templars orchestrating an escape, destroying phylacteries, and kidnapping a sibling/associate of a well-known noble goes beyond "internal friction". All of which occurred after Meredith took control of the throne. And after she bought her insanity-blade. Combined with the fact that an entire cabal were able to conduct Tranquility in secret implies that she is either unable or unwilling to enforce proper conduct (not that hard to believe considering she abandons her own duties in favor of personal interests during the final quest - a fact that even you have pointed out), or that she is unable to inspire loyalty and any semblance of obedience in her leadership.
Congratulations- you're facing the problems of sufficiently large organizations in troubled contexts. What you aren't facing is a situation necessarily the result of incompetence.
The ability of a cabal to operate within an organization is a reflection of its ability to avoid and deter enforcement mechanisms: nothing more, and nothing less.
Addressing a pre-established corruption like mages being granted shelter by the people of the city? Is that why known apostates are allowed to operate because of their connection to Hawke? Or potentially, Hawke him/herself? If the nobility are "useless" in this regard in the eyes of the Templars, what does that make Meredith when she extends the same courtesy?
A rational actor in seeking more power to weaken and overcome the nobility.
You're confusing reinforcing points for countering points. The political obstructionism provided by nobles of the city is enough to restrict Meredith's actions: that these nobles are useless to her does not mean they are impotent in obstructing her.
I'm sure there was an investigation, and what were the results? Were Templars posted at the Chantry? No. Did they bolster their presence in Hightown in order to have a better response to such events like that in the future? No.
How can you say that with any certainty? There were multi-year gaps between the acts, which are themselves indeterminate periods of time: more than enough time for guards to be posted for significant amounts of time, and then be reassigned for lack of activity and more pressing concerns?
If Karl's Tranquility was officially sanctioned, why would Anders be left to his devices, despite it being known that he was in contact with Karl? If it wasn't, why is a connection never made when Alrik suggests his Tranquil Solution, seeing how the Templars found in the Chantry were under his command?
Anders wasn't left to his own devices- there was a trap, remember? And a significant friendly population sheltering him, hence justifying a trap.
Who says a connection wasn't made? Proving one, on the other hand, is another issue- and if Alrik is able to foil the Templars' own internal checks and balances, he's very likely to be able to slip under that burden of proof.
And what evidence exists that Tevinter was a major player behind the resistance in Kirkwall?
You mean besides Lelina, hand of the Divine and seeker-tied authority figure?
There's codex as well.
The point is that if Wilhelm didn't have to hide it from the Chantry and templars, he would have done his research with much better security, and very likely inside a circle.
...and you can't think of any other reasons why he might prefer to engage in secrecy short of Templars? Really?
You mean besides Lelina, hand of the Divine and seeker-tied authority figure?
There's codex as well.
Neither one says this.
http://dragonage.wik..._Resolutionists
They're a Libertarian offshoot and don't originate from Tevinter.
Neither one says this.
http://dragonage.wik..._Resolutionists
They're a Libertarian offshoot and don't originate from Tevinter.
Big surprise 
Like i said i would perma ban that Fraternity
after killing every one of its current members or making them tranquil, their choice.
Tbh, a new Qunari invasion would be much more successful in fast uniting of the Templars and Mages, as Qunari wars have already proved, but the Qunari are too much loved by the community for Bioware to implement it. The one thing is when they dabble with hated Imperium somewhere far north, which Devs don't show us for 3 games, the other thing is to show a full blown war at your doors, and especially Qunari' concentration camps for reeducation.
Qunari are not fond of mages, mind you, pursuers of freedom 
Tbh, a new Qunari invasion would be much more successful in fast uniting of the Templars and Mages, as Qunari wars have already proved, but the Qunari are too much loved by the community for Bioware to implement it. The one thing is when they dabble with hated Imperium somewhere far north, which Devs don't show us for 3 games, the other thing is to show a full blown war at your doors, and especially Qunari' concentration camps for reeducation.
Qunari are not fond of mages, mind you, pursuers of freedom
Very conflicted when it comes to the Qunari. On one hand I would love nothing more than to watch the champions of the Andrastian faith submit or be slaughtered by the Qunari, as it would be a fitting end and a fine example of their own brand of mercy. On the other hand they do worse to mages...I just know that if the mages lose, I know who I want to win.
Very conflicted when it comes to the Qunari. On one hand I would love nothing more than to watch the champions of the Andrastian faith submit or be slaughtered by the Qunari, as it would be a fitting end and a fine example of their own brand of mercy. On the other hand they do worse to mages...I just know that if the mages lose, I know who I want to win.
Nothing unites more than a fear 
Missed this post.
You underestimate the Divine's influence for one. The Chantry may be toothless but it can always get dentures; call on allies. Cassandra's seekers also play a role.
Indeed.
As for 'by some chance in hell, as Xil has said in the past, it would serve absolutely zero purpose for the mages to end up back in their circles with that status quo restored. The entirety of the story arc will have been for absolutely nothing.
Only if you adopt arbitrary standards that require a certain sort of outcome in exchange for it having value.
Since magic security and insecurity aren't going away regardless of who triumphs to what degree, the whole rebellion can be deemed pointless in the first place. Total mage liberation won't resolve the problems that led to mage suppression in the first place.
I also don't think it would be that easy or that simple. The conflict would last forever if the templars were to 'win'. Not every dog accepts his leash.
And plenty of dogs are put down. There's a saying that can be applied to mages with unrealistic ambitions: you don't try to reason with a mad dog, you kill it.
Of course, the conflict will continue even if the Templars lose. Mage isolationist pipedreams aside, there will be people opposed to them and their powers: rivals, victims, and fearful bystanders.
Nothing unites more than a fear
And I hope that you are correct.
Though that's probably far into the future, what with their skirmishes with Tevinter. For now the veil tear should keep the moderates together while extremists of both sides will continually **** everything up with most of the doubt undoubtedly falling upon mage shoulders.
nothing unites more than a common enemy
I'm not sure all mages see demons as the common enemy, i'm sorry.*cough*Tevinter*cough*
Indeed.
Only if you adopt arbitrary standards that require a certain sort of outcome in exchange for it having value.
Since magic security and insecurity aren't going away regardless of who triumphs to what degree, the whole rebellion can be deemed pointless in the first place. Total mage liberation won't resolve the problems that led to mage suppression in the first place.
And plenty of dogs are put down. There's a saying that can be applied to mages with unrealistic ambitions: you don't try to reason with a mad dog, you kill it.
Of course, the conflict will continue even if the Templars lose. Mage isolationist pipedreams aside, there will be people opposed to them and their powers: rivals, victims, and fearful bystanders.
That's true, liberation won't solve magic's problems but it will lead to a new situation/outcome. Mages not locked into their circles, more mages out in the world. How would sticking them all back into their prisons move the narrative forward in any significant way? It kills progress. How will anything have changed? It's not the destination but the journey? I'm sure people will eat that up.
Sure, mad dogs can be put down. It's simply too bad that these mad dogs aren't going without a fight and have all the more reason to cut loose and use any means necessary to defend themselves. Not to mention fostering more resentment in mages, whom families will be even more inclined to hide. So stands the risk of Connor occurring again. I daresay that it would only serve to create the monsters that they seek to destroy.
Unrealistic ambitions meaning what? Standing in the rain and kissing a girl as Emile De Launcet would say? Mage freedom is more than likely an inevitability.
I meant in general lol.
I wonder if possession would even be required for demons in the setting of teared Veil to inhabit/make constant occurrence in Thedas.
Because mundane rule is just so much better... Just look at the potential consequences of their rule, being genocidal tendencies, the elves for instance.
Better? I make no such claim about that- only that it's less volatile and more systematic. The mage-led societies we've seen have been tied far more to the interests and eccentries of their dominant mages than the mundanes, which have significantly more power dispersion across the populace. When power is dispersed amongst greater larger networks, consensus takes the views of the lower echelons into greater account is tends to be less hasty and dismissive of those concerns.
Broad systems can certainly be motivated to do terrible things, but it takes more to influence the greater number of actors and interests than in oligarchial societies where power and decisionmaking is centralized in the power of a few.. Mageocracies are naturally oligarchial in nature, making their fates more dependent on the whims of fewer actors than the mundane counterparts.
Not to mention that the mages responsible for that are culturally alien to Andrastians. The potential is there no doubt. Just as the potential for all the super powers to simultaneously launch nukes in effort to destroy the world is there, very small chance of that happening and it's silly to consider seriously.
The mages responsible are culturally alien to the Andrastians because the Andrastians have identified themselves in opposition to those mages and successfully suppressed the political influence of their own local mages. If mages break free, there are remarkably few barriers between them and Tevinter's mage ethics: the devil's toys leading to the devil's sword and all that.
Even dem foreign mages are a practical example of what magic can do. The more Andrastian mages push the boundaries of forbidden research and to be free of the shackles of the common expectations of them, the closer they are to the foreign mage viewpoints and the more relevant the examples become.
I wonder if possession would even be required for demons in the setting of teared Veil to inhabit/make constant occurrence in Thedas.
That's a good point, I imagine not, right? Even if not, I'm sure they'd still want to. It's not everyday you see a demon walking down the street.
Neither one says this.
http://dragonage.wik..._Resolutionists
They're a Libertarian offshoot and don't originate from Tevinter.
I seem to recall Leliana or a similar context mentioning Tevinter, or at least outside actors.
I'll withdraw that part of the assertion until I can check on my newest playthrough.
I seem to recall Leliana or a similar context mentioning Tevinter, or at least outside actors.
I'll withdraw that part of the assertion until I can check on my newest playthrough.
I just checked myself earlier today in my own playthrough; she never does. She does mention an "outside group," but that particular group is just one that originates from outside of Kirkwall, i.e. the Resolutionists.
Better? I make no such claim about that- only that it's less volatile and more systematic. The mage-led societies we've seen have been tied far more to the interests and eccentries of their dominant mages than the mundanes, which have significantly more power dispersion across the populace. When power is dispersed amongst greater larger networks, consensus takes the views of the lower echelons into greater account is tends to be less hasty and dismissive of those concerns.
Broad systems can certainly be motivated to do terrible things, but it takes more to influence the greater number of actors and interests than in oligarchial societies where power and decisionmaking is centralized in the power of a few.. Mageocracies are naturally oligarchial in nature, making their fates more dependent on the whims of fewer actors than the mundane counterparts.
The mages responsible are culturally alien to the Andrastians because the Andrastians have identified themselves in opposition to those mages and successfully suppressed the political influence of their own local mages. If mages break free, there are remarkably few barriers between them and Tevinter's mage ethics: the devil's toys leading to the devil's sword and all that.
Even dem foreign mages are a practical example of what magic can do. The more Andrastian mages push the boundaries of forbidden research and to be free of the shackles of the common expectations of them, the closer they are to the foreign mage viewpoints and the more relevant the examples become.
That's true, liberation won't solve magic's problems but it will lead to a new situation/outcome. Mages not locked into their circles, more mages out in the world. How would sticking them all back into their prisons move the narrative forward in any significant way? It kills progress. How will anything have changed? It's not the destination but the journey? I'm sure people will eat that up.
Since the Dragon Age franchise has from the start disavowed any central narrative equivalent to the Mass Effect trilogy, anyone who isn't eating up the premise of the journey rather than the destination will be eating crow regardless.
Otherwise, I feel you lack imagination if you can't think of how a failed rebellion can serve a larger story in various ways. Future mages and reformers having to struggle with not only the rebellion's defeat, but the sins accumulated in their name by those who ended up vindicating the fears of others. Considering how much of the pro-mage movement rests on the claims that the Circle system and its culture of supicion and doubt of them can't be justified by the crimes of the distant past, mages having to deal with the crimes of the immediate past and fellow travelers even as they continue to pursue the same goals can be an entirely different story to be told.
Sure, mad dogs can be put down. It's simply too bad that these mad dogs aren't going without a fight and have all the more reason to cut loose and use any means necessary to defend themselves. Not to mention fostering more resentment in mages, whom families will be even more inclined to hide. So stands the risk of Connor occurring again. I daresay that it would only serve to create the monsters that they seek to destroy.
Mad dogs fighting back doesn't change the nature of the mad dog... or why you would fight one in the first place.
Since any institution invites blowback and opposition, the argument of 'the risk of future Connors' is little more than an argument of people attempting to defy and circumvent the institution. It doesn't invalidate why the institution exists (sweet little boys like Connor can do horrible things for the best of reasons), nor does the abolition of the institution end the underlying nature of what caused the Connor (family, love, and desperation).
Unrealistic ambitions meaning what? Standing in the rain and kissing a girl as Emile De Launcet would say? Mage freedom is more than likely an inevitability.
The unrealistic ambition being the equal integration of mages into open society.
Mages freedom is more like an inevitability in the same sense any institution is only an indefinite, not permanent, arrangment. But then, mage domination following mage freedom is even more of an inevitability, even quicker, given the self-catalyzing nature of mage power allowing the accumulation of mage power.
Of course, being a member of the nation-state I can quite get behind the idea of a temporary but indefinite system that pushes the statistical inevitable (any non-zero probability eventually occurs) back as far as possible. That's quite frequently what we do in our own world and lives, after all, and at the end of the day I feel the hyper-majority of Thedas have a greater right to refuse to be mage-dominated (again) than the hyper-minority has to claim the ability for a chance at it.
Which isn't to say that anything against mages is justified- that's a strawman for the next person to claim so- but the mages can be expected to be marginalized from access to power, which also includes the steps and conditions to get access to power (like free movement). [They can also be expected to resist this, but that's irrelevant to the premise of a society's consensus.]
I just checked myself earlier today in my own playthrough; she never does. She does mention an "outside group," but that particular group is just one that originates from outside of Kirkwall, i.e. the Resolutionists.
Hawke: Who are the Resolutionists?
Leliana: An offshoot of a fraternity within the Circle of Magi.
Fenris: Supported by the magisters.
Leliana: There's no proof of that.
Fenris: I bet a lot of mages think they'd enjoy Tevinter's freedoms - and completely forget that few ever achieve the power to enjoy them.
Leliana: There have always been factions that support freedom from the Chantry and the abolition of the Circle. We have... tolerated them.
Leliana: But the Resolutionists have become violent. They are likely behind the unrest here.
Retour en haut