8640 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

I don't understand why mage rule is implied to be somehow worse or inferior when in fact we have Rivain as a direct counterexample of that. Seers govern their system with the mage seer having senority, luckily that isn't the same thing as the nation of Rivain being dominated by mages as some would say. Even if it were they seem to be doing just fine, though we do need more information. I take that from WoT. This system is great and all but it's only great at the expense of mages. Seems like they disagree with the mundane's system. Even Saint Bethany grows to dislike it at the end of DA II if you side with the mages.
 

 

What do we actually have in Rivain as a direct counterexample? It is a place of precious little context or information, and I really wish people would stop pretending otherwise.

 

Mages in Rivain are a ruling class- at least in the rural areas where Seers are the accepted authorities. They are rising to positions of authority by virtue of their power, and such authority is exlusionary to the interests of those without access to power..

 

Past that knowledge, and that Seers aren't so respected in the more urban areas of Chantry (or Qunari) influence, we know virutally nothing about them. To claim they seem to be doing just fine when we have a lack of information is only reflective of bias- which, considering the Seers have been compared to forces of nature by a dev, is unlikely to be 'the kind old women like Wynn' that some people on this forum have said they 'seem' like.

 

 

So we agree that both systems can be motivated to do terrible things? Good to see.

 

Indeed. Can we also agree that a system with access and inclination to magic in the course of its abuses can do significantly more terrible things than a system that doesn't use magic in its abuses?

 
 

I disagree with this. I do believe that some mages will become power hungry and they will experiment and do all the dastardly things their ugly cousins do, but I've yet to find any reason as to believe that an unmanageble number will become Tevinter. What about Malcolm? What of Bethany and Merrill? What of mages who actually want to help? Do they not count?

 

 

Considering that they don't prevent abuses from occurring? No, they don't- not in the sense of cancelling out the malefactors. Moral averaging does not average out incurred costs, which is why positive intentions do not have equal weight to negative effects in any system of law and assessment of risk.

 

 

And considering that mages gathering power over mundanes is viewed as a problem, good intentions can be just as guilty as bad intentions. Mages could gather power for their selfish ambitions. Mages could gather power over mundanes in the name of the mundanes own good. Mages could even gather power over mundanes to be untouchable by mundanes and intending no interaction (until, of course, minds or context change). Regardless of which, the mages would still be gathering power over mundanes which they can increasingly use to defy and ignore the wishes of mundanes.

 

 

The benefits of something only outweigh the costs of the same when the people in question value one over the other. You could make a very grounded case that a benevolent mageocracies with free healer clinics and necromancer armies holding off the darkspawn would be better for the mundanes... but the mundanes don't want the benefits of magic as much as they want to avoid the costs of the same. The Andrastians are very risk adverse when magic comes, and all the Hawkes in the world don't stop the Quintins and Uldreds and Connors and, yes, Merrill's from doing what they want regardless of the impacts on others.

[Dean_the_Young]

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.

 

Ah, yes, that's what I remember. Which, remembering that it comes from Fenris, I'm willing to put as credible but unproven hearsay. [Credible because it fits other glimpses and mentions of the self-interested and frequently antagonistic Tevinter.]

[renfrees]

Ah, yes, that's what I remember. Which, remembering that it comes from Fenris, I'm willing to put as credible but unproven hearsay. [Credible because it fits other glimpses and mentions of the self-interested and frequently antagonistic Tevinter.]

I'm not supporting nor discarding that claim, just suggesting to bring more politically involved companions for political quests, not Merrils/Varrics/isabelas, who doesn't give a damn about the matter (that was obviously directed at Xil)

 

I've had Fenris/Seb/Anders and heard everything i needed to hear on the situation, i suppose. Might try with Aveline.

[EmissaryofLies]

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.

That could be an interesting scenario, I can see. But it would still be fundamentally the same. You still have mages locked in their towers under harsher restrictions. So basically you just end up with more of Kirkwall's Templars and its circles. How could mages possibly come back from their defeat in the eyes of Thedas? It would be the equivalent of defeating the reapers conventionally at this point in Thedas' history. I like DA II, I do. But I've no interest in dropping 60 to play it again.
 
 
 

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).

That's true. However, you still have the issue of the Connors to contend with and this is with Fereldan's circle. I've no idea what Isolde would have done to protect Connor from going to Kirkwall. The circle needs to change drastically, maybe in doing so, your Isoldes will actually encourage their Connors in going to the circle. Perhaps instead of the heavy plated helmeted masks, a helping hand?

The mages aren't having it and it doesn't seem that some of the mundanes are having it either. I wonder how many mad dogs Thedas is willing to tolerate until it seeks meaningful change.
 

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.]

Does mage domination mean Tevinter? Or does it mean Chasind Shamans or the Seers of Rivain? I've seen that phrase several times in these discussions, carries a negative connotation more than not. And besides the favorite antagonist Tevinter, I have yet to hear or see of another example of mage domination(mage ruled society) equivocating the worst things imaginable. I simply reject the idea of permanent mage submission being ok simply because of what they can potentially do. There are good mages. Fraternities of them are willing to work with the chantry or even submit. I doubt that they will have denounced their beliefs when they've finished fighting for their lives.

[The Baconer]

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.

 

Which would be a perfectly reasonable thing to say, if there were indeed no evidence suggesting incompetence. Where there's smoke, there's fire (or of course, The Last Straw which is pretty much a confirmation, but, you know, hindsight).

 

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.

 

Let's not pretend that it's ever that simple, especially in this context. You have mages disappearing and Tranquil appearing without sanction from either Orsino or Meredith. And it continues until Hawke just happens to solve it him/herself.

 

 

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.

 

And again, by allowing a potentially mage Hawke and the known apostate(s) connected to him/her to operate outside Chantry law is no less of an obstruction by the very mandate of her station.

 

Additionally, there is a reason why many of the nobility and common folk in Kirkwall resent the Templars. Yes, the source of this resentment is beyond Meredith's control, but do you think bringing the city under control of the Chantry will actually do anything to fix this animosity, which is what allows resistance and corruption to thrive? Would it not, in fact, encourage them to resort to more extreme forms of resistance, such as straight-up killing Templars (which is exactly what happens in A Noble Agenda) or continue to provide shelter to potentially dangerous mages (On the Loose, the Last Holdouts)?

 

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.

 

The trap had nothing to do with Meredith, who was content to let him do as he please, even if/when it is known that he is an associate of Hawke.

 

And that he is able to foil these checks and balances for such a long time, even after such an incident, is a problem that clearly wasn't addressed.

 

You mean besides Lelina, hand of the Divine and seeker-tied authority figure?

 

There's codex as well.

 

Leliana, who never actually suggests Tevinter could be involved in the uprising (she states that the Divine sent her to Kirkwall out of fear of the city becoming another Tevinter)?

 

And a codex that doesn't actually exist?

 

 

 

[EmissaryofLies]

What do we actually have in Rivain as a direct counterexample? It is a place of precious little context or information, and I really wish people would stop pretending otherwise.
 
Mages in Rivain are a ruling class- at least in the rural areas where Seers are the accepted authorities. They are rising to positions of authority by virtue of their power, and such authority is exlusionary to the interests of those without access to power..
 
Past that knowledge, and that Seers aren't so respected in the more urban areas of Chantry (or Qunari) influence, we know virutally nothing about them. To claim they seem to be doing just fine when we have a lack of information is only reflective of bias- which, considering the Seers have been compared to forces of nature by a dev, is unlikely to be 'the kind old women like Wynn' that some people on this forum have said they 'seem' like.

Rising to positions of authority alongside mundanes. I wish people would stop ignoring that little tid-bit. We don't know enough about their society, this much is true. If potential mage power is so terrible and corrupting how do they still exist? "The Rivaini refuse to be parted from their seers, wise women who are in fact hedge mages, communicating with spirits and actually allowing themselves to be possessed" - Rivian, Dragon Wikia. "Most Rivaini communities are governed by elder women, the most senior of these women being the above-mentioned seers." Doesn't sound so bad to me.
 

Indeed. Can we also agree that a system with access and inclination to magic in the course of its abuses can do significantly more terrible things than a system that doesn't use magic in its abuses?

True. But therein lies the 'potential argument' again. I will not pretend that a Tevinter can never ever happen again. But I will also not ignore that we have no evidence of it occuring where mages are free and even hold important positions in society. Granted that does not mean that Tevinter 2.0 did not happen. But do you not believe that you would have heard about it? Isabela doesn't see anything wrong with mage freedom and Rivain is where she hails from.

 
 

Considering that they don't prevent abuses from occurring? No, they don't- not in the sense of cancelling out the malefactors. Moral averaging does not average out incurred costs, which is why positive intentions do not have equal weight to negative effects in any system of law and assessment of risk.
 
And considering that mages gathering power over mundanes is viewed as a problem, good intentions can be just as guilty as bad intentions. Mages could gather power for their selfish ambitions. Mages could gather power over mundanes in the name of the mundanes own good. Mages could even gather power over mundanes to be untouchable by mundanes and intending no interaction (until, of course, minds or context change). Regardless of which, the mages would still be gathering power over mundanes which they can increasingly use to defy and ignore the wishes of mundanes.

True, but can mages not repair the damage that they wrought? Does it really matter if a hundred died to a volley of arrows rather than an abomination? What of mages who give freely of themselves to heal others? What of the Imperial Highway? The Eluvians? Abuses are going to occur with or without the circles. Maybe more than the mages can fix if they are freed and maybe not. I'm of the mind to take the proper precautions and give it a try. Rather than raise generations more mages that will continue to fear and despise their masters.
 

The benefits of something only outweigh the costs of the same when the people in question value one over the other. You could make a very grounded case that a benevolent mageocracies with free healer clinics and necromancer armies holding off the darkspawn would be better for the mundanes... but the mundanes don't want the benefits of magic as much as they want to avoid the costs of the same. The Andrastians are very risk adverse when magic comes, and all the Hawkes in the world don't stop the Quintins and Uldreds and Connors and, yes, Merrill's from doing what they want regardless of the impacts on others.

And why do you think that is? The mages are kept in their towers. They are not given many opportunities to better their image. Perhaps that perception can change with the introduction of your Bethanys and Wynnes into the world. You're right all the heros of the world will not stop the terrible from occurring, just as they did not stop the Loghains, the Anvil and the Meredith. One has to work harder than the other to achieve the same ends, but the end result is the same. Just look at how terrified Andrastians are of that anti-mage Qunari society, who are arguably just as oppressive as their mage counterparts.

[durasteel]

Considering that they don't prevent abuses from occurring? No, they don't- not in the sense of cancelling out the malefactors. Moral averaging does not average out incurred costs, which is why positive intentions do not have equal weight to negative effects in any system of law and assessment of risk.

 

 

And considering that mages gathering power over mundanes is viewed as a problem, good intentions can be just as guilty as bad intentions. Mages could gather power for their selfish ambitions. Mages could gather power over mundanes in the name of the mundanes own good. Mages could even gather power over mundanes to be untouchable by mundanes and intending no interaction (until, of course, minds or context change). Regardless of which, the mages would still be gathering power over mundanes which they can increasingly use to defy and ignore the wishes of mundanes.

 

 

The benefits of something only outweigh the costs of the same when the people in question value one over the other. You could make a very grounded case that a benevolent mageocracies with free healer clinics and necromancer armies holding off the darkspawn would be better for the mundanes... but the mundanes don't want the benefits of magic as much as they want to avoid the costs of the same. The Andrastians are very risk adverse when magic comes, and all the Hawkes in the world don't stop the Quintins and Uldreds and Connors and, yes, Merrill's from doing what they want regardless of the impacts on others.

 

It's interesting to go through and replace the word "mage" in your posts with the word "mundane," and vice versa. Thus, "...the mundanes would still be gathering power over mages which they can increasingly use to defy and ignore the wishes of mages." That's a fairly accurate, if inartful, description of the Templar agenda, actually. 

 

Your analysis makes an altogether false assumption, upon which all of your arguments are based: that the mages and the mundanes belong to different groups on some fundamental level. Thus, you suggest that "the mundanes don't want the benefits of magic" as if they get to make that choice. They don't, because the mages and the mundanes are the same people, which is to say people of the same race, culture, creed, and geographical location. It may be the case that the Chantry preaches fear and superstition to a great enough degree that the "risk averse" common folk demand that anyone with magical ability be locked away, but it will never be a demand that can be satisfied. Not only will there always be new mages manifesting ability, but you'll always have mages who, like Malcolm Hawke, are able to hide in plain sight for the simple reason that they belong there, were born there, and fit into the communities like the natives they, in fact, are.

 

These "incurred costs" you reference--you seem very willing to set their weight upon the shoulders of any mage as if somehow anyone born with magical ability should also carry the blame for any transgression, real or mythologised, on the part of anyone else who might also have magical ability. It's like you want to apply a concept of original sin, but with an account that may be added to any time a mage does anything you don't particularly approve of. If that rationale were to be applied to the Chantry and the Templars, the weight of their institutional guilt would be titanic. It is not incumbent upon Bethany to atone for the actions of Corypheus, nor in fact to prevent the actions of Anders. 

 

You seem to be fond of the idea that might makes right, that individual rights are meaningless in Thedas and that the Circle of Magi, being "the law," should be adhered to, preserved, respected. It's interesting to watch you try to reconcile that with an apparently equally strong view that mages shouldn't rule. I mean, in Tevinter, magocracy is the law, right? I'm wondering if your scorn of the mage rebellion in Eastern Thedas would be matched by equal scorn of a muggle flintbanger uprising in Tevinter. Somehow, I doubt it.

[durasteel]

... which is why positive intentions do not have equal weight to negative effects in any system of law ...

 

I don't know where you're from, but I can assure you that the law in the USA disproves your statement, above. Regardless of "negative effects," your actions will not be a crime unless you possess the required culpable mental state. That required mental state varies from simple negligence to willful intent, but in almost every situation the mens rea of the defendant is at least as important as the effects of his actions.

[durasteel]

When the answer to 'how would you prevent the rise of Tevinter' is 'not really', there's a significant failure in achieving the goals of the Andrastians. Which begs the question of why you think the Andrastians will support your system, since at least their Circle system has kept the mages from having power over them and being used as tools of royal interest in national struggles.

 

And when the answer to the clarified 'someone who is oppossed to your system' is 'they wouldn't be', that's just willful blindness.

 

As far as actually preventing the fears of the masses and Chantry from coming true, I'd have to give you an F. I can't say you even seem to pretend very hard to care about their concerns.

 

The existing "goals of the Andrasteans" are, in essence, to ensure that all mages are subjugated to Chantry authority and supervised in all things by Templars. Failure in achieving these goals is a given. To the extent that my system would ever receive significant support from Andraste's bleating flock, it would only be because the Divine, along with the crowns of a few kingdoms of Thedas, saw that it was to their benefit for the system to receive that support. People will largely believe what they're told to believe, as long as they already believe in the messenger.

 

I'm fully aware that there would be those opposed to my system, and if you came away from any post of mine with a contrary notion, you should re-read it.

 

I regard "the fears of the masses and the Chantry" to be mythical. While built upon a kernel of real danger, the Chantry's dogma regarding mages and magic is mostly just fear mongering. I'm not pretending at all to care about their concerns, any more than I'm pretending to care about what grade you think you might give me if you somehow found yourself in a position to grant me one. There will be those among the Chantry hierarchy who understand that the dogma is largely fiction, and will be willing to work with reality and practical considerations to get what they want. The rest--those zealots who are true believers--will either do what the Divine requires of them or what the Inquisitor compels from them.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

See orders over everything that what i need as i said they didn't hesitated even for a moment and that what i want.

Then what's wrong with the Templars? You said you wanted an organization who would mercilessly kill every mage and anyone who helped them, not just follow orders.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I wouldn't mind if normal peoples started burn mages half job done hell it would be even realistic to peoples react that way on crissis especially veil tears that only mages or demons can cause not mentioning destruction caused by mages during mage-templar war.

You are a terrible person for advocating such a thing. 

 

 

This is how that would look in reality but i doubt that bio would do that...

Yet another reason to hate the Witcher franchise.

[Divine Justinia V]

You are a terrible person for advocating such a thing. 

 

 

Yet another reason to hate the Witcher franchise.

 

Yes, but it's okay because he wasn't "looking at it emotionally" but "professionally"

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Yes, but it's okay because he wasn't "looking at it emotionally" but "professionally"

Can't tell if that's better or worse, to be honest.

[Divine Justinia V]

Can't tell if that's better or worse, to be honest.

 

I don't understand why some people think the mass genocide of mages would fix everything.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

 

I don't understand why some people think the mass genocide of mages would fix everything.

 

I don't either. Especially in such terrible ways.

 

Guy: "Hey, we know that blood magic can tear the Veil, so let's gather up all the mages and kill them, ignoring the fact that concentrated slaughter also tears the Veil."

[Star fury]

 

I don't understand why some people think the mass genocide of mages would fix everything.

 

Bioware provided us with a *cough* "Final Tranquil solution" *cough*  without any fan input.

[Divine Justinia V]

Bioware provided us with a *cough* "Final Tranquil solution" *cough*  without any fan input.

 

There's also a way to reverse it now, though.

[durasteel]

 

I don't understand why some people think the mass genocide of mages would fix everything.

 

 

They don't, DJ. Some people make arguments on the basis of getting other people's attention, though. Some folks are just contrarian, and get a kick out of playing devil's advocate. 

 

The internet is a hyperbole farm, anyway.

[Divine Justinia V]

They don't, DJ. Some people make arguments on the basis of getting other people's attention, though. Some folks are just contrarian, and get a kick out of playing devil's advocate. 

 

The internet is a hyperbole farm, anyway.

 

Good point, and sometimes I forget that the internet is like that. Especially in these forums.

[dragonflight288]

I don't either. Especially in such terrible ways.

 

Guy: "Hey, we know that blood magic can tear the Veil, so let's gather up all the mages and kill them, ignoring the fact that concentrated slaughter also tears the Veil."

 

Or, 

 

Guy: We just sundered the veil committing genocide on these mages and the purge in the alienage. Now heir orphanage is full or Rage Demons. Get a templar to fix this!

 

Other guy: Umm...templars can't.

 

Guy: What? Then what do our tithes and taxes pay for?

 

Other guy: Lyrium.

 

Guy: Get some priests to perform an excorcism on the veil tear!

 

Other guy: You can't.

 

Guy: Who can do this then?

 

Other guy: Umm....benovolent spirits?

 

Guy: Like we have those around. Anyone else?

 

Other guy: Ummmm, no. We killed the mages. 

 

Guy: NOOOOOO! 

 

Entire town full of innocents are killed. All in the name to protect said innocents.

[TK514]

The existence of Veil Tears as the major plot point in Dragon Age : Inquisition should be enough to disprove the idea that only Mages can close them. Unless you want to suggest that you either always have to have a Mage in your party or that there will be convenient NPC Mages just hanging out next to every tear, waiting for the Inquisitor to come along and tell them to close it.

[KaiserShep]

I don't either. Especially in such terrible ways.

 

Guy: "Hey, we know that blood magic can tear the Veil, so let's gather up all the mages and kill them, ignoring the fact that concentrated slaughter also tears the Veil."

 

I'm a big fan of irony, and this is definitely one of my favorites in the lore.

[Star fury]

The existence of Veil Tears as the major plot point in Dragon Age : Inquisition should be enough to disprove the idea that only Mages can close them. Unless you want to suggest that you either always have to have a Mage in your party or that there will be convenient NPC Mages just hanging out next to every tear, waiting for the Inquisitor to come along and tell them to close it.

How exactly are you going to close Veil Tears without a help of mages? 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

The existence of Veil Tears as the major plot point in Dragon Age : Inquisition should be enough to disprove the idea that only Mages can close them. Unless you want to suggest that you either always have to have a Mage in your party or that there will be convenient NPC Mages just hanging out next to every tear, waiting for the Inquisitor to come along and tell them to close it.

There are always benevolent spirits who can seal some as well. 

[TK514]

How exactly are you going to close Veil Tears without a help of mages? 

I guess we'll find out, won't we?