You're not alone on that. There is a lot of us in the middle shaking our heads and chuckling at this whole mess.
It's hard for me to be in the middle, like maybe I am a tiny bit, but, for the most part I can't leave the mages in the rut that they're in.
@Lob
Apparently not. Because the mages are better equipped to wreak havoc it diminishes the capacity of which the mundanes are to be held responsible. Your Qunari, your Chantry and your Loghains have presided over, dallied in, or are guilty of multiple horrendous crimes some of which include genocide, they can conquer, invade and subjugate whomever they please. But because mundanes have to try harder than the mages they are completely deserving of their freedom while the mages should be imprisoned for the entirety of their lives.
No, it's because mundanes quite simply aren't neither as capable or as likely.
1) Individuals like Loghain and Meredith require support from vast armies. They cannot do it alone (unlike mages).
2) And mages are preyed upon by demons who whisper to them and try to posses them, while mundanes in general are not.
3) Meredith was driven insane due to a MAGIC artifact
4) Political structures and humanity are two things you simply can't get rid off. Quarantene cannot work on 99% of humanity, so a Circle-like solution is impossible for non-mages. It is also unnecessary for above reasons.
You have consistently overstated the dangers of magic. Of course everyone agrees that magic is dangerous, but there is no support in the setting (aside from Chantry dogma) to support a conclusion that it is so dangerous that mages must be segregated from the mundane population, locked in the Templar towers of internment to safeguard Johnny Mundane from becoming a "meat puppet."
There is EVERY support in the setting.
You are of course, free to ignore it and headcanon away, or put gameplay over lore.
Not to mention the number of mages has increased drastically since 800 years ago. The middle ground as some people think is not the return of old circles because that is mage defeat not middle ground. Something like autonomous circle with Templars being its guards with no especial rights at all least of all divine rights is a middle ground. Just like in every successful country no police force should be beyond law and should be punished more severely than a normal person in case of corruption. Hanging for abuse of any sort of power would do.
Middle ground.
Different people have different opinions on where it is.
1.
If you where king, your uncle primeminister and your nephew a mage facing enslavement, oppression, humiliation, tranquility and death, would you allow the circle system to continue? Especially if Orlais imposes the circle system on everyone, which happens to be your mortal enemy.
Since Alistair was Templar enough to know the Circle isn't simply enslavement, humiliation, tranquility, and death (I won't quibble of repression)... yes. I can expect him to maintain it, as he has.
Orlais isn't imposing the circle system on everyone: the Andrastian societies themselves have reached a general cultural consensus.
2.
Grey Wardens can´t oppress mages and at the same time be ruled by mages.
Sure you can, and I'm rather amazed you can't think of any examples of a member of a population group oppressing the group. It's only one of the major political trends of the last hundred years.
You have consistently overstated the dangers of magic. Of course everyone agrees that magic is dangerous, but there is no support in the setting (aside from Chantry dogma) to support a conclusion that it is so dangerous that mages must be segregated from the mundane population, locked in the Templar towers of internment to safeguard Johnny Mundane from becoming a "meat puppet."
What dangers have I overstated that are not supported outside of Chantry dogma?
Specific points, please. I'm not sure why you expect me to argue from positions not my own, so would you please identify those people already and move on to talking about my own positions?
Everything in Thedas is dangerous. Dragons are apex predators, but there are Nevarran families who specialise in hunting them, and drinking their blood can apparently make you powerful enough to forge a kingdom as well as turbocharging your offspring for a dozen generations or more. With training, you can learn how to negate magic effects on you by snorting a few lines of lyrium. Apparently if you mix darkspawn blood and Red Bull and drink it, it will probably kill you... but if it doesn't you can rock some freaky blood powers. An autistic dwarf with a few runes in his pocket can create a "boom" that kills everything around him, but his really powerful mojo is "not enchantment."
So, yeah... of course magic is dangerous. It's all dangerous. That doesn't mean everyone in Thedas needs to live in fear, or that every mage needs to live a lifetime in time-out.
So far you've listed things that are voluntary and do not act without intent, open to everyone regardless of birth, and none of which come close to the power of magic and the power and risk involved.
You might as well throw knives in there as well. They can kill people to. Except...
All things being dangerous doesn't mean all things are equally dangerous, and that exceptionally dangerous and rare things don't warrant exceptional counters.
So why the false equivalence?
Are you fornicating kidding me?
No, it's a serious question- where have I claimed that leaving the mages free will mean the end of existence/universal genocide?
It's not really required for my logic, so the whole 'but people are still alive' argument doesn't really challenge anything. The premise of restricting mages from society doesn't rest on 'society will be destroyed,' which is the only context your argument makes sense in.
I'm quite comfortable in claiming that there are non-existential threats that can still have high enough costs to warrant restrictive precautions against them..
They don't rule. The elder women are their leadership, and among the elder women the Seers have seniority. Give me one example of an organization where those who have seniority among the leadership actually rule. Leadership and rule are very different things.
The Canadian military. Pretty much any heirarchial society in which seniority goes hand-in-hand and is represented via rank: the professionalization of the western militaries hasn't exactly eclipsed the fact that you can only reach certain ranks with certain amounts of time.
If we want to go away from 'organization' and move to 'societies', tribal societies in general often do this. I could point you to Kuchi, Pashtun, and various sub-groups in one corner of the world as well.
'Leadership' is effectively synonymous with ruling in decentralzied societies: local leaders call the shots, resolve disputes, and bring about influence to enforce consensus, even if there is little in the way of enforced common law or taxation.
Well, that's the handy view from my occupation at least. But I'm opening to hearing what you feel is the relevant difference between being a social leader and having power over the society.
Not to mention the number of mages has increased drastically since 800 years ago.
What is the support to this claim? Have mages increased as a proportion of the population? In absolute terms but not as a percentage of overall population? Have mages simply been better identified and tracked now than 800 years ago, without a change in the population balance?
The middle ground as some people think is not the return of old circles because that is mage defeat not middle ground. Something like autonomous circle with Templars being its guards with no especial rights at all least of all divine rights is a middle ground. Just like in every successful country no police force should be beyond law and should be punished more severely than a normal person in case of corruption. Hanging for abuse of any sort of power would do.
A mage defeat could be a middle ground if the mage victory is aiming for the extremes. It's not the defeat of the mages that would make it an extreme, but what happens after.
Since a middle ground is simply a point between two ends, as long as an alternative outcome for the mages is even further on the other side than the old Circles (which it could easily be), the old Circle system in which mages did have a high degree of autonomy would still be a middle ground.
And the death toll? Well eventually the number of mages born free with each generation will outnumber the toll.
Given enough time, any rate of population growth will eventually outnumber the toll. That makes a rather poor excuse for justifying a loss of life.
No, it's because mundanes quite simply aren't neither as capable or as likely.
1) Individuals like Loghain and Meredith require support from vast armies. They cannot do it alone (unlike mages).
2) And mages are preyed upon by demons who whisper to them and try to posses them, while mundanes in general are not.
3) Meredith was driven insane due to a MAGIC artifact
4) Political structures and humanity are two things you simply can't get rid off. Quarantene cannot work on 99% of humanity, so a Circle-like solution is impossible for non-mages. It is also unnecessary for above reasons.
1) Surely, you do not mean to say that any mage can just come along and take over? Even the Black Divine had Lambert's help iirc. What real, tangible difference has it made? Not even the first darkspawn were created by one single mage if we go with the Chantry's theory. Joe needs and army to rape, pillage and plunder a city. Jessaphine needs a handful of her buddies to do the same. Just because one is easier than the other does not diminish the other. The very notion that mundanes "aren't as likely" is fallaciously false. Mundanes are just as power hungry, just as ruthless and bloodthirsty. Or have not the exalted marches, the conquered elves, the Qunari proven this?
2) Mages are preyed upon, yes. But by the Templar's own barbaric standards they should be fine after they pass the harrowing. They legally cannot be made tranquil after all. People like Morrigan, Wynne, Malcolm, Bethany and Merill. Riviani Seers, Chasind Shamans, Dalish Keepers. Mages have proven that they can resist demons and some can even be possesed by them without their entire city instaneously exploding in bloody gore.
3) We're playing that game now? in that case Anders was driven insane by MUNDANE oppression. After Karl he had every reason to leave, instead he chose to stay and help the mundanes free of charge for a decade. Can Meredith say the same? Meredith chose to dominate, control and intimidate her way into holding the viscount's seat and she would not let go. The very mundanes she supposedly protected, feared and resented her, even her own men. But don't let me stop you from pointing the finger at magic when it comes to bloodthirsty monsters.
4) I would argue that it's more than necessary. The non-mages have proven over and over again that they cannot be trusted with their freedom. Exalted Marches, Alienage purges, sundering the veil through their various mass slaughters. These people are dangerous. They need to be locked up forever to protect the innocent flower picking mages. See where I'm going with this?
Even the mage underground in DA II simply wanted their freedom and to be left alone, but the mundanes will not let them be, just like the Dalish just like the annulment of Darismund and just like Lambert. How can the good Doctor blame his monster when it was he who created him?
1) Surely, you do not mean to say that any mage can just come along and take over? Even the Black Divine had Lambert's help iirc. What real, tangible difference has it made? Not even the first darkspawn were created by one single mage if we go with the Chantry's theory. Joe needs and army to rape, pillage and plunder a city. Jessaphine needs a handful of her buddies to do the same. Just because one is easier than the other does not diminish the other. The very notion that mundanes "aren't as likely" is fallaciously false. Mundanes are just as power hungry, just as ruthless and bloodthirsty. Or have not the exalted marches, the conquered elves, the Qunari proven this?
Depending on how smart the mage is..yes, he could.
Mind control means you can force people to comply, without having to work around. A mundane has to gather trust and allies, he has to have a loyal army, he has to weasel himself into the royal court.
A mage on the other hand, has it far easier. A single mage can just go a location he wants destroyed, open a large tear in the veil and run away. He has an instant army at his disposal.
So yes, I do say that how easily something can be done, with how much effort and planing, and with how many people involved, does matter. A LOT.
The number of people that have to fail/be corrupt to bring about disaster is SIGNIFICANTLY smaller in case of mages.
According to your logic, Superman/Prof X is equally as dangerous as your average human, because "humanity" as a nebulous whole is capable of great feats of destruction collectively?
2) Mages are preyed upon, yes. But by the Templar's own barbaric standards they should be fine after they pass the harrowing. They legally cannot be made tranquil after all. People like Morrigan, Wynne, Malcolm, Bethany and Merill. Riviani Seers, Chasind Shamans, Dalish Keepers. Mages have proven that they can resist demons and some can even be possesed by them without their entire city instaneously exploding in bloody gore.
Why should they be? The Harrowing is less reliable than a drivers license.
Also, you're picking poor examples. Dalish Keepers have proven to have a rather bad influence on their clans survival. Chasind - we can only assume they work similar. The Rivani seers we know little, other than the entire Riviani circle was full of abominations.
And Morrigan is a morally bankrupt individual.
3) We're playing that game now? in that case Anders was driven insane by MUNDANE oppression.
But don't let me stop you from pointing the finger at magic when it comes to bloodthirsty monsters
- It was quite clearly the merger with justice. He is quite clearly - and he admits it himself - becoming more and more unstable.
And my entire point was that Meredith was a very poor example, given the exceptional outside factors.
- Except she's not really one. Or should I say, was not one.
*Points finger at MAGIC*
4) I would argue that it's more than necessary. The non-mages have proven over and over again that they cannot be trusted with their freedom. Exalted Marches, Alienage purges, sundering the veil through their various mass slaughters. These people are dangerous. They need to be locked up forever to protect the innocent flower picking mages. See where I'm going with this?
Most of the veil rending is done by mages.
I find it curious that you think locking up 1% of the population because they are extremely dangerous is horrific, but are now suggesting to lock up 99% of it.
Also, trying to lock up all mundanes is unfeasible. Logistically impossible I might add.
So what's the point of bringing up impossible propositions? You cannot lock up 99% of the population. It cannot happen. It will not happen.
Even the mage underground in DA II simply wanted their freedom and to be left alone, but the mundanes will not let them be, just like the Dalish just like the annulment of Darismund and just like Lambert. How can the good Doctor blame his monster when it was he who created him?
Of course mundanes can't let them be.
Just like you could just let a contagious man wander freely around your house.
A mage can't just open a veil tear on a whim. You suggest that mages are independent engines of destruction, and that this fact should set them apart from mundanes, who require armies, but that's ridiculous. Yes, I suppose that with adequate preparation a single mage could trigger a catastrophe, but first a stockpile of lyrium would need to be assembled, or enough people captured for a bloodletting. Even Anders needed time and resources to assemble his bomb.
The suggestion that mundanes don't count as dangerous because they have to gather an army is laughable. They manifestly have the ability to gather armies and wreak havoc, it happens all the time. Dangerous groups of mundanes, whether bandits, templars, or soldiers, are far more common than mages. You can't even compare the frequency of peasants killed by steel to the frequency of their deaths by magic. Yes, a mundane has to put some effort into murder, while a mage can get there by neglect... but that distinction is meaningless by the prevalence of murderous intent among the mundanes of Thedas.
Funny fact: Being a bandit is illegal and they are executed when captured.
Funny fact: Being a bandit is illegal and they are executed when captured.
Don't be silly. He caused someone harm. He should have been locked up so it wouldn't happen in the first place.
Depending on how smart the mage is..yes, he could.
Mind control means you can force people to comply, without having to work around. A mundane has to gather trust and allies, he has to have a loyal army, he has to weasel himself into the royal court.
A mage on the other hand, has it far easier. A single mage can just go a location he wants destroyed, open a large tear in the veil and run away. He has an instant army at his disposal.
So yes, I do say that how easily something can be done, with how much effort and planing, and with how many people involved, does matter. A LOT.
The number of people that have to fail/be corrupt to bring about disaster is SIGNIFICANTLY smaller in case of mages.
According to your logic, Superman/Prof X is equally as dangerous as your average human, because "humanity" as a nebulous whole is capable of great feats of destruction collectively?
Why should they be? The Harrowing is less reliable than a drivers license.
Also, you're picking poor examples. Dalish Keepers have proven to have a rather bad influence on their clans survival. Chasind - we can only assume they work similar. The Rivani seers we know little, other than the entire Riviani circle was full of abominations.
And Morrigan is a morally bankrupt individual.
- It was quite clearly the merger with justice. He is quite clearly - and he admits it himself - becoming more and more unstable.
And my entire point was that Meredith was a very poor example, given the exceptional outside factors.
- Except she's not really one. Or should I say, was not one.
*Points finger at MAGIC*
Most of the veil rending is done by mages.
I find it curious that you think locking up 1% of the population because they are extremely dangerous is horrific, but are now suggesting to lock up 99% of it.
Also, trying to lock up all mundanes is unfeasible. Logistically impossible I might add.
So what's the point of bringing up impossible propositions? You cannot lock up 99% of the population. It cannot happen. It will not happen.
Of course mundanes can't let them be.
Just like you could just let a contagious man wander freely around your house.
...
Also, you're picking poor examples. Dalish Keepers have proven to have a rather bad influence on their clans survival. Chasind - we can only assume they work similar. The Rivani seers we know little, other than the entire Riviani circle was full of abominations.
And Morrigan is a morally bankrupt individual.
...
If we know little, you seem to know less. Dalish Keepers are essential to their clan's survival, providing healing among other things. The employ magic to protect and defend the clan, but of course you would rather focus on one elf's suggestion that when a clan vanishes, an abominated Keeper can't be ruled out as a possible cause. Of course, a posse of genuine Thedas rednecks is a lot more likely, but you'd rather interpret the possibility of magical danger as the inevitability of magical disaster.
The Rivani Circle did not have any documented abominations. The reports of possession were regarding the Seers, who were never part of the Circle. The Circle was annulled because the mages there were mixing freely with their mundane families and were studying non-chantry-approved magic.
Morrigan's morality, while questionable, is an order of magnitude more palatable than that of some of the Templars we've seen. Morrigan might let you die because she doesn't care about you, but we've seen Templars that would slaughter your whole family because you made a sandwich for an apostate. Before you throwing around terms like "morally bankrupt" you should check the account balance of the side you so vigorously defend.
Don't be silly. He caused someone harm. He should have been locked up so it wouldn't happen in the first place.
A tad salty today, no?
A mage can't just open a veil tear on a whim. You suggest that mages are independent engines of destruction, and that this fact should set them apart from mundanes, who require armies, but that's ridiculous. Yes, I suppose that with adequate preparation a single mage could trigger a catastrophe, but first a stockpile of lyrium would need to be assembled, or enough people captured for a bloodletting. Even Anders needed time and resources to assemble his bomb.
The suggestion that mundanes don't count as dangerous because they have to gather an army is laughable. They manifestly have the ability to gather armies and wreak havoc, it happens all the time. Dangerous groups of mundanes, whether bandits, templars, or soldiers, are far more common than mages. You can't even compare the frequency of peasants killed by steel to the frequency of their deaths by magic. Yes, a mundane has to put some effort into murder, while a mage can get there by neglect... but that distinction is meaningless by the prevalence of murderous intent among the mundanes of Thedas.
What first peoples don't destroy something for sake destruction most cases is to conquer not just slain pesants and you need army to that so peoples have to agree with you if you swagger other peoples will turn on you and abloish you providing that you ****** off too much peoples... 1 mage all it needs is 1 mistake or just being humans so being flawed and driven by ambition , anger , hate ,lust or greed and other flaws can to cause huge destruction just take blights that goal behind is destroy world...
1 non-mage individual is threat on individual-level
1 mage is threat on local scale at best and at worst world scale...
So no there is no army in the world that want destroy world at "worst" rule it and still if peoples won't like it can overthrow them because all they have is political power when mage or blood mage have personal power and can reach political power and thanks to personal power he can kill everyone who will try overthrow them...
A mage can't just open a veil tear on a whim. You suggest that mages are independent engines of destruction, and that this fact should set them apart from mundanes, who require armies, but that's ridiculous. Yes, I suppose that with adequate preparation a single mage could trigger a catastrophe, but first a stockpile of lyrium would need to be assembled, or enough people captured for a bloodletting. Even Anders needed time and resources to assemble his bomb.
The suggestion that mundanes don't count as dangerous because they have to gather an army is laughable. They manifestly have the ability to gather armies and wreak havoc, it happens all the time. Dangerous groups of mundanes, whether bandits, templars, or soldiers, are far more common than mages. You can't even compare the frequency of peasants killed by steel to the frequency of their deaths by magic. Yes, a mundane has to put some effort into murder, while a mage can get there by neglect... but that distinction is meaningless by the prevalence of murderous intent among the mundanes of Thedas.
Not wanting to get into this... but the thing is almost any mage with enough lyrium/blood/powerful demon help can do those things if they have a mind to. Only highly exceptional mundanes can gather an army. To say that mundanes and mages are somehow equivocable in terms of the destruction they can cause is laughable. That a mage can cause this sort of damage by neglect is precisely the point.
Just because mundanes kill people more frequently (And considering how they vastly outnumber mages, that statement has little meaning), does not somehow make any one mundane equivalent to a mage. Mages are dangerous because of what they can do as individuals. To compare that to what mundanes can do as a group and say its the same is just disingenuous.
...
Of course mundanes can't let them be.
Just like you could just let a contagious man wander freely around your house.
Being a mage isn't contagious. Oh, wait... did you think that when Zevran was asking to place his head upon Wynn's bosom, he was actually trying to catch magic? I have no idea what ridiculous leap of paranoid logic makes you think that a mage is like some sort of plague carrier.
Being a mage isn't contagious. Oh, wait... did you think that when Zevran was asking to place his head upon Wynn's bosom, he was actually trying to catch magic? I have no idea what ridiculous leap of paranoid logic makes you think that a mage is like some sort of plague carrier.
You would say something different if abomnation destroyed your house and killed your family mages are ticking bombs for non-mage it is unacceptable to give freedom to such ,as no one sane would accept walking bomb in our society...
A tad salty today, no?
Always been that way. I just don't have anything else to distract myself with.
Not wanting to get into this... but the thing is almost any mage with enough lyrium/blood/powerful demon help can do those things if they have a mind to. Only highly exceptional mundanes can gather an army. To say that mundanes and mages are somehow equivocable in terms of the destruction they can cause is laughable. That a mage can cause this sort of damage by neglect is precisely the point.
Just because mundanes kill people more frequently (And considering how they vastly outnumber mages, that statement has little meaning), does not somehow make any one mundane equivalent to a mage. Mages are dangerous because of what they can do as individuals. To compare that to what mundanes can do as a group and say its the same is just disingenuous.
You're conflating what a mage can do with effort, planning, and preparation with the damage a mage can do by neglect.
It might be true that only exceptional mundanes can gather together enough thugs, bandits, or soldiers to become a threat equal to a typical mage's power, but these exceptional mundanes are common enough that they seem to outnumber mages. Your argument is like saying, "Yeah, but the mundane has to pick up a sword to be dangerous." There are swords everywhere, so it's a meaningless distinction.
You would say something different if abomnation destroyed your house and killed your family mages are ticking bombs for non-mage it is unacceptable to give freedom to such ,as no one sane would accept walking bomb in our society...
I usually try to avoid responding to you directly, but I'll make an exception.
Are you suggesting that if a posse of Thedas rednecks killed your family and burned your house down you would find it unacceptable to give freedom to peasants? The problem with the mage that blows up your house isn't that he's a mage, it's that he blew up your house. The only difference between a mage and a posse of rednecks, in this example, is that the Templars won't give a crap if the rednecks burn your house down with you in it, because they're only on a mission from The Maker regarding one very specific and uncommon danger.
I usually try to avoid responding to you directly, but I'll make an exception.
Are you suggesting that if a posse of Thedas rednecks killed your family and burned your house down you would find it unacceptable to give freedom to peasants? The problem with the mage that blows up your house isn't that he's a mage, it's that he blew up your house. The only difference between a mage and a posse of rednecks, in this example, is that the Templars won't give a crap if the rednecks burn your house down with you in it, because they're only on a mission from The Maker regarding one very specific and uncommon danger.
First if pesant kills your family he does that because of his own will then you kill him problem solved second pesant won't do that just because he woke up certain day and think "i will kill everyone today" next mage will do that more to than 1 family and family won't be able protectt hemselves third mage will do that intentionally , not intentionally or just woke up certain day possessed and destroy entire city... and yes he will blow up my house because he is mage as non-mage won't blow up my house first becaue he don't have resources , there will be consequences (when mage can avoid that due to personal power and abomnation have even more personal power and don't care about them) and another matter that they won't do that accidentally...
Show me example when templars burned house because maker told kill someone who isn't mage or helping them...
The Canadian military. Pretty much any heirarchial society in which seniority goes hand-in-hand and is represented via rank: the professionalization of the western militaries hasn't exactly eclipsed the fact that you can only reach certain ranks with certain amounts of time.
If we want to go away from 'organization' and move to 'societies', tribal societies in general often do this. I could point you to Kuchi, Pashtun, and various sub-groups in one corner of the world as well.
'Leadership' is effectively synonymous with ruling in decentralzied societies: local leaders call the shots, resolve disputes, and bring about influence to enforce consensus, even if there is little in the way of enforced common law or taxation.
Well, that's the handy view from my occupation at least. But I'm opening to hearing what you feel is the relevant difference between being a social leader and having power over the society.
Higher rank and seniority are two different things. Seniority implies a leadership role among those of essentially the same rank. That role might carry a great deal of influence (e.g. Senate Majority Leader) or a little influence (jury foreman.) It is not the equivalent of "rule." Within the ruler is vested authority to unilaterally decree requirements and boundaries of the ruled.
Leadership applies to followers, rulership applies to subjects. Being a follower is voluntary, being a subject often is not. If you have to use influence to achieve consensus, you're not a ruler.
Retour en haut