durasteel wrote...
What a complete load of crap.
Niceties right off the bat.
The seers are revered in Rivain, but there is nothing to suggest that they have a greater role in mundane politics than do the Chantry's Revered Mothers.
"All decisions involving the welfare of most Rivaini communities rest solely with the eldest women. The most senior of these women are called seers, who freely practice magic."
"ALL decisions" are the keywords here. Clearly, their role is more akin to mayors and kings than religious leaders.
If you are willing to indulge influence held by priests who do nothing but take your money and mutter ineffectual prayers to a god they admit isn't paying any attention, then it is beyond stupid to criticize comparable influence held by seers who actually wield cosmic power on behalf and for the benefit of the people of their communities.
1-I never said I support Chantry influence in politics; what I said is that Rivain is yet another example of how freedom for mages leads to them dominating society whereas you claimed that Rivain was proof of how unnecessary the Chantry is despite the behavior of Rivain mages proving part of what the Chantry preaches.
2-While magic can be useful, it does not automatically make someone fit for a leadership position. That requires intelligence and cunning, not the ability to spit fire or heal a broken bone.
The same applies to the Shaman, who is the spiritual leader of a Chasind clan but shares power with the Chieftain.
1-Where is that mentioned?
2-Now you're applying a double standard. Your previous posts were all about how anti-religion and anti-Chantry you are because of how they turn religious fervor into mundane power and yet you seem to accept a religious leader sharing power with a political one amongst the Chasind.
The Keeper of a Dalish clan spends his or her life in the service of that clan, not ruling it for personal benefit.
Tevinter makes the same claim. Heck, every leader ever with two neurons to rub together made the same clan. It means nothing; the matter of fact is that amongst the Dalish, supreme executive power rest within the hands of mages for no reason other than they are mages.
Dalish clansfolk are free to go as they please, and follow the Keeper's guidance by choice.
Such is the only freedom they have. In DA2, the whole clan wished to depart while the Keeper wished to stay for purely personal reasons and what happened? The clan stayed despite of how harmful it was.
Those who couldn't take it anymore did not call for a vote to rescind the Keeper of her duties dues to incapability. They just up and left; there is nothing amongst the Dalish that keeps the Keepers accountable for their actions; the only freedom the Dalish possess is to leave; otherwise, they live at the mercy of their Keepers.
Basically, the Dalish live under a magocratic authoritarian system. A benevolent one, certainly, but an authoritarian system nonetheless ruled solely by mages.
In that, the only difference they have from Tevinter is that the Keepers do tend to have the good of the community in mind.
But, ultimately, it is another example of how free mages lead to them dominating society.
As far as your "consorting with spirits" nonsense, the Rivaini seers have been doing it for generations. The possessions are temporary and benign. In each Dragon Age game to date, there has been a companion character who has been posessed by a spirit of the Fade. While Anders turned out rather more disasterous than Wynn, he cannot be described as "evil" because he thought he was doing the right thing, taking an extreme measure in defense of "his people" who were subjected to the pogrom in Andraste's name.
First of all, there is no such thing as temporary possession.
Second, it is dangerous. The Seers may have good intentions; debatable; but that doesn't change the fact inviting a being from another dimension who sees things in black and white and will stop at nothing to achieve an ideal and can be corrupted by human emotions is ridiculously, impossibly dangerous.
Considering that Seers were not born possessed, do not require possession in order to retain human emotions and there is absolutely no need whatsoever of them being possessed, I see no reason to show tolerance to people who willingly place their fellows at such a tremendous risk for no real reason at all.
If we can't even ask mages to not be possessed without infringing on some right or another, what can we ask?
The most important element that renders your entire argument ludicrous is that none of these people--not the Rivaini, not the Chasind, and certainly not the Dalish, have ever asked for one of these Annulments, or an Exalted March of death. These are not actions of liberation, but rather of oppression and conquest. The Chantry doesn't give a flying fornication about the safety or well being of these groups of people, only that they are not living in accordance with the so-called Chant of Light.
1-Considering how large portions of the Rivain population are Andrastian or Qunari, I'd say the love for these Seers is not at all universal.
2-You are, once again, debating B(the Annulment) when you wish to prove A(The Chantry doesn't care) and then you mention C(my argument) for some reason.
Let's go by parts, It is true a segment of the Rivain population is attached to the traditions that involve these Seers. However, this fact does not mean that, from the Chantry viewpoint, their Annulment is not benign. As David Gaider mentions, the Chantry genuinely believes their methods are an unfortunate necessity that help the people of Thedas. Now, you can argue that they are wrong; I don't agree but, whatever; and you can even accuse them of forcing their viewpoint upon others but this does not equal "uncaring about the safety or well being" of the Rivaini.
Also, the laws of the Chantry are not written in the Chant of Light; they were redacted due to their practicality. The Circle or Tranquility aren't mentioned once.
Finally, my argument was that the state of Rivain proves what the Chantry claims. Give mages freedom and they will use it to rule over normal people which is what they do in most Rivaini communities.
This is completely unrelated to whether the Rivaini wish for this or whether the Chantry cares about the Rivaini. It's an entirely separate matter so, neither rends my argument "ludicrous".
My arguments regarding the feelings of the Chantry in the matter of the Circle were written in different parts of my previous which you chose to not quote.
Retour en haut
