8640 réponses à ce sujet

[Bizantura]

Since a lot of earths population believe the world around them is twofold (up/down left/right good/bad ect) it is normal games reflect this belief. The common surface that binds those two is conveniently left out, so most people don't even know/realise it exists.

Take a coin for instance, it exist of heads and tails and the common surface is the metal.
.

[wcholcombe]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Meghren, the Orlesian occupying King who requested the Chantry grant the Orlesians mages. The Grand Cleric agreed and proceeded to actively block the rebellion from getting any help. Wilhelm escaped and fought with Maric, and when Ferelden won he was given special exemption and was no longer required to go to the Circle. The Chantry was forced to agree as they were busy kissing Ferelden's posterior's just so they could stay in the country rather than get kicked out.

I keep seeing this thing about Wilhelm escaping the circle, but I have never seen anything as evidence of that.  Not in the wiki, not in WOT, not in game lore, not in Stolen Throne.

Wilhelm never mentions being on the run, and at no point do they use his blood to track him down.

People also say he was granted special freedom by Maric.  However, the circle was well aware of what he was doing and what he possessed-as evidenced by the letter from the circle asking for the return of his property and research.  I think Wilhelm was just more indicative of how senior mages lived prior to Kirkwall.  Was he still a bit of a special case, yes, but not to the degree that some think.

IE Wynne, Rhys and his mentor in Tevinter, etc.

[wcholcombe]

durasteel wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
Social activism regarding social classes equals religion?
How? When? Why?

Social activism? Dude, you asserted that the annulment of the Circle in Rivain was justified because they didn't follow the tenets of the Chantry. You continue to advocate the slaughter of Rivaini mothers, daughters, sister, and wives because they're mages who the population treat with reverence.

The idea that dogmatic adherence to the doctrine promulgated in a thousand year old text somehow justifies or ennobles mass murder is really only found in a religious context.

And then, you call it social activism. Why do I feel like I've been trolled?

Not really, most genocides are culturally based, not religious based.

[MisterJB]

durasteel wrote...
Come on now, you seem perfectly capable of understanding this. The decisions are made by the old women. Mage, mundane, whatever... eldest women generally. You know this group includes non-mages, because the old women who are mages are specified in the next part, as having seniority among the old women in general.

So a bunch of old ladies make all the important decisions involving the welfare of the community. In the bunch, the Seers get to sit at the head of the table and don't get interrupted as much when they speak. They probably also get the most comfey chair to sit in.

There is no indication that the Seer wields absolute power, or even has the authority to override the majority of the group of old ladies. There is no "ruling" being done, it is governance by a committee which is chaired by a mage. Big whooptey-doo. Let's go kill 'em all, right?

Ludicrous.

All the decisions rest in the hands of mages. That is what the quote is saying. Nothing more, nothing less. It's that simple and I am seriously having a hard time finding simpler words to explain this.
This "argument" of yours is very much akin to the "The Chantry receives a significant part of the money the Circle makes because I say so despite there being nothing in the entire franchise that indicates this" so keep your damn fanfiction to yourself.

durasteel wrote...
Social activism? Dude, you asserted that the annulment of the Circle in Rivain was justified because they didn't
follow the tenets of the Chantry. You continue to advocate the slaughter of Rivaini mothers, daughters, sister, and wives because they're mages who the population treat with reverence.

No, I said the annulment was justified because they're possessed Abominations whose spirits could be corrupted at any minute and who are using their magic to rule over the people of Rivain.
Therefore, my problem lies with a class of people holding the dominant positions in society due to an accident of birth rather than merit on their part and thus, all that I could be acused of is social activism but you, somehow, found it fitting to connect this to religion.

The idea that dogmatic adherence to the doctrine promulgated in a thousand year old text somehow justifies or ennobles mass murder is really only found in a religious context.

AGAIN! The rules of the Circle were not created in accordance to the Chant of Light; the Chant predates the Circles and does not mention once Annulments or Tranquility or Harrowing.
Therefore, the laws of the Circle are just that; not religious tenets; but laws that Rivain's Circle must abide by as a
branch of the Circle. And if they fail to do so, then the Chantry has the duty and the right to determine punishment.

Modifié par MisterJB, 18 février 2014 - 08:17 .

[Mistic]

MisterJB wrote...

Misticsan wrote...
Exactly,
the rural communities. The fact that there is a Circle and that the
Chantry has been known to purge Qunari sympathizers there means that at
least the ruling class is Andrastian.

"Most communities". There is an Andrastian and Qunari presence but the quote says "most communities", either rural or urban.

But the distinction is very important. Of course it's "most communities", since rural communities are the majority in any feudal society. But remember than in any feudal society the power is in the hands of the feudal lords, no matter what the peasants say or what their belief is.

MisterJB wrote...

Misticsan wrote...

The
question should be: why shouldn't mages be leaders? Because they are
mages? Or because there's the risk they could abuse their power? There
is a great difference.

It's not that mages shouldn't be
leaders; it's that mages shouldn't become the dominant social class and
mages shouldn't be leaders just because they are mages regardless of
their capability for the role. These are two separate issues, BTW.
Plus, there is also the matter of right of self-determination of normal people.

The right of self-determination of normal people rings hollow when you take into account that every country in Thedas has some kind of nobility. And they're nobility just because some ancestor was a stronger warlord than the others. When you think about it, winning the "magic lottery" doesn't sound so unfair.

Magic and leadership, that's a question that interests me. The concept 'separation of powers' exists precisely because we know that people can get very nasty if given too much power. If only there was a way to keep magic in balance...

And it's also a poignant example. After all, the Player Character can be a mage, and he or she will be the leader of the whole Inquisition.

Modifié par Misticsan, 18 février 2014 - 08:20 .

[durasteel]

MisterJB wrote...
1-The presence of different forms of society within the same nation does not change the fact Seers rule the more traditional parts of Rivain. World of Thedas makes that perfectly clear.
That's just like saying that because Northern Rivain is more Qunari, Southern can't be more Andrastian. It's nonsensical.

2-Incorrect. The most senior of women, those with whom all the decisions rest are mages. Therefore, one needs to be a woman and a mage in order to wield any political power in Rivain.

3-The basis of my argument is traditional Rivain society proves that without restrictions, mages become leaders. I never said this only happened through martial conquest and therefore, whether the Rivain are willing or not is 100% irrelevant to my original argument.

What's ludicrous is that you keep repeating the whole "The Rivains want the Seers" despite me having already made clear that my original point is that mage freedom leads to mage dominance and that nowhere in that did I mention the willingness of the normal people.

I have already even said that Rivain and the Dalish are mostly a benevolent magocracy so, kindly stop claiming that I believe there is force being used.

So, the fact that there is a geographical area called Rivain, and that the people who live in that area consider themselves part of Rivain, and that Rivain has a king, royalty, nobility, and associated infrastructure doesn't in any way imply that the old lady mages don't rule Rivain with abosute authority? You're being silly. 

The decisions rest with the eldest women. Mage or non-mage. Among these women, the mages have seniority and are called seers. Seniority and rulership are apparently synonyms in your version of English, but they're not in mine or, I suspect, David Gaider's. I'd ask him but I don't have his phone number.

Your entire position was, a page ago, based on defending the rights of the "normal people" against the tyranny of mages. You implied that mages occupied an elite social class, and characterised your arguments as social activism. Now, your position is that it doesn't matter what the people want. The will of the governed cannot legitimize authority held by a mage.

Clearly, you know what's best for them and you will advocate for them to get it whether they want it or not. See my previous comment regarding impersinating a religious person.

And, honestly would it kill you to respond to everything at once rather than splitting a post into multiple ones?

I personally hate the fractured mess that leads to. I pick a point, quote the relevant bit, respond, and move on to a new post for other points, themes, and issues. It keeps things more tidy. The old ladies in Rivain that you want to murder would approve.

[Eludajae]

[quote]OdanUrr wrote...

Read Asunder. To my mind, it's far more balanced in its presentation of mages and templars, both the good and the bad, than, say, DA2.[/quot

/agree totally with this post. You have to read Asunder to understand where the lore and history is prior to the Game's time period. Then you can talk about balanced lore. 

[Mistic]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Chantry treats mages more like a nuclear nonproliferation regime than a viable strategic asset. There seems to be a very strong 'it's better no one has a mage advantage than anyone using mages' mentality, given how rare and exceptional it is for mages to be released.

Which makes sense, really, because a system that bans mages to everyone favors the biggest, most powerful nations, ie Orlais. Without an ability to monopolize mages, Orlais gets more advantage from other people not cultivating mages than it would in taking the costs of other people having fewer mages than it.

That's... That's actually fascinating. Probably not the first reason the Chantry had for doing that, but yes, the Chantry tends to prefer anything that favors Orlais. If we consider the mages strategical resources, the Chantry avoids a magic arms-race while at the same gives the empire an advantage.

Makes you wonder what would happen if the Circles were managed by national powers instead of an international organization like the Chantry. Nationalism can be a very powerful unifying force. I think that's why the Dalish have less problems in this regard. They're Dalish first, whatever else second. A normal elf is better than a human mage in their eyes.

Modifié par Misticsan, 18 février 2014 - 08:29 .

[durasteel]

MisterJB wrote...
All the decisions rest in the hands of mages. That is what the quote is saying. Nothing more, nothing less. It's that simple and I am seriously having a hard time finding simpler words to explain this.

You're wrong. I suspect by this point you know very well that you're wrong, but you don't want to admit it.

You. Are. Wrong.

The quote, as I have said before, says this:

1. Decisions regarding the safety of the communty are made by the eldest women. Please note the complete lack of mage references there.

2. Among these eldest women, mages (Seers) have seniority. That does not mean that they automatically overrule the other, "normal" women. It means they hold a place of respect and deference. 

And that's all the damn quote says on the matter. It doesn't say that disputes between farmers over whose cow ate whose turnips are resolved by mages. It doesn't say that marriages are approved or officiated by mages. It doesn't even say that decision about community safety are made exclusively or absolutely by mages. It says that mages are senior among the old ladies--including normal old ladies--who make safety decisions.

If you don't understand that, it cannot be because you can't... it can only be because you refuse to.

[The Baconer]

MisterJB wrote...

Therefore, my problem lies with a class of people holding the dominant positions in society due to an accident of birth rather than merit on their part and thus, all that I could be acused of is social activism (...)

"Accident of birth" might be to broad. Are you a proponent of the abolition of nobility, like, right now?

If not, wouldn't "accident of magic" be a more accurate phrase?

Modifié par The Baconer, 18 février 2014 - 08:40 .

[MisterJB]

durasteel wrote...
So, the fact that there is a geographical area called Rivain, and that the people who live in that area consider themselves part of Rivain, and that Rivain has a king, royalty, nobility, and associated infrastructure doesn't in any way imply that the old lady mages don't rule Rivain with abosute authority? You're being silly.

They rule communities within Rivain with absolute authority. This is made obvious by the quote I have mentioned on multiple ocasions.

The decisions rest with the eldest women. Mage or non-mage. Among these women, the mages have seniority and are called seers. Seniority and rulership are apparently synonyms in your version of English, but they're not in mine or, I suspect, David Gaider's. I'd ask him but I don't have his phone number.

Seniority makes all the difference in the world because it means that their word is the one that takes precedence within the group.

Your entire position was, a page ago, based on defending the rights of the "normal people" against the tyranny of mages. You implied that mages occupied an elite social class, and characterised your arguments as social activism. Now, your position is that it doesn't matter what the people want. The will of the governed cannot legitimize authority held by a mage.

Clearly, you know what's best for them and you will advocate for them to get it whether they want it or not. See my previous comment regarding impersinating a religious person.

*sigh*
No, that is not what I am saying at all. I will try to make it as clear as possible.
My position is that Rivain proves the Chantry is right. This is because the mages in Rivain are free and they rule its communities. Therefore in Rivain free mages = ruling mages.
Now, pay attention that I did not mention the means through which this would take place; I did not say mage dominance could only happen by having it forced upon normal people. I simply said that free mages = mage dominance.
And that is what I mean when I say that the fact certain factions within Rivain appreciate the Seers is irrelevant to my main point which is free mages = mage dominance.
Do you understand it now?

I personally hate the fractured mess that leads to. I pick a point, quote the relevant bit, respond, and move on to a new post for other points, themes, and issues. It keeps things more tidy. The old ladies in Rivain that you want to murder would approve.

Except I end up responding to the same thing twice as I've just did.

[durasteel]

MisterJB wrote...
AGAIN! The rules of the Circle were not created in accordance to the Chant of Light; the Chant predates the Circles and does not mention once Annulments or Tranquility or Harrowing.

Which passages of the holy books of any modern religions mention latex condoms or hormonal contraceptives? None. Religion operates in this context by convincing adherents that its foundational document contains eternal truth, and that only the heirarchs of the religion posess the authority to interpret that document and apply its eternal truth to everyday matters and, specifically, your personal behavior.

[MisterJB]

durasteel wrote...
You're wrong. I suspect by this point you know very well that you're wrong, but you don't want to admit it.

You have an annoying habit of putting words into other's mouths.
I've already adressed the issue of "seniority" and I don't feel like repeating myself.

[MisterJB]

durasteel wrote...
Which passages of the holy books of any modern religions mention latex condoms or hormonal contraceptives? None. Religion operates in this context by convincing adherents that its foundational document contains eternal truth, and that only the heirarchs of the religion posess the authority to interpret that document and apply its eternal truth to everyday matters and, specifically, your personal behavior.

The Chantry does this only in regards to blood magic which can be seen in the sermons of the very first Divine where she does, indeed, interpret the Chant in a manner than lends to the prohibition of blood magic.
However, laws like the Right of Annulment came about as responses to specific incidents such as the revolt in the Nevarran Circle in 2:83 and have nothing do with any intrepretation of the Chant

[Dean_the_Young]

Misticsan wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Chantry treats mages more like a nuclear nonproliferation regime than a viable strategic asset. There seems to be a very strong 'it's better no one has a mage advantage than anyone using mages' mentality, given how rare and exceptional it is for mages to be released.

Which makes sense, really, because a system that bans mages to everyone favors the biggest, most powerful nations, ie Orlais. Without an ability to monopolize mages, Orlais gets more advantage from other people not cultivating mages than it would in taking the costs of other people having fewer mages than it.

That's... That's actually fascinating. Probably not the first reason the Chantry had for doing that, but yes, the Chantry tends to prefer anything that favors Orlais. If we consider the mages strategical resources, the Chantry avoids a magic arms-race while at the same gives the empire an advantage.

Makes you wonder what would happen if the Circles were managed by national powers instead of an international organization like the Chantry. Nationalism can be a very powerful unifying force. I think that's why the Dalish have less problems in this regard. They're Dalish first, whatever else second. A normal elf is better than a human mage in their eyes.

We'd see a lot more fireballs, necromancy, and abominations as everyone embraces greater risks in order to avoid a catastrophic defeat.

If you want a real scary scenario, imagine if each nation, when invading another, also took the responsiblity for managing all the mages in the area. Young mages would, of course, be seized and taken in as tools of the state, but older, nationaly-indoctrinated mages could be deemed too dangerous by default. They would be the greatest of insurgent risks, and the first to be indoctrinated to be loyal to the kingdom.

In other words, too dangerous to trust, and ideologically primed to resist. Conditions tailor made to prompt escape, resistance, and being deemed a maleficar.

You could see habitual annulments at a rate far greater than the Templars as invaders, not trusting senior mages, would wipe out and start fresh with a new crop to be raised loyal to them. Mages, too dangerous to ignore and too powerful to not use, would be sought and taken as tools of the state and military, their freedoms being sacrificed for king and country rather than just fear. Pan-mage identity would collapse, and the entire ideal of the Circle would change drastically.

[durasteel]

MisterJB wrote...
They rule communities within Rivain with absolute authority. This is made obvious by the quote I have mentioned on multiple ocasions.
...
Seniority makes all the difference in the world because it means that their word is the one that takes precedence within the group.
...
...
My position is that Rivain proves the Chantry is right. This is because the mages in Rivain are free and they rule its communities. Therefore in Rivain free mages = ruling mages.
Now, pay attention that I did not mention the means through which this would take place; I did not say mage dominance could only happen by having it forced upon normal people. I simply said that free mages = mage dominance.
And that is what I mean when I say that the fact certain factions within Rivain appreciate the Seers is irrelevant to my main point which is free mages = mage dominance.
Do you understand it now?

They do not rule. They do not have absolute authority. The quote doesn't say that, and your insistence that it does after I have disproven it is dishonest. 

Seniority implies first among relative equals. Your boss doesn't have seniority over you, she has authority. Your elected representative doesn't have seniority, he has power. Seniority is what happens when you're all doing the same thing, but some of you have been doing it longer and you're better at it. To suggest that equates to "rule by absolute authority" is asinine.

I understand what you mean perfectly. I think we all do. What you mean is that the Chantry needs to go kill some mages because regardless of what Rivaini people want, they shouldn't be allowed to have any mages in places of authority. Ever.

The bottom line is that if Rivain were controlled by mages, and the population of Rivain was happy about it, at peace within its borders and with its neighbors, and prosperity was available for every person regardless of magical talent, and the Chantry comes in to put people to the sword because their dogma demands it, then the Chantry is wrong, and evil.

If generations of mages have communed with spirits, including short duration possession, and this has not caused harm to anyone and has, in fact, been much to the benefit of the common folk, and the Chantry comes in to commit mass murder because such behavior runs contrary to their holy doctrine, then the Chantry is wrong, and evil.

But Rivain isn't controlled by mages, it is controlled by little old ladies who give deference to those among their number who have magical ability. Your insistence that they should die for it is, quite frankly, disgusting.

[MisterJB]

Misticsan wrote...
The right of self-determination of normal people rings hollow when you take into account that every country in Thedas has some kind of nobility. And they're nobility just because some ancestor was a stronger warlord than the others. When you think about it, winning the "magic lottery" doesn't sound so unfair.

They sound both unfair. Altough one could make the case that if we look at normals and mages as two distinct groups, having normals ruling others normals could still be seen as the right of self-determination of the group of normal people as a whole.

Magic and leadership, that's a question that interests me. The concept 'separation of powers' exists precisely because we know that people can get very nasty if given too much power. If only there was a way to keep magic in balance...

Personally, I don't even believe that is really the problem. After all, it matters little if the king can spit fireballs or not; altough blood magic is something else entirely given its mindle control attributes; the real issue of mage leadership is how society would, naturally, gravitate towards those who have, naturally, more powers than others.
Basically, by giving mages equal rights to normals without curbing magic, their superior ability, it will only to power, gradually but inevitably, shifting towards them until they have complete economic and political dominance.

And it's also a poignant example. After all, the Player Character can be
a mage, and he or she will be the leader of the whole Inquisition.

It would be interesting to see if a Mage Inquisitor would have the option to mind control the leader of the opposing party.

Modifié par MisterJB, 18 février 2014 - 09:01 .

[The Elder King]

@durasteel: where did you read that short duration possession is possible in Dragon Age? So far I haven't read anything suggesting it's possible.

[durasteel]

MisterJB wrote...
You have an annoying habit of putting words into other's mouths.
I've already adressed the issue of "seniority" and I don't feel like repeating myself.

By which you mean that I point out that what you've said is incorrect, or abhorrent. I can see how that would annoy you.

You've addressed the issue of "seniority" with the ridiculous assertion that it means--and I quote--"absolute power." This is where you're incorrect. You also use that assertion in an attempt to justify whatever "punishment" the Templars elect to mete out to the Circle in Rivain, including the mass murder euphemistically termed "Annulment." That, for the record, would be the abhorrent bit.

Modifié par durasteel, 18 février 2014 - 09:07 .

[MisterJB]

durasteel wrote...
I understand what you mean perfectly. I think we all do.

No, clearly you do not and you do not even want to attempt to understand because you just keep on repeating the very same thing like a broken record despite my very best attempts to explain my position.
Quite frankly, it's dismissive and disrespectful and I do not know why I should have expected anything else from someone whose very first words to me were "What a load of crap".

In short, I am done with you. Have a good day.

[durasteel]

hhh89 wrote...

@durasteel: where did you read that short duration possession is possible in Dragon Age? So far I haven't read anything suggesting it's possible.

The Rivaini Seers are described as allowing spirits to possess them, and it doesn't seem to be permanent. I think the spirit that inhabited Wynn might have not stuck around for long if it weren't the only thing keeping her alive. 

The bit about the Seers comes from the guide to Thedas, specifically the description of Rivain.

[Hellion Rex]

MisterJB wrote...
It would be interesting to see if a Mage Inquisitor would have the option to mind control the leader of the opposing party.

That would be an interesting scenario to enact if your Inquisitor could use blood magic, particularly on a weak minded leader.

[The Baconer]

MisterJB wrote...

They sound both unfair. Altough one could make the case that if we look at normals and mages as two distinct groups, having normals ruling others normals could still be seen as the right of self-determination of the group of normal people as a whole.

If that can be construed as "self-determination", then why wouldn't a community electing to follow a Seer or a Keeper also be "self-determination"?

[Hellion Rex]

durasteel wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

@durasteel: where did you read that short duration possession is possible in Dragon Age? So far I haven't read anything suggesting it's possible.

The Rivaini Seers are described as allowing spirits to possess them, and it doesn't seem to be permanent. I think the spirit that inhabited Wynn might have not stuck around for long if it weren't the only thing keeping her alive. 

The bit about the Seers comes from the guide to Thedas, specifically the description of Rivain.

It says nowhere that the spirits actually leave their hosts. They seem to cohabitate within the possessed in a similar manner to Wynne.

[Dean_the_Young]

durasteel wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
You have an annoying habit of putting words into other's mouths.
I've already adressed the issue of "seniority" and I don't feel like repeating myself.

By which you mean that I point out that what you've said is incorrect, or abhorrent. I can see how that would annoy you.

No, it means you're a blatant liar who's so insecure he can't reply to a measured response without strawmaning his opponent. Like here.

It's completely dishonest and even pathetic. You're far more abhorrent than MisterJB, who has given you twice the courtesy and respect than you've shown anyone else. Get off your high horse, you presumptuous ****.

You've addressed the issue of "seniority" with the ridiculous assertion that it means--and I quote--"absolute power." This is where you're incorrect. You also use that assertion in an attempt to justify whatever "punishment" the Templars elect to mete out to the Circle in Rivain, including the mass murder euphemistically termed "Annulment." That, for the record, would be the abhorrent bit.

It would also, for the record, be an example of how you can't consider the views of others without taking them out of context or twisting them to fit your own projection of what their feelings are.

That's the pathetic part, by the way.