503 réponses à ce sujet

[Mistic]

Wait a minute. Doesn't compromise imply that both parties have a power in common? As in they are both equally powerful or at least close.

 

That's a relevant question. I took the dicitonary to have a lok at that. The defintion I have here is:

 

compromise (n): (a) giving up of certain demands by each side in a dispute, so that an agreement may be reached which satisfies both to some extent ( settlement reached in this way

 

It certainly doesn't mean that both hold equal power, or equal demands, or that both end up happy and content because of the agreement. So, yes, according to this definition, at the beginning of Asunder compromise was still possible.

 

And remember that it's not Chantry versus Mages. That's too simple. Asunder puts it at Chantry vs Templars vs Mages. The Masked Empire also adds Secular Power to the mix.

 

And lets say that they do reach a 'compromise', how long before someone like Meredith or Lambert stomps all over it and does what they please? The mages are not getting anything worthwhile without fighting for it. Freedom and equality are not won with strongly worded letters. Fiona understood this.

 

Nothing can assure that someone like Meredith or Lambert won't appear again. But they would also say that giving more power to mages can't assure that another Tevinter magocracy won't be born.

 

In fact, let's suppose mages win the Mage-Templar War and the Chantry lets them go. What happens next? They don't have lands, they don't have farms, they don't have productive enterprises. Unless they all migrate to Tevinter (a possibility, that's for sure), their freedom is likely to become a problem. If that were the case, then the compromise would be pretty easy: "Don't you want to stay in a Chantry Circle? Ok, go to Tevinter, we won't stop you, but don't come back".

 

As for the need of fighting, I agree is the most normal way to get those freedoms. However, it's also the most normal way to lose your life. Although I admire those who fight for freedom, I can't blame someone for choosing life over freedom. Especially in a feudal setting where there is no real freedom in the world.

[Lulupab]

That's a relevant question. I took the dicitonary to have a lok at that. The defintion I have here is:

 

compromise (n): (a) giving up of certain demands by each side in a dispute, so that an agreement may be reached which satisfies both to some extent ( settlement reached in this way

 

It certainly doesn't mean that both hold equal power, or equal demands, or that both end up happy and content because of the agreement. So, yes, according to this definition, at the beginning of Asunder compromise was still possible.

 

And remember that it's not Chantry versus Mages. That's too simple. Asunder puts it at Chantry vs Templars vs Mages. The Masked Empire also adds Secular Power to the mix.

 

 

Nothing can assure that someone like Meredith or Lambert won't appear again. But they would also say that giving more power to mages can't assure that another Tevinter magocracy won't be born.

 

In fact, let's suppose mages win the Mage-Templar War and the Chantry lets them go. What happens next? They don't have lands, they don't have farms, they don't have productive enterprises. Unless they all migrate to Tevinter (a possibility, that's for sure), their freedom is likely to become a problem. If that were the case, then the compromise would be pretty easy: "Don't you want to stay in a Chantry Circle? Ok, go to Tevinter, we won't stop you, but don't come back".

 

As for the need of fighting, I agree is the most normal way to get those freedoms. However, it's also the most normal way to lose your life. Although I admire those who fight for freedom, I can't blame someone for choosing life over freedom. Especially in a feudal setting where there is no real freedom in the world.

 

or they could give them a land, a less used land.

[Mistic]

or they could give them a land, a less used land.

 

Why should they? And whose land? Lands belong to Secular Powers, and only Tevinter is friendly to mages. That's why I mentioned free migration to Tevinter as a mage boon.

[AresKeith]

Why should they? And whose land? Lands belong to Secular Powers, and only Tevinter is friendly to mages. That's why I mentioned free migration to Tevinter as a mage boon.

 

That's assuming that all mages even want to go to Tevinter or even likes them

[EmissaryofLies]

That's a relevant question. I took the dicitonary to have a lok at that. The defintion I have here is:
 
compromise (n): (a) giving up of certain demands by each side in a dispute, so that an agreement may be reached which satisfies both to some extent ( settlement reached in this way
 
It certainly doesn't mean that both hold equal power, or equal demands, or that both end up happy and content because of the agreement. So, yes, according to this definition, at the beginning of Asunder compromise was still possible.
 
And remember that it's not Chantry versus Mages. That's too simple. Asunder puts it at Chantry vs Templars vs Mages. The Masked Empire also adds Secular Power to the mix.[/quote]


Allow me to make myself perfectly clear.

Your definition and your implementation of compromise that you've presented is fantastic. On paper. That's where it begins and where it ends. It is up the the parties in question to uphold said compromise. If the parties are completely unequal in power...well...

You are much more optimistic than I. A thousand years says that true, actual compromise is not credibly in the cards. Unless the mages show that they will not be bullied any longer. You're welcome to disagree, of course.
 
 

 
Nothing can assure that someone like Meredith or Lambert won't appear again. But they would also say that giving more power to mages can't assure that another Tevinter magocracy won't be born.
 
In fact, let's suppose mages win the Mage-Templar War and the Chantry lets them go. What happens next? They don't have lands, they don't have farms, they don't have productive enterprises. Unless they all migrate to Tevinter (a possibility, that's for sure), their freedom is likely to become a problem. If that were the case, then the compromise would be pretty easy: "Don't you want to stay in a Chantry Circle? Ok, go to Tevinter, we won't stop you, but don't come back".
 
As for the need of fighting, I agree is the most normal way to get those freedoms. However, it's also the most normal way to lose your life. Although I admire those who fight for freedom, I can't blame someone for choosing life over freedom. Especially in a feudal setting where there is no real freedom in the world.

[/quote]

Tevinter has happened once and there are examples of societies where mages have integrated with mundanes without it becoming Tevinter. And magocracy is not always a bad thing and I'm sick to death of that implication when it has only happened in one case. Whereas we have a Lambert and we have a Meredith. We also have almost a dozen more circles where we do not know what's going on. This I can agree on.

It depends on what it means to 'win' the mage/templar war. If it means beating the heavy plated bully into submission and dragging his ass to the table. Then the mages can compromise, once they have proven their strength. If it were possible to completely destroy the oppostition without consequences, that'd be great. But it is not. So the mages need to show that they are not cattle to be corralled into their pens when their kindly masters deem it so. They need to compromise on equal grounds as to decrease the likelihood of the Templars simply clamping after the parties' agreements.

[renfrees]

or they could give them a land, a less used land.

And what would they do with that land, unless they implement a benevolent rules to attract mundanes to supply their basic needs? Its not like the Circles taught them how to sow or raise a cattle.

[Xilizhra]

And what would they do with that land, unless they implement a benevolent rules to attract mundanes to supply their basic needs? Its not like the Circles taught them how to sow or raise a cattle.

Maybe not, but many mages will have family members who do know that sort of thing.

[renfrees]

Maybe not, but many mages will have family members who do know that sort of thing.

Alright then, which country would be willing to sacrifice their land to mages? They are fighting Templars, and those does not belong to any nation. Nor does Chantry.

[Xilizhra]

Alright then, which country would be willing to sacrifice their land to mages? They are fighting Templars, and those does not belong to any nation. Nor does Chantry.

Part of the arrangement that'll have mages agree to not interfere with politics and such, if we're going with a segregated society.

[Lulupab]

Also the country giving the mages the land will have the advantage of getting their help too. It will benefit both sides.

[Mistic]

That's assuming that all mages even want to go to Tevinter or even likes them

 

But that's my point. Mage freedom doesn't mean the countries they live in are going to accept them. What about their freedom not to trade or provide food for the mages? The Circles managed all of that before. So the only options would be to become part of a state-sponsored system (same prison, different wardens), to go to a friendly haven (Tevinter, even with the risk of becoming a slave), or to conquer land for themselves, thus proving their previous critics right.

 

It depends on what it means to 'win' the mage/templar war. If it means beating the heavy plated bully into submission and dragging his ass to the table. Then the mages can compromise, once they have proven their strength. If it were possible to completely destroy the oppostition without consequences, that'd be great. But it is not. So the mages need to show that they are not cattle to be corralled into their pens when their kindly masters deem it so. They need to compromise on equal grounds as to decrease the likelihood of the Templars simply clamping after the parties' agreements.

 

So, all this war is just a very extreme form of bartering? Well, that would make sense, although it doesn't sound as heroic as others are saying.

 

Part of the arrangement that'll have mages agree to not interfere with politics and such, if we're going with a segregated society.

 

But see, nobody has invited the Secular Powers to the table yet. Why should they barter?

[Mistic]

Also the country giving the mages the land will have the advantage of getting their help too. It will benefit both sides.

 

The Andrastian countries are already having that with the current system. And what could stop them from creating their own state Circles?

[renfrees]

Also the country giving the mages the land will have the advantage of getting their help too. It will benefit both sides.

And what would their economy be like, what would they trade with other countries? Doubt they'd get fertile lands to be self-sufficient.

[Xilizhra]

But see, nobody has invited the Secular Powers to the table yet. Why should they barter?

All in good time.

[EmissaryofLies]

So, all this war is just a very extreme form of bartering? Well, that would make sense, although it doesn't sound as heroic as others are saying.

True enough. As it stands now, any compromise would be that between a parent and a child.

[Br3admax]

Why do mages deserve pieces of sovereign countries just for being mages? I'm all for them going south or west, but they shouldn't be given land just for being special little snowflakes.  

[Xilizhra]

Why do mages deserve pieces of sovereign countries just for being mages? I'm all for them going south or west, but they shouldn't be given land just for being special little snowflakes.  

If you want them to have no land of their own and live alongside everyone else, be my guest.

[Br3admax]

If you want them to have no land of their own and live alongside everyone else, be my guest.

Ugh, or, as I said, they can go where they already have their own country, Tevinter, leave Thedas proper, or reform the Circle with more appropriate governing, but giving them parts of a country where people already live because, "Hey, I'm special," is stupid.

[Xilizhra]

Ugh, or, as I said, they can go where they already have their own country, Tevinter, leave Thedas proper, or reform the Circle with more appropriate governing, but giving them parts of a country where people already live because, "Hey, I'm special," is stupid.

Er, they already have parts of the country designated for them due to specialness.

[Lulupab]

Ugh, or, as I said, they can go where they already have their own country, Tevinter, leave Thedas proper, or reform the Circle with more appropriate governing, but giving them parts of a country where people already live because, "Hey, I'm special," is stupid.

 

I don't see how mages being "special" is less stupid than nobles being special. Noble blood is just a label and doesn't exist whereas mages are actually special. That said in the case that it happens there is absolutely nothing wrong with Mageocracy as long as slavery is not involved. Just putting it out there.

[Mistic]

If you want them to have no land of their own and live alongside everyone else, be my guest.

 

But what if the sovereign countries don't want them living alongside everyone else?

[TheKomandorShepard]

I don't see how mages being "special" is less stupid than nobles being special. Noble blood is just a label and doesn't exist whereas mages are actually special. That said in the case that it happens there is absolutely nothing wrong with Mageocracy as long as slavery is not involved. Just putting it out there.

 

Yeah keep dreaming mages have personal power if they will gain political power they will can keep it and use to do what they like and considering human nature it won't be nice see tevinter there is good reason why mages after getting in their hands freedom ends creating tevinter twice as far any mage system ended like that or goes toward that.  

[Xilizhra]

But what if the sovereign countries don't want them living alongside everyone else?

Well, I guess they've got to have parceled-off sections of land, then, don't they?

[Dean_the_Young]

Wait a minute. Doesn't compromise imply that both parties have a power in common? As in they are both equally powerful or at least close. Why would anyone compromise with the mages when the Chantry holds all the cards?

 

 

Since this has never been true in history, why would it be true in Thedas?

 

Most compromises are between groups of unequal power. The basis of compromise is rarely relative power, but convenience/advantage at the time: when making a deal is worth more than not making a deal.

 

The reason why this occurs is because groups with power are still composed of people, and people's views change over time. What the Chantry of a thousand years ago thought was necessary and what the Divine of today feels is necessary are two different things- hence why the Divine of today was willing to change the system to the benefit of the mages. In a sense, a thousand years of good behavior (more than 'asking nicely', but avoiding the crisis of the past) has overcome thousands of years of atrocities before it and convinced influential people that changes are allowable.

 

 

Are the mages going to ask nicely? In a thousand years I've no reason to believe that such a tactic had not been tried. And lets say that they do reach a 'compromise', how long before someone like Meredith or Lambert stomps all over it and does what they please? The mages are not getting anything worthwhile without fighting for it. Freedom and equality are not won with strongly worded letters. Fiona understood this.

 

 

If you look at history, you'll find far more failed violent revolutions than successful, and you'll find that peaceful changes are constantly occurring.

 

Nothing you post is really a deal-breaker towards compromises, since it applies regardless of what the mages or Templars or anyone else does. How long before -insert here- stomps them? Revolting doesn't prevent that, it invites it, and even a successful revolt doesn't prevent a future -insert conqueror here- from conquering them in the future. If you really want to get to it, the Templars have the same right of not trusting mages to keep to a compromise- ie, what the Circle actually is. Eventually someone like Fiona or Anders came and broke a compromise solution that stood for far longer than western liberalism has existed.

 

 

What Fiona understands is debatable, since Fiona didn't even enter into a revolt with a plan or strategy to win it. That does not speak well of her competence or understanding of the situation.

 

And of course some mages are going to be against fighting. Not every slave wants to be free, so should the others simply sit still and take what's given to them, no matter how bad it gets? Libertarians are a big fraternity as well, as you said. And judging from this very thread, I do believe that people think that the majority of mages are comfortable living on their knees asking for permission to play in the yard.

 

 

 

Mages don't live on their knees- if anything, they are the armchair revolutionaries of Thedas who have come from a life of significant restriction but immense privilege that they don't even recognize.

 

Sort of like how Anders compares the Circles to slavery- it's not, and in making the comparison he illustrates the limits of his knowledge and perspective.

[Dean_the_Young]

Part of the arrangement that'll have mages agree to not interfere with politics and such, if we're going with a segregated society.

 

Why should anyone who is concerned the mages would illegally interfere with politics be appeased by an agreement banning it?