503 réponses à ce sujet

[Br3admax]

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

No, they have institutions designated for controlling them. They have no power, they have no control, it is no where near similar to giving them a country.

[Xilizhra]

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

If the same laws are in place to prevent that as they are now, just with a different party agreeing to them, would that not be enough?

 

 

No, they have institutions designated for controlling them. They have no power, they have no control, it is no where near similar to giving them a country.

And therein lies the problem. You're saying, then, that it would damage the ego of the thrones if the land was being managed by mages themselves, rather than the Chantry?

[Mistic]

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

 

Again, why should any state, especially a feudal one, give land to the mages, parceled-off or not? Having brokered an agreement with the Chantry alone means nothing if the rest of the countries don't want to play.

 

That's also the power of the Chantry. You can take its Circles, its Templars, its Seekers, but nations defer to it because their subjects are the faithful. Countries may negotiate with the Chantry, but not with mages or templars alone. In fact, in the preview of The Masked Empire, both Gaspard and Celene were already toying with the idea of marching against those two groups if they start doing something stupid.

 

That's the kind of problems you have to think through when you are waging this kind of revolution. Anders and Fiona didn't seem to take that into account. Lambert himself lampshades it at the end of Asunder, when thinks about starving out the mages in Andoral's Reach. He at least was betting his cause on a swift punishment on the Mages before things escalate, and then the Chantry choosing a new Divine more eager to work things his way. Naive? Oh, yes, definitely, but at least he has a clear idea of his strategy.

[Br3admax]

 

And therein lies the problem. You're saying, then, that it would damage the ego of the thrones if the land was being managed by mages themselves, rather than the Chantry?

No. I'm saying the mages have no right to rule any part of a country that is already ruled by another. There is no reason to give them such power, and there is no reason that anyone should be asked to. 

[Dean_the_Young]

If the same laws are in place to prevent that as they are now, just with a different party agreeing to them, would that not be enough?

 

Not when the party being held to the law is now also responsible for enforcing it. That is a system of voluntary compliance of withholding harm- which is, at its best, a form of black mail.

 

'Give us a concession and we won't hurt your interests.'

 

 

 

 

 

 

And therein lies the problem. You're saying, then, that it would damage the ego of the thrones if the land was being managed by mages themselves, rather than the Chantry?

 

 

The better question would be 'why make the mages a landed aristocracy enclave?'

[EmissaryofLies]

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.

I disagree. The circle systems might have been a compromise in the past. They are not now. Which is precisely my point on the entire issue. Wait a minute, wasn't Lambert contemplating on murdering Justinia? Not to mention her unpopluarity among her own people. She comes across as the Divine almost entirely in title alone. Very shaky ground for any long lasting peaceful compromise to come to fruition. Temporary compromises are not acceptable and is not what I'm referring to when I use the term.
 
 

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.

The circle is not a compromise, not anymore anyway. The solution benefits the mundanes as a whole, the same cannot be said for the mages. Hence it is not an absolute solution nor the best solution for the mages while it is for the non-mages. In order for compromise to work, both parties need to respect each other. The templars do not respect the mages and have and will continue to stomp all over their temporary priveleges, if they're lucky enough to have them. No, both parties need to revolutionize what that term means in their particular context.
 
 

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.
 
 
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.

The immense privelege of being torn apart by templar blades in an annulment? Or locked up in a tower for the entirety of their lives? Significant restriction doesn't describe the half of it. Where you see priveleges I see creature comforts.

It is slavery. The templars/Chantry have ultimate authority, power of life or death over the mages. The mages have no recourse. They do what they are told or they face the consequences.

[Xilizhra]

Again, why should any state, especially a feudal one, give land to the mages, parceled-off or not? Having brokered an agreement with the Chantry alone means nothing if the rest of the countries don't want to play.

 

That's also the power of the Chantry. You can take its Circles, its Templars, its Seekers, but nations defer to it because their subjects are the faithful. Countries may negotiate with the Chantry, but not with mages or templars alone. In fact, in the preview of The Masked Empire, both Gaspard and Celene were already toying with the idea of marching against those two groups if they start doing something stupid.

 

That's the kind of problems you have to think through when you are waging this kind of revolution. Anders and Fiona didn't seem to take that into account. Lambert himself lampshades it at the end of Asunder, when thinks about starving out the mages in Andoral's Reach. He at least was betting his cause on a swift punishment on the Mages before things escalate, and then the Chantry choosing a new Divine more eager to work things his way. Naive? Oh, yes, definitely, but at least he has a clear idea of his strategy.

If need be, we can enter a new negotiation that will enable mages to join the Chantry's own government as priests and higher. For specifics on other negotiation policies, we'll really need to see DAI itself. And "we'll really need to see DAI itself" holds true for basically every possible plan to work things out better for the mages.

[Aimi]

That's the kind of problems you have to think through when you are waging this kind of revolution. Anders and Fiona didn't seem to take that into account. Lambert himself lampshades it at the end of Asunder, when thinks about starving out the mages in Andoral's Reach. He at least was betting his cause on a swift punishment on the Mages before things escalate, and then the Chantry choosing a new Divine more eager to work things his way. Naive? Oh, yes, definitely, but at least he has a clear idea of his strategy.

 

In 1918, the German general Erich Ludendorff was working on the final offensive of the First World War, planning to destroy the British Expeditionary Force to compel the Entente powers to make peace. One of his subordinates brought up the fairly salient objection that Ludendorff only made tactical plans: he was well prepared for individual battles, but had no idea about how the campaign itself might turn out. The subordinate suggested that the General Staff work up a plan of operations - of connected battles, each supporting the other in an overall plan of campaign.

 

Ludendorff's response was legendary. "Operations?" he said. "I object to the word 'operations'. We'll just blow a hole in the middle. The rest will follow of its own accord."

 

When the German army mounted Ludendorff's offensive, they did a great job of blowing a hole in the middle. But because they had no operational plan, the Germans spent their resources on useless objectives and frittered away their offensive power by striking into Entente operational depth. The Germans got devilishly close to winning the war, but Ludendorff's offensive stalled, the Entente powers counterattacked, and eight months later Germany was suing for peace.

 

That's the sense that I've gotten from the mage revolutionaries. They have no plan. They seem to think that if they strike out against those they believe to be their oppressors, they will succeed. Step One: bomb the Kirkwall Chantry. Step Two: secede from the religious hierarchy. Step Three: ??? Step Four: Profit. 

 

What they don't seem to realize - or what many of them don't seem to realize - is that there are immense costs to acting like that. History is, first and foremost, a story of irony, of the Law of Unintended Consequences. By embarking on a path of violence, the mage Libertarians and their supporters have given their enemies the perfect excuse for massacring them as a threat to civilization. Even if they do succeed, the cost will likely be astronomical.

[Xilizhra]

That's the sense that I've gotten from the mage revolutionaries. They have no plan. They seem to think that if they strike out against those they believe to be their oppressors, they will succeed. Step One: bomb the Kirkwall Chantry. Step Two: secede from the religious hierarchy. Step Three: ??? Step Four: Profit.

The first part was actually not their plan. Truth be told, things have actually gone better than what one may have expected, with the templars completely throwing away a chance at legitimacy by leaving the Chantry themselves, creating what might be a relatively even playing field between the two factions in terms of public opinion and, judging by the Red Templars, leading to schism even within their renegade foes.

[EmissaryofLies]

For those so against the mages in Dragon Age, what would you do with them in the current timeline?

[Mistic]

Ludendorff's response was legendary. "Operations?" he said. "I object to the word 'operations'. We'll just blow a hole in the middle. The rest will follow of its own accord."

 

Ah, I love history. Thanks for bringing up these examples!

 

Yes, I would put the mages in that cathegory. Of course, I'd also place Lambert in another First World War example: the Schlieffen plan. A very ambitious plan to defeat both France and Russia, with too many loopholes and underestimation of the other actors involved to really work. Lambert also thinks that he can solve things by defeating the mages quickly and then the Chantry would acquiesce to his position. Of course, if Orlais hadn't entered a civil war, the empire's armies would be already marching against both rebel groups.

 

And these things make me realize that the Inquisition is going to have it difficult, yet has a better position than mages or templars. First, its cause is much more general and can attract more people ("serve the Inquisition and save the world from certain world destruction, not minor-destruction-aggravated-by-propaganda!"). Second, it has armies and soon lands. Third, it will probably have moral authority after the world is saved.

 

Of course, I guess it will depend on the player if the Inquisition appeals to force or appeals to popularity, or both. The dilemma about saving the keep or saving the village in the demo is a good example of that.

[EmissaryofLies]

Everything would be so much easier if the mages would simply submit and do what we say! Their soft cushy lives, never having to work for anything. Do they not understand that the meaning of life is to eat, sleep and ****? Do they not understand that the only things that they should aspire for our trendy robes, softer pillows, loftier beds?

[Master Warder Z_]

Everything would be so much easier if the mages would simply submit and do what we say! Their soft cushy lives, never having to work for anything. Do they not understand that the meaning of life is to eat, sleep and ****? Do they not understand that the only things that they should aspire for our trendy robes, softer pillows, loftier beds?

 

It beats the alternatives that already exist within Thedas.

 

Or do you think most mages would survive in the Imperium?

 

A handful certainly, but that place culls the weak like a scythe through grain.

 

I'm certain most mages would thank you for their freedom and promptly be dead within the first year there.

[Lulupab]

Also we are not in FIona's thought. Thinking she didn't know what she was doing is ignorant. The postmodern novels no longer have omniscient narrators. You cannot claim anything about anyone's thought unless its deliberately mentioned in the story. That's what makes them great.

[Mistic]

Also we are not in FIona's thought. Thinking she didn't know what she was doing is ignorant. The postmodern novels no longer have omniscient narrators. You cannot claim anything about anyone's thought unless its deliberately mentioned in the story. That's what makes them great.

 

That's right. However, we do know Lambert's thoughts and, although too optimistic, his plan is not far-fetched. I can give Fiona the benefit of the doubt, but it's just that, a doubt.

 

After reading The Masked Empire's preview, I've realized that this mage-templar discussion is too narrow in its scope. When other actors start appearing, questions and answers can change radically, because neither templars nor mages live in a vacuum.

[EmissaryofLies]

It beats the alternatives that already exist within Thedas.

 

Or do you think most mages would survive in the Imperium?

 

A handful certainly, but that place culls the weak like a scythe through grain.

 

I'm certain most mages would thank you for their freedom and promptly be dead within the first year there.

 

Freedom isn't something to be concerned with.

What is of concern are the new robes that have been brought to the circle. What is of concern is spaghetti Tuesday on a Wednesday. What concerns mages, are the filing of their nails. What is of paramount importance is the new model of bunk bed. That is what concerns us. For it is the meaning of life.

[Xilizhra]

It beats the alternatives that already exist within Thedas.

 

Or do you think most mages would survive in the Imperium?

 

A handful certainly, but that place culls the weak like a scythe through grain.

 

I'm certain most mages would thank you for their freedom and promptly be dead within the first year there.

The Harrowing already does that elsewhere.

[LobselVith8]

Everything would be so much easier if the mages would simply submit and do what we say! Their soft cushy lives, never having to work for anything. Do they not understand that the meaning of life is to eat, sleep and ****? Do they not understand that the only things that they should aspire for our trendy robes, softer pillows, loftier beds?

 

Some people are simply willing to risk death to be free of the Chantry controlled Circle, even if it means their freedom: "Adain of Starkhaven escaped from the Circle of the Magi in the winter of 8:76 Blessed, the coldest winter that the Free Marches had seen in decades. He decided that it was better to die a free man than remain a servant to the Chantry and broke out of the Circle's stronghold, fleeing into an unforgiving blizzard."

[EmissaryofLies]

I don't understand.
 

 

The circle system is full of rainbows and sunshine. How could anyone ever even think of leaving? All of their needs are taken care of! Because that's all that life is. Satisfying very basic needs and playing with toys!

[Xilizhra]

Some people are simply willing to risk death to be free of the Chantry controlled Circle, even if it means their freedom: "Adain of Starkhaven escaped from the Circle of the Magi in the winter of 8:76 Blessed, the coldest winter that the Free Marches had seen in decades. He decided that it was better to die a free man than remain a servant to the Chantry and broke out of the Circle's stronghold, fleeing into an unforgiving blizzard."

Amusingly enough, he's also an example of a blood mage who never went bad.

[Aimi]

The first part was actually not their plan. Truth be told, things have actually gone better than what one may have expected, with the templars completely throwing away a chance at legitimacy by leaving the Chantry themselves, creating what might be a relatively even playing field between the two factions in terms of public opinion and, judging by the Red Templars, leading to schism even within their renegade foes.

True, nobody told Anders to become a terrorist. That's fair. So Fiona and the rest had even less of a plan. That doesn't make them look any better.

And all of the 'advantages' you bring up for the rebellious mages stem chiefly from errors - or potential errors - that some of their enemies have committed. That's...not particularly relevant. The issue with the mages is dominated by the 'what next' factor. Okay, so they've decided to declare independence from the Circles...what next? Oh, look, some of their enemies won't be able to marshal together to kill them as quickly as they might otherwise have done! What good does that do the cause of mage independence? All it does is allow the Libertarians some more time to stand around with their thumbs up their butts.

They need positive action in order to have any chance of success, but it's not clear what form that positive action is even supposed to take.

Ah, I love history. Thanks for bringing up these examples!
 
Yes, I would put the mages in that cathegory. Of course, I'd also place Lambert in another First World War example: the Schlieffen plan. A very ambitious plan to defeat both France and Russia, with too many loopholes and underestimation of the other actors involved to really work. Lambert also thinks that he can solve things by defeating the mages quickly and then the Chantry would acquiesce to his position. Of course, if Orlais hadn't entered a civil war, the empire's armies would be already marching against both rebel groups.
 
And these things make me realize that the Inquisition is going to have it difficult, yet has a better position than mages or templars. First, its cause is much more general and can attract more people ("serve the Inquisition and save the world from certain world destruction, not minor-destruction-aggravated-by-propaganda!"). Second, it has armies and soon lands. Third, it will probably have moral authority after the world is saved.
 
Of course, I guess it will depend on the player if the Inquisition appeals to force or appeals to popularity, or both. The dilemma about saving the keep or saving the village in the demo is a good example of that.

 
Well, the so-called Schlieffen plan didn't really work that way. The German General Staff - correctly - took the hostility of France, Russia, and Britain together as being a given of any potential conflict. In that circumstance, Germany's chances for success were maximized by aggressive risk-taking to attempt to either defeat its enemies in detail or at least to achieve some sort of useful basis for further operations. It's also hard to argue with the specific mechanics of the war plan, which massed troops where they needed to be rapidly and provided the preconditions for victorious battle.
 
Where the German army - or specific German military leaders - committed its most serious errors was in subsequent operations. That's not down to the war plan; you can't fight a war purely from a script, because enemy leaders have minds of their own and because battles are intrinsically unpredictable events. The German military understood that as well as anybody, which is why, contrary to the beliefs of many earlier historians (and a great deal of modern pop-historians) the General Staff's war plan did not provide such a script. When the German army lost the Battle of the Marne, it was not the fault of the prewar troop-deployment plan. 
 
There's an incredible amount of recent historiography about this, chiefly motivated by discoveries published by Terence Zuber about fifteen years ago and modified by endless debates since then - if you want to familiarize yourself with it. The arguments have since degraded to Zuber and the likes of Terence Holmes sniping at each other in articles published in the journal War in History, but some of the conclusions, especially the early ones, are highly interesting.
 
As far as Lambert goes...well, I'm not sure. I don't honestly remember that much about the Seekers' objectives and plan, compared with the rebel mages.

[Xilizhra]

True, nobody told Anders to become a terrorist. That's fair. So Fiona and the rest had even less of a plan. That doesn't make them look any better.

And all of the 'advantages' you bring up for the rebellious mages stem chiefly from errors - or potential errors - that some of their enemies have committed. That's...not particularly relevant. The issue with the mages is dominated by the 'what next' factor. Okay, so they've decided to declare independence from the Circles...what next? Oh, look, some of their enemies won't be able to marshal together to kill them as quickly as they might otherwise have done! What good does that do the cause of mage independence? All it does is allow the Libertarians some more time to stand around with their thumbs up their butts.

They need positive action in order to have any chance of success, but it's not clear what form that positive action is even supposed to take.

Question: do we know they have no military plan? Or does the fact that Fiona's role in Inquisition was quite small and never viewpoint mean that she might have one that hasn't yet been spoken about?

[Mistic]

Well, the so-called Schlieffen plan didn't really work that way. The German General Staff - correctly - took the hostility of France, Russia, and Britain together as being a given of any potential conflict. In that circumstance, Germany's chances for success were maximized by aggressive risk-taking to attempt to either defeat its enemies in detail or at least to achieve some sort of useful basis for further operations. It's also hard to argue with the specific mechanics of the war plan, which massed troops where they needed to be rapidly and provided the preconditions for victorious battle.
 
Where the German army - or specific German military leaders - committed its most serious errors was in subsequent operations. That's not down to the war plan; you can't fight a war purely from a script, because enemy leaders have minds of their own and because battles are intrinsically unpredictable events. The German military understood that as well as anybody, which is why, contrary to the beliefs of many earlier historians (and a great deal of modern pop-historians) the General Staff's war plan did not provide such a script. When the German army lost the Battle of the Marne, it was not the fault of the prewar troop-deployment plan.

 

Fascinating stuff. Still, even if the famous Schlieffen plan was just a draft instead of the real deal, and that the Germans managed to set the correct conditions for a possible victory, the matter remains that they underestimated their enemies' response, or better said, the speed of their enemies' response. Waging a war on two fronts trusting that you will manage a quick victory in one of them before the enemy in the other side can react is a disaster waiting to happen. Ironically, in the end they won the Russian front but the French front became a muddy agony.

 

As far as Lambert goes...well, I'm not sure. I don't honestly remember that much about the Seekers' objectives and plan, compared with the rebel mages.

 

His first step was to arrange a meeting with the largest number of Knight-Commanders he could, what he did. Then, the plan was to assemble an army and march towards Andoral's Reach in three days, since they knew the mages were having their conclave there. If battle was impossible, the idea was to starve out the mages there.

 

Lambert chose to antagonize the Divine trusting she couldn't do anything to oppose him. By that time, the Orlesian Civil War had already begun, and Lambert doubted the Divine would try to appeal to the masses, since "after ages of teaching them mages were to be feared and contained" people wouldn't rise to defend the mages. By the time he returned victorious, he expected the Chantry to elect a new Divine willing to sign a new accord with Seekers and Templars (like the Nevarran Accord with the Inquisition) and replace the Circles with another institution.

 

Ok, not the best plan around, because it relies too much on things going according to his wishes. Gambling on a quick victory against the mages while trusting nobody else is going to rise to defend them or the Chantry, while expecting that the upcoming negotiations will be favorable to him, those are the reasons I compared Lambert's plan to the Schlieffen plan.

[Dean_the_Young]

I disagree. The circle systems might have been a compromise in the past. They are not now. Which is precisely my point on the entire issue. Wait a minute, wasn't Lambert contemplating on murdering Justinia? Not to mention her unpopluarity among her own people. She comes across as the Divine almost entirely in title alone. Very shaky ground for any long lasting peaceful compromise to come to fruition. Temporary compromises are not acceptable and is not what I'm referring to when I use the term.
 
 
The circle is not a compromise, not anymore anyway. The solution benefits the mundanes as a whole, the same cannot be said for the mages. Hence it is not an absolute solution nor the best solution for the mages while it is for the non-mages. In order for compromise to work, both parties need to respect each other. The templars do not respect the mages and have and will continue to stomp all over their temporary priveleges, if they're lucky enough to have them. No, both parties need to revolutionize what that term means in their particular context.
 

 

The fact that you cease deeming it a compromise is rather the problem with compromises of systemic practices: eventually, someone else will deem the original reasons invalid and not care, and then ignore the nature or basis of previous concessions. Benefits and concessions are taken for granted and considered expectations rather than, well, compromises.

 

It's rather hard to have a meaningful negotiation with the types of people who constantly push for more without regard to what has already been given, and the temporary nature of all achievements and gains.

 

 

 

 

The immense privelege of being torn apart by templar blades in an annulment? Or locked up in a tower for the entirety of their lives? Significant restriction doesn't describe the half of it. Where you see priveleges I see creature comforts.

 

 

Creature comforts are privileges. Given that Annulments are rare and being locked in a tower for life is a proven exaggeration, you're really just demonstrating the flaws of people who don't understand the nature of the situation they're in.

 

It is slavery. The templars/Chantry have ultimate authority, power of life or death over the mages. The mages have no recourse. They do what they are told or they face the consequences.

 

 

The power of life or death over someone isn't slavery. It's simply the power of life or death: any person with a gun nearby you has the same.

 

Slavery is a particular sort of relationship whose primary characterization is two things: the status of a person as property and being required to work for the profit of the owner. Mages are neither: they are not property, they are not forced to work, and the work they do perform goes to the Circle and not the Chantry.

 

The mages do have recourses to Templar abuses: the system can be deemed insufficient or outright broken, but it does exist. Mages do have rights against the Templars, do have a non-Templar authority to appeal to, and are not under martial law and forced to obey any Templar demand.

[Dean_the_Young]

The first part was actually not their plan. Truth be told, things have actually gone better than what one may have expected, with the templars completely throwing away a chance at legitimacy by leaving the Chantry themselves, creating what might be a relatively even playing field between the two factions in terms of public opinion and, judging by the Red Templars, leading to schism even within their renegade foes.

 

It might not be the plan they intended, but it is the plan they fell in on. The mages making rebellion can not be separated from the context that led to it- which itself is publicly kicked off by the Kirwall Chantry.

 

That the rest of the mages found themselves at step one, and still decided on step two without a plan for step three... well, that's entirely on them. You don't get to choose your starting context, but you are responsible for how you carry it forward.