My greater good more or less amounts to "help innocents survive, bring tyrannical systems down; try to bring down tyrannical systems with minimal loss to innocents."
Tyrannical systems include, but not limited to:
- demonic invasion
- alienage system
- aggressive Templars
- oppressive blood mages
- current Circle system
- Imperial conquest (Orlais and Tevinter)
- political abuse of the Chant
- enforcement of the Qun
- Dwarven caste system
- any and all slavery
- criminal underworld
There is so much I don't know about the game. Assuming we're talking about first PT (which is usually canon for me, because it's where the whole insertion happens, other PT are only to explore alternatives and/or to see how awesome mages are/how hardcore this game really is).
Anyway... if every mage I enocounter is a jerk with Anders's mindset (let's kill everyone who threatens the ultimate goal - mages freedom), I'll probably end up killing said mages (yes, playing a mage myself). If PC is somehow involved in politics and Celene is half-witted idealist who cannot see bare truth before her, I'll support someone else. If my companions try to persuade me w/o any logical arguments on going left, I'll probably go right. If a demon offers my PC a chance to gain power I probably won't care if there is a catch and try to kill it afterwards 
My concept of individual liberty is people being free to try and do as they please with their own lives, so long as they do not actively interfere with anothers right to do so. That means murder, theft, slavery and sexual assualt are all still illegal.
On mages, I have no restrictions specific to mages. It would be illegal for anyone to control the mind of another it just so happens that blood magic is the easiest way to go about that. It would technically be legal for a person to become an abomination, but they tend to go crazy and start killing everyone or start trying to forcfully control others, so they would likely be punished for those other crimes. As to the specified policing, I'm talking about a group of people trained and equiped to fight mages and abominations because I don't think the guys running down cutpurses in the market square are quite up to the job.
Regarding elves, I said ending the de jure oppression not the de facto. The elves should be allowed to have weapons, but if a smith refuses to sell to an elf I'm not going to put a sword to his throat.
Now the Dwarves, I said ending the state sponsored caste system, the caste symstem itself would very likely remain in effect. In the state caste system it is a crime to impersonate another caste, in a de facto caste system a servant could try and become a smith but customers would be few and far between and they would likely fail. A noble could try and become a servant but who would hire them. The difference is they wouldn't be criminals for trying. Also this would allow for legal protection for casteless, under the state sponsored caste system any dwarf with a caste could kill a casteless without fear of legal repercussion.
I fail to see how removing laws that infringe the individual liberty of one would violate the individual liberty of another.
It's pretty simple matter of consequences and build up to a harm: your individual liberty can lead to threats to me as a natural, if not initially direct, consequence, of allowing you to reach the point at which you can do them. Many laws and restrictions to liberty are precautionary in measure, to limit what you can do before you do it. Preventative, rather than punitive in intent and approach: you may or may not be allowed to own a gun, for example, but you can not create a private army even if you haven't done anything wrong- yet.
I could go in a variety of the fields this is done in even in the most liberal of democracies. In fact, well meaning democracies are replete with the trend of placing restrictions on individuals in the name of greater good. It just so happens that authoritarian systems are often worse in various regards.
As it is, your goal is little more than appeal for everyone to get alone and rely on them to not hurt anyone. To anyone in Thedas, that might sound nice but it would also be naive: Thedas has dangers aplenty, and your 'greater good' would only address them after they have harmed people. Again. While relying on those same people and actors to be the primary enforcers of your views. Which they don't hold now, nor are you giving them any reason to wish to hold short of self-preservation in the face of your force of arms threatening them into compliance.
Hell, you don't even have a meaningful plan of what you want, how to get there, or a measure of enduring success. Formal discrimination is bad, informal discrimination to the same effect is okay except when it isn't (and we won't talk about when your coercive enforcement loses power), and it won't even be a crime to be an walking around as a WMD who failed (or passed) an insanity check.
You may view yourself as some great progressive herald of freedom and liberalism, but you'll be just another self-righteous military leader with an army trying to engineer a better society in the name of giving people a choice of how they want to live in their own society while ignoring and stomping all over things they already accept as legitimate or even desirable in their own society.
Yeah... I wonder if you could pick five times from history that sort of approach even worked.
My greater good more or less amounts to "help innocents survive, bring tyrannical systems down; try to bring down tyrannical systems with minimal loss to innocents."
Tyrannical systems include, but not limited to:
- demonic invasion
- alienage system
- aggressive Templars
- oppressive blood mages
- current Circle system
- Imperial conquest (Orlais and Tevinter)
- political abuse of the Chant
- enforcement of the Qun
- Dwarven caste system
- any and all slavery
- criminal underworld
Out of curiosity, how do you intend to tear down those oppressive systems without other oppressive systems quickly filling in the gap? Chaos and power vacuums aren't exactly the breeding ground for unoppressive systems, especially in a world where your described tyranical systems are pretty much everyone.
You'd have to be tearing down everyone faster than others could fill in- even while the act of tearing down organized societies would do little but enable the rise and expansion of the criminal underworld by default, which isn't a system you can simply tear down in the first place.
It's pretty simple matter of consequences and build up to a harm: your individual liberty can lead to threats to me as a natural, if not initially direct, consequence, of allowing you to reach the point at which you can do them. Many laws and restrictions to liberty are precautionary in measure, to limit what you can do before you do it. Preventative, rather than punitive in intent and approach: you may or may not be allowed to own a gun, for example, but you can not create a private army even if you haven't done anything wrong- yet.
I could go in a variety of the fields this is done in even in the most liberal of democracies. In fact, well meaning democracies are replete with the trend of placing restrictions on individuals in the name of greater good. It just so happens that authoritarian systems are often worse in various regards.
As it is, your goal is little more than appeal for everyone to get alone and rely on them to not hurt anyone. To anyone in Thedas, that might sound nice but it would also be naive: Thedas has dangers aplenty, and your 'greater good' would only address them after they have harmed people. Again. While relying on those same people and actors to be the primary enforcers of your views. Which they don't hold now, nor are you giving them any reason to wish to hold short of self-preservation in the face of your force of arms threatening them into compliance.
Hell, you don't even have a meaningful plan of what you want, how to get there, or a measure of enduring success. Formal discrimination is bad, informal discrimination to the same effect is okay except when it isn't (and we won't talk about when your coercive enforcement loses power), and it won't even be a crime to be an walking around as a WMD who failed (or passed) an insanity check.
You may view yourself as some great progressive herald of freedom and liberalism, but you'll be just another self-righteous military leader with an army trying to engineer a better society in the name of giving people a choice of how they want to live in their own society while ignoring and stomping all over things they already accept as legitimate or even desirable in their own society.
Yeah... I wonder if you could pick five times from history that sort of approach even worked.
Please go back and read my OP and response to your OP, hopefully you will notice that I never said anything about forcing these changes but that they are goals my Inquisitor would work towards in pursuit of his greater good.
As to what I want, I don't want to make Thedas' societies better only freer.
Now on how to get there, The mage-templar war is going on and the inquisition may need to settle that dispute in the course of acheiving its mission. If that is the case my inquisitor would try to achieve as much of my stated goal of mage self-determination as possible during the course of perfoming his duties. Also there is a possible elven rebellion in conjuction with the Orlesian civil war which may allow for the realizing of some my stated goal of ending the de jure oppression of elves. The goal of ending the de jure dwarven caste system is likely unachievable, at least by my Inquisitor but if an opportunity presents itself he would try to affect that particular change.
/Fable
This is my Thedas.
Its cities will bow to my law or they will burn.
its mountains will bend to my will or they will fall.
This is my Thedas.
Its people will do as I say or they will die.
Its future will be as I decree or it will end.
I know what must be done, and nothing will stand in my way
This is my Thedas and I will see it destroyed before the mages surrender.
/evil laugh
/Fable
**In all seriousness there is not anything that my Inquisitor will not do in order to see the mages free or in dramatically better standing. After a thousand years, any price is worth paying. If the bigots cannot bring themselves to agree to reasonable conditions, they will burn, every last one of them.**
And folks wonder why i am Pro Templar...
I highly doubt that anyone wonders that, Warder. You've made your position abundantly clear as I understand it. Mages imprisoned indefinitely, and if things gradually grow worse for them(which seems to be the case since the inception of the circle system) it is justified because it keeps the Andrastian mundanes safe. Am I correct?
I highly doubt that anyone wonders that, Warder. You've made your position abundantly clear as I understand it. Mages imprisoned indefinitely, and if things gradually grow worse for them(which seems to be the case since the inception of the circle system) it is justified because it keeps the Andrastian mundanes safe. Am I correct?
One using that slur is insulting, i don't label mages "Demon Worshipers, Blight Bringers" Or any such tosh, i label them mages ironically enough, seems you could do the same for normal people.
And imprisoned in a gilded cage where they are only given a taste of mortality when they actually get too stupid to remember why they are there, yes, and it keeps safer merely Andrastians, although i'd be lying if they weren't the majority, but given they are the majority in Thedas...that really isn't saying much is it? 
Please go back and read my OP and response to your OP, hopefully you will notice that I never said anything about forcing these changes but that they are goals my Inquisitor would work towards in pursuit of his greater good.
I did read your OP, hence why I asked the questions you still have yet to answer. Your goal is significant social changes at institutional levels: that only comes from an ability to enforce your views (the position of leader of the Inquisition), to convince people to change them (ideological change), or a mixture of both.
But you have laid out no ideology or reason why people should embrace those changes. You have described what you want people to do, but not why they should agree why they should adopt your view. Which, if achieving them is your goal, leaves enforcing them and preventing them from defying you.
Of course, if not achieving them is acceptable, not changing people's views and not forcing them to change their actions will simply mean you are impotent and will fail.
As to what I want, I don't want to make Thedas' societies better only freer.
Where is the virtue about a freer society if it's worse? Somalia is very free: a libertarian paradise free from government coercion, really. It also is one of the worst places in the world to live.
There's still the point about an ideology of individual freedom chaffing at the idea of having restrictions imposed on that individual freedom: who are you to say what I can or can not do even if it affects others? That's imposing limits on my freedoms.
Now on how to get there, The mage-templar war is going on and the inquisition may need to settle that dispute in the course of acheiving its mission. If that is the case my inquisitor would try to achieve as much of my stated goal of mage self-determination as possible during the course of perfoming his duties. Also there is a possible elven rebellion in conjuction with the Orlesian civil war which may allow for the realizing of some my stated goal of ending the de jure oppression of elves. The goal of ending the de jure dwarven caste system is likely unachievable, at least by my Inquisitor but if an opportunity presents itself he would try to affect that particular change.
If a goal is a voluntary side-quest, it's not a goal: it's a preference.
What you're describing here is simply partaking a preference if the opportunity arises- though maybe not, if the opportunity itself relies on some other compromise of values.
There's a label for people like that, and it's fair-weather reformer.
One using that slur is insulting, i don't label mages "Demon Worshipers, Blight Bringers" Or any such tosh, i label them mages ironically enough, seems you could do the same for normal people.
And imprisoned in a gilded cage where they are only given a taste of mortality when they actually get too stupid to remember why they are there, yes, and it keeps safer merely Andrastians, although i'd be lying if they weren't the majority, but given they are the majority in Thedas...that really isn't saying much is it?
Doesn't really matter what you call them as you slaughter them inside of an annulment or keep them imprisoned for existing, does it? But I digress, while they continue to blame mages for everything under the sun I will deem it only appropriate to refer to the Andrastians as they truly are 'mundane', would you prefer barbarian? How about flintbanger, a personal favorite of mine?
Good to see that I did not mistake your position, and as always we can continue to disagree 
.
I highly doubt that anyone wonders that, Warder. You've made your position abundantly clear as I understand it. Mages imprisoned indefinitely, and if things gradually grow worse for them(which seems to be the case since the inception of the circle system) it is justified because it keeps the Andrastian mundanes safe. Am I correct?
If it makes you feel better, he'd (probably) do the same to mundanes if they posed a similar threat- say as plague carriers put into quarantine, or had chemical weapons strapped onto their backs that couldn't be removed and had triggers linked to mental state.
I don't think he's ever opposed the idea or efforts for reform for the benefits, either. Or for working for a way to remove or mitigate the threat disrepency so that the Circle wouldn't be needed.
If it makes you feel better, he'd (probably) do the same to mundanes if they posed a similar threat- say as plague carriers put into quarantine, or had chemical weapons strapped onto their backs that couldn't be removed and had triggers linked to mental state.
I don't think he's ever opposed the idea or efforts for reform for the benefits, either. Or for working for a way to remove or mitigate the threat disrepency so that the Circle wouldn't be needed.
Keep in mind that, as per a previous post, he only values people as resources of the state.
Keep in mind that, as per a previous post, he only values people as resources of the state.
And?
Doesn't really matter what you call them as you slaughter them inside of an annulment or keep them imprisoned for existing, does it? But I digress, while they continue to blame mages for everything under the sun I will deem it only appropriate to refer to the Andrastians as they truly are 'mundane', would you prefer barbarian? How about flintbanger, a personal favorite of mine?
Good to see that I did not mistake your position, and as always we can continue to disagree
You say as if they are killed for speaking out of turn, as if circles were annulled for little reason.
Even Kirkwall had reasoning behind it, But i'm sure its just random abuses harped on against the mages by the majority, oh boohoo.
Suck it up and accept social responsibility already!
You're imprisoned to keep the people that don't fall pray to demons, cannot use blood magic safe and allowed to exist at the same time, better then you're ilk deserve offhandedly given what with the Darkspawn, and and Imperium and all.
Man, you don't know when to not let yourself be baited like that. For shame.
: /
Man, you don't know when to not let yourself be baited like that. For shame.
: /
Baited? No, If they wish to take subjective parcels of thought out of turn and twist it they can do that regardless, for the most part all our positions are already out in the open and stated.
I merely replied to some because it was fun to do so, you know the sole reason i actually bother with the forums? Well that and i enjoy debate occasionally, ultimately we all believe what we want to believe and as the PC we can dictate our PC morality and belief system to varying degrees.
You say as if they are killed for speaking out of turn, as if circles were annulled for little reason.
Even Kirkwall had reasoning behind it, But i'm sure its just random abuses harped on against the mages by the majority, oh boohoo.
Suck it up and accept social responsibility already!
You're imprisoned to keep the people that don't fall pray to demons, cannot use blood magic safe and allowed to exist at the same time, better then you're ilk deserve offhandedly given what with the Darkspawn, and and Imperium and all.
My point is that the Chantry hides behind a smiling face. They pretend like they're doing mages a favor outside of helping them to master their powers. They are not. They call it annulment when it is genocide, they call it tranquility when it can also be called murder or lobotomy. They call it a circle when it is nothing more than a prison. They call them holy warriors when they are nothing more glorified jailers.
You will recall how ridiculous you found my 'they weren't murdered, they were set free' claim, right? Well that's exactly how I view the Chantry and every Andrastian that supports what's done to mages(a majority). Enemies that hide behind smiling faces. They do not tell the truth and I will call them as they are.
My point is that the Chantry hides behind a smiling face. They pretend like they're doing mages a favor outside of helping them to master their powers. They are not. They call it annulment when it is genocide, they call it tranquility when it can also be called murder or lobotomy. They call it a circle when it is nothing more than a prison. They call them holy warriors when they are nothing more glorified jailers.
You will recall how ridiculous you found my 'they weren't murdered, they were set free' claim, right? Well that's exactly how I view the Chantry and every Andrastian that supports what's done to mages(a majority). Enemies that hide behind smiling faces. They do not tell the truth and I will call them as they are.
You figure you would learn to speak straight and to the point with me, Not hide behind Hyperbole and extremism.Because ultimately words like, Lobotomy, Genocide are just striking me as incorrect and inappropriate, not some trigger word you can cite to magically make me change my mind.
Annulment occurs in situations where there generally isn't a lot of wiggle room, either the circle goes or possibly a Nation goes, not much of a choice if you apply even the barest bit of social concern. Tranquility, Weakness, Criminals, Choice, Imposed, Any and all of those things bring it about. And to those within the state of it, they even seem to enjoy their lot now.
And what do you want them to say? We imprison them for the good of the world and continent? They basically do say that in not so many words
You figure you would learn to speak straight and to the point with me, Not hide behind Hyperbole and extremism.Because ultimately words like, Lobotomy, Genocide are just striking me as incorrect and inappropriate, not some trigger word you can cite to magically make me change my mind.
Annulment occurs in situations where there generally isn't a lot of wiggle room, either the circle goes or possibly a Nation goes, not much of a choice if you apply even the barest bit of social concern. Tranquility, Weakness, Criminals, Choice, Imposed, Any and all of those things bring it about. And to those within the state of it, they even seem to enjoy their lot now.
And what do you want them to say? We imprison them for the good of the world and continent? They basically do say that in not so many words
They strike you as inappropriate and incorrect because they do not serve your purpose. Kind of like when you're all too happy to throw around words like 'murder' when it so fits your claims. Even though the mercy killing of Pharamond in Asunder is exactly what he wished, you deem it murder. Just as I call an annulment a genocide. Funny that. 
Perspective is a helluva drug.
On paper, I will agree on 'Annulment'. Kirkwall proves such a claim as false however. I'd argue that Darismund is just the same. It's too bad we don't know how many Annulments of the Seventeen or Nineteen were actually legitimate i.e. the circle was completey out of control and there was absolutely no way to reset the system.
I want them to tell the truth, which they refuse to do. They'd rather hide behind their euphemisms and deluded beliefs about rights over other people that they would deem as inferior.
They strike you as inappropriate and incorrect because they do not serve your purpose. Kind of like when you're all too happy to throw around words like 'murder' when it so fits your claims. Even though the mercy killing of Pharamond in Asunder is exactly what he wished, you deem it murder. Just as I call an annulment a genocide. Funny that.
On paper, I will agree on 'Annulment'. Kirkwall proves such a claim as false however. I'd argue that Darismund is just the same. It's too bad we don't know how many Annulments of the Seventeen or Nineteen were actually legitimate i.e. the circle was completey out of control and there was absolutely no way to reset the system.
I want them to tell the truth, which they refuse to do. They'd rather hide behind their euphemisms and deluded beliefs about rights over other people that they would deem as inferior.
Did you seriously just say the killing of a tranquil to frame a senior enchanter and thus instigate a war, that was comparable to a mass killing? Yeah my friend that perspective isn't something i share.
Kirkwall,Kirkwall, Kirkwall, Figure after years of bioware mentioning it brought both sides to the stupidly extreme, people would figure it wasn't the norm, it was the exception not the rule.And the Rivain Circle was an abject lesson, they attempted to recreate the foolishness of Kirwall and attempt to rebel, and magically the Templars did what they were trained to do and people are outraged and surprised. And what do you declare "legitimate?" And given you're operating off of assumption that these annulments were "illegitimate" to begin with it seems personal views shape your belief far more then they do mine.
And Mages aren't the same, but that doesn't mean they are superior either, which given your own statements, i'd argue presents fairly compelling reasoning for the circle to remain.
Did you seriously just say the killing of a tranquil to frame a senior enchanter and thus instigate a war, that was comparable to a mass killing? Yeah my friend that perspective isn't something i share.
Kirkwall,Kirkwall, Kirkwall, Figure after years of bioware mentioning it brought both sides to the stupidly extreme, people would figure it wasn't the norm, it was the exception not the rule.And the Rivain Circle was an abject lesson, they attempted to recreate the foolishness of Kirwall and attempt to rebel, and magically the Templars did what they were trained to do and people are outraged and surprised. And what do you declare "legitimate?" And given you're operating off of assumption that these annulments were "illegitimate" to begin with it seems personal views shape your belief far more then they do mine.
And Mages aren't the same, but that doesn't mean they are superior either, which given your own statements, i'd argue presents fairly compelling reasoning for the circle to remain.
And just how many mages have died in the nineteen/seventeen annulments that may or may not have been justified, or are we just going to forget about that because they were mages? To instigate a war in which the mages finally grow a spine and want out from their oppressors? You are correct, we do not share this perspective.
Rivain, Darismund, proved that the Chantry was full of sh*t. Mages and 'Normal' people can integrate into a society. And far be it from me to question the legitimacy of an organization that would allow Kirkwall to happen in the first place, that would blame mages for original sin. And sided with the original mage killing Inquisition. It's akin to thinking that your enemy won't fight dirty even though he has a history of doing so. That's not to say that the annulments were all unjustified, of course.
The mages are superior in ability. In terms of humanity, not at all. The Andrastian Templars and Chantry are perfectly fine with viewing mages as a disease to be culled. Your peasants are fine with gathering pitch forks and going after identified mages no matter their disposition. Mages are justified in seeking alternatives to the circle system and outright obliterating it if they must.
See this is all just further cementing me to my own position, you argue Inquisition, i argue them being the ones who took the step forward and secured society for the majority against the those whom history has proven cannot be trusted. Rivian? So you think having random seers in the backwoods of a barely populated country? is comprable to having all mages, let loose free over Thedas? I think you're full of **** on that one friend.
And there is a valid credence to the belief they ARE responsible for original Sin.
Yeah keep your to mage superiority dogma, despite the fact you know there are plenty of ways normal people can compete in the same league and even exceed mages, non pc's too! I mean seriously, one templar versus a mage and we all know that outcome,
Here it would occur.
Templar: I will use my abilities to negate magic now!
Mage: oh crud i can't do the stuff that i think makes me superior to the average person!
Templar: Really doesn't make you superior then eh?
Mage: Indeed!
Templar: Well time to behead you and all.
Mage: Cheerio old chap!
Swish
Anyway while i do view the Mages as people, I don't view them as equating the same rights as people who don't present the same threat, there to me the situation demands they be locked with the circle. Which was clearly far to lax given it gave mages far to much time to ponder about rebelling.
See this is all just further cementing me to my own position, you argue Inquisition, i argue them being the ones who took the step forward and secured society for the majority against the those whom history has proven cannot be trusted. Rivian? So you think having random seers in the backwoods of a barely populated country? is comprable to having all mages, let loose free over Thedas? I think you're full of **** on that one friend.
And there is a valid credence to the belief they ARE responsible for original Sin.
Yeah keep your to mage superiority dogma, despite the fact you know there are plenty of ways normal people can compete in the same league and even exceed mages, non pc's too! I mean seriously, one templar versus a mage and we all know that outcome,
Here it would occur.
Templar: I will use my abilities to negate magic now!
Mage: oh crud i can't do the stuff that i think makes me superior to the average person!
Templar: Really doesn't make you superior then eh?
Mage: Indeed!
Templar: Well time to behead you and all.
Mage: Cheerio old chap!
Swish
Anyway while i do view the Mages as people, I don't view them as equating the same rights as people who don't present the same threat, there to me the situation demands they be locked with the circle. Which was clearly far to lax given it gave mages far to much time to ponder about rebelling.
Or, assuming that both sides are run by people with brains instead of AI that can't micromanage:
Templar: *Silence*
Mage: *runs*
Templar: *chases*
Mage: *Paralyze/Petrify when Silence wears off, blasts templar repeatedly*
It's kind of like Mage!Hawke vs. Arishok, in a way.
Or, assuming that both sides are run by people with brains instead of AI that can't micromanage:
Templar: *Silence*
Mage: *runs*
Templar: *chases*
Mage: *Paralyze/Petrify when Silence wears off, blasts templar repeatedly*
It's kind of like Mage!Hawke vs. Arishok, in a way.
If they were run by people with brain's why wouldn't the Templar simply draw and nock a bow and shoot the mage in the back when he turned to flee like a craven? Just saying, Templars are more then just swordsmen after all, they have archers as well
Retour en haut