600 réponses à ce sujet

[Mockingword]

Secular rule allows everyone to have a voice. Their own religions may be a part of what they say, but that's not entirely the point. The Chantry domination only allows one voice, their own. Secularity means not being allied with or against any particular religion. You can't take away people's perceptions based on their religion, but you can take away the laws that require them to adhere to a singular religion. That's generally what a "secular" institution does. It doesn't mean a BAN of religion. It's just the state of having no official endorsement. 

 

No, I don't really get the impression most mages are in the circle. The evidence seems to point in the entire opposite direction. What's your basis for thinking they are?

Well, they ARE in the Circle. It's just that the Circle is in charge.

 

I'm pretty sure the rebellious mages across the rest of Thedas still view themselves as a 'Circle' too. I think it's just the plurral noun for a group of mages.

 

A murder of crows. A blessing of unicorns. A circle of mages.

[Dean_the_Young]

However little is necessary for Feynriel to not comment on it in three years.

 

Why are we considering Feynriel some objective, authoritative measure on the Tevinter handling of abominations when he doesn't even comment on it one way or the other? This is taking an absence of evidence and concluding it is evidence of absence.

 

 

 

 

Although I think Tevinter would focus quite a bit on individual preventative measures, as I seriously doubt any magister would want to risk themselves too much.

 

Why?

 

Not reasons you wouldn't, mind you- reasons why people who routinely study blood magic and have serious power struggles wouldn't take risks.

[Dean_the_Young]

It doesn't really matter what they'd cry over, it matter what they could logically sustain. If they're hemorrhaging causalities to abominations, they wouldn't be able to fight off Par Vollen. It's only logical conclusion to assume they must have a pretty high amount of internal stability to not collapse as a society. 

 

What they cry over is what is considered significant. It is what leads to revolts and social upheavel and conflicts. Societies can logically sustain huge unnecessary costs- the fact that they carry on doesn't mean the costs aren't real or unavoidable. It just means that the costs are not fatal to the society (until, of course, they are- costs appreciate in time, after all).

 

If 'society isn't killed by it' was the metric we cared about, there would be no reason for anyone to support the mage rebellion. The Circles can sustain regular annullments and Templar abuses- a thousand years of history has shown that. No one is against the Templars because the system will lead to extinction, but rather over what they cry over.

[Xilizhra]

Why are we considering Feynriel some objective, authoritative measure on the Tevinter handling of abominations when he doesn't even comment on it one way or the other? This is taking an absence of evidence and concluding it is evidence of absence.

Because the main topic of his letter boils down to his saying that he sometimes understands the templar perspective; it'd be illogical for him to not mention abominations as well if they were a major issue.

 

Why?

 

Not reasons you wouldn't, mind you- reasons why people who routinely study blood magic and have serious power struggles wouldn't take risks.

Because the system of power and control in Tevinter leads me to seriously believe that losing control of their bodies and magic to demons would be considered the worst possible fate. Although I disagree that the second part of your sentence is significant, as we've seen no real correlation between use of blood magic--even demonology--and becoming an abomination.

[Dean_the_Young]

That doesn't really make sense to me. If the way they mobilize their templars works better, then there's really no reason why that couldn't be the standard internationally. They're applying the current system internationally already, so it's clearly possible to apply one system internationally.

 

But not necessarily clear to apply any given system internationally. Just because one thing does work doesn't mean another will.

 

Besides, on what grounds are we saying they mobilize their templars better? What relative effects are we measuring by- relative frequency of abominations? Relative casualties? Happiness of mages who are not slaves to other mages? Number of mages in upper levels of government?

[Dean_the_Young]

Because the main topic of his letter boils down to his saying that he sometimes understands the templar perspective; it'd be illogical for him to not mention abominations as well if they were a major issue.

 

 

Uh, sure it would- he can be talking about things he's seen from his limited experience. Which does not mean a societal overview and analysis of Tevinter.

 

That's kind of how most 'I broadened my perspective' things go- they are not inherently macro-level analysis of all issues in a system.

 

 

 

 

Because the system of power and control in Tevinter leads me to seriously believe that losing control of their bodies and magic to demons would be considered the worst possible fate. Although I disagree that the second part of your sentence is significant, as we've seen no real correlation between use of blood magic--even demonology--and becoming an abomination.

 

But we're not talking about outcome- we're talking about assuming risks which can lead to that outcome, or others. Just because you are risk-avoidant in an area doesn't mean others will be.

 

Er, and yes. Demonology has a strong correlation to making demonic pacts and giving demons opportunities to influence you towards facilitating abomination. You are actively giving the forces that want to manipulate you a means through which to manipulate you.

[Jack Druthers]

There is no such thing as good blood magic imo, The ability of one person to have the power over the actions and emotions of another cannot be excused.  Surely, that is the crux of this thread how best to find a solution. 

 

@ Dean the Young what would you suggest as a solution?

[Xilizhra]

Uh, sure it would- he can be talking about things he's seen from his limited experience. Which does not mean a societal overview and analysis of Tevinter.

 

That's kind of how most 'I broadened my perspective' things go- they are not inherently macro-level analysis of all issues in a system.

It's true that overall the evidence for abominations not being a serious problem in Tevinter is largely circumstantial... however, the evidence that abominations are a serious problem is utterly nil.

 

But we're not talking about fate- we're talking about assuming risk. Just because you are risk-avoidant in an area doesn't mean others will be.

No, but I'm led to believe that the vast majority will be in this case.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I've never gotten the impression the Qunari or Tevinter could indiviudally take over the world if not for eachother. It's not even clear what level the Tevinter and Qunari are even fighting eachother at: for the Qunari, at least, it's a limited theater conflict. The Tevinter at the height of its power couldn't keep Thedas without the Qunari around (mind you, a Blight helped). The Qunari are more ambiguous.

 

 

I think you're also mis-understanding what the concern about the abominations is. The issue isn't their frequency- it's their unpredictability and severity. A threat doesn't need to be regular to warrant serious concern: the fact that it isn't regular in many cases can increase the risk of it. Regularly occurring events can at least be prepared for- unpredictable events (who will fall, and when) are far harder to mitigate.

It doesn't really matter if it's a constant stream of small attacks or one large attack rarely, the numbers game is the same. You're locking up an entire section of the populace, so the altruistic argument hinges on evidence that the means justifies the end. The amount of causalities has to be pretty high in comparison to the people's freedom you're sacrificing, or the situation is off balance. 

 

So, the question is, what's different about the Tevinter Imperium that their population doesn't seem to be substantially suffering even with their level of freedom? None of the arguments so far seem to even really touch the question, except the one maybe that they're mobilizing their security more quickly than in the rest of Thedas, where it's centralized in the circles. Another theory is that their education is just better, since they seem to be able to even help Feynriel, if you send him. 

[Dean_the_Young]

There is no such thing as good blood magic imo, The ability of one person to have the power over the actions and emotions of another cannot be excused.  Surely, that is the crux of this thread how best to find a solution. 

 

@ Dean the Young what would you suggest as a solution?

 

For who, and for what goals?

 

There are plenty of solutions for different interests with different priorities. If you're asking for what I think will work for everyone, I don't think there is one. If you ask what I view as the best outcome overall, status quo ante bellum with reforms on both the mage and templar parts. Mages need to be less into identity politics, Templars need more empathy, Chantry needs to create a system with better checks and balances and more consideration to mental health.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

What they cry over is what is considered significant. It is what leads to revolts and social upheavel and conflicts. Societies can logically sustain huge unnecessary costs- the fact that they carry on doesn't mean the costs aren't real or unavoidable. It just means that the costs are not fatal to the society (until, of course, they are- costs appreciate in time, after all).

 

If 'society isn't killed by it' was the metric we cared about, there would be no reason for anyone to support the mage rebellion. The Circles can sustain regular annullments and Templar abuses- a thousand years of history has shown that. No one is against the Templars because the system will lead to extinction, but rather over what they cry over.

Tevinter is already constantly sustaining losses to Par Vollen. They don't have a limitless population. They encourage a structured nobility that encourage mage-heavy lines to keep breeding and producing as many mages as possible. It's not realistic to believe they're constantly losing huge numbers to abominations and not losing the war, let alone having revolts. The conclusion just doesn't make sense. They have a finite number of people. They already kill the commoners constantly THEMSELVES, for blood sacrifice. How many people do you think they can lose and have anyone left?

[Mockingword]

Rather than comparing them with Tevinter, what I want to know is how the Templars in the rest of Thedas are able to respond so promptly to the discovery of mage children (at least those that aren't hidden by their parents), reaching even the most remote areas in just a matter of days, and yet are unable to devise a system that would allow them to efficiently supervise mages in an integrated society.

 

Like, "Oh yeah, we can reach Bumhole, Anderfels by tomorrow and take your kids away, no problem. What? Set up a base of operations for the teaching and policing of local mages? Absurd!"

[Dean_the_Young]

It doesn't really matter if it's a constant stream of small attacks or one large attack rarely, the numbers game is the same. You're locking up an entire section of the populace, so the altruistic argument hinges on evidence that the means justifies the end. The amount of causalities has to be pretty high in comparison to the people's freedom you're sacrificing, or the situation is off balance.

 

Only if you think people's freedom is worth pretty high casualties. Given that Thedas doesn't even have a political concept of universal rights or liberty, why would they?

 

You don't need to be a product of the enlightenment to think 'if it saves just one more life than it hurts, it is worth it.' You do need to be a product of the enlightenment to think 'people's freedom is worth significant casualties.'
 

 

 

So, the question is, what's different about the Tevinter Imperium that their population doesn't seem to be substantially suffering even with their level of freedom? None of the arguments so far seem to even really touch the question, except the one maybe that they're mobilizing their security more quickly than in the rest of Thedas, where it's centralized in the circles. Another theory is that their education is just better, since they seem to be able to even help Feynriel, if you send him.

 

 

'Slaveholding authoritarian oligarchy with little common interests with the most likely victims' doesn't touch on the question?

 

Uh, I'm not sure what to tell you. You've basically given a free pass to equating 'not caring' with 'does a better job of it,' without even bothering to find anything to support that they're actually even doing a better job.

[Jack Druthers]

For who, and for what goals?

 

There are plenty of solutions for different interests with different priorities. If you're asking for what I think will work for everyone, I don't think there is one. If you ask what I view as the best outcome overall, status quo ante bellum with reforms on both the mage and templar parts. Mages need to be less into identity politics, Templars need more empathy, Chantry needs to create a system with better checks and balances and more consideration to mental health.

Ok We're both thinking the same thing, thanks.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

But not necessarily clear to apply any given system internationally. Just because one thing does work doesn't mean another will.

 

Besides, on what grounds are we saying they mobilize their templars better? What relative effects are we measuring by- relative frequency of abominations? Relative casualties? Happiness of mages who are not slaves to other mages? Number of mages in upper levels of government?

Number of abominations and relative casualties vs amount of free mages practicing risky magical techniques that we assume should be producing a high rate of abominations and casualties. 

 

It's not necessarily clear, no. It's a mystery to me how Tevinter is pulling this off. I think it definitely leaves some doors open for whether there's a better way of dealing with the issue of abominations, though. It seems strange to me to say there is 100% not when all evidence I can see suggests that Tevinter is managing the risk better than the rest of Thedas, even when everything we consider a risk suggests they should have basically all been either dead or abominations long ago. 

[Xilizhra]

You don't need to be a product of the enlightenment to think 'if it saves just one more life than it hurts, it is worth it.' You do need to be a product of the enlightenment to think 'people's freedom is worth significant casualties.'

If that was the case, then why would the Fereldan rebellion against Orlais have happened? Hell, Aldenon was speaking of something very similar to human rights way back at the dawn of Ferelden itself.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Only if you think people's freedom is worth pretty high casualties. Given that Thedas doesn't even have a political concept of universal rights or liberty, why would they?

 

You don't need to be a product of the enlightenment to think 'if it saves just one more life than it hurts, it is worth it.' You do need to be a product of the enlightenment to think 'people's freedom is worth significant casualties.'
 

Slaveholding authoritarian oligarchy with little common interests with the most likely victims' doesn't touch on the question?

 

Uh, I'm not sure what to tell you. You've basically given a free pass to equating 'not caring' with 'does a better job of it,' without even bothering to find anything to support that they're actually even doing a better job.

Well, the thread is about what our opinions on the issue are and how to best fix it, not what the uneducated, backwards approach would be. Though, from talking to the people of Thedas in game, I'm also not entirely convinced the majority is that oblivious to the concept. 

 

The population couldn't sustain major losses as should be implied to exist. That's the point that's being ignored. They only have so many people.

[LobselVith8]

There is no such thing as good blood magic imo, The ability of one person to have the power over the actions and emotions of another cannot be excused. Surely, that is the crux of this thread how best to find a solution.

Blood magic is more than mind domination. The Joining is a form of blood magic, as are the phylacteries used by templars. Finn used blood magic to locate the Eluvian in the Dragonbone Wastes, while Merrill used blood magic to cleanse the shard of it's corruption.

And if mind domination could have been used to stop some of the darkspawn who were approaching Lothering, or to rescue women from Ser Alrik, do you still think it would be inexcusable?

[Master Warder Z_]

Well, the thread is about what our opinions on the issue are and how to best fix it, not what the uneducated, backwards approach would be. Though, from talking to the people of Thedas in game, I'm also not entirely convinced the majority is that oblivious to the concept. 

 

The population couldn't sustain major losses as should be implied to exist. That's the point that's being ignored. They only have so many people.

 

You are leaving out one critical aspect of the Imperium, not every one traveling there does so by choice, and we have no idea how centralized or even how large the population of Tevinter is. Why not? The Imperium has the largest commerce base in Slavery in the entire continent, add in their trade with their trade with the Dwarves and their own self sustained economy and you have a society that more or less likely can buy its way out of population issues that arise out of loss of labor force. As for Mages? Well they just breed new ones wouldn't they?

 

And I'd argue the opinion of the Imperium system being anything but "different" from the Thedosian system is purely conjectural. It doesn't seem to be in anyway shape or form better.

[Dean_the_Young]

Tevinter is already constantly sustaining losses to Par Vollen. They don't have a limitless population. They encourage a structured nobility that encourage mage-heavy lines to keep breeding and producing as many mages as possible. It's not realistic to believe they're constantly losing huge numbers to abominations and not losing the war, let alone having revolts. The conclusion just doesn't make sense. They have a finite number of people. They already kill the commoners constantly THEMSELVES, for blood sacrifice. How many people do you think they can lose and have anyone left?

 

Uh, lots. And for quite some time.

 

As long as the population growth rate is higher than the population death rate, the situation can mathematically continue forever- the number of people they lose is irrelevant without a context to the number of people they gain. This is especially true with the fact that slavery is a means for artificial population increase.

 

And, of course, there is no evidence that Tevinter is on a sustainable path in the first place. The only relevant data we have is that it has not collapsed yet, not that it is demographically stable.

 

Your argument hinges on a number of assumptions that no one is claiming or supporting- starting with that the Qunari war is a major population drain for them (extremely unlikely- even far more efficient total war systems of the industrial era didn't do that), that the Abominations are a statistically rather than socially significant source of deaths, that revolts are a statistically significant population cost, and so on. You're also casting costs in a false delimma of either being catastrophic or irrelevant socially ('constant hemorrhaging'), while ignoring the factor of time (treating the costs as cumulative to a fixed population, rather than distributed over time).

 

The Tevinter can have all of these and still maintain positive population growth (or sustainment, or even non-catastrophic decline) quite easily- they just don't have to abide by your inflated fictional attrition rates.

[Dean_the_Young]

Number of abominations and relative casualties vs amount of free mages practicing risky magical techniques that we assume should be producing a high rate of abominations and casualties.

Why should we assume that?

 

We don't need high rates of abominations and casualties. We need socially unacceptable rates of abominations and casualties.

 

 

 

It's not necessarily clear, no. It's a mystery to me how Tevinter is pulling this off. I think it definitely leaves some doors open for whether there's a better way of dealing with the issue of abominations, though. It seems strange to me to say there is 100% not when all evidence I can see suggests that Tevinter is managing the risk better than the rest of Thedas, even when everything we consider a risk suggests they should have basically all been either dead or abominations long ago.

 

Your conjecture to date has been based on a lack of data. Evidence, by it's nature, requires data.

[Master Warder Z_]

Blood magic is more than mind domination. The Joining is a form of blood magic, as are the phylacteries used by templars. Finn used blood magic to locate the Eluvian in the Dragonbone Wastes, while Merrill used blood magic to cleanse the shard of it's corruption

 

See that's the issue i draw with blood magic defenders, they harp on how pseudo blood magic (magic involving blood, not forcefully using it as a method of powering spells or causing harm to be blood magic) is blood magic which it clearly doesn't fit the criteria.

 

And no, Finn used Scrying, a non blood magic talent, it can or doesn't need blood as a component as revealed from the Stolen Throne novel via Gaider, Blood merely aids the process. And the same goes for basically everything you listed, Blood magic is blood magic to some people, and to me? Blood Magic is a corrupt little abominational school of thought that, works on the principle of using blood to power spells, not that it need be used in spells.

 

So no, i don't compare the joining to blood wound, you may, but i don't.

[Dean_the_Young]

If that was the case, then why would the Fereldan rebellion against Orlais have happened?

 

...because the Orlesians were seen as illegitimate invaders and were oppressive to boot. Basic political squabble with an aggressor. I am honestly confused about what aspect of human rights you think is necessary for a resistance or rebellion.

 

 

Hell, Aldenon was speaking of something very similar to human rights way back at the dawn of Ferelden itself.

 

Not as you or I know them.

[MisterJB]

Like, "Oh yeah, we can reach Bumhole, Anderfels by tomorrow and take your kids away, no problem. What? Set up a base of operations for the teaching and policing of local mages? Absurd!"

You do realize Templars already have a presence in every major settlement; see Denerim, Lothering, Kirkwall, Val-Royeaux; which allows them to reach more remote areas where there's not even a point in having a Chantry, let alone a constant group of Templars.

 

The difference here is, of course, that if the Templars of Lothering hear about a kid who just came into his magic somewhere within the Arling and it takes them, let's say, two days to reach them; the worst that can happen is that the kid's family will have run away. If, on the other hand, what they hear about is an Abomination in the very same area, what will happen is that in those two days the monster will have killed everyone around it and moved to do some more killing elsewhere.

 

Also, good luck policing blood magic where you can order people to do anything and erase their memories.

[Lillian]

See that's the issue i draw with blood magic defenders, they harp on how pseudo blood magic (magic involving blood, not forcefully using it as a method of powering spells or causing harm to be blood magic) is blood magic which it clearly doesn't fit the criteria.

 

And no, Finn used Scrying, a non blood magic talent, it can or doesn't need blood as a component as revealed from the Stolen Throne novel via Gaider, Blood merely aids the process. And the same goes for basically everything you listed, Blood magic is blood magic to some people, and to me? Blood Magic is a corrupt little abominational school of thought that, works on the principle of using blood to power spells, not that it need be used in spells.

 

So no, i don't compare the joining to blood wound, you may, but i don't.

Well, blood magic isn't too evil, as long as your ends and means aren't corrupt in themselves. If you want to use it to manipulate people, you're evil. If you force any innocent who isn't willing to give you blood for your magic, it's evil. Regardless of using blood for magic, blood magic is a very interesting school of magic, all things considered. If it wasn't for the weakening of the Veil, and all of the other things done with blood magic, I wouldn't mind some non-sacrificial blood magic research.

 

EDIT: But of course, non-sacrificial blood magic research gets little to nowhere, and blood magic is very dangerous and used for manipulative reasons.

Modifié par Lillian, 28 mars 2014 - 03:39 .