We do not know how we would react, but if for example mages could stop blizzards and earthquakes then I promise you there would be zero instances of abuse or any sort of desperateness in place we choose to place them. They would become nobility. The confined nobility of earth.
Unless certain... Idealistic, dogmatic people had anything to say about it- Ooo! I've said too much. 
The only solution I'm interested in is removing the Chantry from the equation completely.
No religion should be allowed direct influence in any political sphere. They should only have power over their own willing adherents, if that.
Can you even guess the number of casualties if the Uldred Abomination brigade was let loose upon the country? More people would die in a single day than there are templars and mages in the Circle combined.
We had an instance of one abomination killing 70 people in the course of a year. So in answer to your question I do have a vague idea what damage they can cause.
Mostly, I never really thought of ethics as the blend of morals and rationality, simply because my Philosophy class was a nightmare... But, it makes sense. It just seemed like many people were being rather... Unfeeling to the plight of mages. I have to admit; my comment was somewhat inspired by something you said in passing about what mages are guilty of. But, I supposed there are different ethical systems people adhere to that I simply find somewhat alien and/or harsh, so to say. But anyways, thanks for the insights, and this is definitely something to ponder.
Appearances can be decieveing.
The vast majority of people who are Pro-Templars/Chantry/Circle do feel for the mages.
It's just that they feel that mage freedom would result it much more deaths than the Circle system produces, effectively partially substituting mage suffering with mundane suffering. People will end up hurting either way, just the numbers and ratios change.
Speaking of which, "guilt" is a ...unfortunante word. In general usage it implies a crime/punishment and something to be ashamed off, which doesn't really apply to mages.
You can say they are "guilty" of being dangerous, but it's more accurate to say that they are factually dangerous.
So, how do they do it? How do they keep from collapsing due to abominations demolishing too much of the infrastructure and populace?
Because despite all of its evil and corruption the Mage Lords of the Imperium aren't stupid.
Hence why they maintain the rites of tranquility, Annulment and the Templar Order (According to Gaider Lyrium infused templars are merely a rarity over there, not non existent like some maintain) Factor in commentary via Fenris and a few other sources and it begins to make sense, it isn't that the Imperium produces fewer or no abominations, its because they kill them all before they become over much of an issue, like the majority of Thedas.
The Circle there is different, but their response to threats to the Imperium isn't over much different from the rest of Thedas.
The only solution I'm interested in is removing the Chantry from the equation completely.
No religion should be allowed direct influence in any political sphere. They should only have power over their own willing adherents, if that.
And if practically everyone is willing adherent? What then?
Secularity is BS b.t.w.
Politics is part of life and you cannot truly divorce your culture, stances and beliefs from it. It is impossible.
Because despite all of its evil and corruption the Mage Lords of the Imperium aren't stupid.
Hence why they maintain the rites of tranquility, Annulment and the Templar Order (According to Gaider Lyrium infused templars are merely a rarity over there, not non existent like some maintain) Factor in commentary via Fenris and a few other sources and it begins to make sense, it isn't that the Imperium produces fewer or no abominations, its because they kill them all before they become over much of an issue, like the majority of Thedas.
The Circle there is different, but their response to threats to the Imperium isn't over much different from the rest of Thedas.
If the Tevinter Imperium can mobilize quick enough to kill off their abominations before they cause substantial damage, why can't the rest of Thedas?
We had an instance of one abomination killing 70 people in the course of a year. So in answer to your question I do have a vague idea what damage they can cause.
That's not even a powerful abomination. We had abomintions kill more in a single day.
Secularity is BS b.t.w.
Politics is part of life and you cannot truly divorce your culture, stances and beliefs from it. It is impossible.
No, but you can allow all different cultures, stances and beliefs to voice their concerns equally. Like the Dalish, for example.
If the Tevinter Imperium can mobilize quick enough to kill off their abominations before they cause substantial damage, why can't the rest of Thedas?
Because the Thedas isn't a singular country?
Individually the containment of Mages works because its done on a National or city state level, not internationally there is no one circle, there were fifteen.
If the Tevinter Imperium can mobilize quick enough to kill off their abominations before they cause substantial damage, why can't the rest of Thedas?
Maybe they have different standards for what can be considered acceptable losses.
Appearances can be decieveing.
The vast majority of people who are Pro-Templars/Chantry/Circle do feel for the mages.
It's just that they feel that mage freedom would result it much more deaths than the Circle system produces, effectively partially substituting mage suffering with mundane suffering. People will end up hurting either way, just the numbers and ratios change.
Speaking of which, "guilt" is a ...unfortunante word. In general usage it implies a crime/punishment and something to be ashamed off, which doesn't really apply to mages.
You can say they are "guilty" of being dangerous, but it's more accurate to say that they are factually dangerous.
1. That was the sort of argument that I felt was rather unfeeling/unsympathetic. But it's merely like the "happiness eqution" ethical system...
2. In terms of the guilty part, I was referencing to a comment he made about mages being guilty of being dangerous... It was just an idea I completely opposed, given the sort of prejudice that was present in that sort of statement. I'm not saying that I think he's prejudiced against mages, but that's the general concept that I hate when people look at mages. They're practically being judged for a natural predisposition, and no matter the context, it's just wrong. Not only is it wrong, but it's infuriating, really. It's like when writers write down a personality for a mythical race, as if every member of that race is as simple as that. That just threw me off, really.
Mostly, I never really thought of ethics as the blend of morals and rationality, simply because my Philosophy class was a nightmare... But, it makes sense. It just seemed like many people were being rather... Unfeeling to the plight of mages. I have to admit; my comment was somewhat inspired by something you said in passing about what mages are guilty of. But, I supposed there are different ethical systems people adhere to that I simply find somewhat alien and/or harsh, so to say. But anyways, thanks for the insights, and this is definitely something to ponder.
Feeling to the plight of the mages doesn't necessitate prioritizing the mages- that's empathy-dominated ethics (the most immediate hurt is the most important), but that's far from the only sort of ethics. In fact, emotionally-dominated ethics, when taken to a degree, can be incredibly unethical by many standards: emotionally-driven decision making can become careless, irresponsible, and blind to consequence. Emotional distance and separation are important, even when they're hard.
This isn't particularly alien or harsh: it's the bedrock of modern judicial systems, and is one of the things that separates rule of law from mob and individual passions. That presumption of innocence deal? Checks and balances against single actors? Illegality of vigilantism, conflict of interest safeguards, freedom of speech? These aren't things that protect us just from bad people: these protect us from good people with strong and legitimate emotions.
Empathy is important for people and societies, but it's not dominated simply by the person feeling most hurt at the moment. It can also take the more dispassionate forms, or for people who aren't the immediate focus of distress: empathy for the views and fears of mundanes, or empathy with the outcome of a systemic upheaval and not just the instigating factor.
Maybe they have different standards for what can be considered acceptable losses.
That too, i wouldn't be surprised if they took their time about putting down abominations even more so then Thedas.
Because the Thedas isn't a singular country?
Individually the containment of Mages works because its done on a National or city state level, not internationally there is no one circle, there were fifteen.
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.
I'm agreeing with you Lotion in my last comment btw. The post of mine that you quoted was a way of saying that the old system did not work, even after what seemed a gentle reasonable start to this thread, and eleven pages later, there still is not an answer. I do not believe in total mage freedom, it would be irresponsible IMO.
I'm agreeing with you Lotion in my last comment btw. The post of mine that you quoted was a way of saying that the old system did not work, even after what seemed a gentle reasonable start to this thread, and eleven pages later, there still is not an answer. I do not believe in total mage freedom, it would be irresponsible IMO.
Luckily, total mage freedom is not the focus of the war; the influence of the Templar Order is.
No, but you can allow all different cultures, stances and beliefs to voice their concerns equally. Like the Dalish, for example.
And that has nothing to do with secularity, but the specific religion and people in question.
If the Tevinter Imperium can mobilize quick enough to kill off their abominations before they cause substantial damage, why can't the rest of Thedas?
You do realise Tevinter also has Circles and most mages aren't that much more free?
Maybe they have different standards for what can be considered acceptable losses.
Well, like I said, they're able to hold off the Qunari and it's implied Par Vollen and the Tevinter Imperium as individuals could basically take over the world if they weren't constantly fighting each other. The losses couldn't be too heavy for them if they sustain themselves at this level. It just doesn't make any sense in that capacity. We've also just never heard anything about this being a huge issue. I would have thought Fenris would bring it up, if it were the case. Why wouldn't he mention seeing magisters go full on abomination in the streets in one of his many rants about the dangerous of magic if it was constantly happening? He talks about every other negative they have, like the abuses of slavery and the ruthlessness of magisters towards each other. It's not evidence of anything, exactly, but it's odd he would leave it out. If you send Feynriel to the Tevinter Imperium he also talks about the ruthlessness of the magisters in his letter, but no mention of abominations.
If the Tevinter Imperium can mobilize quick enough to kill off their abominations before they cause substantial damage, why can't the rest of Thedas?
What would the Tevinter magisters, a slaveholding mageocracy on a permanent war footing and an ideological and systematic superiority complex over mundanes, consider substantial damage from an abomination outbreak? 50 apprentices? 500 mundanes? 5000 slaves? A single magister?
Do keep in mind that different cultures will view the same body counts differently. What is considered 'substantial' (and, more importantly, 'unacceptable') to a populace in which a certain something is an unavoidable fact of life is going to be different from a populace that does not view it as an inevitable part of life.
2. In terms of the guilty part, I was referencing to a comment he made about mages being guilty of being dangerous... It was just an idea I completely opposed, given the sort of prejudice that was present in that sort of statement. I'm not saying that I think he's prejudiced against mages, but that's the general concept that I hate when people look at mages. They're practically being judged for a natural predisposition, and no matter the context, it's just wrong. Not only is it wrong, but it's infuriating, really. It's like when writers write down a personality for a mythical race, as if every member of that race is as simple as that. That just threw me off, really.
Being judges? Everyone is being judged, all the time. Human nature.
For mages it's not so much a judgment of personality or being a good/bad person - rather the judgment of capacity and danger. We've seen perfectly good mages can ruin your villages day easily.
With that said, ALL mages are dangerous. Period. Not a nice thing to hear, but thruth.
And that has nothing to do with secularity, but the specific religion and people in question.
You do realise Tevinter also has Circles and most mages aren't that much more free?
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?
What would the Tevinter magisters, a slaveholding mageocracy on a permanent war footing and an ideological and systematic superiority complex over mundanes, consider substantial damage from an abomination outbreak? 50 apprentices? 500 mundanes? 5000 slaves? A single magister?
Do keep in mind that different cultures will view the same body counts differently. What is considered 'substantial' (and, more importantly, 'unacceptable') to a populace in which a certain something is an unavoidable fact of life is going to be different from a populace that does not view it as an inevitable part of life.
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 would the Tevinter magisters, a slaveholding mageocracy on a permanent war footing and an ideological and systematic superiority complex over mundanes, consider substantial damage from an abomination outbreak? 50 apprentices? 500 mundanes? 5000 slaves? A single magister?
Do keep in mind that different cultures will view the same body counts differently. What is considered 'substantial' (and, more importantly, 'unacceptable') to a populace in which a certain something is an unavoidable fact of life is going to be different from a populace that does not view it as an inevitable part of life.
However little is necessary for Feynriel to not comment on it in three years. 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.
Being judges? Everyone is being judged, all the time. Human nature.
For mages it's not so much a judgment of personality or being a good/bad person - rather the judgment of capacity and danger. We've seen perfectly good mages can ruin your villages day easily.
With that said, ALL mages are dangerous. Period. Not a nice thing to hear, but thruth.
Technically, we haven't. We've seen how one abomination can summon hundreds of other demons to ruin a village's day if they're isolated while doing so and no one stops them, but we've never seen a "good" mage turn into an abomination and plow through a village singlehandedly.
Well, like I said, they're able to hold off the Qunari and it's implied Par Vollen and the Tevinter Imperium as individuals could basically take over the world if they weren't constantly fighting each other. The losses couldn't be too heavy for them if they sustain themselves at this level. It just doesn't make any sense in that capacity. We've also just never heard anything about this being a huge issue. I would have thought Fenris would bring it up, if it were the case. Why wouldn't he mention seeing magisters go full on abomination in the streets in one of his many rants about the dangerous of magic if it was constantly happening? He talks about every other negative they have, like the abuses of slavery and the ruthlessness of magisters towards each other. It's not evidence of anything, exactly, but it's odd he would leave it out. If you send Feynriel to the Tevinter Imperium he also talks about the ruthlessness of the magisters in his letter, but no mention of abominations.
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.
Retour en haut