If this were the case that Templars/Chantry controlled the Circle funds, there would be no point to the Lucrosian fraternity.
Indeed.
There is little point to *any* of the fraternities aside from giving mages an outlet and an illusion of choice,
and providing something else for them to do aside from practicing magic and f****** each other when the templars look the other way.
Indeed.
There is little point to *any* of the fraternities aside from giving mages an outlet and an illusion of choice,
and providing something else for them to do aside from practicing magic and f****** each other when the templars look the other way.
It's exactly why the system 'worked' for so long. That's how rulers operate. Manipulate people to do what you want while making them believe that it was their idea. Give them meaningless choices and watch them meander about accomplishing nothing meaningful, further entrenching themselves into their condition.
Ah well. That'll teach me to try to come up with something none violent.
I only considered the effectiveness of such a move, not the amount of violence included.
That said, in the middle ages anything short of extreme violence usually wasn't enough to grab attention.
When basic life is harsh and difficult, an idea like a strike would be regarded with ridicule and contempt.
It would not generate sympathy from the masses that have been brainwashed already to believe that mages are cursed / are a curse,
and with all the religious trash around this idea.
It's exactly why the system 'worked' for so long. That's how rulers operate. Manipulate people to do what you want while making them believe that it was their idea. Give them meaningless choices and watch them meander about accomplishing nothing meaningful, further entrenching themselves into their condition.
Hmm... and then one day when they actually tried to make decisions for themselves, the brown hit the fan, all hell broke lose, and all the fanatics started salivating and mumbling various words like: "Annulement" and "Exalted March".
How much profit do they make from the lyrium they sell do the circle as compared to the cost of the lyrium they give to the templars? It's possible that the bulk of the lyrium goes to the templars while the lyrium sold to the mages pays for both the circle's use of it and the templar's. It is however possible that it doesn't. If it does then a strike would have some very sharp teeth as sustaining the templars would become a drain.
There is not enough information to base an argument off of except that there is not enough information to base an argument off of.
Just because the upper class are the only ones that can easily afford it doesn't mean others don't buy it. Look at the family sword from Redcliff the one a child wants to use to avenge his parents. Even if a person can't easily afford something that doesn't mean they won't invest in it. Anders and Anerin may not be working on behalf of the circle but those are also the only mages we see actively practicing healing magic. Other then that there is the codex on creation magic which mentions its demand. They're the only examples or closest thing to examples that we can draw information from.
When only certain classes of people can easily afford a good or service it does make them the primary consumer of those goods and services. People who can't afford a luxury, don't. And luxuries are pretty much what the Circle shops sell.
The fact that Anders and Anerin are not working on behalf of the Circles is all we need to know to invalidate them as examples of how the Circles work with healing.
In relative terms the lyrium trade is worth more then half the wealth of Orzammar. http://dragonage.wik...x_entry:_Lyrium Now what says I have to prove that the chantry gets the bulk of its wealth from selling the extremely valuable rare metal it controls the supply of anymore then someone who wants to say the chantry gets the bulk of its wealth from charity?
Nothing- both people who make the claim are obligated to support it. Can you support that the Chantry gets most of its money from Lyrium?
You've established Lyrium is valuable: that was not in question. That the Lyrium trade is half the wealth of Orzammar is interesting... but not particularly relevant because we're looking at a continental economy scale, rather than a single Dwarven kingdom.
There is not enough information to base an argument off of except that there is not enough information to base an argument off of.
When only certain classes of people can easily afford a good or service it does make them the primary consumer of those goods and services. People who can't afford a luxury, don't. And luxuries are pretty much what the Circle shops sell.
The fact that Anders and Anerin are not working on behalf of the Circles is all we need to know to invalidate them as examples of how the Circles work with healing.
Nothing- both people who make the claim are obligated to support it. Can you support that the Chantry gets most of its money from Lyrium?
You've established Lyrium is valuable: that was not in question. That the Lyrium trade is half the wealth of Orzammar is interesting... but not particularly relevant because we're looking at a continental economy scale, rather than a single Dwarven kingdom.
So there are a bunch of unknowns about the economics of the chantry, templars and circle. So by that if a strike would be effective or not is an unknown but not from the responses I've seen. From what I've read I'd say most are of the belief that such a none violent approach wouldn't bring about any changes. I'm just going to let it go as a silly idea like I mentioned above.
It makes it look like many believe that violence is the only way the mages can bring about change and the only way that they could by the time DA: 2 rolled around. Hopefully we'll see how it works out in Inquisition.
Remember though, it's a forgone conclusion that mages being allowed to freely own businesses would result in economic domination!
The medieval Church in our world managed to get fantastically rich without the Lyrium trade.
The medieval Church in our world managed to get fantastically rich without the Lyrium trade.
True but have you done a study as to how they actually obtained that wealth? I sure haven't. Plus the lyrium trade isn't just a potential source of income we know for certain it is a large expense. It would be as if the church had to buy gold or something even more valuable then have a standing army they pay for drink it. I may be wrong but it looks like the chantry has a few more bills then the medieval church.
Hmm... I don't know what Gaider said, but that does not sound very logical to me.
The Templars have or had the last word regarding any meaningful decisions inside the circles.
Except, well, they don't- the Circles are highly autonomous. They are also highly restricted, but within those restrictions the Templars have relatively little control over what most governments and institutions would consider meaningful.
Intrusive, yes. But that's separate.
No mage strike.
On the other hand, perhaps the women of Dragon Age should consider the Lysistrata Option.
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Lysistrata
I believe it could change the world - even if large portions of it are bisexual.
In practice, female sexual coercion - or implied sexual coercion - has been very effective at getting men to fight. The narrative flows more easily that way: war is supposedly a test of 'true manliness', shirking one's duty is said to be unmanly, women ostensibly don't like unmanly guys. You see this all over, for example, the American Civil War, especially in many parts of the South. There was one incident during a battle near Winchester, Virginia in 1864, when a group of the city's women confronted a retreating unit of Confederate cavalry...and I'm probably losing you. You get the idea.
I think that the only time anybody's seriously tried the Lysistrata option is during the Vietnam War, with the "girls say yes to boys who say no" campaign. That had, uh, mixed results.
In practice, female sexual coercion - or implied sexual coercion - has been very effective at getting men to fight. The narrative flows more easily that way: war is supposedly a test of 'true manliness', shirking one's duty is said to be unmanly, women ostensibly don't like unmanly guys. You see this all over, for example, the American Civil War, especially in many parts of the South. There was one incident during a battle near Winchester, Virginia in 1864, when a group of the city's women confronted a retreating unit of Confederate cavalry...and I'm probably losing you. You get the idea.
I think that the only time anybody's seriously tried the Lysistrata option is during the Vietnam War, with the "girls say yes to boys who say no" campaign. That had, uh, mixed results.
Retour en haut
