80 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

As my half-hearted attempt to be productive-

 

Below is an analysis of the Circle system: what it's trying to do, how it goes about doing it, why it does so in the way that it does, and various issues with some of the common reform proposals that float around. A lot of things are covered very briefly, with a lot more TL;DR behind the TL;DR you see here. Every point and paragraph you read could have had another three or four to elaborate.

 

This isn't an advocacy piece for or against the Circle system. It's an analysis piece for why the Circle is what it is: why mages are kept apart from mundanes, why the Circle is mandatory, why the Chantry is running it rather than someone else.

 

The last bit includes some points about how the Circle system is doing things it really doesn't need to: virtues that deserve to be recognized, and flaws that can be fixed. Three core reforms are also proposed, reforms that (within limits and with unpleasant aspects) could significantly reshape the experience of the Circle system without sacrificing the goals it is made to fulfill.

 

Again, without advocating that these goals are themselves legitimate.

 

 

This thread is just to get this out here, for future reference, rather than sit forgotten on page 40x of a mage-vs-templar thread. If you have questions, feel free to ask for elaboration. If you have questions about how I would try and make things happen, feel free. If you want to argue I'm a completely immoral person and how the system is irreversibly flawed and the world should be thrown into a fire before this is tolerated one more day, etc. etc. etc., feel free.

 

I don't probmise to address the last one, but I'll try to answer questions about my thoughts and proposals.

 

 

And, with hopefully most people bored and never going to bother reading through this, the real TL;DR begins...

 

 

 

 

===

 

Any attempt to find a solution to the Chantry-Mage-Templar issue should identify what the end-states of the solution should actually be. The point of reforms of the Circle system isn't to preserve the Circle system: that's just tautological reasoning from an organizational perspective, an institution that exists to perpetuate the institution. If that's all there was to it, then there wouldn't be a point to it.

 

Then, and only then, once the institutional goals have been identified should policy changes be made. Policy changes should fulfill, and not subvert, the end-state: a system that seeks to at least register and track the mages, for example, should not have a policy of refusing to use phylacteries. This no more furthers the goal than an education regime that allows anyone to leave it before passing.

 

After that, ways to safeguard the system and keep it from changing will be needed. This means identifying weaknesses in the proposed changes, and seeing if they can be mitigated or subverted by the actions of hostile actors. Enduring institutions are planned on the expectation that people will defy them, not on the expectation that no one will have reason to defy them. If your great idea's solution to the Anders Delimma (someone who steadfastly believes it fundamentally wrong and will work to tear it down and radicalize people against it) is 'Anders wouldn't mind my system,' try again.

 

 

That's the basic helpful guidelines for creating a system. As an example, I'll do an analysis of the current system: not advocacy, but rather looking at what it attempts to do. The merits or justification are not the point of the analysis.

 

 

 

The Andrastian Circle System has four main goals: to prevent the rise of another mageocracy, to protect the mundanes from deliberate mage abuses, to protect everyone from accidental mage abuses (abominations), and to protect the mages from mundanes (lunch mobs and mass fear).

 

With the compromise that established the Circles, the agreed upon means of achieving these goals is societal segregation. Mages stay over here, mundanes over here, the division is mediated and enforced by the Chantry (with its enforcement arm of the Templars), which represented the most respected international institution for the participating land-rulers. While mundanes face some basic but largely weightless restrictions (kingdoms can not use the mages as national resources, mundanes can not access the towers and the mages at will), most of enforcement of the segregation comes by bringing outside mages into the Circles (apostates) and keeping those already in the Circle from leaving at will.

 

Each of the main goals has a general policy associated with achieving it, though the policies overlap and reinforce eachother. There are problems with them, but also attempted compromise solutions. Not all of these work.

 

 

Preventing the rise of a mageocracy comes via political disenfranchisement and separation from the secular power structures. Mages, who have both advantages in competitive advancement (magic advantages) and the ability to outright control political elites (blood magic) are kept out of not just the ruling class, but out of the classes that can access and reach the ruling classes. Societal segregation as a broad stroke.

 

The obvious issue with this is, well, mage organization and self-determination. Mages chose to go to the Circles originally, that doesn't mean they wanted to give up all rights and influence.

 

The attempted compromise of the Circle is in-Circle mage autonomy, in which the day-to-day management and direction of the mages is run by the mages, and an exception system in which court mages can advise national leadership and present their views and concerns. Similarly, mages can appeal to the Chantry over the Templars. Mages are not allowed to break the overall policies and restrictions of the Circle system (autonomy not meaning self-determination), but the Templars watch, not direct, Circle activities.

 

 

Protecting mundanes from hostile mages is a requirement that requires proactive, not reactive, policies. Chasing after an apostate after he kills people and flees the area is at best avenging the lost, not preventing them from being lost in the first place- this is the focus of the current system that bears remembering. Prevention, not reaction. Short of time-travel and future foresight, social division is the only reliable proactive approach to prevent such a clash. When mages are known, they are to come or be brought to the Circle and separated from the public. Once removed from the public, a mage can not harm the public.

 

The issue here is that mages appear outside of the circle naturally: maintaining a social division is reactive and can only be maintained by constant effort. Moreover, some people will defy the Circle and be those hostile maleficar for their own interests.

 

The reaction/solution to this is the Templars as a permanent expeditionary force. As much as they can they proactively go out looking for newly-manifesting mages to bring them in as soon as possible, while confronting maleficar as they are identified.

 

 

 

Accidental mage abuses comes in two parts: reckless/accidental usage of magic, and abominations. Both mages and mundanes are at danger to these.

 

For reckless/accidental magic, the danger can primarily be mitigated (though never completely resolved) by magical education. Practice, supervision, and education can remove much of the risk associated with uncontrolled magic: once a mage reaches maturity, accidental magical mishaps appear rare. Failed experiments or other issues may cause disaster, but these are failures of deliberate attempts.

 

For abominations, however, education can only reduce, not resolve, the risk. The source of abominations, demons, have no known or proven counter or means to eliminate, while the personal weakness that leads to an abomination is as simple as stress- an unavoidable circumstance that no system or training can remove. Very experienced mages can fall to insanity, made all the riskier by the fact that demons are deliberate actors. Though there are factors that increase the risk, there are no known factors that remove the risk: even seemingly benevolent spirits can be dangerous and drive the subject to insanity. To make things worse, there is very little preventing someone who wishes to become an abomination from becoming one: personal state of mind is the primary barrier, and it is not reliable on a system scale. Only exceptional people, as shown by exceptional accomplishments and experience, have both the chance and demonstration of will to handle extreme stresses.

 

For this, the mitigation for damage is containment. Education serves a role in reducing the occurrences, but education does not prevent the occurrences from happening. Abominations are something that are responded to, and the costs of the response will be proportional to the time it takes an armed response to overwhelm it. In rural settings, the cost to mundanes can be high double digits from a single abomination, as response is some time away. When the response is right down the hall, even an entire tower of abominations can be contained from harming mundanes.

 

The only way to minimize response time is to have the response force on standby- the only feasible way for that is the concentration of mages. Segregation isn't required for mitigation, but it synergizes very easily with it.

 

 

 

Protecting mages from mundanes is the less noted but one of the original basis for the Circle. The social segregation achieves this in two main forms: protection from mundane mobs, and protection from mundane elites.

 

The mobs is easiest, and shares with the protection of the mundanes from the mages. Separation is enforced: mages can not leave the Towers freely, but mundanes can not approach it either. Whether mundanes would want to approach a mage settlement is a question... but when mages were unorganized and still individuals, a mob overwhelming them was a real threat. Now moats, thick walls, and a small army stand between them.

 

Protection from mundane elites is less realized. Mages are potential assets, but also potential threats to the leaders of nations. The mage that heals your sick masses could also be an agitator and attempt to be a political rival... but unlike mobs, elites can gather the forces to overwhelm them anyway. But the mages are extremely difficult political targets due to the Chantry and Templar's military and political interference, and the Circle's role under the Chantry (itself a largely neutral body) keeps it out of national and international politics as a faction to be sided with, or against.

 

 

 

So, in wrap-up, the Circle has four main goals, all of which are largely met by enforcing systemic segregation between mages and mundanes. But how to keep it up?

 

The dilemma of who will keep the system is running with three main issues: the enforcers need the resources to support it, the legitimacy to run it on an international level, and an enduring, not circumstantial, interest in maintaining it rather than sabotaging it. A backer lacking in any of these will not be an enduring backer. At the time of its creation, the only backer capable of creating it was the Chantry.

 

 

For resources, the Chantry has a number of pillars of support. The alliance with the Orlesian Empire, the largest secular power in south-western Thedas, is a strong backer, but the support (and possible tithes) from all the Andreastian nations is relevant. Popular support and donations from the faithful. And, of course, a monopoly on the lyrium trade. No other organization in Thedas has as many revenue sources. One of the greatest restrictions of making an alternative Circle system will be 'who can afford it?'

 

For legitimacy, in history it has frequently been a matter of race, religion, or ideology. There is no unified racial actor interested and able to act across Thedas: the Dalish have a presence, but an antagonistic and xenophobic relationship with everyone else. They don't want to, and probably wouldn't be trusted. Similarly, there is a lack of a widespread ideology to unite nations in this manner: the closest is the Qun, which is a localized state-actor in its own right. The Grey Wardens, which are an international institution with an ideological bent, have an ideology fixated on the Darkspawn and have other issues that make using them as backers problematic. Which leaves religion, and the Chantry- the only institution in existence that (a) is supported by everyone enough to run such a system, and ( actually exists. This is the big issue with trying to secularize the Circle system and divorce it from the Chantry: there isn't a secular organization who can both afford and be respected to run the system.

 

As for maintaining the system as it is, this is where an enforcer organization dominated or even heavily influenced by mages runs into issues. The systems works on societal segregation: that onus is felt most by the mages, who have the greatest interest in dismantling it- they have a collective interest in weakening, not maintaining, the policies that meet the goals of the system. Mundanes, who have the most interest in the goals of the system (which protect them and their ability to claim power and political dominance), are the more reliable group to pull from. Even the sub-group to enforce it, however, will need incentives to keep the system running rather than be bribed or bullied into giving it up: those incentives crudely but practically include the monopoly of influence of letting nations request mages for various purposes, as well as a justification for the lyrium monopoly. A system that has a vested benefit in the status quo is one that can be relied upon to maintain it- morality or ethics alone can not.

 

 

 

So, crude and illiberal as it is, the Circle system has points to it- goals to be met, and means to meet them.

 

But- and here's where criticism and reform of the current system can come into play- not everything the Circle system does advances or is necessary for that goal. The system provides unintended benefits, and unnecessary costs. It does things it doesn't strictly need to do, for good and ill, and doesn't do things that it could stand to benefit from.

 

 

 

Here are system aspects that are not key points of the system, but aspects of it that bear consideration for good and ill.

 

-Apolitical mages in the established poltical system. Under the Circle system, mages are not effectively tools of the state, and are not used in international (or intranational) conflicts as such. This is a benefit of an international Circle system run by an international institution, rather than a nationalized Circle system run by the states. Being drawn into secular conflicts is also a significant risk of the mage independence movement, especially if they achieve independence via the support of national units.

 

-Non-magical secular education. It's... technically irrelevant to the sort of education mages need to resist demons. Literacy, liberal education, critical thinking: these are productive ways to address the need of education, but strictly not necessary. Mages are an educated populace, literate and aware of the world, in excess to not only the mundane norms, but also the system's own needs.

 

-A unified mage polity. While a mage identity would exist regardless, a mage polity is not as inherent: mages can be divided against eachother and less unified as a political class, as we infer from the Avaar barbarian shaaman and the Rivain seers (where the female mages are a part of a matriarchy, but male mages are not). The consolidation and organization of the Circles has permitted the rise of the mage fraternities, and the autonomy of the Circles has provided the Circles as a mage polity in and of itself. This was not necessary: the Chantry and Templars could have actively divided and pitted the mages against eachother, sabotaging unity and common identity.

 

-Organized magical research. The fields of mage magic and research, while limited and regulated in various degrees, is an accomplishment of the Circle systems that is not actually necessary for its goals. Past a point, further magical knowledge does not secure protection from demons or protect mundanes or mages from eachother. It just further enables the practice of magic. Allowing this is not a given: an alternative Circle system could destroy books and records and not only limit but roll back magical practice and rituals that empower mages.

 

-The rise of anti-magic fields of study. Templar abilities, Tranquility, and some anti-magic magics: these are not a norm, these were developments pursued and sustained by the Andrastian Circle system. They do not have known equivalents in other systems: the Tevinter mages even keep their Templar enforcers from developing and maintaining the lyrium-based anti-magic abilities. With the possible endpoint of advancing the Tranquility ritual to strip magic while leaving emotion, the Circle system has also seen the establishment of this field of supernatural anti-supernatural.

 

 

 

 

Here are some things the Circle system does that don't really benefit it. Consider it my list of reforms that would be both reasonable to demand and not detrimental to implement (within the scopes of the system).

 

-Disregarding the emotional health of the mages and mundanes. The Circle's security focus has left a blind spot to the human (and elven) element of mages. Anti-abomination education is focused on discipline and suppressing emotions: far less attention is given to helping mages become emotionally mature and able to cope with stress. The Circle and Templars own needless additions to the stress are likewise counterproductive.

 

For emotional relationships, there is an actual basis for opposing them. Strong emotional ties are an effective leverage against the primary defense against demons, the individual mind. Desire demons in particular can prey on emotional wants and ties, especially when the demon can offer something to protect or fulfill that relationship. Emotional ties outside the Circle are also an issue: outside ties are a basis for wanting escape and and support network for achieving it. For a system based on social segregation, the fewer ties between the groups the better (and this includes family ties).

 

But total emotional suppression, besides being unhealthy, is also unnecessary. It's throwing the baby out with the bath water: mages should be encouraged to form emotional ties inside the Circle, to support and help them there. It's a moral and practical boon: morally it can allow meaningful relationships, and practically the more ties the mage has in the system the more ties will keep them there. One of the interesting aspects of people living in authoritarian regimes is why they don't leave: friends and family are often a cause, and if a person can't take them on the escape they often won't. This isn't just friendship, but also love: families can be enabled and allowed in the Circle system, and I would even go so far as saying that bringing families from outside the system in (if they want) could also be managed and encouraged to help fulfill mage's emotional needs.

 

This isn't unlimited, mind you- and some of the policy implementations of maintaining the social division by keeping the mage families inside the system may frustrate those wanting more and more freedom- but the point is that mage families are compatible with the goals of the system.

 

 

Ah, but I dropped a line about the mundanes didn't I? What was that? Well, the Circle system's fixation of mental discipline, rather than mental health, has also left it a signficant issue in recognizing mental un-health. Demons are to blame for that as well, in part, but Thedas has no real comprehension of mental disorders: as far as they are aware, there are normal minds, and there are demons. Disturbed people, like the Magister's Son in DA2 (the seriel killer) have no help or understanding: they are deemed depraved, not even lunatics, because they have no demons to blame. Mundanes with real issues can not get the help they need, or even be recognized as needing it, because the cultural understanding of mental troubles is 'a strong will prevents problems.'

 

The field of psychology is one Thedas really, desperatly needs, for everyone. Mundanes will benefit. Mages will benefit. Demonologists and studies of the Fadewould probably benefit as well. But no one even recognizes the need because of the current fixation.

 

 

 

-Having the Templars constantly watching inside the Circle.

 

This is probably the most common and disconcerting role of the Templars in the system. It's also one of the least efficient aspects, and I say that as a very cynical person who knows something about surveillance states and how they can work.

 

Templar observation really doesn't do much. Not in terms of what it's supposed to: Templars aren't omnipresent enough to catch and track all the happenings, aren't effective enough to prevent the subterfuge and achievement, and almost certainly aren't trained enough to spot what they actually need to: signs of emotional volatility and instability. That field simply doesn't exist in Thedas, related to psychology. Recognizing issues is intuitive, not meticulous, and the fact that the Templars themselves are a source of anxiety and stress will only needlessly muddle the analysis.

 

Templars don't need to be in full battle-rattle in every room to do what they actualy do do effectively: respond to abominations. The Templar in the room is extremely unlikely to be able to prevent the abomination, or end it then and there. That's what a squad of guards down the hall, and a garrison on the ground, can do.

 

Templar observation should be smart. Observers should appear casual, not dressed to kill. They should try to put the room at ease. They should be approachable, though not friendly: there to make sure teachers are sticking to the approved lessons, that sedition isn't being raised vocally, that no one is preparing ambushes and barricades in the halls, and most of all just to get a feel for the public discourse and tone of the groups. And for Andraste's sake, no need to have them spying on the dorms or in their bed rooms.

 

That's what secret passageways behind the walls and peepholes can be used for, after all.

 

More seriously, overt observation is of limited usefulness. Covert observation is where it's at. Get listening devices. Get spies. And definitely get snitches- there should be so many snitches that you should never fear a group of seven mages huddled in a corner talking quietly because at least two of them should be yours.

 

Hey, if you're going to run a surveillance state, at least run an effective one. The less intrusive means are often the most effective.

 

 

 

 

-Cramped buildings with no outdoors.

 

The art of architecture is legit: building design can affect the attitudes and mental states of people, as can the availability of sunlight and sky. Circles should be tailor-made to be living areas that contain people, not containment centers that people live in. A good Circle should resemble a university campus, not a prison: dorms, grass lawns, exercise areas, water sources, avenues to walk and socialize, dedicated buildings so that your experiments in fireballs aren't being done right above the student dormitories.

 

Mind you, this would be expensive- the better, the more the mages would have to chip in. And it would still be a restricted area that is almost a military garrison as well: don't be surprised if the big courtyard is surrounded, if not by buildings, but impassible walls and guards with bows pointed inward.

 

But an restrictive environment doesn't need to feel like an oppressive environment- some people won't care if it's a nice cage, but more people will accept the gilded one. That works for keeping the system intact.

[GreyLycanTrope]

As my half-hearted attempt to be productive-

You know there's modesty and than there's just showing off, Dean

 

Great analysis.

[Xilizhra]

Your analysis is accurate overall. I would not take all this into account when designing my own solution because some of my goals differ fundamentally from yours, but it's certainly worthy reference material.

[CELL55]

Awesome. Very well thought out. You mentioned that only the Chantry could run the Circle system because they were respected internationally and had the wealth to do so. From what we know of the Inquisition, we will be seeking the respect (or at least capitulation) of multiple factions, and with the existence of dedicating captured keeps to economic purposes, it seems that the new Inquisition will be capable of funding a new system. I think it could be possible for the Inquisition to be the new backer of a renovated circle system, what do you think?

[CybAnt1]

Say, Dean, have you ever considered applying your intellect to solving real-world problems?

 

And, I swear with all honesty in my body, I am not being either snarky, sarcastic, or condescending. That was sincere. 

 

There's many problems out there that could use well-thought out analyses & programmatic solutions. 

 

Solving the problems of imaginary worlds is grand ... and please note, again, I'm not knocking you for trying, I spend a lot of time, too, playing in or talking about imaginary worlds ... but ... well, wow. 

[JeffZero]

That's how I feel, CybAnt. My exact thoughts upon reading this. I only hope the work I do when I have my anthropological degree comes close to as thought-out.

[Dean_the_Young]

Awesome. Very well thought out. You mentioned that only the Chantry could run the Circle system because they were respected internationally and had the wealth to do so. From what we know of the Inquisition, we will be seeking the respect (or at least capitulation) of multiple factions, and with the existence of dedicating captured keeps to economic purposes, it seems that the new Inquisition will be capable of funding a new system. I think it could be possible for the Inquisition to be the new backer of a renovated circle system, what do you think?

 

If you mean replacing the role of the Chantry in creating and sustaining a new Circle system, I doubt it. With the metaknowledge we know (that the game will effectively be limited to south-western Thedas) and the very context-specific focus and ration for the Inquisition's formation and expansion (demons) I don't see the Inquisition being a long-term force. It would be a better analog to the Grey Wardens who clearly had a hey day of great resources, before losing support and abandoning the same positions that had given them influence. I see very little reason that the Inquisition's occupation of the abandoned Warden keeps will be any more permanent.

 

What I strongly suspect will happen in DAI is that the Inquisition will have a choice in how the Circle system is reconstituted, not whether it is. That will be railroaded as much as the Warden beating the Blight, or Hawke staying in Kirkwall, or Shepard doing the ME core story arcs of being a Spectre/working with Cerberus/pursuing the Crucible. For various meta-reasons, I believe the developers will not engage in as radical change to the setting as potentially breaking down the international order and attempting an incredibly uncertain integration of mages across the continent. No apologies to those who want that and think it must be done- I just don't see it happening.

 

The Inquisition will be an independent actor that is not subordinate to the Chantry, but players will find that they will work with (repeat: with, not for) the Chantry to rally its legitimacy and support for the Inquisitor's purpose of the fade tears (repeat: for the Inquisitor's purpose, not their own). There will probably be moments you can relish bringing the Chantry in line with your priorities, rather than adapting yourself to theirs. But the more the Inquisition becomes an international presence, especially the more it looks to becoming an enduring part of the international order, the more it will be integrated and backed with the Chantry. In contrast, I could see a more anti-societal consensus Inqusition quickly losing support and being disbanded if it refuses integration: a case in which someone who doesn't care about the international order will get a handshake, 'thanks for ending the veil tears', and stop being tolerated once they stop being needed.

 

I do not see DAI focusing on the Mage/Templar rebellion as the primary plot, and devoting its focus to that. That will be the Fade Tears, much as the Warden had the Blight and Hawke had the Act of the hour to focus on. The Inquisitor's ability to change the entire system will be limited.

 

What I could see happening, thought at a significant loss of player agency in the execution, is the idea that the Inquisition replacing the Templars as the Chantry's enforcement arm. This could be considered aligned with the 'pro-mage' playthrough- though not necessarily an anti-Chantry playthrough (which I do not believe will be particularly supported). The general point is that constant opposition to the Templars, and political maneuvering to discredit and villify, leaves them subjugated. The Chantry could re-integrate them... but that would put them back to being guards and enforcers and jailors, albeit on a much shorter leash. Alternatively, the Inquisition could keep its legitimacy and purpose relevant by stepping into fill the void: the Inquisition will be an established master of resolving magical dangers, it's a proficient force, and possibly/probably considered reliable at this point.

 

A part of the compromise for restoring the Circle system for pro-mages is having the Inquisition become the enforcers, replacing the Templars. The mages (if you've been siding with them consistently) trust you not to abuse them and so many would no longer feel a need to rebel once the Templars are gone, concessions in the system could reform the roles of the executor, and the different nature and makeup of the Inquisition can be a culture change people would think as better.

 

Mind you, there are player agency restrictions associated with this. If this were to happen, the Inquisition would probably actually enforce the system: the idea of 'my Inquisitor would take the role and then not do anything' would be about as relevant as 'my Shepard wouldn't work with Cerberus' or 'my Warden/Hawke would get the hell out of Ferelden/Kirkwall.' You'd enforce the system to be enforced- just nicer/better/kinder than the Templars, plus various reforms. Similarly, such an outcome would likely involve being supported by the Chantry, and even being considered a part of the Chantry system- your days as the independent actors coming to a close as the alliances you've made to affect others start to effect you in turn. No permanent revolution.

 

I could see this happening. I make no promises that it would as desired in the long term- a soft-on-mages Circle could eventually lose sight of its goals and forget that whole social segregation purpose and means. A good thing for pro-mage players, I'm sure- but in the other direction, institutionalizing the Inquisition would give the Chantry more influence over time. The idea of the Inquisition as a secular force, for example, will deteriorate if more and more Andrastians come to fill the ranks and rise to the leadership, even as the Andrastian Chantry provides the support (if not necessarily calling the ultimate shots) for the perma-Inquisition.

 

But the relevant thing point is that the Circle system will broadly remain familiar and identifiable regardless of the outcomes. The names and policies may change, but for the short term (ie, for the Dragon Age), mages will be in Circles with various autonomy and there will be a Chantry-backed force working to maintain the system and crack down on mage abuses.

 

 

Say, Dean, have you ever considered applying your intellect to solving real-world problems?

 

And, I swear with all honesty in my body, I am not being either snarky, sarcastic, or condescending. That was sincere. 

 

There's many problems out there that could use well-thought out analyses & programmatic solutions. 

 

Solving the problems of imaginary worlds is grand ... and please note, again, I'm not knocking you for trying, I spend a lot of time, too, playing in or talking about imaginary worlds ... but ... well, wow. 

 

That's kind of you to say. Critical thinking is a part of my job that I love. Sadly, people like myself don't have the experience, credibility, or influence to be worth listening to. Plus a general lack of resources to learn about the subject: video games are easy to analyze because they have pretty limited context: the real world is nowhere near as easy.

 

Can you imagine if I wrote something to, say, a foreign policy magazine with a credible audience? Total trash writing, with a polite response and dismissal. 'What, you think they don't already know the goals of -x- foreign policy?'

 

That's how I feel, CybAnt. My exact thoughts upon reading this. I only hope the work I do when I have my anthropological degree comes close to as thought-out.

 

Meh, this really was a half-hearted effort to collect a lot of thoughts. Broad, but not in-depth: if you focus on any particular point you'll find they're shallowly supported, and I never touched on the very relevant fields of the legitimacy of points or methods within the context of the system.

 

Autocratic systems work. It doesn't mean they're good and right (even if they're often not as bad as westerners automatically assume).

 

I stuck to engineering in college. It was more complex, but less opinionated.

[Mistic]

Dean, as always it's a pleasure to read you when you write this very thoughtful posts. Your analysis should be pointed out to anyone who tries to solve the mage-templar problem. If they can answer all the questions here, then their idea may be sound. In practical terms, of course; the heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.

 

If you mean replacing the role of the Chantry in creating and sustaining a new Circle system, I doubt it. With the metaknowledge we know (that the game will effectively be limited to south-western Thedas) and the very context-specific focus and ration for the Inquisition's formation and expansion (demons) I don't see the Inquisition being a long-term force. It would be a better analog to the Grey Wardens who clearly had a hey day of great resources, before losing support and abandoning the same positions that had given them influence. I see very little reason that the Inquisition's occupation of the abandoned Warden keeps will be any more permanent.

 

But the role of the Grey Wardens can only be fulfilled when there's a Blight. If the Inquisition presents itself as the organization to fight magical threats, then they will have work until magic itself disappears. Our own Grey Warden spent more time battling magical threats than the darkspawn. That alone would be a strong indicator that on principle the Inquisition has a longer-term mission that the Wardens.

 

The geographical limitation of the upcoming game is also not an obstacle. Since the system you have so well analyzed is a White Chantry system, any possible change has to be done in White Chantry lands, preferably its seat of power. That is exactly the place we're going to. Tevinter and the Qunari are not affected, no matter what we do, and that only leaves us the Anderfels (who have their share of problems with the darkspawn), Antiva (a city state) and Rivain (where most of its population is pagan) to oppose any deep changes made during DA:I.

 

That doesn't mean that your prediction may be wrong, it sounds right, but there are reasons to suspect the Inquisition may take charge of the system. After all, the original Inquisition was born in the same place and with the mission of giving answer to these problems.

 

Still, what I can really see is the Inquisition becoming not the enforcers (as you were saying), but internal affairs. Several times before has been said in the forum that the Seekers (who were supposed to be the most direct heirs of the Inquisition) weren't doing a very good job to policy the system, and the fact that the Lord Seeker himself leaded the Templars' rebellion because of being too invested in his personal opinion of the system, asks for an independent audit. Inspectors who would pay more attention to practical terms (like the ones you posted) instead of religious dogma. Of course, that would need an independent, international organization whose membership is not decided by race or religion, with enough means to do their job independently from any national or religious power and a clear mission of solving problems related to magic. That sounds like the Inquisition, isn't it?

[Dean_the_Young]

To a point, and you do make a very valid point that the geography we are restrained to happens to be the most important for the context of an Andrastian system, though I'll point out that you may be tapping into a real-world bias of what Inqusitions are perceived to be by us. A lot of what you mentioned doesn't have much to do with the conventional military force the Inqisition is raising- which isn't entirely an issue, since most of the support will likely drain away post-crisis regardless, but currently the Inquisition is a military force outside of the institution.

 

The more relevant issue, in so much that it is an issue, is that internal affairs already has an institution: the Seekers. And unlike the Templars, the Seekers haven't been de-legitimized by rebelling, are unlikely to be destroyed conventionally, and have generally been loyal to the Divine. The Chantry and Divine don't really need the Inquisition to displace them, and the Inqusition is a bit big and independent to be so deeply involved in the institution. The Templars and Circles could be autonomous as they were effectively their own branches, but internal security requires far more in the way of reliability.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

Apolitical mages in the established poltical system

Isn't the Chantry apolitical? Mages shouldn't be used as weapons in national conflicts, Circles should be treated as enclaves, isolated regardless of political situation (in case someone is wondering i don't consider Blight a political situation). The only threat, imho, that should be addressed by mages is a natural cataclysm which could affect them as well (Blight falls into that category, same as "veil tears"). This kind of isolation should be enforced by Chantry's politics.

 

Non-magical secular education

Mages have access to secular education (the elf in magi origin studying about the Dalish, there is an option with Duncan dialogue suggesting mage knows what darkspawn are and that they are dwarven problem). I think it shouldn't be changed - mages should interact with outside world if it's needed (circle buisness, assisting templars in apprehending dangerous apostates, or "fighting the darkspawn") and that kind of knowledge seems useful.

 

A unified mage polity

The fraternities are natural and i think it's implication of "non-magical secular education" (adaptation and assimilation of working patterns into their reality). Every attempt in neutralizing those ideas would met very hostile reaction. The basic idea would be to silence everyone but the Loyalists (and/or maybe Aequitarians).

 

Organized magical research/The rise of anti-magic fields of study

Existance of insane/sadistic/brutal/illogical mundanes is a fact. Insane mages are much more dangerous than said mundanes. I believe research in such fields as Tranquility should be continued for that reason alone. That and, hey, individuals shouldn't be forbidden pursuing their own personal interests. If those research lead to disabling magical abilities w/o taking the ability to experience emotions, why not pursue it?

 

Disregarding the emotional health of the mages and mundanes

I think that's the main reason why mages resent the system so. Not being able to have a family and having your children taken upon birth - well, if it's not dehumanization, I don't know what is. I wonder why Chantry wants to lower mages population, accidents in Kirkwall/Ferelden pretty much do that w/o those silly Chantry rules.

 

Having the Templars constantly watching inside the Circle

That is another good point. We know plate armour doesn't help much with magic, their abilities are much more usefull. The fact, that templars aren't known for having keen eye (Kirkwall), aside. Then again - anyone knows who was the witness who saw Jowan using blood magic?

 

Cramped buildings with no outdoors

Well, the Gallows have a nice coutryard. 

 

I think the reason why it didn't work is that in all those years everyone have forgotten the Circles are supposed to be the compromise. Templars became jailors with an amazing opportunity for abuse (obey, become tranquil or die), Chantry turned blind eye, focused on planning next exalted march on Qunari or dwarves, taking Circles support for granted, mages were left for themselves with growing hatered for both templars and Chantry for being denied the basic ability to defend themselves or present their reasoning (even Irving says it, the Chantry wouldn't acknowledge Lily's involvement if she wasn't caught red-handed).

Systems usually don't work, they are based on models, i personally think the Circle model is perfect. It would work if every templar, every chantry sister/mother/whatever they call themselves, every mage is adhering to their rules/beliefs/education. There are very few people who actually serve their function, believe in those core rules without bending them to their selfish whims.

[Helios969]

Skuld:  That last sentence sums it up...and is why no system is perfect - people.  Unscrupulous people will always find away to manipulate a system to satisfy their own desires or agendas.  It's why any system that subjugates a population in which said system is controlled by a select few ultimately, always fails.

[Mistic]

To a point, and you do make a very valid point that the geography we are restrained to happens to be the most important for the context of an Andrastian system, though I'll point out that you may be tapping into a real-world bias of what Inqusitions are perceived to be by us. A lot of what you mentioned doesn't have much to do with the conventional military force the Inqisition is raising- which isn't entirely an issue, since most of the support will likely drain away post-crisis regardless, but currently the Inquisition is a military force outside of the institution.

 

Yes, I agree that until we know how the Inquisition will be perceived in-game, we can only make assumptions.

 

Still, you're already making another assumption: who says the Inquisition is raising conventional military force? As I recall, in DA:I you will be able to choose three different specializations for the keeps: military, espionage and trading. That sounds more flexible and ready to answer different needs. Also, points out to a self-reliant organization (as if they were already knowing that any other support not coming from themselves is going to be temporary, although I think that's overthinking).

 

The more relevant issue, in so much that it is an issue, is that internal affairs already has an institution: the Seekers. And unlike the Templars, the Seekers haven't been de-legitimized by rebelling, are unlikely to be destroyed conventionally, and have generally been loyal to the Divine. The Chantry and Divine don't really need the Inquisition to displace them, and the Inqusition is a bit big and independent to be so deeply involved in the institution. The Templars and Circles could be autonomous as they were effectively their own branches, but internal security requires far more in the way of reliability.

 

Sorry, but the Seekers have been deligitimized with a vengeance. Lord Seeker Lambert is (or was) the leader of the rebellion, and when he signs his letter to the Divine in Asunder he does so in the name of both Seekers and Templars. That Cassandra is still loyal is the exception, not the rule (I'm sure there are also Templars still loyal to the Divine, but that doesn't say that the majority haven't defected).

 

Maybe the Chantry and the Divine feel that they don't need the Inquisition to replace them in that oversight, but they are not the only actors involved. We know thanks to the preview of The Masked Empire that both Gaspard and Celene weren't impressed by the Divine's success at easing the post-Kirkwall tensions and were already toying with the idea of solving the matter with Orlesian forces if mages and/or templars started doing stupid things. Convenient that then the country fell into civil war, isn't it?

 

The Nevarran Accord that gave birth to the actual system couldn't have been done without the involvement of the Orlesian Empire. At the time of the Nevarran Accord, the Chantry was a small institution only 20 years old while the Inquisition had been working for over 100 years. The Secular Powers may decide now that given the failure at preventing the Veil Tear crisis, they'd prefer a secular organization to watch the watchmen.

[Xilizhra]

I could see this happening. I make no promises that it would as desired in the long term- a soft-on-mages Circle could eventually lose sight of its goals and forget that whole social segregation purpose and means. A good thing for pro-mage players, I'm sure- but in the other direction, institutionalizing the Inquisition would give the Chantry more influence over time. The idea of the Inquisition as a secular force, for example, will deteriorate if more and more Andrastians come to fill the ranks and rise to the leadership, even as the Andrastian Chantry provides the support (if not necessarily calling the ultimate shots) for the perma-Inquisition.

Hiring quotas. My plan in such a situation would be to have as even a ratio of followers of different religions as possible, if it can be done.

 

I do not see DAI focusing on the Mage/Templar rebellion as the primary plot, and devoting its focus to that. That will be the Fade Tears, much as the Warden had the Blight and Hawke had the Act of the hour to focus on. The Inquisitor's ability to change the entire system will be limited.

As of now, there is no system. And if the game won't focus on the war, why would the Inquisition build a new one to kowtow to the Chantry?

[Dean_the_Young]

Edit: Boo, hiss, quote block limits are so arbitrary.

 

 

Apolitical mages in the established poltical system

Isn't the Chantry apolitical? Mages shouldn't be used as weapons in national conflicts, Circles should be treated as enclaves, isolated regardless of political situation (in case someone is wondering i don't consider Blight a political situation). The only threat, imho, that should be addressed by mages is a natural cataclysm which could affect them as well (Blight falls into that category, same as "veil tears"). This kind of isolation should be enforced by Chantry's politics.

 

 

Not really: the Chantry is a political force, but it's also a largely neutral one. It is involved, but largely passive- as long as you don't pick a fight with the Chantry or pick on the faithful, they will acknowledge everyone else. It's the difference between being a passive political force and largely above politics in general.

 

 

 

Non-magical secular education

Mages have access to secular education (the elf in magi origin studying about the Dalish, there is an option with Duncan dialogue suggesting mage knows what darkspawn are and that they are dwarven problem). I think it shouldn't be changed - mages should interact with outside world if it's needed (circle buisness, assisting templars in apprehending dangerous apostates, or "fighting the darkspawn") and that kind of knowledge seems useful.

 

 

A non-magical secular education is useful for other issues, but that's its primary merit: in terms of sustaining and perpetuating the social segregation of the Circle system, it may actually be detrimental. Controlling and restricting education is one of the most powerful tools of an authoritarian regime: if the Templars were utterly heartless and oppressive monsters, they could do well worse than to remove such education and only bother educating the mages otherwise when the time comes.
 

 

 

 

 

A unified mage polity

The fraternities are natural and i think it's implication of "non-magical secular education" (adaptation and assimilation of working patterns into their reality). Every attempt in neutralizing those ideas would met very hostile reaction. The basic idea would be to silence everyone but the Loyalists (and/or maybe Aequitarians).

 

 

 

 

It's not the neutralization of the fraternities would be the goal (except for the revolutionaries), but actually encouraging the identification and division between the fraternities. The Circle system is such that mages identify as a mage first, and fraternities later: all fraternity mages still have a common dominant identity, they just disagree about particulars.

 

The best way to keep the unified mage polity from being unified is to encourage and play divisions. Favoring some mages over others, pitting the fraternities against each other for limited resources, giving them mutually exclusive guidelines and objectives to earn privilages and rewards. Plus, infiltrating the mage ranks with enough moles to spur distrust: if the Libertarians and Resolutionists are known to be filled with Templar spies (similar to the American Communist Party in the Cold War), not only would fewer people trust the Libertarian fraternity if they came to make a deal but there would be less of a pan-Mage identity.

 

Rather than 'us mages vs them Templars', a clever but ruthless oversight order would make the situation 'Libertarians vs Isolationists vs Aequetarians vs Lucrosians vs Loyalists vs Templars', with a real question as to who the most hated rival is.

 

 

Organized magical research/The rise of anti-magic fields of study

Existance of insane/sadistic/brutal/illogical mundanes is a fact. Insane mages are much more dangerous than said mundanes. I believe research in such fields as Tranquility should be continued for that reason alone. That and, hey, individuals shouldn't be forbidden pursuing their own personal interests. If those research lead to disabling magical abilities w/o taking the ability to experience emotions, why not pursue it?

 

The existence of inanity is a fact. The recognition of it as a matter of health, rather than moral depravity, is not.

 

The systemic argument for restricting personal interests is when personal interests start challenging the system. If your personal interest is in circumventing anti-magic, for example, that's a pretty direct challenge to the sustainment of the system.
 

 

Disregarding the emotional health of the mages and mundanes

I think that's the main reason why mages resent the system so. Not being able to have a family and having your children taken upon birth - well, if it's not dehumanization, I don't know what is. I wonder why Chantry wants to lower mages population, accidents in Kirkwall/Ferelden pretty much do that w/o those silly Chantry rules.

 

 

The most likely rational is that while emotional health is a good thing, strong emotions are targets for demons. Love in particular synergizes with with desire, one of the more powerful (and more clever) demonic archetypes: the desire to get that love, to keep it safe when that requires more power than you have, to not lose it. Demons don't require that you be selfish, only that you feel strongly, and considering that all relationships end eventually everyone in one is going to go through a period of heightened risk- especially if it's a bad breakup.

 

The likely goal of the Templar/Chantry interference is to avoid overly strong emotional ties, not population control. If population control were their goal, they could simply enforce abortions.

 

 

Having the Templars constantly watching inside the Circle

That is another good point. We know plate armour doesn't help much with magic, their abilities are much more usefull. The fact, that templars aren't known for having keen eye (Kirkwall), aside. Then again - anyone knows who was the witness who saw Jowan using blood magic?

 

 

Not really. Probably a mage- I imagine had it been a Templar, that would have been viewed as enough.

 

The one aspect of the Templar uniform that does bear considering keeping is the helmet: depersonalization of the Templars is a relevant part of their role as guards against mages. Templars need to be distinct from the mages, and avoid being morally compromised: one of the most common and effective compromises to upholidng laws and rules is a personal connection. People make exceptions for friends, which is how enforcement systems start to fail.

 

There are other ways to do this, mind you- regular rotations and duty station transfers, scattering shift schedules, systemic cruelty, and so on. I don't advocate the last one. But most Templars should not be seen as friends to beg an illegal favor, and de-personalizing them to the mages helps that. Professionalism is the key- be polite, be courteous, but also have a plan to raise the alarm for every mage you meet.

 

(A big exception is that there should be Templars who are easily identifiable and approachable: the Thrasks or Gregoirs, mature leaders or specifically trained representatives whose job it is to interact and be engaged with mages in a professional manner.)
 

 

 

I think the reason why it didn't work is that in all those years everyone have forgotten the Circles are supposed to be the compromise. Templars became jailors with an amazing opportunity for abuse (obey, become tranquil or die), Chantry turned blind eye, focused on planning next exalted march on Qunari or dwarves, taking Circles support for granted, mages were left for themselves with growing hatered for both templars and Chantry for being denied the basic ability to defend themselves or present their reasoning (even Irving says it, the Chantry wouldn't acknowledge Lily's involvement if she wasn't caught red-handed).

Systems usually don't work, they are based on models, i personally think the Circle model is perfect. It would work if every templar, every chantry sister/mother/whatever they call themselves, every mage is adhering to their rules/beliefs/education. There are very few people who actually serve their function, believe in those core rules without bending them to their selfish whims.

 

 

Cultural evolution past the original context of the Circles is key. It's not really a failing of the Circle system, since all things change: if anything, the fact that the Circle system lasted as long as it has is admirable. Americans haven't managed a single system and social order for a hundred years: they like to think the institutions are the same, but society has radically evolved in the last three hundred years.

 

Some of the goals that the original Circle system was based upon may not even be relevant any more. Certainly the issue of protecting mages from mundanes has largely fallen on the backburner- few of the mages we meet feel any real threat from the mundanes. They might feel otherwise after the experiences of the circle revolt- or we may find that the Andrastian public at large isn't as much of a threat to the mages as it once was. The terrors of ye olden days don't exactly have the same weight they used to- a fact that can actually be sold as a Circle success allowing for the public and elites to moderate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Yes, I agree that until we know how the Inquisition will be perceived in-game, we can only make assumptions.

 

Still, you're already making another assumption: who says the Inquisition is raising conventional military force? As I recall, in DA:I you will be able to choose three different specializations for the keeps: military, espionage and trading. That sounds more flexible and ready to answer different needs. Also, points out to a self-reliant organization (as if they were already knowing that any other support not coming from themselves is going to be temporary, although I think that's overthinking).

 

 

Er, those keeps are the bases for your conventional military forces. That benefits change doesn't change the conventional nature of the forces that act from them. Which we see in the same demo, when we're in a conventional fight with the Red Templars.

 

The Inquisition is more than just a conventional military, but it's arleady established to have a significant conventional military.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, but the Seekers have been deligitimized with a vengeance. Lord Seeker Lambert is (or was) the leader of the rebellion, and when he signs his letter to the Divine in Asunder he does so in the name of both Seekers and Templars. That Cassandra is still loyal is the exception, not the rule (I'm sure there are also Templars still loyal to the Divine, but that doesn't say that the majority haven't defected).

 

 

That Cassandra is loyal is an exception as a Templar, not a seeker. Or rather, that's how I understood it the developments. The Templar defection is separate from the Seekers.
 

 

Maybe the Chantry and the Divine feel that they don't need the Inquisition to replace them in that oversight, but they are not the only actors involved. We know thanks to the preview of The Masked Empire that both Gaspard and Celene weren't impressed by the Divine's success at easing the post-Kirkwall tensions and were already toying with the idea of solving the matter with Orlesian forces if mages and/or templars started doing stupid things. Convenient that then the country fell into civil war, isn't it?

 

 

Indeed. I'll just point out that what Gaspard and Celene within the Chantry is limited: using national forces against the rogue mages and Templars is different from radically restructuring the Chantry.

 

 

The Nevarran Accord that gave birth to the actual system couldn't have been done without the involvement of the Orlesian Empire. At the time of the Nevarran Accord, the Chantry was a small institution only 20 years old while the Inquisition had been working for over 100 years. The Secular Powers may decide now that given the failure at preventing the Veil Tear crisis, they'd prefer a secular organization to watch the watchmen.

 

 

Perhaps. I am skeptical on any weight on the secular aspect of the organization: even the Grey Wardens are officially Andrastian.

[Dean_the_Young]

Hiring quotas. My plan in such a situation would be to have as even a ratio of followers of different religions as possible, if it can be done.

 

 

Hiring quotas are something paymasters have much influence over. If the Chantry is a primary financial backer of the system, it has a basis and influence to demand that there not be a restriction on Andrastians. It could do this in various ways, including only providing salary funds sufficient for the Andrastian quota: the Inquisition could the be left to draw from its other accounts to make the difference, a case of robbing peter to pay paul.

 

 

 

 

As of now, there is no system. And if the game won't focus on the war, why would the Inquisition build a new one to kowtow to the Chantry?

 

As of now, the system is in suspense and revolt: resolving that revolt will likely be a part of the game without being the focus, the same as the Warden resolved three different racial crises in the name of solving the Blight.

 

And the simple answer is 'the Chantry needs the Inquisitor, and the Inquisitor needs the Chantry.' Mutual need and alliance isn't kowtowing.

[Xilizhra]

Hiring quotas are something paymasters have much influence over. If the Chantry is a primary financial backer of the system, it has a basis and influence to demand that there not be a restriction on Andrastians. It could do this in various ways, including only providing salary funds sufficient for the Andrastian quota: the Inquisition could the be left to draw from its other accounts to make the difference, a case of robbing peter to pay paul.

 

 

As of now, the system is in suspense and revolt: resolving that revolt will likely be a part of the game without being the focus, the same as the Warden resolved three different racial crises in the name of solving the Blight.

 

And the simple answer is 'the Chantry needs the Inquisitor, and the Inquisitor needs the Chantry.' Mutual need and alliance isn't kowtowing.

To answer both of these, I recall a statement saying that the Inquisition forms "in opposition to" the Chantry, so I don't think it'll necessarily be mandatory to work with the Chantry more than anyone else. Especially given the implied horrible damage the Chantry has suffered.

 

And in DAO, the Warden never had to maintain or reassert the status quo of any of the systems they encountered, being free to completely smash the group in question in two cases and advance significant changes to the third.

[Wulfram]

One factor that I think you underestimate is the need for the consent of the Mages to the system - even if that's on the grounds of it being the least bad option.  You seem to approach this as something that is imposed on mages, but a purely coercive system tends to fail, and it fails worse when you're dealing with people with inherent combat ability.

You cite the protection of mages from mundanes as a goal, but if so it's one that it utterly fails at, because the mages are at the mercy of the Templars, many of whom hate, fear or de-humanise their charges.  This also contributes to making the autonomy that's supposed to help secure the consent of the mages into a farce

 

I would say that the system would have worked better with the Templars being a mixed force, rather than a purely non-mage force.  And with better, more balanced, Chantry oversight to keep the Templars under control.  And with greater privileges of freedom offered for well behaved and disciplined mages.

 

But it's all kind of meaningless now.  The relationship between Templar and Mage has utterly broken down, and can't realistically be repaired.

[Mistic]

Er, those keeps are the bases for your conventional military forces. That benefits change doesn't change the conventional nature of the forces that act from them. Which we see in the same demo, when we're in a conventional fight with the Red Templars.

 

The Inquisition is more than just a conventional military, but it's arleady established to have a significant conventional military.

 

That is true. However, the question would be how great is that military and its use. Thedas societies are feudal and any feudal lord is expected to have their own conventional military forces to defend their lands (and provide for the royal army if needed). In Awakening, for example, the Grey Wardens were just a bunch of elites; there were city guards and also the soldiers of the arling itself to keep track of every day matters. So if the Inquisition starts holding lands, they will need conventional military forces just to keep them, no matter what their future role is.

 

That Cassandra is loyal is an exception as a Templar, not a seeker. Or rather, that's how I understood it the developments. The Templar defection is separate from the Seekers.

 

No, sorry. The defection is actually the same. Quoting from Lambert's letter:

 

"With the Circle no more, I herebly declare the Accord null and void. Neither the Seekers of Truth nor the Templar Order recognize Chantry authority, and instead we will perform the Maker's work as it was meant to be done, as we see fit".

 

To drive the point home even more, just after meeting fifteen Knight-Commanders to plan the rebellion, Lambert gloats: "Where even the Chantry had failed, the Seekers of Truth would stand triumphant in the eyes of the Maker". So, in fact, Lambert sees the Templar side of the Mage-Templar war as leaded by none other than the Seekers.

 

Indeed. I'll just point out that what Gaspard and Celene within the Chantry is limited: using national forces against the rogue mages and Templars is different from radically restructuring the Chantry.

 

I agree with you. That's why my best bet is the Inquisition replacing the Seekers of Truth, since they haven't appeared very often and are very secretive. It's not a great change, you just take oversight from the Chantry and put it in other people's hands. Law comes from the states, and if the greatest power behind the Chantry passes a law that gives the Inquisition full inquisitorial powers (as in the real-life scenario of the real world inquistions), the Chantry can't do much to oppose it. After all, you could say that the current predicament of the Chantry is a consequence of its failure at policing itself.

 

In future games we will have Circles and Templars as always, a familiar sight, but players will feel reassured that "their" Inquisition is taking care no side starts doing stupid things. Of course, then players will start pushing their 'headcanon' about what the Inquisition may do or not within that role, like the issues of the royal boons or the management of Awakening

 

Perhaps. I am skeptical on any weight on the secular aspect of the organization: even the Grey Wardens are officially Andrastian.

 

I never understood very well the mention about the Grey Wardens converting to the Chantry after Drakon saved them, since in every other reference they don't have any problem with blood mages, dwarves or Dalish. My guess was that before Drakon saved them they were still these Tevinter soldiers with super darkspawn powers who weren't very keen on the new "barbarian" religion. When Drakon saved them, they converted en masse. But due to personal convictions, not an institutional choice.

 

But that's just my guess. Maybe in WoT something more was stated about this? Anyone?

[wright1978]

For emotional relationships, there is an actual basis for opposing them. Strong emotional ties are an effective leverage against the primary defense against demons, the individual mind. Desire demons in particular can prey on emotional wants and ties, especially when the demon can offer something to protect or fulfill that relationship. Emotional ties outside the Circle are also an issue: outside ties are a basis for wanting escape and and support network for achieving it. For a system based on social segregation, the fewer ties between the groups the better (and this includes family ties).

 

But total emotional suppression, besides being unhealthy, is also unnecessary. It's throwing the baby out with the bath water: mages should be encouraged to form emotional ties inside the Circle, to support and help them there. It's a moral and practical boon: morally it can allow meaningful relationships, and practically the more ties the mage has in the system the more ties will keep them there. One of the interesting aspects of people living in authoritarian regimes is why they don't leave: friends and family are often a cause, and if a person can't take them on the escape they often won't. This isn't just friendship, but also love: families can be enabled and allowed in the Circle system, and I would even go so far as saying that bringing families from outside the system in (if they want) could also be managed and encouraged to help fulfill mage's emotional needs.

 

This isn't unlimited, mind you- and some of the policy implementations of maintaining the social division by keeping the mage families inside the system may frustrate those wanting more and more freedom- but the point is that mage families are compatible with the goals of the system.

 

Everytime i play the Huon quest in DA2 i think how unjust it was to separate him from his wife. So yeah any new system to my mind has to accept that mages have a right to a family life.

[foolishquinn]

This is really well thought out, thanks sir dean the young.
You remind me of my college quality assurance and management lecturer
The way you talk .

[Dean_the_Young]

Everytime i play the Huon quest in DA2 i think how unjust it was to separate him from his wife. So yeah any new system to my mind has to accept that mages have a right to a family life.

 

While Houn is an excellent case of where the Circle system creates a circumstance that wouldn't have existed without it, it also represents the dangers of a situation that would occur even without the Circle: the context of emotional separation, aka the bad breakup. Houn couldn't let go, even when his wife told him to leave, and wouldn't accept it. A marital relationship issue turned into diving into forbidden acts.

 

That this marital issue was caused by the Circle doesn't change the underlying point: bad relationships happen, and will happen regardless of the Circle. This isn't a factor unique to mages, but the fact that mages not only can have more severe consequences, but have factors that can be applied to such circumstnaces...

 

If you want my view of creepy-horror about blood magic and demonic magical thralldome, it isn't life force draining or even the mental domination of forcing them to follow your will: it's the fact that you can change their will and they won't know the difference. With blood magic, you can make that pretty girl fall in love with you, adore you, be loyal to you, find you charming and witty and kind. With blood magic there are no messy divorces, there are no irreconciliable differences, there are no arguments that poison ties forever after.

 

With blood magic, you can make that- any any sense of true 'self' your 'loved one' has- go away.

 

And that's terrifying.

[Xilizhra]

While Houn is an excellent case of where the Circle system creates a circumstance that wouldn't have existed without it, it also represents the dangers of a situation that would occur even without the Circle: the context of emotional separation, aka the bad breakup. Houn couldn't let go, even when his wife told him to leave, and wouldn't accept it. A marital relationship issue turned into diving into forbidden acts.

Nyssa broke up with Huon because Huon had already gone crazy. I think he might have already been planning to kill her at that time and only wanted to do so when there weren't any witnesses, especially as Huon never mentions anything about Nyssa sending him away.

 

If you want my view of creepy-horror about blood magic and demonic magical thralldome, it isn't life force draining or even the mental domination of forcing them to follow your will: it's the fact that you can change their will and they won't know the difference. With blood magic, you can make that pretty girl fall in love with you, adore you, be loyal to you, find you charming and witty and kind. With blood magic there are no messy divorces, there are no irreconciliable differences, there are no arguments that poison ties forever after.

 

With blood magic, you can make that- any any sense of true 'self' your 'loved one' has- go away.

 

And that's terrifying.

Can that actually happen? Greagoir's line "She seems shocked, but fully in control of her own mind" seems to indicate that those who've been enthralled by a blood mage will visibly show it in their mannerisms.

[Mistic]

Can that actually happen? Greagoir's line "She seems shocked, but fully in control of her own mind" seems to indicate that those who've been enthralled by a blood mage will visibly show it in their mannerisms.

 

 

That's a good question. Much has been said about the dangers of blood mage, but how does blood magical mind control work exactly? What have we seen in the games or the books?

[Dean_the_Young]

One factor that I think you underestimate is the need for the consent of the Mages to the system - even if that's on the grounds of it being the least bad option.  You seem to approach this as something that is imposed on mages, but a purely coercive system tends to fail, and it fails worse when you're dealing with people with inherent combat ability.

 

Oh, I appreciate the value of buy-in. I think the Circle needs more of it- something I didn't go into much detail here because this was how the Circle does work, rather than how I think it should. A big point of letting mages bring families into the Circle system (and I do mean bringing the families from outside in) is more emotional investment in the setting. I'm also opposed to unrestrained ruthlessness for the same reason: it prevents buy-in.

 

That said, coercive systems are actually the historical norm, and are surprisingly durable. Systems far worse than the Circle system (chattel slavery, 20th century socialism) sustained themselves for exceedingly long periods of time with minimal popular support of those being oppressed: when they fell, it was often for other reasons, like economics. Regimes that fall for lack of support also tend to be regimes that are unstable in general and depend on the public approval, because they can't crack down- a case of not being able to be ruthless enough, which has a pretty successful history in a sad and depressing sort of way.
 

 

You cite the protection of mages from mundanes as a goal, but if so it's one that it utterly fails at, because the mages are at the mercy of the Templars, many of whom hate, fear or de-humanise their charges.  This also contributes to making the autonomy that's supposed to help secure the consent of the mages into a farce

 

 

'Mundanes' in this context refers to broader society, both lower and upper level. Templars, while mundanes in terms of not being mages, are a separate group. The issue with the Templars are the issue with an enforcement arm, rather than broader mundane society (which barely thinks about mages).

 

As for autonomy, that's a frequently misunderstood and misused term- it is not a synonym for self-determination or independence, which is how it is often used. Autonomy typically occurs within limits, and so long as the Templars are only oppressing from those limits the autonomy is still a fact. An autonomous circle doesn't mean one without Templars policing and stepping in to enforce rules: it simply means one in which, when the rules are not being broken, the mages direct their own activities. Which they do.

 

 

I would say that the system would have worked better with the Templars being a mixed force, rather than a purely non-mage force.  And with better, more balanced, Chantry oversight to keep the Templars under control.  And with greater privileges of freedom offered for well behaved and disciplined mages.

 

 

To a point. Making the Templars a mixed force risks the corruption of the enforcement arm to mage interests, which are the ones that need greater scrutiny and precaution. It's not that I don't see it at all, but letting unlimited advancement occur (say, becoming the Knight Commander) would be unwise: it's an obvious target for a cabal, and the practical aspect of overcoming the suspicion is that a mage-Templar would need to be a harliner to be considered credible.

 

I could see team leaders, maybe even squad leaders, but senior leadership is risky. At least so long as there is a pan-mage identity. The same goes for entry into the oversight of the Templars.

 

 

Mind you, I'm actually for it as part of the prospect of breaking up the pan-mage identity. I could very well see making members of the Loyalist fraternity a part of the enforcement arm as part of the perks and rewards of the Loyalist fraternity vis-a-vis the other fraternities.