80 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

 

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.

 

 

 

Was that it? I actually understood it as a situation more sympathetic to Huon: that he cracked because she panicked and sent him away.

 

 

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.

 

 

The blood magic influences we've seen against non-player characters weren't detectable by the person being affected, and one of the established fears of blood magic is that it isn't easily detectable. If you didn't know someone was acting out of character, it wouldn't be obvious.

[Jack Druthers]

So how does a templar know?  How does a templar detect a mage?

[Xilizhra]

Was that it? I actually understood it as a situation more sympathetic to Huon: that he cracked because she panicked and sent him away.

Huon had apparently "changed" before returning to Nyssa, and was frightening enough that she decided to send away her long-lost husband, so I think it was the Circle alone that broke him.

 

 

 

The blood magic influences we've seen against non-player characters weren't detectable by the person being affected, and one of the established fears of blood magic is that it isn't easily detectable. If you didn't know someone was acting out of character, it wouldn't be obvious.

Well, not detectable by the person being affected, sometimes (though I don't accept "player is overpowered" as a lore justification for anything; if the PC can do something, it can be done in lore, even if not by everyone), but definitely detectable by anyone around them. I mean, when Varric starts drooling over Idunna, that's fairly obvious.

[LobselVith8]

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.

Crazy is right. They were married, but he was taken away to the Gallows in chains when it was discovered that he was a mage. Huon had been gone for a decade, living in the Circle Tower, and he escaped as a mentally unhinged lunatic.

[Jack Druthers]

Ok, Ser Bryant says to the mage origin warden that he would be a poor templar if he couldn't see that they were a mage.  (big stick  strapped to the back and all that aside) I can only find evidence that they have to havea strong sense of duty, faith in the Maker, and mental resistance, plus the lyrium drinking that makes them a templar.  So what is it that does it? They rely on phalacteries to track mages.  Some sort of mage radar?

[Dean_the_Young]

Huon had apparently "changed" before returning to Nyssa, and was frightening enough that she decided to send away her long-lost husband, so I think it was the Circle alone that broke him.

 

 

 

Well, not detectable by the person being affected, sometimes (though I don't accept "player is overpowered" as a lore justification for anything; if the PC can do something, it can be done in lore, even if not by everyone), but definitely detectable by anyone around them. I mean, when Varric starts drooling over Idunna, that's fairly obvious.

Because people are familiar enough with him to spot the character discrepancy. But just as not all possessions are obvious, neither would outward mental influence.

[pallascedar]

Crazy is right. They were married, but he was taken away to the Gallows in chains when it was discovered that he was a mage. Huon had been gone for a decade, living in the Circle Tower, and he escaped as a mentally unhinged lunatic.

 

Yeah, I got the sense from both Huon and Evelina that they were driven crazy by their treatment within the circle (or more like, Evelina was driven into the arms of a demon). It's really easy to look at both quests from two sides: "Look, mages are dangerous and should be caged." and the other "Look what happens to mages when you cage them."

[LorDC]

Decided to add my two cents.

Viewing Circle problems as mage/templar conflict is plainly wrong. Scope of the conflict is larger it is mage/mundane conflict, and viewing it as mage/templar only narrows our filed of vision and makes us miss critical points.

Dragon Age universe actually depicts four systems of mage/mundane relationships, although non-Circle systems are not portrayed in nearly as much detail. Looking at them can make us see things that escaped us. Of those systems two more or less work and two more or less fail. Let's see.
 
First two we can look at are Circle and Tevinter systems. Circle roughly equals institutionalized mage oppression, while Tevinter roughly equals institutionalized mundane oppression. Exactly opposite, right? In some sense - yes, but if you look at them from another angle they are same. In both systems mages and mundanes view each other as enemies leading to unresolvable conflict and all sorts of nasty things that those on top do to those below them.
If you look at it this way, Andrastian revolution accomplished exactly nothing. It didn't even come close to solving Tevinter problems only swapping places of mages and mundanes. It only moved point where civil unrest accumulates from one place to another. No wonder it came to the same end.
 
Other two systems are Dalish and Qunari systems. First one is a tribal/tradition based magocracy. It is similar to Tevinter system in terms of where mages are in social pyramid. Critical difference is that while Tevinter system is based on exploitation Dalish is based on cooperation.
Second one is(at first glance) an extreme case of mage oppression. Nothing can be further from the truth(sister Petrice made the same mistake). Qunari mages willingly and joyfully submit to their fate. Again we see an example of cooperation.
 
Sadly both systems can not be made work outside their respective societies. Dalish system just does not scale beyond tribal level, while Qunari system is based on their philosophy and only works for Qunari.
 
To illustrate my thinking I've even draw simple chart(forgive me my paint mad skillz): http://imgur.com/UeCRUHn

Circle reforms may give mages more more freedom "moving" system up, but it will not move it right. Cooperation can only be mutual. As such no amount of circle reforms will ever solve mage/mundane conflict. Only reasonable first step is complete 180 on Chantry doctrine about mages. Only when mages and mundanes stop fearing and hating each other this conflict can be solved.

[CELL55]

Decided to add my two cents.

*SNIP*

 
Sadly both systems can not be made work outside their respective societies. Dalish system just does not scale beyond tribal level, while Qunari system is based on their philosophy and only works for Qunari.
 
To illustrate my thinking I've even draw simple chart(forgive me my paint mad skillz): http://imgur.com/UeCRUHn

Circle reforms may give mages more more freedom "moving" system up, but it will not move it right. Cooperation can only be mutual. As such no amount of circle reforms will ever solve mage/mundane conflict. Only reasonable first step is complete 180 on Chantry doctrine about mages. Only when mages and mundanes stop fearing and hating each other this conflict can be solved.

 

I hardly think that the Chantry is entirely to blame for this. Yes fear is a major problem, but it is not as if that fear exists only as a result of Chantry teaching. Some people have the ability to melt your face, control your mind, or turn into a huge demon and kill everyone you've ever known and loved. It's not exactly a huge leap to determine why someone might be wary of mages. Simply changing the cultural mores isn't going to let everyone live in utopia. 

 

As you point out, the Dalish option really only works small scale while the Qunari option only works with the Qun. I don't see widespread cultural overhaul being something particularly likely to happen, let alone anytime soon. Some sort of Circle system, while perhaps not the most enjoyable option, seems to me to be the most pragmatic/necessary/best we can do.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Circle reforms may give mages more more freedom "moving" system up, but it will not move it right. Cooperation can only be mutual. As such no amount of circle reforms will ever solve mage/mundane conflict. Only reasonable first step is complete 180 on Chantry doctrine about mages. Only when mages and mundanes stop fearing and hating each other this conflict can be solved.

 

In other words, never.

 

Also, Tevinter and Andrastian systems aren't even remotely the same.

[Wolfen09]

moderation, instead of having chantry>templars>mages, it would be at least a little bit better to do a checks and balances thing where every group has some sort of leverage on eachother... it may be only a temporary solution, but its one of the very few ways i see them coexisting.  Make it so everyone is to blame, not just one side or the other

[Dean_the_Young]

moderation, instead of having chantry>templars>mages, it would be at least a little bit better to do a checks and balances thing where every group has some sort of leverage on eachother... it may be only a temporary solution, but its one of the very few ways i see them coexisting.  Make it so everyone is to blame, not just one side or the other

 

That's actually what is in place. All three factions have things they can and can not do vis-a-vis eachother, as much as many don't wish to accept it. Even in Kirkwall, Meredith couldn't search the rooms of the towers for evidence- when it comes to restrictive police states and constant surveilance, that is an extremely large check against the enforcement authority.

 

The Circles have more autonomy than many people concede, not least because much of it is in the unglamorous fields most people don't consider important until they don't have them. Mages already have extensive financial liberty, control most of their own education, employment specialization and even participation, food security and autonomy, influence on punishments Templars met out to mages, and freedom of speech (especially for open dissent).

 

Whether you feel this is enough or undermined by the restrictions they do have is irrelevant: the point is that the Templars already have significant restrictions on what they can do vis-a-vis the Mages, and the Mages have balances in their own favor as well.

 

 

None of which means the system can't be improved and made better, merely that the system is not one of simply tyranny and oppression without any rights, checks, or balances helping the mages.

[Wolfen09]

the chantry is supposed to oversee the templars, but i dont see them doing much of that...  i mean all elthina had to do was tell orsino to stop getting into trouble and to tell meredith she will lose her job if she continues....  and needs to follow through... kirkwall could have been prevented if the chantry hadnt watched it happen...

 

Abominations roam the halls of fereldens circle tower, tons of people die and bam everything back to normal nothing wrong here....  no chantry investigation no nothing....  They need to do more than just control lyrium, they have to enforce the rules over both parties just as much as both parties should enforce rules over the others

[Mistic]

That's actually what is in place. All three factions have things they can and can not do vis-a-vis eachother, as much as many don't wish to accept it. Even in Kirkwall, Meredith couldn't search the rooms of the towers for evidence- when it comes to restrictive police states and constant surveilance, that is an extremely large check against the enforcement authority.

 

The Circles have more autonomy than many people concede, not least because much of it is in the unglamorous fields most people don't consider important until they don't have them. Mages already have extensive financial liberty, control most of their own education, employment specialization and even participation, food security and autonomy, influence on punishments Templars met out to mages, and freedom of speech (especially for open dissent).

 

Whether you feel this is enough or undermined by the restrictions they do have is irrelevant: the point is that the Templars already have significant restrictions on what they can do vis-a-vis the Mages, and the Mages have balances in their own favor as well.

 

 

None of which means the system can't be improved and made better, merely that the system is not one of simply tyranny and oppression without any rights, checks, or balances helping the mages.

 

I agree. The problem is that the checks and balances work well on the paper, but not in practice. Templars can work unchecked far more easily than mages, and there's no equivalent to the right of annulment in case Templars abuse their authority. One of my main complaints is that the Seekers haven't done a proper job, at least not during the timeframe we've witnessed, which suspiciously coincides with the aftermath of Dawn of the Seeker, when the previous Lord Seeker died. Maybe his successors haven't been up to the challenge... or someone has made sure they haven't.

 

Interestingly, in Tevinter the opposite happens. In theory, they have similar checks and balances, but in practice the Templars end up incapable of giving a real response to mage threats unless the Magisters tell them to intervene.

 

Others may point out that the Chantry is not a really neutral third-party and that more often than not puts its theological vision of the situation over other concerns. However, you've said several times (and I agree with you) that in current Thedas the Chantry is the only internaitonal organization with enough reputation and means to accomplish such a system. That level of legitimacy is hard to find.

[Dean_the_Young]

the chantry is supposed to oversee the templars, but i dont see them doing much of that...  i mean all elthina had to do was tell orsino to stop getting into trouble and to tell meredith she will lose her job if she continues....  and needs to follow through... kirkwall could have been prevented if the chantry hadnt watched it happen...

 

We don't see much of the Templars and Circles at all, Kirkwall even less. And even most of that was third-hand rumors of an exceptional situation in which the Templars had far more political power than is the norm. What little we do have suggests that the Chantry was trying to quietly act: it opposed the Tranquil Solution, it did not support Annulment, and it was urging the reduction of tensions and sending agents to try and investigate them. It was just too quiet, and too little.

 

Kirwall was a number of factors and failings on all three parts of the system: a Knight Commander who wouldn't accept limitations or compromises (because of the lyrium idol), a First Enchanter who confused being an advocate for being a defender of actual mage malefactors (because he was more afraid of being in the right than of being caught), and a Chantry oversight that had lost its power over the Templar (because she rose to power in response to legitimate crisis, until she was too powerful to remove).

 

But, considering that they were all to blame, that rather fits your earlier request, doesn't it?
 

 

Abominations roam the halls of fereldens circle tower, tons of people die and bam everything back to normal nothing wrong here....  no chantry investigation no nothing....  They need to do more than just control lyrium, they have to enforce the rules over both parties just as much as both parties should enforce rules over the others

 

What makes you think the Chantry had no investigations and no nothing, in Kirkwall, when Leliana's presence is explicitly the opposite, and what makes you think the situation in the Ferelden circle was back to 'normal' afterwards?

 

We know very little about either situation. We never see any meaningful activity in the Circle of Ferelden post-crisis, nor do we ever get an interior perspective of Templar-Chantry engagement we do know occurs.

[Dean_the_Young]

I agree. The problem is that the checks and balances work well on the paper, but not in practice. Templars can work unchecked far more easily than mages, and there's no equivalent to the right of annulment in case Templars abuse their authority. One of my main complaints is that the Seekers haven't done a proper job, at least not during the timeframe we've witnessed, which suspiciously coincides with the aftermath of Dawn of the Seeker, when the previous Lord Seeker died. Maybe his successors haven't been up to the challenge... or someone has made sure they haven't.

 

 

Pretty much. Imbalances of power pretty much always enable an imbalance of potential abuses and difficulty with redress of grievances: that isn't even a failing of a system, just the way systems work. Similar dynamics work in even liberal societies between law enforcement agencies and lower-class citizens: no matter how enlightened you think your police force is, there's a great deal of difference between what they can get away with vis-a-vis what the others can do back.

 

The point about checks and balances in practice is very important, because it's critical to understand that checks and balances not being applied isn't a failing of a system: it's a failing of the participants. Laws and rights only matter as much as the people on both sides care, and simply tearing down a system and establishing new-same laws and going 'this time, you'll respect them' is misguided. The solution to people not following established rules is rarely having yet more rules to the same effect: if they were willing to follow the rules in the first place, you wouldn't need the second set, and if they weren't willing to follow the first it's unlikely they'll follow the second.

 

The key to reform of the Circle system isn't simply more checks and balances: it's restoring adherence to the checks and balances that are already there. More checks and balances are certainly warranted (and the removal of a few of the old ones as well- see counter-productive policies), but they won't mean anything unless the people following them, on both sides, actually deign to follow them. That doesn't just mean no more Meredith's with unfounded paranoid crackdowns or Alrik's with unjustified Tranquility: it also means no more Orisino's to actively cover up and obstruct the addressment of mage abuses as well, and no more Resolutionists trying to sabotage the system from within the privilages and rights afforded by the system.

 

 

 

 

 

Others may point out that the Chantry is not a really neutral third-party and that more often than not puts its theological vision of the situation over other concerns. However, you've said several times (and I agree with you) that in current Thedas the Chantry is the only internaitonal organization with enough reputation and means to accomplish such a system. That level of legitimacy is hard to find.

 

 

I'd also point out that the most common claim of failing of the Chantry in the Circle system (Kirkwall especially) isn't that it acts in an overtly biased manner: it's that it doesn't act enough at all.

 

I actually stand against the common grain of Bioware opinion by thinking this is a good thing. Not only would a more active Chantry be prone to actually letting its theological vision be put over the other concerns, but the Chantry would lose vital moral authority that it has over both Templars and Mages if it chose one side or the other: the acceptance of its legitimacy isn't a given, and can not be taken for granted by either the mages (who would see it as actively oppressing them if it aligned with the Templars) or the Templars (who would see it as abandoning the real security fears that is their reason for existence).

 

Plus, there's the fact that a policy of deliberate inaction hides strength and weakness far better than active involvement that eventually runs into the limits and failings of its power. In the Kirkwall situation especially, Meredith and the Templars had already eclipsed Elthina and the Chantry as the most powerful actors in the city: Elthina very well might not have been able to win a direct confrontation with Meredith if she tried. By not forcing a confrontation, she was able to limit both sides and buy time for developments that might have resolved the situation more peacefully (Thrask's coup, Hawke's potential rise to Viscount, removing the public emergency, etc.). When acting from a position of weakness, this is exactly the proper sort of strategy to pursue- it didn't work, but it's important to note that Elthina failed because of a third-party actor, not the Circle or the Templars.

 

 

In roundup, I don't feel the Chantry should be directly involved in the running of the Circle, not in the triparty checks and balances of the American-style governance. The Chantry's priority should be to preserve it's legitimacy and moral authority. Judicial conflict resolution, not judicial activism: present, but not predominant. Investigative, not agitative.

[CELL55]

I think that a major problem with the checks and balances in the old system was that the Seekers of Truth, those whose job it was to police the Templars, were largely comprised of and even led by Templars. When you are asking essentially the same group to self-check its own power, you're going to run into problems. How could a Seeker be expected to check the power of their former comrades-in-arms, former mentors, and former pupils? How then could one expect every Seeker in an entire organization to do this?

 

Perhaps that will be the role of the new Inquisition; to exist as an organization that is both separate and distinct from the Templar Order and the Circle of Mages so as to (at least in theory) remove itself from biases that would impede its duties.

[Dean_the_Young]

I think that a major problem with the checks and balances in the old system was that the Seekers of Truth, those whose job it was to police the Templars, were largely comprised of and even led by Templars. When you are asking essentially the same group to self-check its own power, you're going to run into problems. How could a Seeker be expected to check the power of their former comrades-in-arms, former mentors, and former pupils? How then could one expect every Seeker in an entire organization to do this?

 

I really do agree- in fact, the best argument against the prevalence of Templars in the Seekers is the same argument against trusting mages to oversee the Circles themselves: a conflict of interest (or at least a lack of conflict of interests). I wouldn't pull all Seekers from the Templars for the same reason I wouldn't pull all police from military veterans: they are certainly proficient and capable and there are many strengths, but they bring with them certain perspectives, viewpoints, and identities that you don't want. A Templar internal investigator arm being made of Templars is fine: a Templar oversight agency being made of Templars is not.

 

I personally suspect the Seekers themselves are too small in the first place (I get the 'personal agents' rather than 'systemic oversight), but they should be more diverse as well. Templars should be as rare as Circle mages, which should be rare and carefully considered: the norm should be as varied as the Andrastian faith.

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps that will be the role of the new Inquisition; to exist as an organization that is both separate and distinct from the Templar Order and the Circle of Mages so as to (at least in theory) remove itself from biases that would impede its duties.

 

I've seen it raised that the Inquisition could replace the Seekers or even the Templars. I think the idea has merit, albeit a successful replacement would have to have a bit less bending to player preferences than players would like. But then, I suspect most people don't worry about how 21st century morality works when you try to fit it on archaic or alien cultures: I do, but only because of recent western history in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[TheKomandorShepard]

If circle want to function properly read protect world from mages it should end with half-measures like lets try by nice and effective in result they are failing in both.It should focus on most important aspect and why circles were created to keep magic in check,

 

As we know current circles are failures many mages are escaping other aren't even found .many mages in circles are corrupted or end as abomnations same for those outside. Huge amounts of disasters caused by mages in rather small amount of time most of them were caused just through 10 years shows that circles are failure when it comes to protect world from mages.

 

I don't think it is possible to contain mages (thats why i go for ultimate solution that will fix that) at best just decrease numbers of incidents which will still be common. What we can do to increase safety for the world at first as i said circles need stop use half-measures or morality mostly hypocritical and put there just to look slighty prettier.

 

First less freedom mages have less disasters we have mages have to be properly imprisoned for example every mage have 1 cell/room with safety measures that he can't outside rare exceptions leave cell have to be very secured and watched so mage couldn't escape which is one of major problems with current circles... also room should protect from abomnation to get out or at least slow down abomnation.

 

Now relations with other mages should be very limited so they couldn't plan revolution like uldred or spread corruption to others like orsino and quentin mostly mage should have contact with his teacher and if mages behave properly s/he can see with another mages for short amount of time with mage who also behave of course meeting should be monitored. 

 

Now we have harrowing it is just luck based test so to increase the effectiveness of it mage should pass it 3 times dealing with different kinds of demons if mage won't pass it kill him or for ecomomical reasons tranquil him.Tranquility also should be use to intimidation to problematic mages that don't want coperate. 

 

And now every mage who will break law will be punished equally with death or tranquility as in that cases we can't let mages break law and let them made mistake.

 

As for templars they need eliminate (remove them out of the order) soft templars like thrask and punish any bond beetwen templar and mage as they should strike without emotions templars are to elimate mage when they become too dangerous not to socialize with them.

 

So in short those are basics to fulfill goal behind circles...

 

When system is better than current circles it is still rather falwed and unnecessarily complicated and will only decrease incidents caused by mages not wipe out entirely...

[CELL55]

I've seen it raised that the Inquisition could replace the Seekers or even the Templars. I think the idea has merit, albeit a successful replacement would have to have a bit less bending to player preferences than players would like. But then, I suspect most people don't worry about how 21st century morality works when you try to fit it on archaic or alien cultures: I do, but only because of recent western history in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

I think that's going to be a problem with any game made. Checks and balances, separation of church and state, democracy, and other things are such an ingrained part of modern western liberal political thought that it can be hard to remember that none of these things can be taken for granted. The problem then is making a result that follows logically from the game world, keeps the game world interesting, and is made understandable to players that perhaps at Thedas' place and time that what is going on is the best that can be done without having the long political and philosophic traditions that led us in the real world to where we are today.

[MrMrPendragon]

Decided to add my two cents.Viewing Circle problems as mage/templar conflict is plainly wrong. Scope of the conflict is larger it is mage/mundane conflict, and viewing it as mage/templar only narrows our filed of vision and makes us miss critical points.Dragon Age universe actually depicts four systems of mage/mundane relationships, although non-Circle systems are not portrayed in nearly as much detail. Looking at them can make us see things that escaped us. Of those systems two more or less work and two more or less fail. Let's see. First two we can look at are Circle and Tevinter systems. Circle roughly equals institutionalized mage oppression, while Tevinter roughly equals institutionalized mundane oppression. Exactly opposite, right? In some sense - yes, but if you look at them from another angle they are same. In both systems mages and mundanes view each other as enemies leading to unresolvable conflict and all sorts of nasty things that those on top do to those below them.If you look at it this way, Andrastian revolution accomplished exactly nothing. It didn't even come close to solving Tevinter problems only swapping places of mages and mundanes. It only moved point where civil unrest accumulates from one place to another. No wonder it came to the same end. Other two systems are Dalish and Qunari systems. First one is a tribal/tradition based magocracy. It is similar to Tevinter system in terms of where mages are in social pyramid. Critical difference is that while Tevinter system is based on exploitation Dalish is based on cooperation.Second one is(at first glance) an extreme case of mage oppression. Nothing can be further from the truth(sister Petrice made the same mistake). Qunari mages willingly and joyfully submit to their fate. Again we see an example of cooperation. Sadly both systems can not be made work outside their respective societies. Dalish system just does not scale beyond tribal level, while Qunari system is based on their philosophy and only works for Qunari. To illustrate my thinking I've even draw simple chart(forgive me my paint mad skillz): http://imgur.com/UeCRUHnCircle reforms may give mages more more freedom "moving" system up, but it will not move it right. Cooperation can only be mutual. As such no amount of circle reforms will ever solve mage/mundane conflict. Only reasonable first step is complete 180 on Chantry doctrine about mages. Only when mages and mundanes stop fearing and hating each other this conflict can be solved.

This is a very Anders-like thinking, but it's right. There can be no half-measures when it comes to this conflict. Before the Chantry, mages ruled, and as this guy said, the Andrastrian revolution didn't solve anything. If anything it just shifted the scales, now making the majority (common folk) getting the good end of the deal, unlike before where in the magocracy it was the other way around.

You can't just take away the rights and freedoms of a group of people just because of what they are (well you can't take away any freedoms for any reason really), then just keep adding certain rules and policies to make that injustice tolerable for the victims. There will always be mages. Thedas can't do this forever.

But let's say the mages are willing to compromise by giving up their freedoms for the good of all. Looking at the solutions posted by Dean, I think most of them are great suggestions.

For example, Templars don't need to be intrusive. Watching over instructors and apprentices in a non-intimidating way is a good start, but this one is kind of a no-brainer really. Another good suggestion is have the Templars as an expeditionary force to minimize casualties should abominations start terrorizing the locals. I'm also up for making the Circle less "prisony". The Circle needs to feel like a thriving community populated by Mages, not feel like a prison that houses segregated citizens. If you're going to be imprisoned, might as well pick the best and cleanest cell.

Actually, all the suggestions would work well if the Chantry puts effort into making them possible. The problem is why would they do it?

Making all the listed solutions a reality will take a lot of resources, not to mention a few tweaks in the status quo. The muggles of Thedas firmly believe that mages are people to be feared, ticking time bombs really. Even the Templars believe they are superior to Mages by divine righ ---- there you go, there's no questioning divine right in the world of Thedas, especially since majority of its inhabitants believe in all that heirarchy system.

Where would the Chantry get its resources to renovate the Circle into a family-friendly and less prisony place to live in? On lyrium trade alone? Maybe a few tithes? With the darkspawn offensive in the Deep Roads, the Chantry can't possibly sustain such an extravagant Circle system in the long haul, especially if we're thinking about having mages have their own families within the Circle. Mages don't have jobs or really any income. They are basically cattle who can shoot fireballs. The only real serivce they do are enchantments, potions, and the rare time when they have to go to war, which they probably don't even get paid for. The Chantry would have to pay upkeep for various Chantry buildings, salary for the thousands of Templars, not to mention caring for the sick and needy. Plus if they hope to keep influence as a passive political force, they'd have to have some wealth in stock.

Let's say they manage to do all that, why would they? The prison tower does what they want. The same goes for other request. They all require a little bit of altruism on the Templars' part, which if we go by "First Blight and magisters" mentality, that altruism isn't going to come anytime soon. They see any kind of tweak to the current system as an act of kindness, and if self interest plays a factor, the Templars would consider it not as a service, but a bargain. They'd probably ask someing from the mages.

They don't have to do ANY kind of change to the Circle system because the Templars and Chantry know they are in the right. And so we go back to what this guy said. Do a complete 180 on the Chantry's doctrine about mages. But who would be willing to listen? The uneducated townsfolk, or the templars who hold authority over mages? The mages can only react to the actions of the Chantry becaue the Chantry have the public and the Templars to support them. Not to mention mages can't get any sympathy thanks to anceint Tevinter and current Tevinter.

Plus, no one in Thedas is educated enough to fully analyze the system in this detail, work on a solution, and do it. Maybe the mages, but then again who would listen? Maybe the Chantry or the Templars, but why would they? Should they educate the muggles? Who would make the effort? The common folk lead agricultural-type lives.

The conflict between the mages and the templars is a matter of ideology. Even if the mages win this war then what? The public still hate them. It would take collective effort to change the current culture. Kind of like the Qunari, but with less smug sense of superiority.

Magic is the main factor. I would suggest taking away all magic (dwarfifying them) but I don't even know why dwarves don't have magic. Tranquility doesn't work anymore but the templars aren't going to let anyone discover that, not after millions of mages have gone through it ever since it came around.

[Lotion Soronarr]

I agree. The problem is that the checks and balances work well on the paper, but not in practice. Templars can work unchecked far more easily than mages, and there's no equivalent to the right of annulment in case Templars abuse their authority.

 

Why would there be?

RoA makes sense for mages, because an abomaination outbreak can easily compromise every mage.

Not so for templars.

 

 

Furthermore, I'd say the qunari system isn't as much cooperation as it is brainwashing. And the Dalish? That systems fails far worse than the Circles.

[Lotion Soronarr]

I think that a major problem with the checks and balances in the old system was that the Seekers of Truth, those whose job it was to police the Templars, were largely comprised of and even led by Templars. When you are asking essentially the same group to self-check its own power, you're going to run into problems. How could a Seeker be expected to check the power of their former comrades-in-arms, former mentors, and former pupils? How then could one expect every Seeker in an entire organization to do this?

 

Doesn't the same apply to police and internal police?

Military and military police?

 

Despite being the "same", there is a level of animosity and mistrust between them. Divide and conquer policy. Didn't WoT mention that templars don't like Seekers much?

 

I understand the reasoning, but it's a double-edged blade. Or glass half-full?

On one side such an agent may be too sympathetic to one side. On the other such an agent knows how such a side works, and the best ways to cheat the system. An outsider wouldn't know that in comparison.

Pros and cons to everything.
 

[TheLittleBird]

-Having the Templars constantly watching inside the Circle.

 

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.

 

As a pro-Templar, I completely agree with this. Tramping about the Tower halls with your hand constantly on the hilt of your sword and fully clad in armor is not likely to create sympathy.

 

All in all, I just wanted to say in really like your in-depth analysis, and I could not agree more with everything you said. As a psychology student, I also found the part about mental disorders quite fascianting, as it had never even occurred to me to even think about these conditions to exist within Thedas.

[Dean_the_Young]

I think that's going to be a problem with any game made. Checks and balances, separation of church and state, democracy, and other things are such an ingrained part of modern western liberal political thought that it can be hard to remember that none of these things can be taken for granted. The problem then is making a result that follows logically from the game world, keeps the game world interesting, and is made understandable to players that perhaps at Thedas' place and time that what is going on is the best that can be done without having the long political and philosophic traditions that led us in the real world to where we are today.

 

I would suggest that the Witcher 2 was a game that avoided this problem: it could be a distinctly uncomfortable game by American/Western European standards, with an unapologetic cynicism and ugliness, and with a death of 'idealism is the nicest outcome.' But it wasn't without its chances for parallels- idealism might be in the sour knight category, and as often taken advantage of as working, but it was possible and viable- just not ideal.