80 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Thanks for giving feedback. I'll just give some basic, albeit cyncial, responses.

 

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.

 

If one of the prior problems was considered to be 'enslaving mageocracy,' why can't they claim the Andrastian revolution solved anything? The oppression of the majority by the minority can be considered a separate issue than the suppression of an unstable minority. We don't need to make a false equivalence between two different groups being treated in two different ways for two different reasons.

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.

 

A a westernized individual, I must disagree: taking away rights might be morally unacceptable (should not), but it is completely possible (can do). Rights depend not only on being recognized and agreed upon by the parties involved (which Thedas largely doesn't), but also in being respected by the parties involved.

 

Even in the West, though, 'because of what you are' is quite possible to see your rights restricted, if 'what you are' poses unresolvable threats to others. The most relevant example is that of quarantine: people with sufficiently dangerous diseases that could spread can be restrained for the duration of the risk.

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.

 

This is misleading, as Divine Right is just one of many justifications used by different Templars. It is not an argument of an unchanging status quo, it is not a shield behind which Templars are allowed by the Chantry or their own to hide abuses of Mages, and when it has been used (which is extremely rare) it has been used as a justification for why the Templar oversight is morally proper, not an argument that Templars are intrensically/divinely superior to mages.

 

Divine Right isn't the foundation of why the Templars and Circles exist- that's very mundane and secular security concerns. Divine Right has been a very rare argument amongst others for why Templar oversight is morally justified- how the Templars go about that, however, has always been up for questioning.

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.

 

Expanding the Mage's ability to conduct business (healing, infrastructure, education, and so on) would go a long ways towards addressing a shortage of resources- which would also make the Lucrosian fraternity a natural ally and give a productive direction to Mage endeavors. Replacing the old Circles with new Circles doesn't need to be an immediate accomplishment of the next five, fifteen, or even thirty years: it can be an accomplishment of a lifetime, or several.

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.

 

This is not only objectively wrong, but doing so by projecting a viewpoint on them that they don't need to and many don't have. We have both seen and been told that numerous Templars see the problems of the Circles as issues that should be resolved: not simply because of altruism, but that they feel it does not work without consideration to the mages. Templars aren't some monolithic viewpoint completely pleased with the status quo.

 

As for asking for something from the mages, of course- reforms on the Templars part would likely be coupled with and tied to reforms on the Mages part. In exchange for better Circles, mages need to contribute more money. In exchange for Templars not having constant armed surveilance, the Templars should be able to search the rooms and documents of mages without a mage veto. Etc. etc.

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.

 

Being in the right is hardly a reason not to make compromises, because being in the right has little to do with being successful. The Templars and Circles don't exist on the basis of being in the right so that they remain being in the right: this is the tautological fallacy of self-continuation I raised in the first post. The Templars and Circles exist to meet the four goals of the Circle system.

 

As it is, with an open mage rebellion and revolt from the system, the system is breaking down. Whether the Templars are in the right or not, they need the Mages buy-in so that they can succeed. Getting the mage buy-in with compromises and reforms doesn't somehow remove the Templars from being in the right.

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.

 

Analysis is already possible: it doesn't require education as much as introspection and critical analysis, which existed around the time of Socratese for us. Even if rare, it does exist- not just with Mages and Chantry, but in the mundane upper classes as well. It might not come to all of these conclusions or proposals, but little of what I've raised doesn't exist somewhere in Thedas already.

 

Mages, Chantry, and Templar all have an interest in reforms because they all stand to benefit from them. Mages can get better living conditions and resolve unneeded grief. Templars can get a more sustainable, less oppositional system that makes their jobs easier and more effective. And the Chantry can both resolve an immediate crisis (the mage-Templar rebellion) and reset itself in a more enduring position by institutionalizing its role with the Circle.

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.

 

There's also the possibility of making everyone a mage. Probably more dangerous overall, but at least more equal.

[Nightdragon8]

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. 

While I'm not going to answer for Dean I will say this, I personally have tried and you know what happens, you get ignored. Because you don't have one of the following.

 

1) Wealth

2) A powerful person's ear

3) A degree in X

4) Or a way to force people to listen and use there brain.

 

and in all honesty is Number 4 that is the biggest issue.

[Mistic]

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.

 

The Witcher games have the advantage of being based in a previously built setting (I loved the books and I was very happy when I found out someone made games out of them). However, in Dragon Age we've already seen elements that feel more modern 8for example, gender equality). That begs the question, why is acceptable in one case but not in the other?

 

This is misleading, as Divine Right is just one of many justifications used by different Templars. It is not an argument of an unchanging status quo, it is not a shield behind which Templars are allowed by the Chantry or their own to hide abuses of Mages, and when it has been used (which is extremely rare) it has been used as a justification for why the Templar oversight is morally proper, not an argument that Templars are intrensically/divinely superior to mages.

 

Divine Right isn't the foundation of why the Templars and Circles exist- that's very mundane and secular security concerns. Divine Right has been a very rare argument amongst others for why Templar oversight is morally justified- how the Templars go about that, however, has always been up for questioning.

 

Sorry, Dean, but you are seriously underestimating the religious arguments in this conflict. You have a very practical mind, but both in Thedas and Real Life religious fanatism can't be overlooked. It's ironic after you mentioned that we tend to judge the setting too often with Western/American standards. In those societies, religion was more of a serious business than it is today. Remember that the current system was born in the times of the very pious Emperor Drakon, who tended to mix secular (Orlesian) concerns with religious (Chantry) ones, since he was the founder of both.

 

Lambert's rethoric, for example, is full of religious justifications. Not only in his public words, like the letter he sent to the Divine in the epilogue (a cynic may say he's only playing a role to justify his actions better), but the insight we've had about his thoughts reveal a man convinced of his belief. Quoting from the book: "Where even the Chantry had failed, the Seekers of Truth would stand triumphant in the eyes of the Maker". This line was taken from his thoughts, not from his speeches. And there are more.

 

That's a spanner in the works for your proposals, Dean. Because how can you convince a fanatic that believes God is on their side? And that is the Chantry's fault, really, because it used religious justifications to give legitimacy to the current system, to the point now the rebel Templars and Seekers are using it to oppose the Divine. Even in Thedas, history has a sense of irony.

 

Ok, I seriously doubt that every Templar or Seeker will be a fanatic, so I'm sure there will be room for negotiation. However, the existence of religious fanatics is an (undesired?) result of the current system that has to be solved in any future proposal, especially since it affects both the anti-mage enforcers and the watchmen of said enforcers. That's why I'm in favour of the Inquisition taking the place of the Seekers, since it seems a non-religious, multi-racial and international organization.

 

There's also the possibility of making everyone a mage. Probably more dangerous overall, but at least more equal.

 

Maybe that was the reason behind the Veil Tears? Someone is trying to make everybody mages?

[TTTX]

I find it sad that mages can't keep their children, think of the stress it causes some them to have their children taken from them without their consent.

 

 

Maybe that was the reason behind the Veil Tears? Someone is trying to make everybody mages?

Well......

[Dean_the_Young]

The Witcher games have the advantage of being based in a previously built setting (I loved the books and I was very happy when I found out someone made games out of them). However, in Dragon Age we've already seen elements that feel more modern 8for example, gender equality). That begs the question, why is acceptable in one case but not in the other?

 

 

I think this is a false delimma: it may very well be that it would be acceptable in both. The primary difference is probably that Bioware doesn't want to write such a story, and would rather write more optimistic/liberalism-friendly fiction such as the ME trilogy (in which Paragon tied 'nice' to 'good' and usually 'best')- which is completely legitimate.

 

 

 

Sorry, Dean, but you are seriously underestimating the religious arguments in this conflict. You have a very practical mind, but both in Thedas and Real Life religious fanatism can't be overlooked. It's ironic after you mentioned that we tend to judge the setting too often with Western/American standards. In those societies, religion was more of a serious business than it is today. Remember that the current system was born in the times of the very pious Emperor Drakon, who tended to mix secular (Orlesian) concerns with religious (Chantry) ones, since he was the founder of both.

 

Lambert's rethoric, for example, is full of religious justifications. Not only in his public words, like the letter he sent to the Divine in the epilogue (a cynic may say he's only playing a role to justify his actions better), but the insight we've had about his thoughts reveal a man convinced of his belief. Quoting from the book: "Where even the Chantry had failed, the Seekers of Truth would stand triumphant in the eyes of the Maker". This line was taken from his thoughts, not from his speeches. And there are more.

 

 

I'll freely admit I was basing my argument off the games. But there's something else to it as well: a simple but personal way I distinguish religiously motivated actions from secular motivations with a religious veneer.

 

Call it the 'would an aethiest do it?' test. Can a policy with religious rhetoric stand on its own logic and non-religious rhetoric if you removed the religious rhetoric? Could, in other words, an aethiest with no investment in the religion agree with the argument?

 

For the Templars and mages in the DA setting, I have a strong conclusion of 'yes.' Religious rhetoric is not the most common justification, nor is it the basis for why the status quo is what it is: the Circle system is not a product of religious dogma. The Circle system is a security state aparatus run by a religious organization, but created for solidly secular rational. Most Templars we see rely on the practical and secular justifications (mages are dangerous), not the religious ones... and even the ones who do use religious motivations the most (Meredith, in DA2) are also heavily invested in the secular.

 

While 'organized religion is bad and oppressive' is a common western belief expressed on the internet, the opposite is not true by default. The Soviet Union and China were both massive examples that even secular people and organizations can and will support authoritarian police states in the name of other concerns, and can do so just as fanatically as any religion.

 

 

That's a spanner in the works for your proposals, Dean. Because how can you convince a fanatic that believes God is on their side? And that is the Chantry's fault, really, because it used religious justifications to give legitimacy to the current system, to the point now the rebel Templars and Seekers are using it to oppose the Divine. Even in Thedas, history has a sense of irony.

 

 

 

Not really- any ideology, secular or religious, can breed zealots who will claim to be upholding the true spirit of it even as they oppose it. This is why groups like, say, Anonymous, which proclaims itself a advocate of free speech and avenger of abuses to it, will also target and harass people or governments whose free and legitimate speech they don't agree with.
 

When dealing with a religious fanatic who believe God is on their side, you don't need to convince them that God is not on their side or is no my side in order to progress: you simply need to convince them that God won't be opposed to them if they act in your compromise. Convince the zealot of that, and you'd be surprised how many can be negotiated with. 'I am right in what I do' is not synonymous with 'everything but my position is wrong.' Consider, for example, that while Sister Petrice was an extremist on the Qunari issue, she had no stance on the Mage/Templar issue- zealots are not automatically immovable and unreasonable people in all respects.

 

So when raising the topic of zealots and idealogues, it's always important to identify (a) who are these people, ( what do these people think they are justified in, and © what are these people actually against? Then there's also aspect (d): will these people make tactical deals that serve my strategic interest? And (e): do these zealots have a leader they will respect and who I might convince directly?

 

In this context: zealot Templars. Let's take Lambert: I consider Meredith a bit too insane to be a relevant example. Would Lambert really be opposed, on religious grounds, to building new Circle buildings? Where does Divine Right come in to oppose that? Or starting an internal spy network amongst the mages. Or playing the Fraternities against each other. Perhaps he might consider reducing the armed direct observation of mages dangerous... but religiously so?

 

If you read the news and history of Afghanistan, you'll find that even the Taliban negotiates to a surprisingly subtle and regular degree. Fanaticism is not some catch-all for being unable to negotiate in any way.

 

 

 

Ok, I seriously doubt that every Templar or Seeker will be a fanatic, so I'm sure there will be room for negotiation. However, the existence of religious fanatics is an (undesired?) result of the current system that has to be solved in any future proposal, especially since it affects both the anti-mage enforcers and the watchmen of said enforcers. That's why I'm in favour of the Inquisition taking the place of the Seekers, since it seems a non-religious, multi-racial and international organization.

 

 

Why are religious fanatics the problem that must be solved, rather than fanatics in general? Anders wasn't a religious fanatic, after all, but he was most certainly a product of the system.

 

Mind you, my next question for you if you say that all fanatics are a problem will be to challenge you to find an enforcement system that doesn't produce fanatics or extremists. Not simply socially accepted fanatics, mind you, who are tolerated and allowed to participate- an absence of die-hards who, if they couldn't get their way, would resort to extreme measures to try and preserve the status-quo or get their changes.

 

 

Maybe that was the reason behind the Veil Tears? Someone is trying to make everybody mages?

 

 

I doubt it, but look forward to finding out. It would be an interesting delimma, though, if the final choice came down to 'let the tears spread or close them': world chaos and upheaval for a not-really utopian change to the status quo in the far, distant future, or trying to preserve the mundane status quo in the face of its own temporary nature.

[Mistic]

Well......

 

Sandal's prophecy is interesting, but years have passed since DA2. It would be very easy for the developers to make things up and just point out the similarities to say: "See? Everything was planned!".

 

Still, that line... "the magic will come back, all of it". Intriguing.

[Lotion Soronarr]

That's a spanner in the works for your proposals, Dean. Because how can you convince a fanatic that believes God is on their side? And that is the Chantry's fault, really, because it used religious justifications to give legitimacy to the current system, to the point now the rebel Templars and Seekers are using it to oppose the Divine. Even in Thedas, history has a sense of irony.

 

Ok, I seriously doubt that every Templar or Seeker will be a fanatic, so I'm sure there will be room for negotiation. However, the existence of religious fanatics is an (undesired?) result of the current system that has to be solved in any future proposal, especially since it affects both the anti-mage enforcers and the watchmen of said enforcers. That's why I'm in favour of the Inquisition taking the place of the Seekers, since it seems a non-religious, multi-racial and international organization.

 

Fanatics exist with or without religion, all you need is an idea...a cause.

 

"God wills it!, "the King wills it", "the people want it" - all excuses.

 

Also, you may overestimate the importance of religion in the past. It was more involved in politics, but the average man/woman was no more fanatical then those of today. Certanly most only paid lip service, as they do today.

[Dean_the_Young]

I find it sad that mages can't keep their children, think of the stress it causes some them to have their children taken from them without their consent.

 

Indeed. There are reasons why not (more to do with the emotional volatility that accompanies strong emotional relationships, and the creation of a bridgehead across the social segregation), but I personally would be fine with the idea of regular psychological support and involvement within the system.

 

Mind you, the key word of that is 'within the system.' Mundane family members bring up troubling questions: where do they stay, and would they be allowed to leave? Here is where those goals and methods of the Circle system as a whole can start to be forgotten: after all, what does a mundane, who is not a mage, have to do with social segregation between Circle society and the rest?

 

Well, once they become a part of the Circle society, they've crossed that divide once. Allowing it in the other direction is significantly more dangerous for the system.

 

Family shouldn't be a basis for a mage to leave the Circle system- it would be a basis for bringing mundanes into the system. Part of an immediate 'Chantry Town' at the base of the tower at most distant, but if the social segregation of Circle communities and mundane societies is to be preserved, mundane family would be no more able to leave while retaining ties to the mages in the tower than the mages would. Mundanes themselves can break down the social segregation, as surely as mages: this is why the division is enforced by a separate group (the Templars) in the first place. Even separated families would warrant keeping close at hand: transfer to another town, sure, but determining the sincerity of the breakup versus the possibility of a staged breakup to set the grounds for an escape is the issue.

 

One of the primary security arguments of a cloister for breaking up families is that a family outside of a cloister is both a major support network to help an internee escape and remain free. By the goals of the Circle system, this is unacceptable: enforcing segregation is more important than the stress it generates, as stress would occur regardless of the system but at least the Circles can contain its effects.

 

Allowing mages families doesn't change the Circle's goals, it's nature as a cloister, or the prioritization of maintaining the cloister and separation over individual stresses and discontent. Mundane families brought inside Circle will share the burdens of the Cloister because they are now a part of it: allowing them to come and leave freely is compromising the Cloister. The fact that they are the strongest emotional ties of the mages, and the most likely support network for apostates, is a basis for watching them closely- not letting them leave freely and without watch where they might be the tie to lead a mage to escape a Circle they are disatisfied with, rather than an emotional tie keeping them there.

 

 

Or so the heartless analysis says. There's a good deal of history behind how families help keep people in authoritarian systems they might otherwise escape- at the very least, phlacteries and track downs might be a shared burden of the Circle society (and, for the record, a burden I feel Templars should accept as well- common burdens and such).

 

I would certainly agree it would be an immoral aspect of the system- the question would be whether it is more or less immoral than restricting mage families to other mages and Chantry workers in the Circles. (And Templar in a relationship with a Mage is irreversibly compromised, and should be dismissed from the Templars immediately.)

[TTTX]

Fanatics exist with or without religion, all you need is an idea...a cause.

 

"God wills it!, "the King wills it", "the people want it" - all excuses.

 

Also, you may overestimate the importance of religion in the past. It was more involved in politics, but the average man/woman was no more fanatical then those of today. Certanly most only paid lip service, as they do today.

True and there will be fanatics on both sides of the mage-templar war, but I'm still sure there room for negotiations as long as someone doesn't screw it up.

 

Some of the mages are much a terrorist groupe that once existed in russia, at the time when the tsar still ruled, called Narodnaya Volya (People's will) they firmly believes that the only way to give russia a democracy was to kill the the tsar much like some mages believes the only way to be free is they destroy the circle system.

[Mistic]

I think this is a false delimma: it may very well be that it would be acceptable in both. The primary difference is probably that Bioware doesn't want to write such a story, and would rather write more optimistic/liberalism-friendly fiction such as the ME trilogy (in which Paragon tied 'nice' to 'good' and usually 'best')- which is completely legitimate.

 

True. I like them both, so I'm not complaining

 

Call it the 'would an aethiest do it?' test. Can a policy with religious rhetoric stand on its own logic and non-religious rhetoric if you removed the religious rhetoric? Could, in other words, an aethiest with no investment in the religion agree with the argument?

 

For the Templars and mages in the DA setting, I have a strong conclusion of 'yes.' Religious rhetoric is not the most common justification, nor is it the basis for why the status quo is what it is: the Circle system is not a product of religious dogma. The Circle system is a security state aparatus run by a religious organization, but created for solidly secular rational. Most Templars we see rely on the practical and secular justifications (mages are dangerous), not the religious ones... and even the ones who do use religious motivations the most (Meredith, in DA2) are also heavily invested in the secular.

 

The problem is not how the system was created, but how it keeps going on. In fact, religious dogma is so important to keep the current system that it was the basis for the Orlesian-Tevinter Chantry Schism. To justify an advantageous system for the mages, the Imperial Chantry began making changes to the Chant of Light. Of course, I'm sure the Tevinter Chantry would claim the Orlesian Chantry was the one who changed the Chant. The thing is, different Chants have lead to different systems (or different systems have lead to different Chants).

 

I wouldn't assume so easily which is the first motivation for any given character unless we can ask them properly. Lambert is so far the only one whose thoughts we know. And yes, in his case religion was more prevalent, no matter how invested he may have been in more secular matters.

 

While 'organized religion is bad and oppressive' is a common western belief expressed on the internet, the opposite is not true by default. The Soviet Union and China were both massive examples that even secular people and organizations can and will support authoritarian police states in the name of other concerns, and can do so just as fanatically as any religion.

 

I think that people really don't have problem with religion, but with "absolute or total ideologies" (I'm not really sure if that's the correct word in English, though). Ideologies that presume to already have an answer for everything and, if given total power, would impose that system of answers over everybody. Any kind of totalitarianism is, as its name points out, an "absolute ideology". Since Western societies tend to live in a priviledged position, religion happens to be the nearest example they have of "absolute ideology".

 

It's not bad if you do have all the right answers. But humans are fallible. If someone wants to follow an absolute ideology, they should be free to do so, as long as they don't impose it on the rest. Of course, countries with a recent history of totalitarian imposition tend to be more critic to the kind of ideology that imposition came from.

 

But that's just my guess. I'm no anthropologist and we humans are very complicated animals. I like us that way

 

When dealing with a religious fanatic who believe God is on their side, you don't need to convince them that God is not on their side or is no my side in order to progress: you simply need to convince them that God won't be opposed to them if they act in your compromise. Convince the zealot of that, and you'd be surprised how many can be negotiated with. 'I am right in what I do' is not synonymous with 'everything but my position is wrong.' Consider, for example, that while Sister Petrice was an extremist on the Qunari issue, she had no stance on the Mage/Templar issue- zealots are not automatically immovable and unreasonable people in all respects.

 

Oh, man, I hope the dialogue in Inquisition allows to do this! I love when you can outsmart even the hardest challenges.

 

But Petrice isn't really a good example. Zealots come also in different flavours. In her case it was pointed out at the Qunari, and it was a very good example of why they are dangerous, in fact. But to develop it more, let's go to the next point:

 

Why are religious fanatics the problem that must be solved, rather than fanatics in general? Anders wasn't a religious fanatic, after all, but he was most certainly a product of the system.

 

Mind you, my next question for you if you say that all fanatics are a problem will be to challenge you to find an enforcement system that doesn't produce fanatics or extremists. Not simply socially accepted fanatics, mind you, who are tolerated and allowed to participate- an absence of die-hards who, if they couldn't get their way, would resort to extreme measures to try and preserve the status-quo or get their changes.

 

The problem with religious, no, with "abolute ideologies" fanatics is that they can get much support outside the system.

 

Ok, any given system, no matter if it's an enforcement system or not, can and will produce fanatics. It doesn't matter how silly or small it may be. If the ideology in question is constrained to that said system, it usually doesn't give problems for the rest. For example, the good old Flame Wars on the Internet. No world war is going to happen because of that (if I happen to be wrong in the future, my hope for humanity will vanish ).

 

However, when you take a wider ideology, you will find support from systems outside your own. And that's incredibly dangerous.

 

For example, let's take Petrice. Had she been confined to the Chantry itself, she wouldn't have started a war with the Qunari. But she wasn't just a fanatic; she was a sister whose words many other people could hear and follow, to the point she didn't have to do the dirty work herself.

[Lotion Soronarr]

I think that people really don't have problem with religion, but with "absolute or total ideologies" (I'm not really sure if that's the correct word in English, though). Ideologies that presume to already have an answer for everything and, if given total power, would impose that system of answers over everybody. Any kind of totalitarianism is, as its name points out, an "absolute ideology". Since Western societies tend to live in a priviledged position, religion happens to be the nearest example they have of "absolute ideology".

 

It's not bad if you do have all the right answers. But humans are fallible. If someone wants to follow an absolute ideology, they should be free to do so, as long as they don't impose it on the rest. Of course, countries with a recent history of totalitarian imposition tend to be more critic to the kind of ideology that imposition came from.

 

Meh.

The belief that you are in the right is ALL that it takes for people to resort to all kinds of extreems.
 

How many on these forums would want to impose democracy and western liberalism on Thedas? Plenty. Oh, they would never see it as "imposing" or anything bad. But people who want to push their own idea onto everyone never do.

 

The problem is - there is no human who doesn't try to push his ideas onto others. Even the idea to not push ideas is also an idea that's being pushed.

Even now, by typing this I'm trying to impose my view.

 

As much as the West likes to see itself "enlightened"...all empires did so. In every single time period there were those who having wealth and power, thought that their life and culture is the best.

European settlers and the primitive indian natives.

Slavers and the inferior black people

Rome and the uncultured "barbarians"

It's funny that it seems impossible for human cultures to exist without looking down on other cultures that do things differently.

[Wolfen09]

I agree with the psychical changes, the whole letting them have families and live in a better environment with less intimidating templars....  i still think the major factors are on the political and leadership side...  and yes, i believe it i read somewhere that only templars of great talent become seekers, which i see to doom that from the start.

[Mistic]

Meh.

The belief that you are in the right is ALL that it takes for people to resort to all kinds of extreems.
 

How many on these forums would want to impose democracy and western liberalism on Thedas? Plenty. Oh, they would never see it as "imposing" or anything bad. But people who want to push their own idea onto everyone never do.

 

The problem is - there is no human who doesn't try to push his ideas onto others. Even the idea to not push ideas is also an idea that's being pushed.

Even now, by typing this I'm trying to impose my view.

 

I have to agree. After all, I'd call the "What I think is right and those who don't think like me are wrong!" the first "absolute ideology" of humanity. And I repeat, people don't like them, as in plural. Why? Because being a plurality means that there are more than one "absolute ideology", so there will be some fanatic somewhere wanting to impose one that is not yours on you. If it's yours, you don't consider it an ideology. You consider it "the normal way of things"

 

But there is fanaticism and there is moderation, and humans don't have any other option than living with each other. So compromises must be made. Even in Thedas.

[Dean_the_Young]

Lots of good writing here, and not actually much differenence with what I'm saying. I could argue particulars (I view the Black/White Chantry schism as a religious dispute reflecting a political one: the Tevinter Magisters re-asserting power causing the religious schism, rather than vice versa), but that isn't particularly important. I mean it with every respect when I say I'm going to leap to the end, because that's where my overall point lies.

 

True. I like them both, so I'm not complaining

 

 

The problem is not how the system was created, but how it keeps going on. In fact, religious dogma is so important to keep the current system that it was the basis for the Orlesian-Tevinter Chantry Schism. To justify an advantageous system for the mages, the Imperial Chantry began making changes to the Chant of Light. Of course, I'm sure the Tevinter Chantry would claim the Orlesian Chantry was the one who changed the Chant. The thing is, different Chants have lead to different systems (or different systems have lead to different Chants).

 

I wouldn't assume so easily which is the first motivation for any given character unless we can ask them properly. Lambert is so far the only one whose thoughts we know. And yes, in his case religion was more prevalent, no matter how invested he may have been in more secular matters.

 

 

I think that people really don't have problem with religion, but with "absolute or total ideologies" (I'm not really sure if that's the correct word in English, though). Ideologies that presume to already have an answer for everything and, if given total power, would impose that system of answers over everybody. Any kind of totalitarianism is, as its name points out, an "absolute ideology". Since Western societies tend to live in a priviledged position, religion happens to be the nearest example they have of "absolute ideology".

 

It's not bad if you do have all the right answers. But humans are fallible. If someone wants to follow an absolute ideology, they should be free to do so, as long as they don't impose it on the rest. Of course, countries with a recent history of totalitarian imposition tend to be more critic to the kind of ideology that imposition came from.

 

But that's just my guess. I'm no anthropologist and we humans are very complicated animals. I like us that way

 

 

Oh, man, I hope the dialogue in Inquisition allows to do this! I love when you can outsmart even the hardest challenges.

 

But Petrice isn't really a good example. Zealots come also in different flavours. In her case it was pointed out at the Qunari, and it was a very good example of why they are dangerous, in fact. But to develop it more, let's go to the next point:

 

 

The problem with religious, no, with "abolute ideologies" fanatics is that they can get much support outside the system.

 

Ok, any given system, no matter if it's an enforcement system or not, can and will produce fanatics. It doesn't matter how silly or small it may be. If the ideology in question is constrained to that said system, it usually doesn't give problems for the rest. For example, the good old Flame Wars on the Internet. No world war is going to happen because of that (if I happen to be wrong in the future, my hope for humanity will vanish ).

 

However, when you take a wider ideology, you will find support from systems outside your own. And that's incredibly dangerous.

 

For example, let's take Petrice. Had she been confined to the Chantry itself, she wouldn't have started a war with the Qunari. But she wasn't just a fanatic; she was a sister whose words many other people could hear and follow, to the point she didn't have to do the dirty work herself.

 

The question I pose to you, though, is what sort of system will you create that won't have an ideology that extremists could identify with?

 

Ideologies don't need to be 'absolute' (or totalitarian, or authoritarian, or any other adjective) to have fanatics. Ideologies aren't much more that ordered beliefs, morals and guiding principles of the proper way things should be. Fanatics are just people who take that to excessive degrees. Even western liberalism has its extremists: we could point at the American hypernationalists (defending freedom by way of the expanded and ever more intrusive surveillance state), or academic advocates who try to shut down scientific dissenters to their orthodoxy, and many, many more. My favorite are advocates of tolerance who are remarkably intolerant to dissent about what they should consider tolerated.

 

If you have an organization with an ideology, no matter how unrestrictive it may seem, someone can identify with it and run with it.

 

But if you don't have an organization with an ideology... how is it an organization in the first place? And why is it doing what it is doing? Organizations develop their own cultures by sheer merit of being groups of people with a common identity. Organizations that serve a specific purpose will also have an ideology that justifies what they do.

[Mistic]

The question I pose to you, though, is what sort of system will you create that won't have an ideology that extremists could identify with?

 

Ideologies don't need to be 'absolute' (or totalitarian, or authoritarian, or any other adjective) to have fanatics. Ideologies aren't much more that ordered beliefs, morals and guiding principles of the proper way things should be. Fanatics are just people who take that to excessive degrees. Even western liberalism has its extremists: we could point at the American hypernationalists (defending freedom by way of the expanded and ever more intrusive surveillance state), or academic advocates who try to shut down scientific dissenters to their orthodoxy, and many, many more. My favorite are advocates of tolerance who are remarkably intolerant to dissent about what they should consider tolerated.

 

If you have an organization with an ideology, no matter how unrestrictive it may seem, someone can identify with it and run with it.

 

But if you don't have an organization with an ideology... how is it an organization in the first place? And why is it doing what it is doing? Organizations develop their own cultures by sheer merit of being groups of people with a common identity. Organizations that serve a specific purpose will also have an ideology that justifies what they do.

 

It's impossible to stop ideologies from appearing, that's true. And every ideology will make its own fanatics, that's for sure. Again, my problem is with "absolute ideologies" applied to specific systems, because if fanatics want to break from it there's the distinct possibility of them spreading to other systems. This is especially delicate with systems that can have an effect on the whole society (the army is the typical example, and we know very well what tends to happen when extremists take control of an army).

 

I agree with you that the current Circle system has been shaped by necessity more than by religious dogma. However, religious dogma has been used to justify it to give legitimacy to it. That way has been going on for centuries. However, now Templars and Seekers are using precisely religious dogma to break from the Chantry, and they are well aware of the implications and how it favours them.

 

Lambert lampshades it in the epilogue:

"Without the templars, the Chantry was toothless -nothing more than a bunch of old women armed only with words. What would she do? Try to convince the people, after ages of teaching them mages were to be feared and contained, that now everything was different?"

 

If he's right or not about that impression is not the point. The point is that he believes it to be right. It was the current way to give legitimacy to the system that has allowed for those kind of thoughts to flourish. And worse, because the preaching wasn't only to Templars and Seekers, but to the common populace too. The thought that they would face indifference at most from other people has helped to convince Templars and Seekers that they can get away with breaking the system.

 

Of course, any other extreme ideology can have similar or even worse consequences. I think a scenario where mages were controled by national Circles was discussed not long ago, including the dangers of rampant nationalism in that setting, wasn't it?

 

By the way, I have to say again that it's a pleasure to read your well-thought posts. They always make me think, and that is a luxury rare to find not only in the forum, but in every day life too

[Dean_the_Young]

Glad you're enjoying it- I didn't expect this thread to get to page two, considering how long and dry analysis can be.

 

I suppose when it comes down to it I don't see your distinction of 'absolute ideologies': or rather that it's a distinction without a difference. For the Chantry and Mages, the teaching that mages are dangerous doesn't even register as dogma- by many an objective measure they are, and that is hardly radical. To me people, rarely the ideologies themselves, are what make general ideologies radical or absolutist.

 

But this is an understanding I've come to on my own terms, and not one I care or intend to force down on you.

 

Thank you for the privilege of your time and respectful discussion.

[Mistic]

Thank you for the privilege of your time and respectful discussion.

 

No, thanks to you. Maybe some people do consider analysis in general to be too long and too dry, but yours is so well and so clearly explained that it would be a shame for it to be forgotten in the deepest part of the forum.

[MrMrPendragon]

Thanks for the reply Mr. Dean. I really appreciate it. I don't want to repost or I guess "quote" our conversation since it's very long, and I'm typing this using my tablet so it's even harder for me to organize them.

Anyway, I agree with what you said about the Templars and the Circle exist not because of them being in the right, but because of the goals of protecting mages from muggles and vice versa.

But the problem is, while the Templars will probably benefit from the solutions you have listed since those will minimize opposition and make their jobs easier, there's no incentive to do it in that manner. They can already minimize opposition in the current system., maybe it won't be as efficient as the non-violent means you have listed, but no one cares, or at least no one with any real authority would make the first step towards better treatment for mages that is not only sustaniable, but since the Chantry will ultimately make the changes, its real backers like the nobility would have to approve of such changes otherwise Chantry influence in politics would go down. They already have a tranquil solution that doesn't work, monopoly on lyrium trade, phylacteries (which I'm not against really), the army of templars with magic-cancelling abilities, and to top it all off, the Templars can kill everyone in a Circle.

Just because the Chantry made a cleverly worded mission/vision statement that says the Templars exist to protect mages and muggles, doesn't mean the Templars will follow that to the letter. Yes they need to keep mages in line, should they try to make changes that could take decades to become reality, or just imprison or threaten tranquility to opposition? I'm not saying all Templars will go with the latter, but no one is certainly making any real effort to integrate the less antagonizing methods into the system, not because the Templars genuinely hate all mages, I'm sure there quite a number of Templars like Thrask, but because there is an easier alternative, no matter how dehumanizing it is.

In paper, it sounds good, but I'm accounting for what kind of things the Templars can do in a system like this. In other words, in practice, the system doesn't work. The practice/action is what matters, not what's on paper because the action itself is what the mages encounter in their daily lives. I know that looking at the practice itself is much more difficult since it's more complex in that it has a lot more variables and factors to take into account, like morality and ethics, or self-interest and power as well as religion and its influences, and although those ultimately are variables we can't control since they depend on individual morals and values, we can't pretend that these don't play a role into the Circle system or any other reformations done that follow the rules of that system.

Again, you outlined the goals of the Circle as well as the do's and don't. And I'm not denying their viability, in fact, some of them can be made into reality without any real damage to the Chantry's economic standing. It's just that the imbalance of power is there, no matter what the Chantry does or what kind of intentions they have behind every action, making the magi rebellion inevitable and any solution unacceptable since it really isn't permanent. Let's hope someone in Thedas has the power to do the solutions you listed lol.

I guess one solution is creating a "neutral zone" where no magic works in a certain area, kind of like the door thing in the Magi Origin where magic doesn't work, but in a much larger (city-like) scale. Or Tranquility but without the no-emotions bit.

[Dean_the_Young]

I'm really not sure what direction you're arguing in. That Templars won't bother with reforms because threats and coercion alone suffice? That the system is broken because the Templars can use threats and coercion, which has led to mage rebellion? The second is the rational for why the first could be attempted, as it was.

 

A lack of permanence has never struck me as a convincing argument since it applies to all outcomes: the entire Circle system could be destroyed in the most amazingly successful campaign of all time and mage independence as it stands would itself not be permanent.

[Lotion Soronarr]

I'm not so sure I'd call the idea of worse treatment of mages an "easier" solution.

[MrMrPendragon]

They don't need to treat the mages worse than right now, they just don't think they need to make the system better.

The templars won't bother with reforms because coercion and threats suffice? ----- Yes.

I'm not saying the whole system is built on threats and coercion, those are just things that the current Circle system sort of encourages since mages and templars are hardly equal. While the Templars won't outright state that they would kill any mage who won't yield, that's the mentality mages adopt.

The system is broken because Templars can use threats and coercion? ---- Yes, the templars hold too much power over mages, thinking that if mages are allowed to rule, Thedas would have another magocracy.

The rebellion is just an unexpected product of their actions. They didn't actually believe that the mages would fight back. Which is an understandable way of thinking on the Templars' part because the power resides on the Chantry and on them, not on the mages.

The point i was trying to make in my previous posts is that the Circle doesn't work and no amount of reforms is going to make it work. The mages are fighting for acceptance, but the Circle only offers tolerance.

[Dean_the_Young]

They don't need to treat the mages worse than right now, they just don't think they need to make the system better.

 

Says who? Divine Right doesn't say they don't need to make the system better, or that they wouldn't benefit from doing so.

The templars won't bother with reforms because coercion and threats suffice? ----- Yes.

 

Except coercion and threats have not sufficed. Hence the rebellion.

I'm not saying the whole system is built on threats and coercion, those are just things that the current Circle system sort of encourages since mages and templars are hardly equal. While the Templars won't outright state that they would kill any mage who won't yield, that's the mentality mages adopt.

 

Most systems are between parties that are hardly equal. In fact, you'll find most that are are either fragile or extremely prone to gridlock- not what is needed here.

The system is broken because Templars can use threats and coercion? ---- Yes, the templars hold too much power over mages, thinking that if mages are allowed to rule, Thedas would have another magocracy.

 

That doesn't make a system broken. That just makes a system in which a population group is disenfranchised. Nor does the Templars fears of a mageocracy tie to the Templars having too much power over the mages.

The rebellion is just an unexpected product of their actions. They didn't actually believe that the mages would fight back. Which is an understandable way of thinking on the Templars' part because the power resides on the Chantry and on them, not on the mages.

 

Where do you get that Templars didn't expect mages to fight back?  

[MrMrPendragon]

Well the threats and coercion worked for about 800+ years (Divine age to Dragon age) with no mage fighting back, even with 17 Annulments during the course of that time.

I would say that cemented the thinking that mages won't fight back no matter what injustice (or anything they perceive as injustice) is brought down upon them.

You're assuming the Templars wouldn't abuse the power given to them to fulfill the goals of the Circle system. That's a little too idealistic. Even with the Seekers and Chantry present as checks and balances, the templars still manage to make life hard for mages.

People enjoy the priveldges of power, but do not take on the responsibility that comes with it. That goes for both mages and templars, except since mage power is much more obvious, they lock them up for it on the chance they would abuse that power.

Maybe this is just me being a radical like Anders which is clouding my judgement, but like the other guy said (the guy with the illustration on an x-y graph), the circle doesn't work and i agree with him.

[Dean_the_Young]

Well the threats and coercion worked for about 800+ years (Divine age to Dragon age) with no mage fighting back, even with 17 Annulments during the course of that time.

 

So did compromises and concessions. The 800+ year history of the Circles isn't simply one of Templar unilateralism.

I would say that cemented the thinking that mages won't fight back no matter what injustice (or anything they perceive as injustice) is brought down upon them.

 

Except we have people, Templars and otherwise, who perceive differently. Why are you assigning a blanket motivation?

You're assuming the Templars wouldn't abuse the power given to them to fulfill the goals of the Circle system. That's a little too idealistic. Even with the Seekers and Chantry present as checks and balances, the templars still manage to make life hard for mages.

 

I assume no such thing. Just as I don't assume that the Mages didn't take exploit their rights and privileges. I admit, I am rather curious on where you get the impression I don't take corruption for granted in any system.

People enjoy the priveldges of power, but do not take on the responsibility that comes with it. That goes for both mages and templars, except since mage power is much more obvious, they lock them up for it on the chance they would abuse that power.

 

Plenty of people, Templar and otherwise, take responsibility that comes with power. You've made an argument, but what is your point?

Maybe this is just me being a radical like Anders which is clouding my judgement, but like the other guy said (the guy with the illustration on an x-y graph), the circle doesn't work and i agree with him.

 

You haven't really explained a solid metric for success or failure, let alone an alternative that wouldn't also qualify as a failure. Is 800 years of failing a success or not? Is it an existence of corruption and abuses? What is the failing, and by what objective is it failing?

 

Plus, the chart was kind of silly if taken literally, as opposed to rhetorically. Wasn't the arbitrary value assignment and spot for the 'ideal' placement a give away?

[adun12345]

Great post - very thought-provoking and reasonable.

 

Can we really reduce the (in-game) intractibility of the Mage-Templar conflict to a difference over means?  To my understanding, part of the issue is a difference in objectives.  Certainly, there are those within the Chantry, Templar, and Circles who see the issue as you outline it: as a beneficial bargain that protects both Mages and non-Mages from the possible negative consequences of magic. 

 

But there are also those on all sides who hold a much more negative view of magic, and see the Circle system in more punative terms.  For these individuals, the Circle system provides the benefits you outlined, but it also serves to punish mages for their crimes against the Maker.  For these individuals, the appeal of the Circle system is that it provides a way of containing the mage threat and disciplining mages without requiring constant war with magic.

 

The bigger question, and one that I imagine will be dealt with at least a bit in DA:I, is how to deal with those who see the Circle system as a punitive measure, rather than a protective one.