746 réponses à ce sujet

[ISpeakTheTruth]

I find the concept that because one mage society became the Tevinter that another mage society would end up being the exact same really offensive and racist. It is just as likely that a mage society would end up being the exact opposite of the Tevinter one where mages use their magic to protect people and to help them.

 

I know from a thematic stand point a country where mages rule and their super nice isn't very interesting but its just as possible as the exact opposite happening. Or it could end up like every other country where some are jerks and some are nice and the country is just a big shade of grey like everyone else.

 

 

[Inprea]

I find the concept that because one mage society became the Tevinter that another mage society would end up being the exact same really offensive and racist. It is just as likely that a mage society would end up being the exact opposite of the Tevinter one where mages use their magic to protect people and to help them.

 

I know from a thematic stand point a country where mages rule and their super nice isn't very interesting but its just as possible as the exact opposite happening. Or it could end up like every other country where some are jerks and some are nice and the country is just a big shade of grey like everyone else.

That depends on what you're interested in and other social issues. One question such a society could answer is exactly how magic could be used to help the common people and what kind of mistakes it brings about. Magic is a powerful tool after all. For example they could deal with such issues as sure making it rain during a water shortage seemed like a great idea but now you've thrown the entire ecosystem out of balance and you've got a plague of locust. That time of low water was actually needed to thin the population of certain pest.

 

There is also the interaction with other nations as well. Just because you have the power to do so is it alright to get involved in the wars of other cultures? Without knowing the social issues that started the conflict you could only succeed in making it worse. Even if you try to do the right thing at times it's very hard to know exactly what that is. The road to rune is paved with good intentions as the saying goes.

[ISpeakTheTruth]

The first issue seems like the kind of issue than any modern country faces when it comes to irrigation. There have been massive droughts in my country this year yet the majority of the crops remained perfectly fine because we have a natural water conifer in our country that we can tap into. You're either using magic to make the water or a natural water deposit to soak the soil either one works. Unless you meant that the mages would make it rain everywhere that would be something they probably wouldn't do because of the amount of magic it would take to force a downfall on their entire country. Its much more simple and logical to simply make rain localized either on a farm or in a well. In those cases there's not much impact to the ecosystem beyond.

 

As for the second part that kind of knowledge would come with time. Like any other society they way they approach a war or the request to go to war is going to change and adapt with time and with the way their actions affect others. I would imagine if their neighbors react poorly to a mage society using their powers in large scale in a war than in the future the mage society would adopt a more neutral stance in the future to keep people at ease.

 

All these problems are problems that all societies have to deal with, learn, and adapt. No nation has ever started out knowing what the right thing was to do all the time.

[KC_Prototype]

Naw, there's bad in any group of people but I know free mages does not equal a new Tevinter. They are just people!

[TheKomandorShepard]

Naw, there's bad in any group of people but I know free mages does not equal a new Tevinter. They are just people!

 

Pretty much you denied your previous sentence with that.

 

but more correctly woule be they are peoples with personal power and easy potential to reach even bigger power (blood magic) that also is easy way to create disaster with personal power also comes rule that rule that world "might makes right" so to be short corruption.

 

So pretty much no wonder that most mages are little more than problem.

[Exaltation]

Magic exists with or without Mages.

Flemeth,Morrigan,Sandal,and Eleni Zinovia know quite a bit.

Mages will rule!

[TheKomandorShepard]

Magic exists with or without Mages.

Flemeth,Morrigan,Sandal,and Eleni Zinovia know quite a bit.

Mages will rule!

And who flemeth and morrigan are? flemeth may not be human but still is magic user when morrigan is normal mage and who knows if sandal is mage or not.

[Althix]

What do you guys think?

Hmm, Tevinter as example well. You see Tevinter is not a country of few days old. Situation that you can see there is a result of generations being born under certain conditions. Some people just adapt in order to survive, the others just accept current way of things.

 

In proper circumstances and education not only mages but also masses of people, you can have free mages without having new Tevinter on your hands, and yes there will be power hungry mages, or jealous, or offened. Mages are people in the first place, well little more than people, but this doesn't mean they should break the laws of society they are living in.

 

So yes, after few generations and proper indoctrination of populace it's possible to have free mages without new Tevinter.

And yes there will be executions. Because crime must be punished, and there is little difference in motives between Mage and a next thug, only amount of damage they can deliver.

[Uccio]

I just replayed DA2 now. I have never supported the templars, as I believe the way they treat mages are wrong. But Fenris keeps telling Hawke that if mages are free, they will take controll and slave the non-mages. So does free mages make them conquerors? If the mages "win the war"  in DAI, will it lead to another Tevinter Imperium?
 
In my opinion the Tevinter Imperium seems even worse than the Circle. But it is in human nature to seek domination. And mages are stronger than regular folks. So is the cicle a necessity then?
 
What do you guys think?

Medieval world is full of domination. The lover you are in the social ladder the more bosses you have to bow. Bowing to mages would just give new names for the bosses as far as peasants are concerned. Mage domination itself does not equal evil.

[Sir JK]

I sincerely doubt that freeing the mages will lead to a new Tevinter. Tevinter had a whole bunch of unique circumstances that lead to the rise (return?) of the magisters. It's a society formed around urban aristocracy, as opposed to southern Thedas rural warlords. It has a long history of their mages closely associated with power, and while the Transfigurations did disenfranchise them, it in no way made the tevinters forget. Southern Thedas only has negative associations with mages and power, it was something imposed on them rather than evolved from them.

 

There's simply no structures for the mages to enter the way they did in Tevinter. Whatever niche in society they eventually would come to occupy is one that ahs to be created, unlike in Tevinter where it already existed. It's not going to lead to mass slavery or any other fundamental changes. It didn't in Tevinter either, it was simply never abolished.

 

That said... there's no guarantee that freed mages would be a painless transition. Rather the opposite I think. While the gilded cage can in no way measure to freedom, it is still a gilded cage. Will the mages accept that every luxury that the circles did provide is now unavailable? What will they be willing to do to secure books, food, soft beds and lyrium? Nothing of which is cheap. How will they handle being allowed out into a world that has no room for them?

 

Initially, I suspect many will be forced to serve nobility, descend into poverty (particularly less skilled mages) or become mercenaries. Their education will plummet, except in the rare cases they are absorbed into structures capable of providing it. Short term, the stress will probably lead to an increase in the number of abominations. Blood magic will probably not be unheard of either, it's quick easy and useful after all. And survival is one hell of a motivation.

 

As for long term? It depends on many factors. Maybe a new structure evolves. Maybe circles as we know them are reinstituted because everyone is fed up with the chaos. Maybe mages carve a niche as upper-middle class (or even force themselves into the aristocracy). But whatever it might have become it would not have been Tevinter.

[Uccio]

I think there is a happy medium here. As long as the mages are not free, but are in fact reasonably priced, then we can avoid another Tevinter imperium.

Tevinter Imperium 2.0 (now with more Iron Fist) is what we want, not to avoid it.

[Dean_the_Young]

First of all, why do the laws and rules matter if they're breaking them? If there's a way to take out the main ingredient of something they not only hate and fear, but lobotomize Mages for, why not use a different identification from the body? Hair? Cells? Skin follicles?

Anything.

 

You keep fighting me on this but there's a much better way for them to locate apostates, more than one.

 

 

Where? I can't recall anywhere that marking the body can do what a phylacterie does.

 

 

 

Gaider confirmed that phylacteires is blood magic. It's used to track escaped circle mage. Even Chantry finds magic useful. It's blood magic spell, but it doesn't summon demons or dominates minds of others. Wolrd Goverments alos make their hands dirty to preserve stability."

 

It's a blood magic spell, ie blood magic. Practice what you preach, then come at me.

That blood magic is only tolerable when it can't be used to summon demons or dominate the minds of others and is done under supervision and sanction of proper authorities?

 

Your grief seems to rest on two implicit assumptions: that a phylacterie as blood magic is equivalent to other forms of blood magic, and that individuals (like you) are equivalent to institutions (like them) when it comes to deciding what is warranted and justifiable.

 

I'm not sure why they would need to come at you: it's a mighty fine windmill as it is.

[dragonflight288]

Where is such stated?

 

 Are you serious? You post the last sentence of my post, and ignore everything beforehand?

 

Very well, for your sake, I shall reiterate. 

 

Blood magic is using the blood of yourself or others to power spells, this is the very description of it in the class spec. And it, by the Chantry's own view, goes beyond this, as Finn shows us in Witch Hunt. He needs Ariane's blood to scry for active eluvians not corrupted by the taint to help track Morrigan, and the Warden can ask if it's blood magic. Finn outright says that the Chantry may consider it blood magic because it's using blood in the ritual despite the fact that the blood isn't powering the spell but rather is just a component. 

 

Also, the codex entry on maleficarum (a sermon by Justinia I) defines maleficarum as anyone who uses the blood of others to power spells. 

 

Also, the item description for the Tome of the Mortal Vessel makes it clear that many (it doesn't say the Chantry, but many) outright ban the study of anatomy because blood magic is so stigmatized that anything involving blood whatsoever is considered blood magic. 

 

Now, what is a phylactery? It is blood taken from a mage apprentice after they arrive at a tower, which is preserved in special vials. This blood is used to power the phylactery so templars can track mages. 

 

If you remove the blood, you no longer have a phylactery, period. Therefore, by the Chantry's own practices and definition, a phylactery is nothing less than blood magic.

 

Phylactery's don't work without blood, kind of like other blood magic spells that only with when powered by blood.

[dragonflight288]

Where? I can't recall anywhere that marking the body can do what a phylacterie does.

 

 

That blood magic is only tolerable when it can't be used to summon demons or dominate the minds of others and is done under supervision and sanction of proper authorities?

 

Your grief seems to rest on two implicit assumptions: that a phylacterie as blood magic is equivalent to other forms of blood magic, and that individuals (like you) are equivalent to institutions (like them) when it comes to deciding what is warranted and justifiable.

 

I'm not sure why they would need to come at you: it's a mighty fine windmill as it is.

 

How about that she's upset that the templars are hypocrites that even the rumor of an apprentice being a blood mage can get them made tranquil, depending on who's the Knight-Commander, but the templars themselves practice blood magic with impunity and feel perfectly justified doing so. They're not summoning demons, but they're still using blood magic. Therefore, what they're saying is it's wrong for mages to even be suspected of blood magic, but it's perfectly fine for them to use it. 

[Master Warder Z_]

Now, what is a phylactery? It is blood taken from a mage apprentice after they arrive at a tower, which is preserved in special vials. This blood is used to power the phylactery so templars can track mages. 

 

If you remove the blood, you no longer have a phylactery, period. Therefore, by the Chantry's own practices and definition, a phylactery is nothing less than blood magic.

 

Phylactery's don't work without blood, kind of like other blood magic spells that only with when powered by blood.

 

According to what? Where is stated as such that the Blood powers the spell on the vial? Where is stated that it isn't merely yet another component in the creation of the location beacon. Seems to me if there was a cited source saying it was as such, you would merely pull that up rather then going about this as you have. Because i will speak plainly, having gone over the Locator beacon in the Lore, its said that is made up of Mage blood but nothing else has been revealed about the process, so am i to take it on faith like those who claim the joining to be Blood Magic when in truth it could merely be the Wardens being too lazy to use a Mortar to grind the components together fine to be used in a Liquid.

 

 

 Are you serious? You post the last sentence of my post, and ignore everything beforehand?

 

Ignore no, But that was the focus of my own post hence why i focused on it, the rest of its not related to what i was discussing.

 

 

 

 

Blood magic is using the blood of yourself or others to power spells, this is the very description of it in the class spec. And it, by the Chantry's own view, goes beyond this, as Finn shows us in Witch Hunt. He needs Ariane's blood to scry for active eluvians not corrupted by the taint to help track Morrigan, and the Warden can ask if it's blood magic. Finn outright says that the Chantry may consider it blood magic because it's using blood in the ritual despite the fact that the blood isn't powering the spell but rather is just a component. 

 

Also, the codex entry on maleficarum (a sermon by Justinia I) defines maleficarum as anyone who uses the blood of others to power spells. 

 

He declared it a Gray Area and all this reiteration really did was solifiy my own position that its viewed as spellwork powered by blood, not those merely using it as a component.

 

Also factor in that Scrying is a legitimate school of training taught by the circle, its just a rarity like Healing Magic. If it was overtly considered blood magic it wouldn't be taught regardless of utility.

[Master Warder Z_]

How about that she's upset that the templars are hypocrites that even the rumor of an apprentice being a blood mage can get them made tranquil, depending on who's the Knight-Commander, but the templars themselves practice blood magic with impunity and feel perfectly justified doing so. They're not summoning demons, but they're still using blood magic. Therefore, what they're saying is it's wrong for mages to even be suspected of blood magic, but it's perfectly fine for them to use it. 

 

Even though by their own definition they are not practicing Blood Magic, merely employing magic using blood.

[dragonflight288]

Even though by their own definition they are not practicing Blood Magic, merely employing magic using blood.

 

Which is blood magic.

[Dean_the_Young]

How about that she's upset that the templars are hypocrites that even the rumor of an apprentice being a blood mage can get them made tranquil, depending on who's the Knight-Commander, but the templars themselves practice blood magic with impunity and feel perfectly justified doing so.

 

How about it? I know people who are upset that the government forbids robbery and then collects taxes. Or forbid killing and yet maintain large standing armies trained to do that. Or have laws protecting free speech co-existing with laws restricting it.

 

I could understand being angry at the low burden of proof for an accusation, but that's a different issue from hypocrisy.

 

 

They're not summoning demons, but they're still using blood magic. Therefore, what they're saying is it's wrong for mages to even be suspected of blood magic, but it's perfectly fine for them to use it.

 

That's, uh, kind of a distinction that governments and regulatory agencies make all the time: that they, not individuals, are the one who determine what is permissible in what context. You might have a stronger argument if the mages who help make phylacteries were then charged for blood magic, but that's not happening: what's happening is opposing unsanctioned use of blood magic.

[Dean_the_Young]

Which is blood magic.

 

Not necessarily: blood being a component of magic isn't necessarily the same as the concept of what blood magic entails. If the chantry concept of blood magic is 'mind control or fuel source for harmful magics', then as long as the phylacterie isn't considered a harmful magic (or the blood isn't used as the fuel source) it wouldn't qualify by the definition.

[Master Warder Z_]

Not necessarily: blood being a component of magic isn't necessarily the same as the concept of what blood magic entails. If the chantry concept of blood magic is 'mind control or fuel source for harmful magics', then as long as the phylacterie isn't considered a harmful magic (or the blood isn't used as the fuel source) it wouldn't qualify by the definition.

 

Their definition seems to be it has to be powered by it or taken from some one else to power a spell to be blood magic.

[Swoopdogg]

It's a matter of how the idea of magic is taught.

 

In Tevinter mages are taught that magic is a device to gain power, whereas in other parts of Thedas mages are taught that magic is something to be controlled and to use for the greater good.

 

The circle in Tevinter failed because it didn't address the cultural traditions there.

[EmissaryofLies]

I would bring up Merrill's utilization of blood magic and its similarity in nature to Templar usage. But I dare not. 

[Mockingword]

Even though by their own definition they are not practicing Blood Magic, merely employing magic using blood.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

 

"We're not doing blood magic. We're just using magic powered by blood."

[dragonflight288]

How about it? I know people who are upset that the government forbids robbery and then collects taxes. Or forbid killing and yet maintain large standing armies trained to do that. Or have laws protecting free speech co-existing with laws restricting it.

 

I could understand being angry at the low burden of proof for an accusation, but that's a different issue from hypocrisy.

 

That's, uh, kind of a distinction that governments and regulatory agencies make all the time: that they, not individuals, are the one who determine what is permissible in what context. You might have a stronger argument if the mages who help make phylacteries were then charged for blood magic, but that's not happening: what's happening is opposing unsanctioned use of blood magic.

 

I know. I'm simply pointing out that the Chantry and the templars are kind of hypocrites when it comes to who's allowed to use blood magic, or even what blood magic is. 

 

 

Not necessarily: blood being a component of magic isn't necessarily the same as the concept of what blood magic entails. If the chantry concept of blood magic is 'mind control or fuel source for harmful magics', then as long as the phylacterie isn't considered a harmful magic (or the blood isn't used as the fuel source) it wouldn't qualify by the definition.

 

 

They generally consider any type of magic that isn't taught at the Circles to be practiced by maleficars, the codex entry on apostates outright states that they treat all apostates as maleficarum despite the fact that they may never have touched blood magic in their lives. Wynne, Leliana and Alistair all call Morrigan a maleficar because she practices shapeshifting, a school of magic thought completely impossible by Circle Mages, but has nothing to do with blood at all, and is an apostate, and not because she's an active blood mage. 

 

They change the definition of what a blood mage is based entirely on whether the mage is an apostate or if they practice a school of magic not taught at the Circle's. The codex on apostates say that the line between apostate and maleficar is deliberately blurred so they are treated as the same. 

 

Now don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no problem with phylactery's whatsoever. I'm just a little annoyed that they refuse to call it for what it is. Phylactery's are powered by blood and therefore is blood magic. Limited to the mage in question, but blood magic nonetheless. 

 

Phylactery's are tools used by the templars and aren't very harmful. Evangeline in Asunder says it's a form of blood magic, even David Gaider said they're a form of blood magic. I take Gaider's word over everyone else's when it comes to the lore of Dragon Age. 

 

I'm not annoyed that they use them, but that they don't call them for what they are. 

[Master Warder Z_]

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

 

"We're not doing blood magic. We're just using magic powered by blood."

 

When you dig up a source that say that, feel free to present, until then?

 

Its conjecture.