Let's take a simple, regular person and give him power. How many out of 100 would resist the temptation of using it to gain personal benefits?
The thing is - mages aren't superhuman with inbuilt steel moral ground. They are just human like any others with all their flaws, but with inbuilt superhuman power. So, if you take a superhuman power and add the power to use it as you see fit, it makes for a dangerous mix.
Detainment? If you're talking about my mandatory Circle education I meant like how schools function *ergo the mages spend their adolescence safely learning to control their powers with families allowed to visit everyday if they wish, then after giving a drop of blood so the Templars can keep track of them just in case they're free to go as they wish.*
Personally, I don't see why phylacteries are necessary for mages only. If they want an easy method for tracking criminals, why just mages? They're going to be a minority of criminals, most likely, since they're a minority, generally. If it's not a violation of privacy and a general abuse risk for mages, why not do it to everyone?
Personally, I don't see why phylacteries are necessary for mages only. If they want an easy method for tracking criminals, why just mages? They're going to be a minority of criminals, most likely, since they're a minority, generally. If it's not a violation of privacy and a general abuse risk for mages, why not do it to everyone?
I'm up for it. I personally see phylacteries as an improved fingerprints samples, that our modern police use.
I'm up for it. I personally see phylacteries as an improved fingerprints samples, that our modern police use.
That's a pretty acceptable response, for me. I'm uncertain on the issue. There's very obvious pros and cons. The obvious pro is that it would make crime easier to manage in a society that doesn't have a lot of our advances in that field. The obvious con is that you are putting a lot of trust in the people that have these phylacteries to both not abuse them and to keep them secure from people that would.
One of the things that worries me most is the line on the wiki that claims phylacteries can even be used to remotely cast spells against people. I'd not heard this before.
http://dragonage.wik...wiki/Phylactery
I think that the main reason why the Tevinter Imperium is the way it is now is because when they pretty much overpowered the Chantry, they went back to their roots because it was all they knew.
Fenris is basing his argument on what he saw in the Imperium. It isn't fair for him to generalize all mages as power-hungry blood mages because of the magistares despite the fact that there are more mages outside the Imperium. It's like saying that everyone who practices Islam is automatically a terrorist because of that 1% who are extremists... Oh wait. 
Let's take a simple, regular person and give him power. How many out of 100 would resist the temptation of using it to gain personal benefits?
The thing is - mages aren't superhuman with inbuilt steel moral ground. They are just human like any others with all their flaws, but with inbuilt superhuman power. So, if you take a superhuman power and add the power to use it as you see fit, it makes for a dangerous mix.
That's what I've been trying to say.
You can *try to* judge if one is responsible enough to own a weapon before giving him one.
Mages on the other hand are born with one in their hand with their finger permanently glued to the trigger.
Thus you can't really prevent magic's misuse on an individual basis.The best you can do is use a catch-all safety net via lawful restrictions on the more dangerous types of magic to reduce incidents.
Personally, I don't see why phylacteries are necessary for mages only. If they want an easy method for tracking criminals, why just mages? They're going to be a minority of criminals, most likely, since they're a minority, generally. If it's not a violation of privacy and a general abuse risk for mages, why not do it to everyone?
I didn't know it worked on non mages.
Does it?
I didn't know it worked on non mages.
Does it?
I suppose the wiki doesn't specify, but I'm not sure why it wouldn't? Is mage blood any different than any other human blood? They're blood magic, apparently, and blood magic typically works on any human blood.
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?
What do you guys think?
I think nothing good comes from listening to either Fenris or Anders in DA2.
On a serious note-no I don't think it will lead to another Imperium. You'd have to get all the mages to agree on ruling others, and if the fraternities prove anything, it's that mages don't agree on a lot of issues.
Let's take a simple, regular person and give him power. How many out of 100 would resist the temptation of using it to gain personal benefits?
The thing is - mages aren't superhuman with inbuilt steel moral ground. They are just human like any others with all their flaws, but with inbuilt superhuman power. So, if you take a superhuman power and add the power to use it as you see fit, it makes for a dangerous mix.
Pretty much this. Also add in the possibility of becoming possessed by demons. Where even a good mage can literally become a monster.
Having the powers of a mage doesn't guarantee tyrannical rule. But it makes it that much more likely for the Magnetos of the world to impose their rule on surrounding muggles.
Would anyone consider the ability to track down a mage through the blood in their phylactery as being a form of blood magic? If you think about it, I think is should be. Then again, a Templar's abilities could be considered as magic by anyone except the Chantry so I guess it doesn't matter. Anything that serves the Chantry is considered 'good'. 
Pretty much this. Also add in the possibility of becoming possessed by demons. Where even a good mage can literally become a monster.
Having the powers of a mage doesn't guarantee tyrannical rule. But it makes it that much more likely for the Magnetos of the world to impose their rule on surrounding muggles.
However, Magneto was not, to my knowledge, into slavery and casual mass murder, which are the specifics of the problem with Tevinter.
I think nothing good comes from listening to either Fenris or Anders in DA2.
On a serious note-no I don't think it will lead to another Imperium. You'd have to get all the mages to agree on ruling others, and if the fraternities prove anything, it's that mages don't agree on a lot of issues.
At-least Fenris didn't blow up a Circle to murder a First Enchanter. 
* 
*
Not really you'd just have to get enough really powerful ones to agree on it and overpower the others.
LOL what is wrong with you? I never judged Templars, I gave you examples of corrupt Tempalrs - just like there's corrupted Mages. Lmfao yeah, you literally have nothing guy. Thanks for being my entertainment for a bit but you're still going back to the same old things you've already said that I've canceled out three times now, so I can tell you're fizzling out hahahaha bye bye
Would anyone consider the ability to track down a mage through the blood in their phylactery as being a form of blood magic? If you think about it, I think is should be. Then again, a Templar's abilities could be considered as magic by anyone except the Chantry so I guess it doesn't matter. Anything that serves the Chantry is considered 'good'.
David Gaider literally confirmed that phylacteries are, indeed, a form of blood magic.
Inevitability Yes.
Next Question?
David Gaider literally confirmed that phylacteries are, indeed, a form of blood magic.
Psuedo blood magic that isn't the product of a deal with a demon mayhaps.
In a similar light as scrying, Gaider needs to rework his own lore i guess.
However, Magneto was not, to my knowledge, into slavery and casual mass murder, which are the specifics of the problem with Tevinter.
He does, however, see mutants as being inherently superior to ordinary humans.
A sentiment that seems to be consistent with the views of the magisters. Mages are to humans what humans are to elves, if you catch my meaning.
David Gaider literally confirmed that phylacteries are, indeed, a form of blood magic.
Guess I forgot about that. 
The Chantry is full of hypocrites... I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
He does, however, see mutants as being inherently superior to ordinary humans.
A sentiment that seems to be consistent with the views of the magisters. Mages are to humans what humans are to elves, if you catch my meaning.
And not a scenario worse than any of the status quo in the rest of Thedas. It's not better either, and I wouldn't try to foster it, but Thedas already sucks in a great deal of governmental and societal ways.
That said, magocracy itself is definitely no worse than rule by any other form of aristocracy.
He does, however, see mutants as being inherently superior to ordinary humans.
A sentiment that seems to be consistent with the views of the magisters. Mages are to humans what humans are to elves, if you catch my meaning.
Blasted shems...
Some versions of Magneto at least, have attempted or committed genocide of humans.
And not a scenario worse than any of the status quo in the rest of Thedas. It's not better either, and I wouldn't try to foster it, but Thedas already sucks in a great deal of governmental and societal ways.
That said, magocracy itself is definitely no worse than rule by any other form of aristocracy.
Serfs work fields, they live and die on their lords properties, are conscripted into their armies.
But they aren't harvested for their blood to power spells.
That's the product of Magocracy.
._. I'd say its worse.
Retour en haut