458 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

Or perhaps the Mages in the Circle were fed up and wanted change and the Templars deemed them irredeemable.

Mages are a very valuable natural resource. Templars aren't just going to Annull a Circle if all the mages are doing is an hunger strike and other peaceful protests.

Let's not forget the incident that institutionalized the Right of Annulment. The Templars executed a Nevarran mage for practicing blood magic. To express their displeasure over this "injustice", the other mages started summoning demons.

[raging_monkey]

Not all, but a decent majority.

you know this for sure the WoT only says the were migiling with family

[MisterJB]

you know this for sure the WoT only says the were migiling with family

The WoT states they were training young girls in the ways of Seer which involve demonic possession and rulling over more traditional communities.

So, we've got Abominations breaking the "magic must serve man and never rule over him." The Annulment was righteous and justified.

[Hellion Rex]

you know this for sure the WoT only says the were migiling with family

But the Rivaini seers were practicing spiritual possession among younger women in the circle of Dairsmuid, that is a proven fact.

[Hellion Rex]

The WoT states they were training young girls in the ways of Seer which involve demonic possession and rulling over more traditional communities.

So, we've got Abominations breaking the "magic must serve man and never rule over him." The Annulment was righteous and justified.

Nope. JB, all we know about what the seers were doing was the spiritual possession, nothing about ruling.

[MisterJB]

Nope. JB, all we know about what the seers were doing was the spiritual possession, nothing about ruling.

Well, they were Seers and Seers are rulers. Granted, the Circle was in Darsmuid; which is the capital and the most Andrastean place in Rivain; but if they had authorization to leave to visit families, it's possible they went to more traditional communities. If the possession was tolerated, why not the ruling?

Well, it's ambiguous.

[MisterJB]

Many rebels were demonized in the past,one's terrorist is another's freedom fight.Is fighting for equal rights and freedom really a evil thing just because mages are doing it?

Let's not be disingenuous here. We know and the mages know that to grant them equal rights is the same as handing them the reins of power. It might take decades but the usage of magic will, inevitably, lead to power and influence being stripped from normal people.

 

Besides, did Andraste's rebellion lead to equality between mages and normals?

Then what reason is there to believe this one will?

 

And what is that?Mages can't be in positions of leadership?

That free mages lead to them dominating society.

Orlais, Ferelden, Antiva, etc were created by non-mages and they should remain under their control.

[raging_monkey]

Not arguing the implications of possesion, but havent the seers been fine(socially) while possesed

[cjones91]

The WoT states they were training young girls in the ways of Seer which involve demonic possession and rulling over more traditional communities.

So, we've got Abominations breaking the "magic must serve man and never rule over him." The Annulment was righteous and justified.

They were getting possessed by spirits,that's totally different from demonic possession.

[Dean_the_Young]

Not arguing the implications of possesion, but havent the seers been fine(socially) while possesed

 

Define 'fine.'

 

Seers have been compared to acts of nature. Acts of nature are quite often accepted and taken for granted (because what is the point of crying against the natural) even when they cause real and regular harm that could be prevented. Don't confuse 'socially accepted costs' for an absence of costs.

 

Think of it as the difference between American and European views on gun violence. In most European countries, gun deaths are often between 1 and 3 people killed per 100,000 people per year. In the US, it's over 10 per 100,00 per year. I've known Europeans who were afraid to come to the US after hearing that number because they were afraid there were gunfights in the streets, but most Americans have a broad shrug of the shoulders at the steady state of gun violence.

 

Well, they were Seers and Seers are rulers. Granted, the Circle was in Darsmuid; which is the capital and the most Andrastean place in Rivain; but if they had authorization to leave to visit families, it's possible they went to more traditional communities. If the possession was tolerated, why not the ruling?

Well, it's ambiguous.

 

Local leaders, more like. There's not enough of an institutional role or governance to warrant the term 'ruler.'

 

It doesn't change your overall point, but be careful not to overstate your case. The Seers are informal leaders, which is not the same thing as a ruler.

[cjones91]

Let's not be disingenuous here. We know and the mages know that to grant them equal rights is the same as handing them the reins of power. It might take decades but the usage of magic will, inevitably, lead to power and influence being stripped from normal people.

 

Besides, did Andraste's rebellion lead to equality between mages and normals?

Then what reason is there to believe this one will?

 

That free mages lead to them dominating society.

Orlais, Ferelden, Antiva, etc were created by non-mages and they should remain under their control.

And what makes non mages so special enough that they should be the only ones to rule then?

[cjones91]

Define 'fine.'

 

Seers have been compared to acts of nature. Acts of nature are quite often accepted and taken for granted (because what is the point of crying against the natural) even when they cause real and regular harm that could be prevented. Don't confuse 'socially accepted costs' for an absence of costs.

 

Think of it as the difference between American and European views on gun violence. In most European countries, gun deaths are often between 1 and 3 people killed per 100,000 people per year. In the US, it's over 10 per 100,00 per year. I've known Europeans who were afraid to come to the US after hearing that number because they were afraid there were gunfights in the streets, but most Americans have a broad shrug of the shoulders at the steady state of gun violence.

 

 

Local leaders, more like. There's not enough of an institutional role or governance to warrant the term 'ruler.'

 

It doesn't change your overall point, but be careful not to overstate your case. The Seers are informal leaders, which is not the same thing as a ruler.

That's slightly incorrect,the Rivaini see abominations as acts of nature..

[Dean_the_Young]

They were getting possessed by spirits,that's totally different from demonic possession.

 

Not really. The distinction between spirits and demons is largely an arbitrary religious categorization based more on ex post facto reasoning of effect rather than composition. Spirits and demons are both fixated on their aspect and cause personality changes to the subject of the mergers, emphasizing the personality aspects of the spirit's own aspect to a point of obsession or fixation (Wynn's preponderance of faith, Anders' idea of justice).

 

Basically, spirits and demons to date have been functionally similar in form and function. We just call the bad ones demons because they do bad things, which is circular reasoning.

[Dean_the_Young]

And what makes non mages so special enough that they should be the only ones to rule then?

 

The relative ability to remove and change oppressive mundane institutions and harmful individuals compared to the burdens of doing the same to mage oligarchies.

 

Mundane rulers sit more shakily, have fewer means to force their will on others, and are more dependent on consensus of others to remain in power. Mage rulers have many more paths to resist being removed and have the ability to enforce their own consensus onto others.

[Dean_the_Young]

That's slightly incorrect,the Rivaini see abominations as acts of nature..

 

Seers are abominations (spirit-human/elf melds).

[cjones91]

Not really. The distinction between spirits and demons is largely an arbitrary religious categorization based more on ex post facto reasoning of effect rather than composition. Spirits and demons are both fixated on their aspect and cause personality changes to the subject of the mergers, emphasizing the personality aspects of the spirit's own aspect to a point of obsession or fixation (Wynn's preponderance of faith, Anders' idea of justice).

 

Basically, spirits and demons to date have been functionally similar in form and function. We just call the bad ones demons because they do bad things, which is circular reasoning.

Demons can forcibly possess mages and turn them into monsters,when's the last time a spirit did that?Wynne never tried to hurt people and only lost control during one specific instance in Asunder,even then she regained composure afterwards.If that had been a demon possessing her then Wynne wouldn't have been able to do that.

 

Spirits don't get involved in mortal affairs and typically have to be called for assistance,while demons are actively trying to get into the physical world.

[cjones91]

The relative ability to remove and change oppressive mundane institutions and harmful individuals compared to the burdens of doing the same to mage oligarchies.

 

Mundane rulers sit more shakily, have fewer means to force their will on others, and are more dependent on consensus of others to remain in power. Mage rulers have many more paths to resist being removed and have the ability to enforce their own consensus onto others.

Is that why Orlais has been a decadent empire for a long time now?Mundane rulers have been oppressive for centures,the common people and elves can attest to that.Even now rebellions are just starting to take effect.

[raging_monkey]

The relative ability to remove and change oppressive mundane institutions and harmful individuals compared to the burdens of doing the same to mage oligarchies. Mundane rulers sit more shakily, have fewer means to force their will on others, and are more dependent on consensus of others to remain in power. Mage rulers have many more paths to resist being removed and have the ability to enforce their own consensus onto others.

The only thing mages have magic and the rare abomination (rare being unaffected by outside stressors) if we have templars act as gaurdians instead of jailors (using the term loosly) we can these mage states if the mundanes dont trust mages

[Dean_the_Young]

Demons can forcibly possess mages and turn them into monsters,when's the last time a spirit did that?

 

You're arguing on the basis of retroactive classification based on effect. If a spirit turns a mage into a monster (like Justice and Anders), it would be called a demon- but only because of the aftermath. Until Justice got mean, no one was calling it a demon.

 

 

Wynne never tried to hurt people and only lost control during one specific instance in Asunder,even then she regain composure afterwards.If that had been a demom possessing her then Wynne wouldn't have been able to do that.

 

 

Why not? Topor didn't go on a pyschotic murder spree in the streets, while Justice blew up a Chantry filled with innocents.

 

You're arguing off of effect again, except we already have examples that disprove the rule. We have spirits (Justice and Valor) who were willing and even eager to harm innocents, and we have had demons uninterested in raising havoc and choas even when they had the power and ability to (Topor, Sophia, some of the desire demons). Let's not forget that one of the Forbidden Ones remained hidden in the capital of Ferelden for an undeterminate amount of time without being provoked into a massacre.

 

 

 

Spirits don't get involved in mortal affairs and typically have to be called for assistance,while demons are actively trying to get into the physical world.

 

And, again, a retroactive classification based on action rather than composition.

 

Except we know this is wrong. Wynn's spirit of faith very much interjected itself, as did Justice once it had an opportunity. Likewise there have been demons we know were summoned (and not the instigator), which would classify them as spirits by your claim.

[Dean_the_Young]

Is that why Orlais has been a decadent empire for a long time now?Mundane rulers have been oppressive for centures,the common people and elves can attest to that.Even now rebellions are just starting to take effect.

 

Decadent is an odd word to throw around, but it would certainly be correct to say this is why Orlais is a far more flexible empire than, say, the Tevinter Emperium. Oppression exists, but on a different level than in Tevinter and with far more flexibility and maneuverability for the underclasses. 'The Game' offers everyone, even elves, opportunities to participate in the power structures of Orlais that are entirely unapproachable in Tevinter.

[Dean_the_Young]

The only thing mages have magic and the rare abomination (rare being unaffected by outside stressors) if we have templars act as gaurdians instead of jailors (using the term loosly) we can these mage states if the mundanes dont trust mages

 

This is akin to saying that the only thing the United States Navy has going for it is aircraft carriers. All other things being equal, that one isn't.

 

Magic in the hands of a trained mage can raise necromatic armies, control the minds of political figures, control the actions of enemies, render obsolete entire sections of the population work force, catalyze the accruement of wealth and power faster than any mundane specialist can hope to compete, and otherwise grip the levers of power. It is an incredibly potent advantage to gaining and holding onto power if given the ability to do so.

 

Magic in the hands of an untrained mage, by comparison, can merely wipe out entire settlements and cause casualties akin to an Ebola outbreak.

[Dean_the_Young]

Getting back to the start...

It's said Vivienne is going to be very much about the Circles and their benefit to Mages, looking down on Non-Circle mages like Solas and generally having been dragged kicking and screaming into "freedom" by the Templar vs. Mages war. I was contemplating the implications of freedom and how people would support the system and was thinking of something which the game may or may not deal with.

 

Specifically, that without the Circles, Mages as an identity wouldn't exist.

 

Mages are, with rare exceptions, a group without national ties. The Chantry dumps them all in the Circles together so Mages are loyal to each other, elf or human, rather than their respective home nations. The Dalish illustrate the problem of Mage freedom as their Keepers have no interest in the affairs of Mages because they don't self-identify as Circle Mages. See Morrigan for how much she despises them all.

 

But yes, if the Circles dissolve won't this kind of break any power-block mages have? Standing together, they can protect their rights but if freed, they will lose all connection to one another.

 

The point you're dancing around here is the idea of a Mage identity, rather than mage power. The two, while related, are not synonymous.

 

Mage identity is, at this point, a reality. It does exist in its current form thanks to the Circle, but we've also seen that it historically exists without it. In every Thedasian culture we've seen, mages have occupied a specific and exclusive social strata and identity regardless of the presence of a Circle system or not. Whether the Tevinter oligarchy, the Sarebaas, the Seers, Shamans, and Keepers, mages have routinely been categorized and lumped together by themselves and by outsiders. Mage identity routinely exists of its own nature, and will almost certainly continue to do so for the Circle of Magi as well. It may change slightly, but major changes will only occur over long periods of time and political divisions.

 

Mage power, however, is far more dependent on political organization. And this is one that may fracture after a victory... if political geography forces it. The Circles have become a unfiied polity, and will continue to be one for some time in any Mage Independence outcome that does not see the mages trade one supervisory institution (the Templars) for another (such as the nations). If Mages are independent, it will almost certainly be in the context of a Circle and alliance of Circles, and the less integrated they are with multiple alternative institutions the less likely they are to separate as a polity. Unless the Circles are split up amongst the nations, there is no obvious reason why the Circle identity would devolve in mage independence.

 

 

A much more plausible way to destroy the Mage Identity comes not with mage independence, but mage defeat. If the Templars regain the position of arbiter and enforcer, they can play internal divisions amongst the mages to break the solidarity. By unevenly applying benefits and punishments, encouraging mutual suspicion and distrust, and separating the various mage interests and priorities from eachother, the Circle as a polity could fracture into its component parts- which is to say, the Fraternities. Divide the fraternities into groups with mutually exclusive goals and interests, and you could easily go from residents of the Circle identifying themselves as 'I am a Circle Mage' to 'I am a -Insert Fraternity- Mage.' When a mage would first identify as Lucrosian, and only then as a Circle Mage, the Mage polity would be broken.

[MisterJB]

The relative ability to remove and change oppressive mundane institutions and harmful individuals compared to the burdens of doing the same to mage oligarchies.

 

Mundane rulers sit more shakily, have fewer means to force their will on others, and are more dependent on consensus of others to remain in power. Mage rulers have many more paths to resist being removed and have the ability to enforce their own consensus onto others.

To add.

What we are discussing is mages using magic to wrestle power and influence away from non-mages. If this is accomplished, their primary goal will be to mantain said power, not fairness or equality.

 

Also, there's the simple but undeniable fact most of the nations in Thedas were built by mundanes seeking to free themselves from magical influence as a response to magic tyranny.

Imagine if the elves sucessfully extablished an independent state and their ruler married and procreated with a human.

[Dean_the_Young]

To add.

What we are discussing is mages using magic to wrestle power and influence away from non-mages. If this is accomplished, their primary goal will be to mantain said power, not fairness or equality.

 

It probably wouldn't even be framed in terms of power, it would be framed in terms of preserving independence. The immediate priority of every revolutionary state is to ensure the survival of the revolution- revolutionary elite become the new political elite and generally establish dynasties of their families and allies, both because these elites tend to be popular (amongst the victorious) and because they can be relied upon to want to preserve the revolution.

 

 

Also, there's the simple but undeniable fact most of the nations in Thedas were built by mundanes seeking to free themselves from magical influence as a response to magic tyranny.

Imagine if the elves sucessfully extablished an independent state and their ruler married and procreated with a human.

 

For those who don't remember, that would make the child a human as well.

[raging_monkey]

To add.What we are discussing is mages using magic to wrestle power and influence away from non-mages. If this is accomplished, their primary goal will be to mantain said power, not fairness or equality. Also, there's the simple but undeniable fact most of the nations in Thedas were built by mundanes seeking to free themselves from magical influence as a response to magic tyranny.Imagine if the elves sucessfully extablished an independent state and their ruler married and procreated with a human.

Then wouldnt be preferable to exile said people with magic to their own automous state, since mages cant be trusted to co-exist with the mundanes. Austrailia to my understanding was a penal colony once now its lovly place to go. Not saying it will sunshine but its a comprise