There is one society where that was the case. Gives off a bad example to those who want to try that again.
Tevinter.
It´s not either or situation 
. Yes in Tevinter since mages have been ruling class, the nobility, though out the history. Other parts of Thedas have different history, so their mages have different cultural backround.
So you are saying mages are incapable of managing themselves and require mundanes to do so? They lack the mental capacity for it? People who have no understanding of what it means to be a mage get to make decision? There is a large cloud of smug in the air with this idea. A religous (zealot if you will) rasist bottom current where some people are just better to govern others because of their inborn trait and have a divine permission for it.
The only good argument for circle system would be if it only would be a school for mages where mages would teach and govern themselves. No life long imprisonment, no personal life restrictions.
And this is a perfect example of what zealotry actually is. A blind adherence to a cause without even considering that there might be flaws with it or arguments to the contrary.
For the majority of Andrasteans, the Circle simply isn't an issue. Neither it, nor mages, are part of their lives and it doesn't effect them in any way. They're hardly zealots. And among those who do consider the Circle an issue, most admit it's a flawed system. Even a lot of those who support it agree that it's not ideal. They don't like keeping mages there, they just can't see a better option given what has happened in the past and what is happening elsewhere in the world. Even among the Templars, an organisation which at times does tend towards zealotry, there are many people who have such beliefs, and who frequently question their beliefs with regards to mages - something a zealot never does. Even if they come to the conlusion that their belies are correct, the simlpe fact that they do question them, that they are open to the possibility that their beliefs might be wrong, that the do consider other avenues, marks them out as people who simply are not zealots.
Hell, the Divine Herself, based on the depiction in Asunder, is pretty damn hard to describe as a zealot. She's a true Andreastean believer. But that doesn't make her a zealot.
And this is a perfect example of what zealotry actually is. A blind adherence to a cause without even considering that there might be flaws with it or arguments to the contrary.
For the majority of Andrasteans, the Circle simply isn't an issue. Neither it, nor mages, are part of their lives and it doesn't effect them in any way. They're hardly zealots. And among those who do consider the Circle an issue, most admit it's a flawed system. Even a lot of those who support it agree that it's not ideal. They don't like keeping mages there, they just can't see a better option given what has happened in the past and what is happening elsewhere in the world. Even among the Templars, an organisation which at times does tend towards zealotry, there are many people who have such beliefs, and who frequently question their beliefs with regards to mages - something a zealot never does. Even if they come to the conlusion that their belies are correct, the simlpe fact that they do question them, that they are open to the possibility that their beliefs might be wrong, that the do consider other avenues, marks them out as people who simply are not zealots.
Hell, the Divine Herself, based on the depiction in Asunder, is pretty damn hard to describe as a zealot. She's a true Andreastean believer. But that doesn't make her a zealot.
It is a matter of degree. People who live outside the circle do not put much thought to it. Because it doesn´t concern them personally. It´s like nazies and treatment of jews and other minorities. Out of sight, out of mind. But, given the option mundanes usually tend to think mages are something evil and bad because of what the chantry teaches them. Some individual inside the system do not change the overall view with their personal issues or crisis of faith. The system has been in place for millenium and therefore it has enough backing among the population. What the chantry teaches is plain and simple. Mages are evil non humans who do not have any right to govern themselves. Period. This is taught to the people and they accept it. That kind of general acceptance makes them zealots, in our standards. Things of the past (and unproven by the way) are hardly a reason to incarcerate mages, who had nothing to do with these alleged crimes, for life. The reason for the situation is the chantry and its teachings. Simple as that, there are no arguments to the contrary which would hold any water.
Also the amount of people calling "race gating" good because it is realistic is troubling. The truth is, out of all the realism possible in a romance, somehow disliking a particular race makes them more interesting vs things that are less shallowly based like... loss of spark, it really just being a fling and wanting nothing more(and there being no more content) Cheating with someone else in the party. Fighting with other party members to win your LI's affections.
That is all realistic. It also, at least to me, sounds terrible. That somehow "racegating" is more realistic and better than those up above when it is superficial at the very least and at most very deeply racist, bogles me.
I would prefer less LI's to gated ones.
Keep in mind, fantasy "races" aren't really races. What we're talking about here is really a preference for dating within their own species. Not all that unreasonable, imo.
It is a matter of degree. People who live outside the circle do not put much thought to it. Because it doesn´t concern them personally. It´s like nazies and treatment of jews and other minorities. Out of sight, out of mind. But, given the option mundanes usually tend to think mages are something evil and bad because of what the chantry teaches them. Some individual inside the system do not change the overall view with their personal issues or crisis of faith. The system has been in place for millenium and therefore it has enough backing among the population. What the chantry teaches is plain and simple. Mages are evil non humans who do not have any right to govern themselves. Period. This is taught to the people and they accept it. That kind of general acceptance makes them zealots, in our standards. Things of the past (and unproven by the way) are hardly a reason to incarcerate mages, who had nothing to do with these alleged crimes, for life. The reason for the situation is the chantry and its teachings. Simple as that, there are no arguments to the contrary which would hold any water.
Godwin's Law has been activated.
No, people are not taught that mages are evil or not human. They are taught that they are dangerous, which they are. They teach the mages that they have a gift and a curse. If they saw mages as evil, they would forgo that gift part. So no, the common people or Chantry personnel are not zealots in any sense of the word.
There are non-chantry related justifications for putting mages in the circle. A simple look at what mages have done in both DA games should make it clear that they can be extremely dangerous, both to themselves and to others. Now, that's not to say that that is sufficient justification, it may be, it may not be, but one does not have to even be a follower of the Chantry, let alone a zealot, to feel that the Circle is a neccesary evil.
Godwin's Law has been activated.
No, people are not taught that mages are evil or not human. They are taught that they are dangerous, which they are. They teach the mages that they have a gift and a curse. If they saw mages as evil, they would forgo that gift part. So no, the common people or Chantry personnel are not zealots in any sense of the word.
Godwin´s law or not but it is a valid point. And when it comes to gift and curse people tend to focus on the curse part. That is why circle system is, not for the gift which is conveniently forgotten since mages do not get to use that gift. Anyone justifying the incarceration of mages because of divine acceptance is a zealot.
There are non-chantry related justifications for putting mages in the circle. A simple look at what mages have done in both DA games should make it clear that they can be extremely dangerous, both to themselves and to others. Now, that's not to say that that is sufficient justification, it may be, it may not be, but one does not have to even be a follower of the Chantry, let alone a zealot, to feel that the Circle is a neccesary evil.
I don´t see any such justifications, all of them are connected to the chantry. One could also say that one look at what chantry and templars have done in both games would equal disbanding these organizations and putting guilty ones to trial for murders. But it won´t happen since they have "divine justification" for their actions.
Godwin´s law or not but it is a valid point. And when it comes to gift and curse people tend to focus on the curse part. That is why circle system is, not for the gift which is conveniently forgotten since mages do not get to use that gift. Anyone justifying the incarceration of mages because of divine acceptance is a zealot.
If thier only argument is "my holy book says so", you might have a point. But that is not the only argument used for the cricle. It is not the only justification for their existence. The fact that you are completely unprepared to accept this makes you far more of zealot - blind and unwilling to accept anything that migth go against your beliefs.
I say, it's almost like...he would be willing to blow up a church, in order to "remove compromise"
The College of Enchanters met right before everything went crazy, and they voted to NOT pull away from the Chantry. Mages know there are worse fates than living in the Circle. I ask you this, Do you believe this chaos, this bloodshed, is preferable to the Circle? Like Anders? Or do you think a system like the Circle, despite it's flaws, is a better alternative. If you support this chaos, this bloodshed, then frankly you are a bigger zealot then Loghain with his anti-Orlais screaming.
That would be the case IF death, chaos and bloodshed is the only option for the circle system. As so many times pointed out here as the only option to circles, Tevinter is not about death, chaos and bloodshed so your point is moot. And no, don´t say "but they sacrifice!" because it is not the society as whole, only a minor part of a small sections practice. As a society Tevinter is a marvelous example of survival and endurance through out the Thedasian history. No other country can claim that.
I would say that like any other normal people mages can and would be able to police themselves and still function with the society. Now its about power, mundanes in Thedas fear mages so they cage them, and claim that there is a holy explanation for it.
Are you part of the crowd who thinks mages can´t govern themselves because of being mages? Are they... inferior? Lesser people?
Besides, there is death and chaos in Thedas now not because of mages but because of TEMPLARS who went on a rampage to murder every mage who declared freedom so for that you can blame someone else than mages.
ps. I saved Anders every time, being a freedom loving blood mage. Boom! 
If thier only argument is "my holy book says so", you might have a point. But that is not the only argument used for the cricle. It is not the only justification for their existence. The fact that you are completely unprepared to accept this makes you far more of zealot - blind and unwilling to accept anything that migth go against your beliefs.
Not true, its the only argument given for circles existence. The holy one. If you have any other then please point it out.
Not true, its the only argument given for circles existence. The holy one. If you have any other then please point it out.
Mages are a danger both to themselves and the rest of society.This is pointed out many times, particularly in DA2 for obvious reasons. In fact, it is usually the justification used by those supporting the Circles. Mention of the religious aspect is actually pretty rare in both the games and the supplementary material.
DA2 went out the window with grazy people and it was not restricted to mages. I was rather bored with the obvious way Bio writers tried to paint all free mages with some evil brush. Tevinter would have turned into a smoldering crater long before the birth of andraste if mages would go grazy the way DA2 made them to do. Besides being in a circle does not prevent mages from turning into abominations, far from it. The only thing doing that is the mage himself, not the walls nor the templars around him. Religous aspect comes out in the codex and in the dicussions in both games so I don´t really buy that claim.
DA2 went out the window with grazy people and it was not restricted to mages. Besides being in a circle does not prevent mages from turning into abominations, far from it. The only thing doing that is the mage himself, not the walls nor the templars around him. Religous aspect comes out in the codex and in the dicussions in both games so I don´t really buy that claim.
Religion is unquestionably part of the justification, but it is clear from the games and the books that it is not the only part. Simple practicality and a desire for safety is a major factor. Mages are dangerous. And sure, the Circle might not prevent mages becoming abominations. But it can prevent those abomiations causing harm by containing them - compare what would happen if a mage became an abomination while living "normally" in a large city with one who becomes an abomination as part of the harrowing.
Religion is unquestionably part of the justification, but it is clear from the games and the books that it is not the only part. Simple practicality and a desire for safety is a major factor. Mages are dangerous. And sure, the Circle might not prevent mages becoming abominations. But it can prevent those abomiations causing harm by containing them - compare what would happen if a mage became an abomination while living "normally" in a large city with one who becomes an abomination as part of the harrowing.
That is actually the only justification for circles which has the smallest part of truth in it. However, it still does not work as a base for the system. Mages going through a open circle system living in a city can provide also protection for the mundanes. At that point there would not be so many mages close by so the possibility to have a circle full of abominations is very small. Other mages/mage templars (yes, that could be a possiblity too) and trained templars/guards in the city would be in a position to take down the abomination much easier.
The topic has been totally de-railed, by someone who is clearly a zealot trying to claim the Chantry and anyone who supports it are zealots. I see no point in continuing to drag out an argument that has NOTHING to do with the topic.
That is what I actually tried to do, return to original discussion. However, I got so many replies that I had to comment on them. So not solely my fault.
@daveliam: I don't really understand your line of thinking. How would someone saying 'I'm just not attracted to dwarves' be shallow? You can't help who you're attracted to, so if you happen to not find a certain type of person attractive for whatever reason (say, possibly due to things such as gender, skin colour, race etc.) it isn't exactly your fault, is it? Would a gay man saying something along the lines of 'I'm just not attracted to women' be considered shallow (being gay isn't exactly a compelling character trait either for that matter)?
'Really? NO woman? NONE? There is literally NO WAY that you could ever find a woman attractive? Okay then'. See how silly that sounds?
If you were deliberately choosing to not date a certain type of person for some reason, even if you found them attractive, then yes I suppose it could be considered shallow. However, not dating a certain type of person simply because you just don't find them attractive isn't being shallow (you can't make yourself be attracted to someone you don't find attractive).
To be honest, I actually like the fact that there are things such as gender and race-gating in Inquisition; sure I might (in some cases) not be able to romance exactly who I want, however it makes individual characters more defined and interesting if you ask me, and also gives me more of a reason to actually role-play as a different type of character on another playthrough. If everything (with regards to romance at least) plays out the same regardless of gender or race, then where's the incentive for me to try a different type of character on another playthrough if I can get the same outcome playing as my preferred gender and/or race? This isn't supposed to be a dating simulator, you shouldn't be able to get whoever you want all the time (this is one of the reasons why I hated the way the romances were handled in DA2, it just felt cheap that all the romance options were bisexual, or 'playersexual' if you prefer. I'm not including Sebastian here because he's not really a proper romance as: you have install DLC to get him, his romance-related dialogue/interaction is pretty minimal compared to the others, he doesn't unlock the achievement/trophy for romancing a character, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't even give you so much as a kiss).
Godwin's Law has been activated.
No, people are not taught that mages are evil or not human. They are taught that they are dangerous, which they are. They teach the mages that they have a gift and a curse. If they saw mages as evil, they would forgo that gift part. So no, the common people or Chantry personnel are not zealots in any sense of the word.
Then you obviously did not read Asunder, or listen Anders (for example) talking about his life in the Circle. Oh, you you did not play mage Origin in DAO or missed the unhappy girl dreaming to become tranquil.
I prefer no gender or race gating (all the loves for the PC for maximum choice) but things based on class like a templar refusing to date a mage would be okay, for me.
People seem to prefer the set sexualities rather than what we had in DA2 though, so whatever.
I too like the system in DA2...The only thing I didnt like was anders hitting on me without me expressing any intrest what so ever, Hawks expression was spot on in that scene when he said uugh no it was all WTF.
@daveliam: I don't really understand your line of thinking. How would someone saying 'I'm just not attracted to dwarves' be shallow? You can't help who you're attracted to, so if you happen to not find a certain type of person attractive for whatever reason (say, possibly due to things such as gender, skin colour, race etc.) it isn't exactly your fault, is it? Would a gay man saying something along the lines of 'I'm just not attracted to women' be considered shallow (being gay isn't exactly a compelling character trait either for that matter)?
'Really? NO woman? NONE? There is literally NO WAY that you could ever find a woman attractive? Okay then'. See how silly that sounds?
If you were deliberately choosing to not date a certain type of person for some reason, even if you found them attractive, then yes I suppose it could be considered shallow. However, not dating a certain type of person simply because you just don't find them attractive isn't being shallow (you can't make yourself be attracted to someone you don't find attractive).
To be honest, I actually like the fact that there are things such as gender and race-gating in Inquisition; sure I might (in some cases) not be able to romance exactly who I want, however it makes individual characters more defined and interesting if you ask me, and also gives me more of a reason to actually role-play as a different type of character on another playthrough. If everything (with regards to romance at least) plays out the same regardless of gender or race, then where's the incentive for me to try a different type of character on another playthrough if I can get the same outcome playing as my preferred gender and/or race? This isn't supposed to be a dating simulator, you shouldn't be able to get whoever you want all the time (this is one of the reasons why I hated the way the romances were handled in DA2, it just felt cheap that all the romance options were bisexual, or 'playersexual' if you prefer. I'm not including Sebastian here because he's not really a proper romance as: you have install DLC to get him, his romance-related dialogue/interaction is pretty minimal compared to the others, he doesn't unlock the achievement/trophy for romancing a character, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't even give you so much as a kiss).
My point is this: I find it shallow for someone to say that there is absolutely no way that they will ever find a single member of a race to be attractive. Everyone has preferences. But to say that it is impossible for you to find anyone anyone from a race to be attractive seems shallow to me. I wouldn't mind a feature where a person has an "I don't date dwarves" policy which makes it more difficult to romance them. I'm not thrilled with racial restrictions if it's as simple as, "Nope, not a single dwarf is ever attractive to me". That makes me like the character a little less.
And, no, racial "preferences" are not the same thing as sexual orientation. There has never been a single reference in the DA setting to "elfsexuality" or "dwarfsexuality", but there are references to sexual orientations that we are familiar with in the real world. If they had introduced "racial sexuality' as a thing in their setting, then we could make that comparison. But "preference for traits" (such as 'liking blondes' or 'not finding short guys attractive' or 'being attracted to people with full lips') is not the same as sexual orientation.
Personality gating should be must^^
IMO more gating are better anyway... I don't even mind some look gating
My point is this: I find it shallow for someone to say that there is absolutely no way that they will ever find a single member of a race to be attractive. Everyone has preferences. But to say that it is impossible for you to find anyone anyone from a race to be attractive seems shallow to me. I wouldn't mind a feature where a person has an "I don't date dwarves" policy which makes it more difficult to romance them. I'm not thrilled with racial restrictions if it's as simple as, "Nope, not a single dwarf is ever attractive to me". That makes me like the character a little less.
And, no, racial "preferences" are not the same thing as sexual orientation. There has never been a single reference in the DA setting to "elfsexuality" or "dwarfsexuality", but there are references to sexual orientations that we are familiar with in the real world. If they had introduced "racial sexuality' as a thing in their setting, then we could make that comparison. But "preference for traits" (such as 'liking blondes' or 'not finding short guys attractive' or 'being attracted to people with full lips') is not the same as sexual orientation.
I agree with you, but I do think that with the way Bioware handles CC - that is, having a fixed build for every race - that they could have something that, mechanically, is race-gated but RP-wise is look-gated. For example, Cassandra or Dorian might not like big, muscular, huge guys, i.e., the qunari default build. For me, the IB is just lolnope in terms of physical attraction. He makes me get what it would be like to be straight.
Retour en haut