359 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Dealing with non-mage children would be a major problem for such a exclusive mage society to be sure. Also, I really don't see why it would be impossible for mages to integrate into Thedas as respected equals with useful abilities that could enrich everybody's lives. The Avvar, Dalish and Rivaini have managed to do it and with time, co-operation, goodwill and luck the rest of Thedas could accomplish such a society as well.

 

The Avvar, Dalish, and Rivaini haven't managed to make social systems in which mages are equals to everyone else. In all of those societies, mages hold privileged and generally automatic positions of power and influence on account of their powers.

 

Nor would I be inclined to argue that they demonstrate a system in which mages 'enrich everybody's lives.' We know virtually nothing of the Avaar, the Dalish culture is one that exists along side xenophobic migrant insecurity, and what little we know of the Rivaini is that the crones are established and ominously regarded as acts of nature. None of them are particularly prosperous, progressive, or seen as culturally desirable by outsiders.

 

 

Co-existence isn't overly idealistic or improbable. It can exist in the world.

 

 

 

Co-existence exists wherever genocide hasn't occurred. Slavery is an example of co-existence.

[StrangeStrategy]

Mages and templars will have peace, when templars and all their works have perished-and the works of their dark master Chantry whom templars would deliver us mages.

 

We shall have peace.

 

We shall have peace when templars answer for the annulment of the Kirkwall Circle, and the children that lie dead there. When the lives of the mages, whose bodies lay dead in the circle and the city are avenged! When Divine hangs from a gibbet, for the sport of her own crows, we shall have peace.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Théoden wut you doing here (Wow auto-correct added a little ` to theoden automatically xD)

 

1. What was so wrong with Kirkwall. Bethany didn`t even mind it; Anders was insane and killed nearly all the amges in Kirkwall so he could start his war.

2. The children who lie dead there are probably dead from demons, or maybe the orphans are dead in the Chantry, or maybe Templars killed them in the chaos. Either way, there would be no annulment if not for Anders.

3. The Divine wants to improve the life of mages and is totally pro-mage... And you want her dead....

yeah, this is why I think most pro-magic people don`t think things through xD
 

[ComedicSociopathy]

(objective mode)

Supremacy isn't about them being better leaders or better people, but simply the better creature. Would not a soldier find his job easier if he could "shoot lightning from his fingertips"? Wouldn't it be simpler for a smith if he could produce his own flame? 

As far as a mage-supremacist society being innately oppressive - just because Tevinter is oppressive of mundanes does not mean all such societies would be the same. Some could see it as their duty to shepherd the more unfortunate, taking pity upon them.

(/objective mode)

(opinion)

And jocks and gun-nuts... really? Would that not be the intellectuals and philosophers? Not only would they be more likely to support such a society, but actually be able to create it. I, for one would support a great Philosopher-King.

(/opinion)

 

Having supernatural abilities or not isn't the defining trait in determining whether you're a better creature or not. Shouldn't intelligence, ambition, physical health, mental stability, sociability and empathy also factor in as well? Mage supremacism has the same problem that nobility has in the fact that some mages are going to be shitty leaders regardless of what powers they have. Mage supremacism is a system that can result in a mage being given leadership of a small village but not being savvy enough to actually feeds his villagers or ensure prosperous trade in the village because he's a moron who just so happened to have magic powers. 

 

Do you really think that philosophers and intellectuals would create a system that favored mage supremacy over a meritocracy that would ensure that both mages and mundanes with the right aptitude would have an equal chance of achieving leadership roles in society?

 

Maybe I'm just reading from the wrong philosophers, eh. 

[Dean_the_Young]

As for Ieldra's initial post, assuming I understand it right...

 

Sure. I could see mage supremacism being a viable dialogue path/theme for the player- though I would expect it to be available in a future game with a stronger Tevinter connection, and not so much in DAI. Bioware has allowed xenophobic PC's multiple times over the years, and even downright sociopathic, so another form of racism wouldn't be implausible.

 

The real question is whether Bioware could or would write it so that even non-mages could reflect such an ideology. At points in which the mage-PC could confidently assert their supremacy on account of being mages, whether non-mage PCs could accept such claims from other mages as uncontroversial in the same way that, say, Hawke accepts Andrastianism as uncontroversial.

[ComedicSociopathy]

The Avvar, Dalish, and Rivaini haven't managed to make social systems in which mages are equals to everyone else. In all of those societies, mages hold privileged and generally automatic positions of power and influence on account of their powers.

 

Nor would I be inclined to argue that they demonstrate a system in which mages 'enrich everybody's lives.' We know virtually nothing of the Avaar, the Dalish culture is one that exists along side xenophobic migrant insecurity, and what little we know of the Rivaini is that the crones are established and ominously regarded as acts of nature. None of them are particularly prosperous, progressive, or seen as culturally desirable by outsiders.

 

 

 

Their respected for their abilities, which of course makes them trusted experts in spiritual matters, but their not immediately given unquestionable autocratic dominance over their own people. And yes, the three cultures I mentioned aren't exactly utopias but at least when it comes to mage relations they don't have a massive war happening that could very well spell the downfall for their entire society. 

 

Oh, also, if you don't know much about the Avvar I would suggest you check the Dragon Age wiki. They have a pretty long article about their culture, religion and feelings about mages. Their very interesting for a bunch of mountain folk. 

[lordsaren101]

Change is coming. A true magocracy can only succeed if run by the Magisterium. Blood magic is power, and power is what seperates the weak from the strong. In Tevinter true ability is recognized and rewarded, not punished with cagiing and fear. The chantry is right to fear us. We are the padt and the future. Magic is power and there is a stark beauty to it.

[Ieldra]

I should clarify that with "mage supremacism", I do not necessarily refer to an ideology that mageborn are intrinsically superior, but to the more pragmatic stance that in order to be safe from being dominated by others, the mageborn must rule over these others.

This is the mageborn counterpart to the currently practiced policy, based on the assumption that in order to be safe from being dominated by the mageborn, the non-mageborn must rule over them.

Also, support for any policy similar to the Imperium's is not implied beyond the basic fact that its government is firmly in the hand of the mageborn. Mage supremacism as understood in this way implies a magocracy, but not anything more. It implies neither slavery, blood magic nor oppression beyond keeping the non-mageborn away from political power.

[Dean_the_Young]

Their respected for their abilities, which of course makes them trusted experts in spiritual matters, but their not immediately given unquestionable autocratic dominance over their own people.

 

Mainly because they are tribal societies that don't have autocratic institutions in the first place. Impotence and a lack of organization isn't exactly a virtue.

 

In so much that autocratic power does exist, it comes in the spiritual/magical realm which the mages do occupy automatically. In the Dalish especially, being born with magic is the fast-track to political leadership of the clans. Non-mage Keepers are primarily when mages aren't around.
 

 

And yes, the three cultures I mentioned aren't exactly utopias but at least when it comes to mage relations they don't have a massive war happening that could very well spell the downfall for their entire society.

 

 

This is a pretty disjointed way to look at the situation at hand. The current Mage Rebellion is so far from an existential threat for Andrastian society as a whole that that primary political debate of the national elites such as Orlais is whether to intervene themselves or let the Chantry try to manage it. The current mage rebellion is also the first one in nearly a millenia- by comparison, it hasn't even been two hundred years since the much greater secessionist crisis of the American Civil War.

 

Moreover, the Dalish and Rivain Witches are hardly thriving and surviving well themselves. In less than a decade, two Dalish clans are effectively demolished and a third potentially annihilated due to the policies of their mage leadership.  Meanwhile, a Rivain Seer subversion of the Circle system saw a defiant and ultimately fatal resistance that led to a successful Annulment of a major Seer group which is barely an afterthought and side-affair in the ongoing crisis in Western Thedas.

 

If you're going to selectively pick a snapshot of time, it would probably behoove you to pick one in which your proposed successful population groups weren't getting massacred in their 'success'.
 

 

Oh, also, if you don't know much about the Avvar I would suggest you check the Dragon Age wiki. They have a pretty long article about their culture, religion and feelings about mages. Their very interesting for a bunch of mountain folk.

 

I'm aware of the Avvar articles. They don't really substitute seeing and working with them, or change the point.

[Jorji Costava]

Regarding the OP:

 

The mage/templar conflict also reminded me of X-Men, which is a big part of what annoys me about it. I actually never really cared for the classic X-Men scenario in which the oppression of superpowered individuals is mined for applicability to real-world oppression.

 

There just seems to be a tension in combining the superhero template, which is inherently about exceptional individuals, with a morality play about the equality of all. With these kinds of scenarios, the sentiment "Accept us because we're you're equals" has a way of sliding into "Accept us because we're better than you," and I don't much care for the latter implication. But I do think DA has much fared better in this regard, because it's never been so ham-fisted in insisting that the mages must be right.

 

Sure. I could see mage supremacism being a viable dialogue path/theme for the player- though I would expect it to be available in a future game with a stronger Tevinter connection, and not so much in DAI. Bioware has allowed xenophobic PC's multiple times over the years, and even downright sociopathic, so another form of racism wouldn't be implausible.

 

The real question is whether Bioware could or would write it so that even non-mages could reflect such an ideology. At points in which the mage-PC could confidently assert their supremacy on account of being mages, whether non-mage PCs could accept such claims from other mages as uncontroversial in the same way that, say, Hawke accepts Andrastianism as uncontroversial.

 

I can't speak for Ielda obviously, but I think the OP may have been as much about whether or not mage supremicism is defensible politically or ethically as about whether or not we'll have an opportunity to endorse such a view in-game.

 

Regarding whether or not we'll have the opportunity to roleplay as a mage supremicist non-mage, I would say that it's doubtful because I don't think the developers would feel any pressure to enable us to play as a 'self-hating' Inquisitor, but it is an interesting possibility nonetheless. Unlike real-life marginalized groups, mages have powerful, awe-inspiring and poorly understood abilities, so perhaps it is a reasonable extrapolation to assume that many non-mages in Thedas would walk the line between fearing mages and secretly admiring/wanting to be them.

[ComedicSociopathy]

Change is coming. A true magocracy can only succeed if run by the Magisterium. Blood magic is power, and power is what seperates the weak from the strong. In Tevinter true ability is recognized and rewarded, not punished with cagiing and fear. The chantry is right to fear us. We are the padt and the future. Magic is power and there is a stark beauty to it.

 

Oh, cool I didn't know we could role-play in these forums. Let me get my character notes out.

 

"Your evil empire will NEVER succeed you pathetic piece of mage scum! The Maker give me the might to drive you snakes from holy Thedas!"

 

*Swing plus 10 holy damage templar sword at magister* 

[Dean_the_Young]

I should clarify that with "mage supremacism", I do not necessarily refer to an ideology that mageborn are intrinsically superior, but to the more pragmatic stance that in order to be safe from being dominated by others, the mageborn must rule over these others.

This is the mageborn counterpart to the currently practiced policy, based on the assumption that in order to be safe from being dominated by the mageborn, the non-mageborn must rule over them.

 

I don't think that Bioware is going to invest in a class-specific potential narrative theme over a pan-class cultural/ideological theme that would be applied differently depending on class.

 

The mageborn counterpart to the currently practiced policy are mages who agree with the currently practiced policy. The 'yeah, mages are dangerous' mage dialogue options. What you're describing is an alternative dialogue theme entirely, not a counterpart to an existing theme.

[Ieldra]

I don't think that Bioware is going to invest in a class-specific potential narrative theme over a pan-class cultural/ideological theme that would be applied differently depending on class.

I do not see how this statement applies to anything I have said.

The mageborn counterpart to the currently practiced policy are mages who agree with the currently practiced policy.

I do not see how this statement makes sense.

[ComedicSociopathy]

Moreover, the Dalish and Rivain Witches are hardly thriving and surviving well themselves. In less than a decade, two Dalish clans are effectively demolished and a third potentially annihilated due to the policies of their mage leadership.  Meanwhile, a Rivain Seer subversion of the Circle system saw a defiant and ultimately fatal resistance that led to a successful Annulment of a major Seer group which is barely an afterthought and side-affair in the ongoing crisis in Western Thedas.

 

If you're going to selectively pick a snapshot of time, it would probably behoove you to pick one in which your proposed successful population groups weren't getting massacred in their 'success'.
 

 

Weren't at least two of those Dalish clans destroyed because of external factors that had nothing to do with their relationship with their mages? The clan in DA: 2 could potentially be destroyed because of how you handle Merrill's companion quest but even in that situation it's Hawke who can decided to kill them or not, right? The same token goes towards the Rivaini whose seers were destroyed because the templars, an external factor, decided to get involved and upset their culture with their own ideology. 

[Ieldra]

There just seems to be a tension in combining the superhero template, which is inherently about exceptional individuals, with a morality play about the equality of all. With these kinds of scenarios, the sentiment "Accept us because we're you're equals" has a way of sliding into "Accept us because we're better than you," and I don't much care for the latter implication. But I do think DA has much fared better in this regard, because it's never been so ham-fisted in insisting that the mages must be right.

Yep, I agree. In part, I think, DA has fared better because the claim "mageborn are superior" would be plainly ludicrous. In Thedas, you can plausibly ask "Why the hell would anyone *want* to be a mage?" and the other side has a point rooted in more than simple fear or jealousy. That any parallel with real-world oppression is thus fundamentally flawed, and the main conflict line is rather between two positive values - freedom and safety - is one thing that makes the mage/templar conflict interesting. Still, the conclusions you can draw do legitimately parallel the conclusions drawn in the context of the X-Men universe.

I can't speak for Ielda obviously, but I think the OP may have been as much about whether or not mage supremicism is defensible politically or ethically as about whether or not we'll have an opportunity to endorse such a view in-game.

Exactly.

[Tevinter Soldier]

Oh, cool I didn't know we could role-play in these forums. Let me get my character notes out.

 

"Your evil empire will NEVER succeed you pathetic piece of mage scum! The Maker give me the might to drive you snakes from holy Thedas!"

 

*Swing plus 10 holy damage templar sword at magister* 

 

It's called the Imperium you Nuglover.

Honestly Mundanes can't even grasp the basics of civilised tongue.

[ComedicSociopathy]

It's called the Imperium you Nuglover.

Honestly Mundanes can't even grasp the basics of civilised tongue.

 

What's wrong about loving your pet nug? Does Tevinter not have nugs? That would be such a shame if that's case, because nugs are great companions and having a few in Tevinter would probably brighten up the place. 

[Ieldra]

May I suggest that we keep assertions of superiority out of this thread? This is not a support thread.

[Tevinter Soldier]

What's wrong about loving your pet nug? Does Tevinter not have nugs? That would be such a shame if that's case, because nugs are great companions and having a few in Tevinter would probably brighten up the place. 

 

Of course we have Nug's taste delicious, especially braised.  

[Medhia_Nox]

@Ieldra:  I just think the premise is flawed.  You're life will ALWAYS be controlled by others.

 

For the Magisters - their lives are controlled by a constant state of competition with their fellows where failure at the very LEAST means utter humiliation - at the worst Tranquility.

 

So my question is - why would it be better to be ruled by mages (as in, your fellow mages)?

As a mage - you certainly would not want me (as a mage) to govern as, for example, I would be heavily opposed to things like the practice of blood magic (the study under very specific circumstances would not be out of the question).

[ComedicSociopathy]

Of course we have Nug's taste delicious, especially braised.  

 

Evil mage slave-masters got to eat something, I'm I right. 

[Tevinter Soldier]

Evil mage slave-masters got to eat something, I'm I right. 

 

those are loaded term's!

[ComedicSociopathy]

those are loaded term's!

 

Please, please don't feed me to your demon-dragon-cthulhu pet monster, oh mighty magister!

 

I'll be good. 

[Ieldra]

@Ieldra:  I just think the premise is flawed.  You're life will ALWAYS be controlled by others.

The question is to which extent, and by whom. I would also question the statement, but that's for another thread since in the context of DA it remains valid.
 

For the Magisters - their lives are controlled by a constant state of competition with their fellows where failure at the very LEAST means utter humiliation - at the worst Tranquility.
 
So my question is - why would it be better to be ruled by mages (as in, your fellow mages)?

Because it is more acceptable if strictures are implemented and enforced by people to whom they equally apply. Personally, if a council of mages ruled that blood magic is forbidden I may or may not like it, but it would be fundamentally more acceptable than coming from a group of people who revile mages as a group. If you recall my posts on the mage/templar conflict, I've repeatedly made the point that a state of things where mages are ruled by the representatives of an ideology predisposed to revile them is unacceptable, rather than the restrictions in the lives of the mageborn as such, which are merely highly undesirable but may be necessary to a certain point.

Or more simply: it is easier to accept laws you don't like if you're not a second-class citizen.

And yes, I am aware that Tevinter isn't exactly known for equal treatment among mages. That's one reason why I explicitly said that Tevinter's policies are not implied when I speak of mage supremacism, beyond the basic fact that it's a magocracy.

[Tevinter Soldier]

Please, please don't feed me to your demon-dragon-cthulhu pet monster, oh mighty magister!

 

I'll be good. 

 

alright, but you best read up on how to braise nug!

 

If you're good you may also enjoy some.........obviously not at the table or while we're eating, but you may take some back to your quarters.

[HaHa365]

Replace one thing with another thing that only loosely has the same properties, and you can describe almost anything anywhere at any time.

Hasty generalization...wealth and magic, and how they are perceived in Thedas, are more similar than you let on.