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.
Change is certainly coming, especially when the Qunari are ready to fully invade again & finally put Tevinter out of its misery 
Change is certainly coming, especially when the Qunari are ready to fully invade again & finally put Tevinter out of its misery
Theres is no stance to take, beacuse mages ARE superior.
Its as if a dragon was fighting for dragon supremacy in the animal kingdom. They are already on the top of the food chain.
The only reason mages arent ruling the world is due to numbers. Ten dogs can kill a lion etc.
Theres is no stance to take, beacuse mages ARE superior.
Are they?
It seems their power has just as many drawbacks as it does advantages.
Not to mention exceptionally skilled individuals remain exceptionally skilled without being mages.
From a functionalist standpoint, if the people making the rules and all the rulers are mages, it would work. By work, I mean it'd keep the peace after the war. And by keep the peace I mean it'd prevent non-mages from rebelling. Magic is way too powerful, and if Thedas is ruled by mages, there's really not much you can do about that. So that sort of society would succeed because the powerful would easily be able to keep their power.
That said, I'll be fighting for co-existence, even if it kills me/everyone
And really, mages are only people. None of their powers can suddenly stop a dose of cyanide if a skilled assassin manages to get it into his or her system. If there's one thing people are good at, it's killing other people. Thedas would probably see the dawn of firearms if enough people considered the necessity.Are they?
It seems their power has just as many drawbacks as it does advantages.
Not to mention exceptionally skilled individuals remain exceptionally skilled without being mages.
If there's one thing people are good at, it's killing other people. Thedas would probably see the dawn of firearms if enough people considered the necessity.
While it could certainly give common people a leg-up, firearms would be a far greater boon to mages than non-mages.
query: how so they are already weapons.While it could certainly give common people a leg-up, firearms would be a far greater boon to mages than non-mages.
While it could certainly give common people a leg-up, firearms would be a far greater boon to mages than non-mages.
Erm i think it would do just the opposite.
Firearms ended the era of the skill of the individual, Knights and other elite units fell by the wayside because any yokel with working eyes could be a rifleman.
Sure maybe magic could amplify the effects of the firearm in question, but it wouldn't stop a column of soldiers from peppering a mage with a barrage of rifle fire.
Gunpowder will certainly make annulments easier
The qun has tried and failed. Tevinter is unconquerable. Minrathous has and never will fall.
Troy
Rome
Byzantium
TroyRomeByzantium
Erm i think it would do just the opposite.
Firearms ended the era of the skill of the individual, Knights and other elite units fell by the wayside because any yokel with working eyes could be a rifleman.
Sure maybe magic could amplify the effects of the firearm in question, but it wouldn't stop a column of soldiers from peppering a mage with a barrage of rifle fire.
Not really. Elite heavy cavalry continued being utilized well into the 18th century. But this is of course aside the point, knights aren't mages. Really, what advantages would early firearms provide over your standard bows & arrows against mages? Better penetration against magical defenses? Offering some form of defense to the civilians who can purchase the guns and the powder? The reasons that firearms became so popular in military engagements in our world don't really apply to fighting mages.
As for the negatives, well, every man operating a firearm is going to be carrying cartridges containing gunpowder and/or a powder horn, while also trying to keep a match cord alight... doesn't sound too great if your opponent can control fire and ice. Not to mention that if you're going to be issuing firearms to Templars, then that also means there will have to be a powder magazine installed at each Circle, providing the means for any pernicious mage to create a magnificent explosion with very little effort needed on their part. I suppose you could move the powder magazines away from the main building for such safety purposes, but that would also diminish the Templars' effectiveness to quickly respond to threats.
Now, what would a firearm do for a mage? Well, most of them wouldn't have to bother with powder, since they are capable of providing the ignition themselves. It would also make a great tool for dealing with heavily armored foes who can shield themselves from magical projectiles, while also being quite cost effective when it comes to mana. Ironically, it would make for quite an ideal Templar killer. Of course, there's also the potential ways in which they could magically enhance the weapon or projectile.
Not really. Elite heavy cavalry continued being utilized well into the 18th century.
Until about the Napoleonic war if i recall correctly.
Now, what would a firearm do for a mage? Well, most of them wouldn't have to bother with powder, since they are capable of providing the ignition themselves.
Assuming they can control fire to the degree required, i'd expect many mages would lack the finesse to light a firing mechanism while simultaneously not just melting the mechanism.
providing the means for any pernicious mage to create a magnificent explosion with very little effort needed on their part.
Not if you ward in a locked and sealed room warded with anti magical wards and other neat wards to stop spell casting and thus force the potential intruder to actually use a key.
Assuming they can control fire to the degree required, i'd expect many mages would lack the finesse to light a firing mechanism while simultaneously not just melting the mechanism.
They wouldn't be "lighting" a firing mechanism, and they wouldn't really need to interact with a firing mechanism in any way, since the operation would be to simply shoot a basic fire spell through a touch hole. I imagine a firearm crafted for a mage would resemble a handgonne or "hand cannon", something little more complex than a basic tube.
They wouldn't be "lighting" a firing mechanism, and they wouldn't really need to interact with a firing mechanism in any way, since the operation would be to simply shoot a basic fire spell through a touch hole. I imagine a firearm crafted for a mage would resemble a handgonne or "hand cannon", something little more complex than a basic tube.
So basically they would be firing a pipebomb with a stock.
And you expect there to be no...discharge?
._. Goodie.
I was at least hoping the firearms would be at "flintlock" stage.
So basically they would be firing a pipebomb with a stock.
And you expect there to be no...discharge?
Of course there would be discharge, a ball of metal (or multiple balls of metal, shrapnel, or whatever they decide to cram in there). That is the intention, after all. Of course, mishaps with mages not using the correct "power" in their spells is possible, but it's probably no less volatile than the inherent dangers of messing around with regular gunpowder.
I was at least hoping the firearms would be at "flintlock" stage.
When even the Qunari haven't come up simple handgonnes yet? I wouldn't count on it.
Not if you ward in a locked and sealed room warded with anti magical wards and other neat wards to stop spell casting and thus force the potential intruder to actually use a key.
Making the door resistant to magic and requiring a key would help quite a bit, but how many keys would be issued? How many would one need in order to have the best balance of convenience and safety? And the rather expensive task of lining an entire room with anti-magic enchantments would be all for naught if one simply had to light a cord or a torch, and then place or throw it in the room.
Of course there would be discharge, a ball of metal (or multiple balls of metal, shrapnel, or whatever they decide to cram in there). That is the intention, after all. Of course, mishaps with mages not using the correct "power" in their spells is possible, but it's probably no less volatile than the inherent dangers of messing around with regular gunpowder.
The Qunari Thunder sounds plenty volatile to me but we really haven't seen it in action yet so who knows.
The **** could be so unstable that many merely velocity can cause premature detonation and thus that's why the Qunari merely use it for cannons.
But the point being even primordial firearms made usage of special tools to control the burn of powder, to effect that the discharge was down the barrel and not in effect and inward explosion.
I just don't see how you can do that with magical flame.
would be all for naught if one simply had to light a cord or a torch, and then place or throw it in the room.
How would that work without opening the door?
Making the door resistant to magic and requiring a key would help quite a bit, but how many keys would be issued?
I'd assume about three.
Knight Captain, First Enchanter and Knight Commander.
The Qunari Thunder sounds plenty volatile to me but we really haven't seen it in action yet so who knows.
The **** could be so unstable that many merely velocity can cause premature detonation and thus that's why the Qunari merely use it for cannons.
But the point being even primordial firearms made usage of special tools to control the burn of powder, to effect that the discharge was down the barrel and not in effect and inward explosion.
I just don't see how you can do that with magical flame.
I'd posit that it would actually be easier to do with magical flame, depending on the experience of the caster with basic magic.
How would that work without opening the door?
I'm assuming that this is a circumstance in which the door has already been opened, which I'd assume is also the circumstance that would lead one to consider further lining the room with anti-magical wards beyond the entrance.
I'd posit that it would actually be easier to do with magical flame, depending on the experience of the caster with basic magic.
Advanced Pyromancy isn't basic magic.
Advanced Pyromancy isn't basic magic.
A modest gout of flame (in lieu of flamethrower-esque streams, explosive fireballs, meteors from the sky, and swirling maelstroms of fire) is most certainly not advanced pyromancy.
A modest gout of flame (in lieu of flamethrower-esque streams, explosive fireballs, meteors from the sky, and swirling maelstroms of fire) is most certainly not advanced pyromancy.
It requires enough control of fire to not melt the firearm, it requires enough control to not cause the powder to merely combust and explode in an inward reaction.
It requires enough skill to be able to regulate that "modest gout" to enter the powder chamber and merely cast the entire firearm ablaze.
It isn't size or scale that to me measures skills with flame, but the control of the element it self.
The tasks you are describing to me? Sound like they would require moderate to exceptional control of fire.
It requires enough control of fire to not melt the firearm, it requires enough control to not cause the powder to merely combust and explode in an inward reaction.
There is no powder. A mage would have no need for it. Even if there was, it's use would make the spell needed to ignite it even more trivial.
It requires enough skill to be able to regulate that "modest gout" to enter the powder chamber and merely cast the entire firearm ablaze.
It isn't size or scale that to me measures skills with flame, but the control of the element it self.
The tasks you are describing to me? Sound like they would require moderate to exceptional control of fire.
If this were a setting where magic was a raw, primordial force, I would agree. But as spells have been described both in the book and in the game there have been plenty of more complex feats accomplished by not-really-exceptional people.
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?
I meant a society led by intellectuals and philosophers, using your real-world comparison to a world led by sports players and gun fanatics. I can see where there could be confusion, though. Philosopher-King was a reference to Plato's Republic: a work that describes Plato's vision of a utopian state. (Nothing actually "supremacist" in the work itself though, just an example of a theoretical philosopher-led society, more socialist than anything.)
More on-topic, I think it would be interesting to see mage supremacist dialogue, but doubt that it would ever be too extensive. The most we will likely be able to do is side wholly with the mages in th Mage/Templar War.
Retour en haut