951 réponses à ce sujet

[Jackums]

Fear of the Chantry, mostly.

Proof?
 

No, it's not. People seek to dominate the space and those around them so they can't be hurt.

People seek security. That's not the same as wanting to forcefully exert your will over others.

[errantknight]

Any group of humans will strive for dominance over perceived 'others'. We're pack animals. Family, tribe, village, city, country, religion, etc. We divide ourselves up into us and them. Mages just happen to be the ones that the other groups have the least defense against, making them more dangerous

[Br3admax]

Ad hominem some more

Don't need to attack you instead of your very flawed argument. I was pointing out a fact you should be aware of. Loaded word and argument by emotion, are both fallacies within themselves. And they don't need to be in Latin for you to understand not to use them. 

Fraternities exist within the mage collective, meaning there is no unity or common goal and ideals. Meaning your inane notions of the mages banding together to take over are directly countered, as the mages themselves are all separated and hold different beliefs on the system and as to how they should act. The only claim you can make is that they'll fight for greater rights. You have no basis for any claims in a way in which they'll act once they have said privileges. Last I checked, different countries had different systems of government; some communist, some democratic, etc.

You know except for the world we live in today, and the world of Thedas, behaving exactly how I claim they do. Fraternities aren't going to stop anyone from working together towards a common goal. Otherwise France and England would never work together, which again, is blatantly untrue. Mages, no matter how much they disagree, will all agree they need more power, not just rights, to spread their own interest. Do you think this world behaves any different? If so, you live the most sheltered of lives. 

 

 

Provide proof of your claims of a tyrannical mage empire.

Wow, it's like I never made that claim. Oh wait, I didn't make that claim. Moving on. 

 

 

 

No, Tevinter is not the product of any one thing you can identify. Mages will always dominate if given the chance? Then why do aequitarians exists? Why loyalists? Continue grasping at those straws. Dominating and wanting personal rights are two different things. Your proposition that people are all inherently power-hungry perhaps suggests more about you than it does anyone else.
 

Because they aren't given the chance? Because they are bound in Circles and want the most benefits while in that Circle? You know, if you're just going to be hypocritical, having literally no argument and then accuse me of grasping at straws, you don't have to actually reply. 

[Jackums]

Any group of humans will strive for dominance over perceived 'others'. We're pack animals. Family, tribe, village, city, country, religion, etc. We divide ourselves up into us and them. Mages just happen to be the ones that the other groups have the least defense against, making them more dangerous

I'm well aware of the survival instinct.
 
None of these recycled arguments provide any basis for claims that mages having rights and independence will result in some repressive mage empire.

[Jackums]

Wow, it's like I never made that claim. Oh wait, I didn't make that claim. Moving on.

Then why are you responding to my posts? Last I checked, this was the claim I was refuting.

[MisterJB]

Proof?
 

People seek security. That's not the same as wanting to forcefully exert your will over others.

They're people.

 

Yes, that is precisely the same because that is the way we, as a group, do it. A single man may build a wall between him and his neighbour.

Nations will try to be more powerful than others. And once they have that power, they use it to increase the gap ever further.
 

[Jackums]

They're people.

So no proof, then.
 

Yes, that is precisely the same because that is the way we, as a group, do it. A single man may build a wall between him and his neighbour.
Nations will try to be more powerful than others. And once they have that power, they use it to increase the gap ever further.

You keep restating these arguments that people have a natural want for power, yet none of this is actually enforcing your initial claim that mage independence will equate to a Tevinter-esque mage dominance.

[Master Warder Z_]

No she sent directly to Val royeax.

Which The regional official wouldn't have let happen.

Both sides respected Elthenia's voice.

So argue the wind.

Anders with his terrorism accomplished only mass murder.

[MisterJB]

So no proof, then.
 
You keep restating these arguments that people have a natural want for power, yet none of this is actually enforcing your initial claim that mage independence will equate to a Tevinter-esque mage dominance.

Really, you think people join the loyalists not out of fear?

Oh, and it is worth pointing out the mage rebellion occurred because the Aequitarians voted with the Libertarians.

 

Ok, do you wish me to write an analysis of how magic could lead to the control of infrastructure and wealth and thus of society? All it takes is for people to become ever more reliant upon magic, at least as much as we today rely upon oil or electricity. Due to that, mages become the sole providers of technology. Picture tvs and cars and phones and computers and heating and running water, etc all being provided solely by one ethnic group. Not only do they become immovable from power, because we can revolt against governments but we would never rebel against electricity, most of the wealth will also inevitably flow towards them increasing it even further.

[Master Warder Z_]

It's basic economics.

[dragonflight288]

Someone is needed to enforce the laws. And any force that you put toghether to do so will always be Templars. They may be named something else entirely but the Templars were always recruited from the ranks of the faithful of Thedas.

They aren't a order that was corrupted over time. They are a representation of what people think of mages.

They never, on the whole, embodied any particular ideology beyond "magic is dangerous and people need to be kept safe from it." Some were fond of quoting scriptures, others were sympathetic, others just liked hurting mages. But the tale of the Black City was always a cautionary one, not a justification for continued punishment.

And Corypheus proves even that overblown tale involving gods and thwe dangers of magic has truth to it.

 

It is only natural that Templars are recruited from those who will follow orders. Every militar functions in that manner. But the notion most of them were just itching to slaugther all mages is untrue. The ones who were were the ones that refused to return to Val-Royeaux after Lucius summoned them and elected instead to stay in Redcliff.

If we really want to talk about "zealots willing to fight to the death to extablish their views of how the world should be" we can include the mages in that one.

 

Also, the Templars return to much of the status quo in two out of three endings. Cassandra and Vivienne's with the addendum of reforms under Cass or a leash under Vivienne but their role of guarding mages who are isolated from society is restored.

 

I agree that someone is needed to enforce laws, and they need the training for it. I just disagree that the templars as an institution, as they stood before Inquisition, are the right ones for the job. 

 

I'm all for the reforms Cassandra puts in place. If more templars were like Ser Barris, there would be a lot less issues on the subject. Problems is that I think he's an exception and not the rule based on two games, the lore and their own codex about recruiting from the religous fervent over those of integrity and character. 

 

I have no problem with wanting people who follow orders, but when you recruit from ideologues more than you do people who stand on principle, and do so long enough, it won't be long before the ranks and leadership is filled with ideologues. And give them power over life, death, tranquility, way of life and how many rights mages do and do not have, and the very ideology itself is that mages are bad, and then you have a very serious problem with the templars as an organization. 

 

And Seekers pretty much have access to the same abilities without the need for lyrium, though I'm sure the training is a lot more grueling and it does require becoming tranquil and then cured of it to become a Seeker, so that requires a lot more time and commitment. 

 

I know if I were a mage I'd feel a lot more comfortable around a Seeker than a templar, even if I knew nothing about them, because I know the affects lyrium can have on a mind. Go into withdrawal and the templar goes through agony. Take it too long and they lose their mind, suffer paranoia, dementia and memory loss. 

 

That and Seekers are immune to possession and mind control. Templars are not. That alone is a plus. 

 

But suffice it to say, pretty much every single ending has the templars disappear or get reformed, so this entire discussion is now a moot point.

[Addai]

Really, you think people join the loyalists not out of fear?

Oh, and it is worth pointing out the mage rebellion occurred because the Aequitarians voted with the Libertarians.

 

Ok, do you wish me to write an analysis of how magic could lead to the control of infrastructure and wealth and thus of society? All it takes is for people to become ever more reliant upon magic, at least as much as we today rely upon oil or electricity. Due to that, mages become the sole providers of technology. Picture tvs and cars and phones and computers and heating and running water, etc all being provided solely by one ethnic group. Not only do they become immovable from power, because we can revolt against governments but we would never rebel against electricity, most of the wealth will also inevitably flow towards them increasing it even further.

This dynamic doesn't change with a Circle system. All that changes is the people who can profit from the manipulation of a scarce resource. Under the Circle system, it was the Chantry. What gives them the right to hold the strings and with a monopoly to boot?

[Lulupab]

This dynamic doesn't change with a Circle system. All that changes is the people who can profit from the manipulation of a scarce resource. Under the Circle system, it was the Chantry. What gives them the right to hold the strings and with a monopoly to boot?

 

Gaider confirmed the circles were always independent financially. Thedas will always need magical services. But we don't know if chantry got some profits from circles, its not unbelievable if it did. The mages will be a part of country they reside in and as such will be entitled to trade for food, robes, and other necessities. Mages will also need Lyrium to work and trading all these with the money they make will be enough to keep the economy balanced. its not like mages are going to farm silk to make their own robes or use farms to make their own food.

[Addai]

Gaider confirmed the circles were always independent financially. Thedas will always need magical services. But we don't know if chantry got some profits from circles, its not unbelievable if it did. The mages will be a part of country they reside in and as such will be entitled to trade for food, robes, and other necessities. Mages will also need Lyrium to work and trading all these with the money they make will be enough to keep the economy balanced. its not like mages are going to farm silk to make their own robes or use farms to make their own food.

The Chantry controls the lyrium trade. I find it verrry difficult to believe that they weren't turning a profit from it. In any case, they held the reins of power over the Circles which amounts to the same thing.

[dragonflight288]

The Chantry controls the lyrium trade. I find it verrry difficult to believe that they weren't turning a profit from it. In any case, they held the reins of power over the Circles which amounts to the same thing.

 

True. They controlled how much lyrium the templars and circle's got their hands on. Templars need to ingest the stuff, they need lyrium for various magical rituals like the Harrowing or the Rite of Tranquility, plus whatever those magic suppressing wards are in the storeroom in the basement. It's needed for the Joining in making more Wardens, and its a main ingredient in any enchantment, which the tranquil perform. 

 

The Circle's may sell magical artifacts and enchantments through the tranquil in stores throughout thedas, but they need lyrium to offer those services, a resource controlled by the Chantry. 

[MisterJB]

This dynamic doesn't change with a Circle system. All that changes is the people who can profit from the manipulation of a scarce resource. Under the Circle system, it was the Chantry. What gives them the right to hold the strings and with a monopoly to boot?

For one, Gaider confirmed all profits went towards maintaining the Circles.

And they had a vested interest in not allowing mages to just crash the economy by restricting them to the maker of enchanted items which is most reasonable.

 

Although, were I Divine, I would allow dwarves to sell lyrium to everyone.

The prince-merchants of Antiva would likely buy most of it and hire dwarves to work enchantments and teach humans if possible thus, the mages would have to rely on their Tranquils to remain competitive which would lead to the mages themselves actually pushing for a more liberal use of the Rite which would lead to the mages actually being somewhat effective at policing themselves.

 

[dragonflight288]

For one, Gaider confirmed all profits went towards maintaining the Circles.

And they had a vested interest in not allowing mages to just crash the economy by restricting them to the maker of enchanted items which is most reasonable.

 

Although, were I Divine, I would allow dwarves to sell lyrium to everyone.

The prince-merchants of Antiva would likely buy most of it and hire dwarves to work enchantments and teach humans if possible thus, the mages would have to rely on their Tranquils to remain competitive which would lead to the mages themselves actually pushing for a more liberal use of the Rite which would lead to the mages actually being somewhat effective at policing themselves.

 

Uh...right. 

 

First you'd need to convince the smith caste in Orzammar to teach enchanting techniques to the surface dwarves because up there, only the tranquil can actually enchant anything. 

[The Baconer]

Although, were I Divine, I would allow dwarves to sell lyrium to everyone.

The prince-merchants of Antiva would likely buy most of it and hire dwarves to work enchantments and teach humans if possible thus, the mages would have to rely on their Tranquils to remain competitive which would lead to the mages themselves actually pushing for a more liberal use of the Rite which would lead to the mages actually being somewhat effective at policing themselves.

 

How is that supposed to make them more effective at policing themselves?

[dragonflight288]

How is that supposed to make them more effective at policing themselves?

 

I think he's saying that if mages use tranquility as a punishment as a way to keep up with economic competition will ensure that the mages stay on top of trouble makers or those who are too weak to take care of themselves and that in turn means that they are self-policing, forced into it just to keep up with economic demand. 

 

I think he's suggesting that the idea of wealth and economic gain, or in this case, just keeping enough services to compete with other people able to offer the same services will force them to make more tranquil and that somehow makes them more effective at self-governing or policing themselves. 

 

I think the implication here is that unless they no longer offer exclusive enchanting services, and had to compete with others, they will never be able to handle concepts of justice, punishment fitting the crime or whatever because they have no need to make more tranquil otherwise, or they wouldn't force it as a punishment unless driven by necessity. A

 

At least, that's what I think he's saying. 

 

MisterJB, is that right?

[The Baconer]

I think he's saying that if mages use tranquility as a punishment as a way to keep up with economic competition will ensure that the mages stay on top of trouble makers or those who are too weak to take care of themselves and that in turn means that they are self-policing, forced into it just to keep up with economic demand. 

 

I think he's suggesting that the idea of wealth and economic gain, or in this case, just keeping enough services to compete with other people able to offer the same services will force them to make more tranquil and that somehow makes them more effective at self-governing or policing themselves. 

 

I think the implication here is that unless they no longer offer exclusive enchanting services, and had to compete with others, they will never be able to handle concepts of justice, punishment fitting the crime or whatever because they have no need to make more tranquil otherwise, or they wouldn't force it as a punishment unless driven by necessity. A

 

At least, that's what I think he's saying. 

 

MisterJB, is that right?

 

I know what he wants it to sound like. Problem is that it reduces crime the same way police quotas reduce crime.

[Jackums]

Really, you think people join the loyalists not out of fear?

Really.

What basis do you even have for this claim? Not a single thing in the source material over three games implies the loyalist faction (or the aequitarians) hold their views because of fear. The only instance in which this seemed the case, rationally so, was when the mages were voting to dissolve the Circles.
 

Oh, and it is worth pointing out the mage rebellion occurred because the Aequitarians voted with the Libertarians.

In extreme circumstances. And yet, throughout DA:I we've had it established that many mages did not wish to fight but had no choice but to join the rebels after the Circles were dissolved and an army of bigoted, psychotic Templars were hunting them.

It's convenient how the crazy Templars are left out of the equation, and the fact that it was not some unanimous decision by the mages to rebel, as the vote did not even get held initially because the mages were attacked by the Templars for the actions of a single mage (which were mere accusations at that point), with the mages themselves only acting in defense until one of their own was murdered by a Templar after surrendering.

 

The vote that took place later at Andoral's Reach was only won by a slim margin, essentially forcing the other half of the mages that did not vote for dissolution to fight, flee, or hide whether they wished to or not.
 

Ok, do you wish me to write an analysis of how magic could lead to the control of infrastructure and wealth and thus of society? All it takes is for people to become ever more reliant upon magic, at least as much as we today rely upon oil or electricity. Due to that, mages become the sole providers of technology. Picture tvs and cars and phones and computers and heating and running water, etc all being provided solely by one ethnic group. Not only do they become immovable from power, because we can revolt against governments but we would never rebel against electricity, most of the wealth will also inevitably flow towards them increasing it even further.

This reads like fanfiction. It's blatantly exaggerated "A = B = C" speculation.

You act as though it's some inevitability the moment Thedas starts treating mages like human beings rather than tools to be used when it benefits them, and kept chained on a tight leash when not. It's the same regurgitated, baseless Chantry rhetoric that's used as a fear-mongering tactic to allow an oppressive system to remain in place, for false fears and power to be hoarded by the corrupt institution enforcing it.

 

Regardless, let me restate my stance before assumptions are made. I support a reformed Circle system, (untrained) mages having a force to police them, and restrictions placed on certain magics (ie. blood magic). However, as far as their rights as human beings, such as personal freedoms and to not being a tool of the Chantry, there are changes to be made, which all three Divine candidates agree on in their own ways.

[Addai]

For one, Gaider confirmed all profits went towards maintaining the Circles.
And they had a vested interest in not allowing mages to just crash the economy by restricting them to the maker of enchanted items which is most reasonable.

I already addressed this. It was still a closed system with the Chantry holding the reins. The Circles weren't independent, and I don't believe for a minute they'll stay that way post-Inquisition. The best reason I could see for your mageocratic scenario coming about is that mages realize they have to grab the reins or let themselves become tools for someone else's gain- again.
 

Although, were I Divine, I would allow dwarves to sell lyrium to everyone.
The prince-merchants of Antiva would likely buy most of it and hire dwarves to work enchantments and teach humans if possible thus, the mages would have to rely on their Tranquils to remain competitive which would lead to the mages themselves actually pushing for a more liberal use of the Rite which would lead to the mages actually being somewhat effective at policing themselves.

Well that's a nice fantasy scenario but why in the world would they do that? Tranquil were in no short supply- you could always make more- and they're leashed like the templars. The dwarves have their own reasons not to participate in such a scheme.

[LobselVith8]

Uh...right. 

 

First you'd need to convince the smith caste in Orzammar to teach enchanting techniques to the surface dwarves because up there, only the tranquil can actually enchant anything. 

 

The tranquil seem to handle that for the shemlen. The Dalish enchant items as well: "Although elven enchantment is more complicated than Tranquil methods, this ring proves that the old ways are still strong."

[azarhal]

The tranquil seem to handle that for the shemlen. The Dalish enchant items as well: "Although elven enchantment is more complicated than Tranquil methods, this ring proves that the old ways are still strong."

 

The Dalish are probably not using Lyrium to create enchantments, only people disconnected from the Fade can play with lyrium. Dagna explain it better than me in DAI.

[MisterJB]

Really.

What basis do you even have for this claim? Not a single thing in the source material over three games implies the loyalist faction (or the aequitarians) hold their views because of fear. The only instance in which this seemed the case, rationally so, was when the mages were voting to dissolve the Circles.

The Loyalist fraternity voted to return to the Chantry out of fear of the world rising up to slaughter them and you'd argue this was a position adopted on only that particular occasion and that they do not stay with the Chantry out of the same fear.

I recall there's this loyalist mage in Redcliff who all but begs for the Inquisition to restore the Circle. One year later, he is a Venatori. 

Me thinks his loyalty extends only to the strongest horse around.

 

In extreme circumstances. And yet, throughout DA:I we've had it established that many mages did not wish to fight but had no choice but to join the rebels after the Circles were dissolved and an army of bigoted, psychotic Templars were hunting them.

It's convenient how the crazy Templars are left out of the equation, and the fact that it was not some unanimous decision by the mages to rebel, as the vote did not even get held initially because the mages were attacked by the Templars for the actions of a single mage (which were mere accusations at that point), with the mages themselves only acting in defense until one of their own was murdered by a Templar after surrendering.

 

The vote that took place later at Andoral's Reach was only won by a slim margin, essentially forcing the other half of the mages that did not vote for dissolution to fight, flee, or hide whether they wished to or not.

Proving that being an Aequitarian does not prevent mages from committing terrible actions out of self-interest. 

 

Also, your description of the events are innacurate.

First. the mages chose to protect Rhys thus obstructing the duty the Templars had to arrest him. If family members of a suspected criminal attempt to prevent his arrest, you can bet there's going to be violence.

However, that wasn't even the reason Lambert ordered an attack but rather because the mages were holding a vote on independence rather than the Rite of Tranquility, the explicit purpose of that conclave. Not a decision I agree with, but there's that.

Finally, a death in the heat of battle is not a murder and that one was an accident, anyway. The text describes how the Templar who struck the blow looked at the mage in disbelief, expecting her to defend herself.

 

 

This reads like fanfiction. It's blatantly exaggerated "A = B = C" speculation.

You act as though it's some inevitability the moment Thedas starts treating mages like human beings rather than tools to be used when it benefits them, and kept chained on a tight leash when not. It's the same regurgitated, baseless Chantry rhetoric that's used as a fear-mongering tactic to allow an oppressive system to remain in place, for false fears and power to be hoarded by the corrupt institution enforcing it.

 

Regardless, let me restate my stance before assumptions are made. I support a reformed Circle system, (untrained) mages having a force to police them, and restrictions placed on certain magics (ie. blood magic). However, as far as their rights as human beings, such as personal freedoms and to not being a tool of the Chantry, there are changes to be made, which all three Divine candidates agree on in their own ways.

First and foremost, just saying "baseless fear" is not an argument.

 

Second, if given full equality. Yes, then it's inevitable.

But of course, there is a world of difference between making the mages equal under the law and improving the conditions of the Circles which I am for.

 

Third, the mages were always  treated as human beings. Extremely dangerous ones to be sure(as they should), but they were living in luxury and being given prime education and the Chantry never ordered to do anything. They helped if they wished.

If you want to see dehumanization to the status of tools, look towards the Qun. The Circles aren't perfect for either side but they aren't the horrors you make them out to be.