636 réponses à ce sujet

[The Baconer]

And a red lyrium statue.

 

Weak leadership would preclude her, though she did put up a good front.

[EmissaryofLies]

If you want a society that features prominent mages without giving them leadership positions, you have the Avvars (and sorry, I mixed things up, they're also the ones with explicitly stated anti-possession tricks, not Chasind; though I'm pretty sure Rivain has it too, though I can't find the source where I read it).

Another possible example would be the Dales (Keepers became the de-facto leaders only at some point after the fall) though that doesn't count as "normal humans" living in harmony with mages . 

 

And, frankly, when it comes to history, every single significant society out there were pretty awful, so it's hardly a proof of mage-rulers being at fault...

 

"The Timebomb Waltz" is overplayed at this point but:

 

The main argument against mage rulers is their capacity for destruction; mages will always be more dangerous than mundanes in terms of sheer power.

 

This argument will be used relentlessly despite the fact that not all mages are evil or recklessly ambitious, and that Vivienne will more than likely prove that such a society can stand without ending horribly. If there is anyone that can do it, it is the responsible Loyalist who is as much a bigot as any elf beating, mage hating mundane of the South.

[Dean_the_Young]

If you want a society that features prominent mages without giving them leadership positions, you have the Avvars (and sorry, I mixed things up, they're also the ones with explicitly stated anti-possession tricks, not Chasind; though I'm pretty sure Rivain has it too, though I can't find the source where I read it).

 

Unless I misremember, Avaars put mages (hedgemages, really) as shamans, which is a leadership role in society (even if not as explicit and direct as others).

 

I'd also question the applied relevance, unless one intends to destroy the cities of Thedas and force everyone into the countryside to exist as tribals.

 

Another possible example would be the Dales (Keepers became the de-facto leaders only at some point after the fall) though that doesn't count as "normal humans" living in harmony with mages . 

 

 

We don't know much about the Dales, but weren't their mages their priest-scholars who led the society in its 'reclaim the True Elfyness' policies?

 

Of course it's so ambiguous that there's not much to say that there was any harmony in the Dales at all. It seems to have had more tolitarian tendencies than harmonistic liberty principles.
 

 

And, frankly, when it comes to history, every single significant society out there were pretty awful, so it's hardly a proof of mage-rulers being at fault...

 

 

Not quite what TK said, or charged, if you're referring to him.

[MisterJB]

Where exactly did you hear this?

World of Thedas.

Traditional rivaini communities are ruled by Seers who are a type of mages.

[EmissaryofLies]

World of Thedas.

Traditional rivaini communities are ruled by Seers who are a type of mages.

 

Ah, I read that most were governed by elder women with seniority going to the seers. 

[MisterJB]

"The Timebomb Waltz" is overplayed at this point but:

 

The main argument against mage rulers is their capacity for destruction; mages will always be more dangerous than mundanes in terms of sheer power.

 

This argument will be used relentlessly despite the fact that not all mages are evil or recklessly ambitious, and that Vivienne will more than likely prove that such a society can stand without ending horribly. If there is anyone that can do it, it is the responsible Loyalist who is as much a bigot as any elf beating, mage hating mundane of the South.

 

I would say that the main argument against mage rulers is the simple fact they are mages.

Orlais and Ferelden and Nevarra and the Free Marches, they are all nations built by non-mages who intended to be free from the influence of magic. Them and their descendants have toiled for generations and their Independence shouldn't be take from then on the basis of some phony equality which will be flawed from the get go by the existence of magic which will enable the oh so equal mages to rise to the top.

 

It's the equivalente of giving elves a separate nation and then placing humans in power.
 

[Eliastion]

When you say that Shamans are leaders, that that's pretty much saying "mages are leaders by definition in any society smart enough to consult things related to magic, Fade and spirits with someone who actually knows what he's talking about, even if just a little"...

[Dean_the_Young]

When you say that Shamans are leaders, that that's pretty much saying "mages are leaders by definition in any society smart enough to consult things related to magic, Fade and spirits with someone who actually knows what he's talking about, even if just a little"...

 

Nah, it's more like 'mages are leaders in any society in which putting people on fire with your mind makes them fear and defer to you.'

 

Mages, especially the untrained sort (which is what hedgemages are), can be as much of ignoramuses about magi as any mundane. Putting them in positions of privilege and influence just because is hardly 'smart.'

[MisterJB]

When you say that Shamans are leaders, that that's pretty much saying "mages are leaders by definition in any society smart enough to consult things related to magic, Fade and spirits with someone who actually knows what he's talking about, even if just a little"...

If there is a disease outbreak, the prime minister consults with doctors and bacteriologists, he doesn't name them president.

 

[Eliastion]

But that's my point exactly. Being a doctor isn't a leadership position even if his services are required and skills respected AND his advice given great weight.

That much doesn't change when you call the doctor a shaman and his expertise concerns spirits and not disease.

 

That's why, while Dalish are a mage-led society (Keepers have quite a lot hard power), Avvars are not (their shamans are respected and their insight valued, but they have no authority over their people).

[MisterJB]

We are specifically told Seers make the decisions pertaining to the good of the community.

And we have seen that the Keepers are the sole authority in the clan.

[Eliastion]

Avvars don't even have Seers, they have shamans. And I just said that Dalish are mage-led.

[EmissaryofLies]

I would say that the main argumente against mage rulers is the simple fact they are mages.

Orlais and Ferelden and Nevarra and the Free Marches, they are all nations built by non-mages who intended to be free from the influence of magic. Them and their descendants have toiled for generations and their Independence shouldn't be take from then on the basis of some phony equality which will be flawed from the get go by the existence of magic which will enable the oh so equal mages to rise to the top.

 

It's the equivalente of giving elves a separate nation and then placing humans in power.
 

 

Who says that anyone is taking anything? Unless you believe that once a mage is selected to be in power that mundanes will be in a permanent chokehold and the sacrifices shall commence. And that mages like Dorian and Vivienne (magic was made to serve man, loyalist) who would see it coming a mile away do nothing. In which case, the alternative is to continuously repeat a cycle of hatred and death that will see no end or destroy the world.

[Br3admax]

 

 And I just said that Dalish are mage-led.

The Dalish are lead by mages because the nobility or Elvhenan and the Dales were mages. It has nothing to do with how valuable they are outside of the fact they are nobility and can shoot fire out of their hands. 

 

Who says that anyone is taking anything? Unless you believe that once a mage is selected to be in power that mundanes will be in a permanent chokehold and the sacrifices shall commence. And that mages like Dorian and Vivienne (magic was made to serve man, loyalist) who would see it coming a mile away do nothing. In which case, the alternative is to continuously repeat a cycle of hatred and death that will see no end or destroy the world.

 

When have mages ever shown they won't do these things? 

[MisterJB]

You also said this:

 

When you say that Shamans are leaders, that that's pretty much saying "mages are leaders by definition in any society smart enough to consult things related to magic, Fade and spirits with someone who actually knows what he's talking about, even if just a little"...

Which suggested you supported mages, including shamans, being leaders due to their magical expertise.

[MisterJB]

Who says that anyone is taking anything? Unless you believe that once a mage is selected to be in power that mundanes will be in a permanent chokehold and the sacrifices shall commence. And that mages like Dorian and Vivienne (magic was made to serve man, loyalist) who would see it coming a mile away do nothing. In which case, the alternative is to continuously repeat a cycle of hatred and death that will see no end or destroy the world.

There is absolutely no need for sacrífices in order for society to biasedly steered or for independence to be taken.

One of foremost characteristics of Independence is the right to be ruled by members of your own group. How can normals be independent from mages if they are governed by them?

 

Ironically, independence and representations are precisely what the mages and Briala fight for in DAI.

 

Life is a cycle of conflict. It is just the way it is. And I don't even see how mages ruling normals is, somehow, supposed to be an alternative rather than simply a reversal of fortunes.

 

[Livi14]

I've been wondering what will happen of the Inquisition in the coming years. As long as the inquisition exists, I suppose the bright hand will work. But then we must find a new solution.

Softened Leliana as Divine with mages free is the best ending IMO.

[The Baconer]

When have mages ever shown they won't do these things? 

 

And thus, Thedas is returned to the original Chantry.

[Eliastion]

Notice the "When you say that Shamans are leaders", that's a pretty important part of this lenghty sentence.

 

Oh, and when I'm at it.

Nah, it's more like 'mages are leaders in any society in which putting people on fire with your mind makes them fear and defer to you.'

 

Mages, especially the untrained sort (which is what hedgemages are), can be as much of ignoramuses about magi as any mundane. Putting them in positions of privilege and influence just because is hardly 'smart.'

First of all, putting people on fire makes them fear you. Sticking sharp pieces of metal into them does that too. That's why most societies tend to grow with either mages or warriors in charge. With Avvars it's the latter, generally speaking.

 

And one more thing - "hedgemages" equals "untrained mages" only in most arrogant Circle mages' opinion. The fact that it's not a chantry/circle tradition doesn't mean the mages are not trained. Avvarian shamans, Dalish keepers, Riviani seers - those are all decoratively called hedge mages. None of them are self-taught/untrained. 

[Br3admax]

 

First of all, putting people on fire makes them fear you. Sticking sharp pieces of metal into them does that too. That's why most societies tend to grow with either mages or warriors in charge. With Avvars it's the latter, generally speaking.

Big difference, unless you have some crippling injury, you can pick up a sword. No one can just become a mage. That faulty logic has been thrown around here way too much. Do better. 

 

And one more thing - "hedgemages" equals "untrained mages" only in most arrogant Circle mages' opinion. The fact that it's not a chantry/circle tradition doesn't mean the mages are not trained. Avvarian shamans, Dalish keepers, Riviani seers - those are all decoratively called hedge mages. None of them are self-taught/untrained. 

 

Uh, yes they are. Hedgemage = untrained mage. Keepers aren't hedgemages. Shamans and Seers definitely are. No one teaches them to use their powers. They just talk to demons and spirits while letting them possess them. 

[Eliastion]

Big difference, unless you have some crippling injury, you can pick up a sword. No one can just become a mage. That faulty logic has been thrown around here way too much. Do better.

What does that have to do with anything? The fact that not everyone can be a mage doesn't make them leaders.
 

Uh, yes they are. Hedgemage = untrained mage. Keepers aren't hedgemages. Shamans and Seers definitely are. No one teaches them to use their powers. They just talk to demons and spirits while letting them possess them.

If "Hedgemage = untrained mage" then shamans are not hedge mages. Please, do learn a bit about them before you start talking about them.

[EmissaryofLies]

 

When have mages ever shown they won't do these things? 

 

 

The Dalish Keeper in Inquisition seems like a jam up guy if a bit boring. Not sure of the Shamans. The Chantry slaughtered the seers/witches of Rivain even though they had done nothing more than being where the Chantry said they should not, and even though the people loved their seers and apparently did not care about the abominations whom according to WoT are for the "benefit of their villages". Also that they are governed by Elder women and Seers. And that Isabela says nary a word about them, is pro-mage, and from Rivain.

 

Besides that, mages have never been given the chance because of Ancient Tevinter. Instead, the idiots in the South allowed themselves to be branded, lobotomized, imprisoned, and occasionally slaughtered indiscriminately. They allowed their humanity to be stripped from them and parceled out to the ones who learn how to bend over. 

 

It's actually quite humorous that mundanes are allowed more freedom in Tevinter than most mages in the South.

 

tl;dr Not all mages are the same and thus not all would rule over mundanes in the sense of taking their independence and owning them like the good ol' days.

[Br3admax]

What does that have to do with anything? The fact that not everyone can be a mage doesn't make them leaders.
 

Because here is a valid fear of magic and that any mage can dominate any nonmage they encounter, besides those trained specifically to combat mages, like Templar? There is no valid fear of random guy with a sword that random guard with a sword can't solve. The same is not true of mages. So no, mages shouldn't just get to be leaders of anyone besides other mages. 

 

 

If "Hedgemage = untrained mage" then shamans are not hedge mages. Please, do learn a bit about them before you start talking about them.

No one's training shamans how to use their powers. Do a little research into that. 

 

 

EmissaryofLies, on 25 Jan 2015 - 6:57 PM, said:

*snip*

I meant mages we actually interact with. The Keeper stands there and does nothing, so sure. Every other mage who actually does something is either summoning demons, warping mundanes, warping spirits into demons, or selling people into slavery. And no, mundanes don't have more freedom in Tevinter. Besides leaving Towers, mages have more freedom than almost anyone else in Thedas, and even then, that hurtle can be jumped. 

[raging_monkey]

Tbf izzy is neutral and doesnt really care

[Eliastion]

No one's training shamans how to use their powers. Do a little research into that.

I did, here you are, since you're to lazy to go look around yourself:
When forced to consider complex spiritual matters, the Avvars turn to their shamans, the lore keepers of the mountains. It is they who watch the migrations of birds seeking wisdom from the Lady, they who keep the old songs and retain the knowledge of the proper rites to honor the gods and spirits of the mountains. The majority of the Avvars’ shamans are powerful mages whose traditions stretch far back beyond the foundations of the Circle of Magi.

Neither the Chantry nor the Prophetess means anything to the Avvarians, and Templars are not welcome in the Frostbacks. This is wise, as many of the shamans' rituals would horrify the Chantry. Even mild rites invite spirits to speak through the casters for a time, to say nothing of some of their more powerful ceremonies. The Avvars are well aware that some spirits are reluctant to depart human hosts willingly, but they have means of dealing with such recalcitrant entities. After all, they have no more desire to become abominations than other mages, and so their rituals are specifically designed to force the spirits back out as well.

 

Or maybe the term "tradition" in context of magic is somewhat unclear? Hint: it doesn't involve teaching oneself without a mentor to actually pass the tradition to you.