I think the Chantry was a poor choice for management of mages from the start. Their doctrine has a strong slant against magic and they tend to exacerbate people's fear and rejection of mages, rather than try to integrate mages into society or foster acceptance.
I'd say Tevinter's past and present do more to foster that fear than the Chantry does.
what I am opposing is the Chantry rule over mages through their soldiers.
There needs to be compulsory education for young mages (these mages should be allowed to visit their families or have their families come visit them). I guess something like the harrowing is needed for the end of a mages apprenticeship, but even that needs to be revised and if possible a better way found (at least mages should be better prepared for it). I would also still keep tranquility around for mages who want to voluntarily go through it. But when a mages passes his/her harrowing its basically like a graduation, and after that they should be allowed to come and go; no restrictions.
Really, no restrictions? None? Most pro-mages at least bother to provide some system that doesn't work but at least is there. You're pretending the problem doesn't exist.
How long until the people who can alter reality at a whim use their advantage to place themselves above other in both politics and economics? Two, three generations?
And how long until a Pride demon possesses a powerful mage in the middle of a city? How many dead then?
I'll direct you to my previous post:
"The more free mages are, the more non-mages will suffer."
To live is to compete. The more competitors you have and the more power they possess, the harder life is for you. This is true on both a personal and a global scale.
Not every mage will become an Abomination or abuse his powers but every mages that does is a mage that could have been contained in the Circle. Every life lost, every pain could have been avoided.
If you free mages, you are basically saying to the people of Thedas "Their freedom is more important than your security. We are willing to risk your lives so mages can be free. You are less important."
How long until the people who can alter reality at a whim use their advantage to place themselves above other in both politics and economics? Two, three generations?
And how long until a Pride demon possesses a powerful mage in the middle of a city? How many dead then?
So should cases like Wynne, Vivienne, Finn, and Ines not exist?
So should cases like Wynne, Vivienne, Finn, and Ines not exist?
Really, no restrictions? None? Most pro-mages at least bother to provide some system that doesn't work but at least is there. You're pretending the problem doesn't exist.
How long until the people who can alter reality at a whim use their advantage to place themselves above other in both politics and economics? Two, three generations?
And how long until a Pride demon possesses a powerful mage in the middle of a city? How many dead then?
I'll direct you to my previous post:
Since there's absolutely no evidence that the white chantry circles make a society any safer: no
We only have this quote... "Some are saying, however, that this needs to change. They remind the world that mages are not controlled by templars everywhere in Thedas: not among the Rivaini witches, the Dalish keepers or the Tevinter magisters… and those societies are, arguably, no worse off."
And there's Leliana's epilogue, of course.
Ofc they would, as would Titus, Connor,Marethari, Uldred cases as well, and without any kind of supervision it would have worse consequences than the originals.
Not would, but should. As in: there were many cases in which the Chantry deemed semi-autonomy an "acceptable risk" in the case of a mage that has demonstrated responsibility and experience. However, if we are to believe that mages possessing any political clout will inevitably lead to magocracy, and that mages with freedom of travel will inevitably lead to a worst-case scenario, would that mean that there are no acceptable risks, regardless of how mages may conduct themselves? Should being confined within the Circle then be mandatory where it wasn't before?
Not would, but should. As in: there were many cases in which the Chantry deemed semi-autonomy an "acceptable risk" in the case of a mage that has demonstrated responsibility and experience. However, if we are to believe that mages possessing any political clout will inevitably lead to magocracy, and that mages with freedom of travel will inevitably lead to a worst-case scenario, would that mean that there are no acceptable risks, regardless of how mages may conduct themselves? Should being confined within the Circle then be mandatory where it wasn't before?
She'd called for it before, but been refused. That's why Anders committed the mass murder: he knew that if he got every single person in immediate reach who could say Meredith nay, she'd use her temporary authority to push the Annulment through.
I found references to Karras saying that she'd done that, but do we have any confirmation about whether he was right?
Because those examples can be trusted, the majority of the mages have demonstrated they can't be trusted.
Who decides that they can be trusted, and what does that matter from JB's logic? Every day a mage is allowed to walk free is a roll of the dice, regardless of any demonstrated competence and virtue. If such disasters can be reliably prevented before they occur by Circle containment, then there should be no exceptions.
Since there's absolutely no evidence that the white chantry circles make a society any safer: no
I can't believe I have to explain the correlation between "keeping bombs away from people" and "people being safer".
If the majority of mages are within a Circle, then incidents will either happen within the Circle or the number of incidents ocurring on the outside will be severely diminished because, again, most mages are in the Circle.
Uldred is a good example. How many non-mage civillians did he kill? Zero. How many would he have killed had he been in Denerim?
If all mages are outside, then all incidents happen outside in which case, more people die.
It's just basic logic. The pro-mage position is to endanger a 100 people so that one mage can have no restrictions.
We only have this quote... "Some are saying, however, that this needs to change. They remind the world that mages are not controlled by templars everywhere in Thedas: not among the Rivaini witches, the Dalish keepers or the Tevinter magisters… and those societies are, arguably, no worse off."
Considering all those societies are ruled by mages, whether it be a tyranny or a benevolent oligarchy, I can only assume the author is a mage supremacist.
And there's Leliana's epilogue, of course.
Which never mentions safety at all.
The first enchanter decides.Who decides that they can be trusted, and what does that matter from JB's logic? Every day a mage is allowed to walk free is a roll of the dice, regardless of any demonstrated competence and virtue. If such disasters can be reliably prevented before they occur by Circle containment, then there should be no exceptions.
The first enchanter decides.
But he is right, at any moment a mage can become a abomination, but (to me) since that person proved he/she can be trusted the risk is kept in a minimun and he/she can do his/her work without any problem.
And when a trusted mage gets possessed by a Pride Demon? What then? If that could have been stopped by keeping that mage within the Circle, then why take any risk?
Wynne is actually a good example of why containment is necessary and exceptions are a huge risk.
Here's a woman most people would consider the epitome of the trustworthy mage. She believes in the system, she follows the Chant, she uses her magic responsibly and for the good of others, and she'd never have any dealings with Blood Magic or Maleficar.
Yet, just like that, she was possessed. Fortunately it was Faith, but it could just as easily have been Pride, Rage, or any of the other demon types that were currently swarming around the tower. Wynne is a perfect example of how even the most trustworthy mage can be possessed in a moment of weakness.
Edit:
Of course, Wilhelm is an example of a mage who didn't even bother to turn to Blood Magic or be possessed in order to be an ass and lord over his community with threats and terror. And he still summoned demons.
Wynne is actually a good example of why containment is necessary and exceptions are a huge risk.
Here's a woman most people would consider the epitome of the trustworthy mage. She believes in the system, she follows the Chant, she uses her magic responsibly and for the good of others, and she'd never have any dealings with Blood Magic or Maleficar.
Yet, just like that, she was possessed. Fortunately it was Faith, but it could just as easily have been Pride, Rage, or any of the other demon types that were currently swarming around the tower. Wynne is a perfect example of how even the most trustworthy mage can be possessed in a moment of weakness.
Then does that mean the freedoms that were previously allowed, were actually a dysfunction that should be corrected? If that were the case, why even cite said previous freedoms as a point in favor of the Circle system?
Because they are allowed to leave the Cicle to do some kind of work, they cant just come and go, thats why the risk are taken.And when a trusted mage gets possessed by a Pride Demon? What then? If that could have been stopped by keeping that mage within the Circle, then why take any risk?
Then does that mean the freedoms that were previously allowed, were actually a dysfunction that should be corrected? If that were the case, why even cite said previous freedoms as a point in favor of the Circle system?
No, just that any exception should be recognized for the huge risk it actually is.
Because they are allowed to leave the Cicle to do some kind of work, they cant just come and go, thats why the risk are taken.
They can come and go, or at least that was an accommodation allowed to a number of them (most notably Vivienne), should that be changed?
No, just that any exception should be recognized for the huge risk it actually is.
Then we'd accept that there's an acceptable capacity for risk, and even for loss when said risks do manifest. To that extent, there can be no universal or absolute barring of mages from positions of political power or from the potential to stay outside of the Circle for extended periods of time.
I think the Chantry was a poor choice for management of mages from the start. Their doctrine has a strong slant against magic and they tend to exacerbate people's fear and rejection of mages, rather than try to integrate mages into society or foster acceptance.
I think they were actually ideal, at least on paper. If you actually read the Chant they don't actually say "magic is bad." And they managed to educate the Templars well enough that the Templars are able to actually do their jobs and make objective decisions during the "Investigate Man Accused of Abomination" War Table mission, if you get that one.
And what's more, they don't work for the mages, who I only limitedly trust to hire their own police force. Nor do they work for the royalty and the nobility, who I trust marginally less since I don't know for a fact that the mages would abuse their powers if the people in charge of policing the mages worked for the mages themselves. If, on the other hand, the mages ultimately answered to the nobles and the royalty? I know that would end in tears.
The problem with the Chantry running the Circles really is mostly that they didn't vet their leadership well enough, at least as far as I can tell. That, and the occasional priest who wasn't really on-message as far as "magic is okay, bullying people with it is not."
They could come and go if they have motives to go, its not just "I'm going to take a stroll, see ya".They can come and go, or at least that was an accommodation allowed to a number of them (most notably Vivienne), should that be changed?
I think they were actually ideal, at least on paper. If you actually read the Chant they don't actually say "magic is bad." And they managed to educate the Templars well enough that the Templars are able to actually do their jobs and make objective decisions during the "Investigate Man Accused of Abomination" War Table mission, if you get that one.
The problem really is mostly that they didn't vet their leadership well enough, at least as far as I can tell. That, and the occasional priest who wasn't really on-message as far as "magic is okay, bullying people with it is not."
If history has proven anything, is that religious groups are absolutely the worst possible choice to regulate any group that does not fall into their dogma. Namely how the church in older times did all they could to sensor scientific research.
If history has proven anything, is that religious groups are absolutely the worst possible choice to regulate any group that does not fall into their dogma. Namely how the church in older times did all they could to sensor scientific research.
It's not that I'm not wary of religious groups in general, per se. It's just that I don't see who else even could have done the job before the second Inquisition came along. Bear in mind that the Chantry apparently knew something about magic, and they had funding without needing to beg the nobility for it. And if some priests preached that magic is a bad thing, the Chant itself does not.
Non-canon.
World of Thedas Volume to changes that I'm afraid.
World of Thedas Volume to changes that I'm afraid.
It's not that I'm not wary of religious groups in general, per se. It's just that I don't see who else even could have done the job before the second Inquisition came along. Bear in mind that the Chantry apparently knew something about magic, and they had funding without needing to beg the nobility for it. And if some priests preached that magic is a bad thing, the Chant itself does not.
The kingdom could do it. In fact, Hawke can suggest to Alistair in DA2 to take over the circle in place of the Chantry, and Alistair would actually do it if the Chantry didn't got on his way. If mages can live peacefully with the Inquisition soldiers, I don't see why the same couldn't happen with royal knights. And they would likely not have any of the superstitious fears the templars have. I mean, the circle under the Inquisition (by Leliana Divine + mages as conscripts) seems to be the most prosperous one out of all variants. "This new order represent the best of mages, an example for all of Thedas to follow".
Retour en haut