1551 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

Kakistos, since you never actually replied when I explained why virtually all societies where mages are free they rule over others, I think I'll just post i here again.

 

Your arguments are the underlined ones, if you do not recall them.

 

They are. The clan in Masked Empire had less than 50 members.

Just because they have certain advantages they can use to fight against more powerful foes, that doesn't mean it's numbers.

 

 

 

one of several prominent positions within a Clan. 

 

We have seen Keepers making unilateral decisions which have even harmed the clan without consulting any one else. And when these supposedly powerful elders have disagrees with these decisions, for instance Vellana and Ilen in DA2, they always abandoned the clan along with their supporters as if this was their only recourse.

 

If you have evidence the Keepers needs the approval of a majority of clanmates before taking a decisions or that the elders of the clan can hold a vote of no confidence and this means that the Keeper is legally obligated to act in the manner they want rather than that of his or her choice, then present it.

Otherwise, the Keeper is an autocrat.

 

 

 

Their position is one of tradition, they hold no whip and force no one to follow. 

 

That is called "cultural dominion" and it's no different from magic being associated with political power in Tevinter.

 

 

 

 Seers, also like Keepers, act as Spiritual Guides but do not rule.

 

World of Thedas page 80 "All decisions involving the welfare of most Rivaini communities rest solely with the eldest women. The most senior of these women are caled seers, who freely practice magic."

 

So, first of all "all decisions" meaning they have authority in matter beyond the spiritual.

Second, the senior of these eldest women is always a mage making a mage the person with the most authority in these communities. That is ruling.

 

 

 

The Avvar Shamans do not rule, the Thane does.

 

They paint their faces and are split into small tribes ruled by shamans

http://dragonage.wik...ry:_The_Chasind

 

 

The very codex uses the word "ruled" Despite that, are you going to argue they don't rule?

 

 

 

The Circle failed. These cultures withFREE Mages have not. 

 

So, the Circles have failed because, in the span of a thousand years, there has been a war. A war, might I add, that has not destroyed any society where the institution of the Circle exists.

However, we have seen three clans of Dalish being destroyed for the actions of their Keepers and yet, this system hasn't failed.

 

The logic here is astounding.

 

 

 

If these Mages, who have beenFREE for hundreds of years, regularly caused devastation do you not think these traditions wouldSTOP?

 

How many wars have been fought because magnats wish them to be fought so they can get richer? And yet, there are still billionaires.

 

 

 

 

"Normal" people of Thedas believe that Circles are necessary because the Chantry tells them so. Just like "normal" people believed that Templars were infallible. Just like "normal" people believe that Elves are lesser because of their race.

 

So, what they want doesn't matter because you don't like it.

 

People don't fear mages because of the Chantry. People fear mages because it's only natural to be afraid of those who can kill you with a thought and are doorways for demons to enter the material world.

 

Have you considered that perhaps it's the opposite that it's true. That the societies who don't fear mages don't fear them because the rulers are mages and have indocrinated the rest so as to legitimize their power?

 

Say, Tevinter with his "Magic is a sign the Maker has bestowed us with divine authority." or the Dalish with "All elves were once mages, we mages are the closest there is to the perfect elf."

 

 

 

[berelinde]

The Chasind are not Avvar. They share a common origin, the Alammari, but their cultures have diverged. The Avvars live in medium-sized communities ruled and governed by a thane. Their mages are integrated into their society and are looked to as historians and advisors, so they hold positions of respect within the community, but they don't make laws or arbitrate disputes.

[Jaison1986]

I find this an very weak argument. If an mage rule, so what? What does that matter? The Inquisition is one of the few groups are actually making a difference in Thedas, helping refugees and keeping stability across the continent, and they might as well be ruled by an mage if the player chooses to. Dorian makes the same argument. What qualification does some backwater noble haves that makes them an better ruler then a mage? What stops an mage from delivering fair judgment?

[TheKomandorShepard]

Well it does matter, considering we don't need search far to see examples where mage leaders demolish their society (and not only their) with disasters ,in first place mage leadership was one of reasons why Thedas have to deal with blights and darkspawn and then we have people like Zathrian or Baroness.

[Jaison1986]

Well it does matter, considering we don't need search far to see examples where mage leaders demolish their society (and not only their) with disasters ,in first place mage leadership was one of reasons why Thedas have to deal with blights and darkspawn and then we have people like Zathrian or Baroness.

 

So it will aways go badly, no matter what? By that mindset we should nuke Orlais since they will aways try to forcibly take over other nations. Because it's in their nature.

[MisterJB]

I find this an very weak argument. If an mage rule, so what? What does that matter? The Inquisition is one of the few groups are actually making a difference in Thedas, helping refugees and keeping stability across the continent, and they might as well be ruled by an mage if the player chooses to. Dorian makes the same argument. What qualification does some backwater noble haves that makes them an better ruler then a mage? What stops an mage from delivering fair judgment?

In an ideal world. a leader would be the most appropriate person for the job and they would rule to the best of their abilities towards the benefit of all citizens of their kingdom. And if that person is a mage, it would just be a footnote because magic is irrelevant in matters of leadership.

 

But Thedas is not ideal. And, quite frankly, what constitutes as "ideal" will shift from person to person.

What we witness in Thedas and everyday life is tribalism. In Tevinter, Jowan would sooner be crowned Archon than Anora. 

I will let that sink in for a moment.

 

So, here are the main reasons why it matters:

 

1-Mages working towards power would not work towards only their personal power for the benefit of non-mage citizens any more that Andraste's rebellion was fought for representation. Instead, we would have mages, as a group, seeking to place magical control over society so it is mage friendly. That, naturally, involves controlling non-mages. 

 

2-People have a right to self-determination. This applies to groups as a whole. Non-mages have no more interest in having their lives dictated by mages, a different group, than mages are in having theirs. Hence the rebellion in DAI.

 

3-Rulers can be expected to seek to advance the interests of their group. This, of course, does not always holds true. I can't imagine that the average noble in Orlais cares about the peasants in his land but even so, the Circle system is obviously steered towards protecting the lives of the dominant group, non-mages.

Compare it to systems like the Dalish or Rivain which are dominated by mages. There, the non-mage citizens are expected to pay in blood and tears should there be an Abomination.

 

4-Andrastians don't want mage rulers. Are we supposed to accept Dalish wanting mage rulers because "tradition" but Andrastians should change their entire culture to accept being ruled by magic?

[TheKomandorShepard]

So it will aways go badly, no matter what? By that mindset we should nuke Orlais since they will aways try to forcibly take over other nations. Because it's in their nature.

Not always , but as i said when it goes in mages case consequences are tremendous.I like idea of "nuking" Orlais ,but expansion and blowing world up are 2 different things.If i had to chose who i would prefer to live with tevinter or orlais i would pick orlais as world and society would be safer and well less kicking puppies.

[Jaison1986]

In an ideal world. a leader would be the most appropriate person for the job and they would rule to the best of their abilities towards the benefit of all citizens of their kingdom. And if that person is a mage, it would just be a footnote because magic is irrelevant in matters of leadership.

 

But Thedas is not ideal. And, quite frankly, what constitutes as "ideal" will shift from person to person.

What we witness in Thedas and everyday life is tribalism. In Tevinter, Jowan would sooner be crowned Archon than Anora. 

I will let that sink in for a moment.

 

So, here are the main reasons why it matters:

 

1-Mages working towards power would not work towards only their personal power for the benefit of non-mage citizens any more that Andraste's rebellion was fought for representation. Instead, we would have mages, as a group, seeking to place magical control over society so it is mage friendly. That, naturally, involves controlling non-mages. 

 

2-People have a right to self-determination. This applies to groups as a whole. Non-mages have no more interest in having their lives dictated by mages, a different group, than mages are in having theirs. Hence the rebellion in DAI.

 

3-Rulers can be expected to seek to advance the interests of their group. This, of course, does not always holds true. I can't imagine that the average noble in Orlais cares about the peasants in his land but even so, the Circle system is obviously steered towards protecting the lives of the dominant group, non-mages.

Compare it to systems like the Dalish or Rivain which are dominated by mages. There, the non-mage citizens are expected to pay in blood and tears should there be an Abomination.

 

4-Andrastians don't want mage rulers. Are we supposed to accept Dalish wanting mage rulers because "tradition" but Andrastians should change their entire culture to accept being ruled by magic?

 

1, 2 and 3 - These are situational arguments. Mage rulers started the blight, but an mage Inquisitor might as well launch Thedas into an new golden age. The idea of an mage ruler does not have absolutes. Vivienne herself in an example. She reached an position of power and leadership. And yet little she cares about holding some magical control over her subjects. She is more concerned about expanding her influence and enjoying her conforts.

 

4 - Is that the case, how come, Vivienne, as an mage, gets to be Divine? People object, but in the end she solidifies her position and people accept her as the new Chantry leader, like it or not.

[MisterJB]

No, those are actually absolutes:

 

1-Groups compete for power in society.

 

2-Groups have a right to self-determination. (this one may not be an absolute but only because some people would disagree that all groups have this right) 

 

3-Those in power advance the interests of those he or she has loyalty towards.

 

This applies between mages and normals just as easily as it applies between Fereldens and Orlesians.

 

 

4-My argument was that why shouldn't we respect the wishes of the Andrastians in their own countries?

Sure, Vivienne can be Divine. Just because people don't want something it doesn't meant it can't be forced on them, unfortunately.

[Jaison1986]

No, those are actually absolutes:

 

1-Groups compete for power in society.

 

2-Groups have a right to self-determination. (this one may not be an absolute but only because some people would disagree that all groups have this right) 

 

3-Those in power advance the interests of those he or she has loyalty towards.

 

This applies between mages and normals just as easily as it applies between Fereldens and Orlesians.

 

 

4-My argument was that why shouldn't we respect the wishes of the Andrastians in their own countries?

Sure, Vivienne can be Divine. Just because people don't want something it doesn't meant it can't be forced on them, unfortunately.

 

And yet, when it's forced on mages in not unfortunate?

 

And as for the rest of your argument, it is true what you said, but I don't see why magic needs to be involved in such factors. We are talking about Andrastian nations after all. You see everything from an Tevinter perspective, but mages from the south don't have this ideology that magic should be involved with ruling like the tevinters do.

[MisterJB]

And yet, when it's forced on mages in not unfortunate?

 

And as for the rest of your argument, it is true what you said, but I don't see why magic needs to be involved in such factors. We are talking about Andrastian nations after all. You see everything from an Tevinter perspective, but mages from the south don't have this ideology that magic should be involved with ruling like the tevinters do.

I never said it wasn't but the alternative is them doing the same to normal people and mages are outnumbered a 100 to 1.

 

You're not fully grasping what I am saying.

Mages are one group of people.

People without magic are a separate group of people.

Sure, we could try to argue that there is no reason they should consider each other separate but that is just the way it has always been. From Tevinter to today, mages always form a separate class of society. Sometimes upper class, sometimes lower. But a mage is never just a person who happens to have magic. They are always defined by it.

Magisters, Circle of Magi, Seers, Keepers, Shamans, etc.

 

And of course, group relations come into play. It doesn't need to be supported by an ideology that places mages above other men. Really, all the Enchanters will have to say to justify whatever actions they take is "Look at how they treated us. We can't trust them. We have to have money and political power to make sure it never happens again."

And thus we have groups competing for dominion within society. And since the mages have the ability to alter reality on a whim, chances are they'll win. I mean, all societies with free mages are dominated by them.

The only exception might, MIGHT, be the Avvar.

[Drasanil]

And yet, when it's forced on mages in not unfortunate?

 

It is unfortunate, but it is also a necessity. Mages as a whole invariably pose a disproportionate danger to the rest of society hence why they need a higher level of control. Its not an issue of any given one mage, but the group as a whole. That given individual mage that is generally considered respectable and is unlikely ever be a danger to themselves or others is already factored into the circle system*. They get more privileges up to including living outside of the circle. 

 

*When that circle isn't Kirkwall, naturally.

 

And as for the rest of your argument, it is true what you said, but I don't see why magic needs to be involved in such factors. We are talking about Andrastian nations after all. You see everything from an Tevinter perspective, but mages from the south don't have this ideology that magic should be involved with ruling like the tevinters do.

 

It took how many weeks or months for sizable portion of the rebel mages in the hinterlands to go right to that ideology? How took what a few days for the "good" rebel mages to decide that kicking all the muggles out of Redcliff was perfectly legitimate because their presence was an inconvenience [not even a threat] to Alexius? It took what about a century for Tevinter to go from officially no mages in charge to the entirety of the magisterium and all the upper echelons of the Imperial Chantry once again being dominated exclusively by mages?

 

The problem is, unless there are strict controls and restrictions placed on mages, power invariably tends to concentrate around them. Really, it's both inevitable and natural given they are already much more powerful than regular humans/elfs/cows. Just as wealth tends to concentrate and beget more wealth, so does power tend to concentrate and beget more power. And mages have many more ways to abuse their power when left unchecked than even the most creative of nobles.  

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Pro circle supporters, what do you think of the college?

 

Good question. I have three main issues with it. Should I start by saying things I like about it first? Let's see...

 

-- I like the idea of a place where mages can research and study the arcane.

 

Not knowing too much about the College at this point, I cannot say much more, but it also means that I have some concerns it did not address.

 

1.) The idea of a place where mages can research and study the arcane is not a novel idea at all. That is exactly what the Circle was in the first place. It rather bothers me to see all the "Ooh! Ahh!"-'ing over the College just because it has a pretty name. It is like reinventing the wheel rather than fixing the existing one.

 

2.) No Templars. I'm sure College proponents see that as a big positive, because "Woohoo! No more of those meanies that used to abuse mages." Ignoring all the issues I have with that line-of-thinking, I would next raise the question of, "Well, who is watching over the mages?" The answer appears to be "other mages." I have a big problem with that. You do not regulate effectively by leaving people to watch over themselves. In effect, you are just letting them do whatever they please. I accept that mages are people little different than you or me, that is precisely why I do not trust them to behave themselves when granted their own watch.

 

Cullen also said that mages and Templars keeping their distances from each other in the Circle did nothing to foster mutual understanding. I agree, I always saw this as a flaw of the Circle. However, I think the College just made this issue even worse. Now the mages are living amongst themselves, likely having minimal contact with mundanes. This is not good. There appear to be no mundanes involved in the College to represent their interests, and on top of that, why should mages even care about the outside world if they have little-to-no connection to it?

 

You want to get rid of Templars? Fine, but at least show me that there is some group of mundanes involved keeping the mages honest, otherwise I remain skeptical. The College is portrayed as an institute run entirely by mages and little else. It is not enough to create some school for them to train. There also needs to be some reliable regulating-entity keeping watch against potential magical dangers and ensuring that the mages do not take all for themselves ala Tevinter. I see nothing in the epilogue to indicate that anything like it exists, not like Bright Hand which has the Inquisition.

 

I mean, what is this College going to do about blood-mages, tell them politely to just be careful and then go back on their way? Are they going to leave it all to City Guards that are not well-equipped against magic like Templars? Lots of question-marks here.

 

3.) I do not have faith in it over the long-term. This is not something that has not been tried before. After Andraste brought down much of their empire, mages were given control of the Circle in Tevinter. What they created with it once again is modern-day Tevinter -- not what I consider a desirable result.

 

-- Without doing Leliana's personal quest, the entire thing falls apart, so we do see that it can fall apart.

 

-- Doing it and giving her bad advice (a.k.a. "softening"-nonsense) means she keeps it afloat with diplomacy. I am glad she can and does, but the words "for the moment" stick out like a sore thumb to those of us that doubt its long-term sustainability (though it certainly beats telling us that it will work for the long-term without offering any credible explanation as to why).

 

-- Hardened!Leliana's epilogue is much easier to buy and I actually kind of like it. It is kind of hypocritical, though, to decry the conditions of living in the Circle but then use iron-fist rule over the general public. Not a big deal to me, but for those who are precious about freedom, this has to be an issue. Another thing, if it takes violence to keep things afloat, what happens when a soft Divine takes the throne?

[Iakus]

Listen to Professor X, people.  He knows the danger Magneto represents 

[Bayonet Hipshot]

Listen to Professor X, people.  He knows the danger Magneto represents 

 

You know that is actually a bad example. As much as I love the X Men (I like them more than the Avengers, they are my 2nd favorite comic book group after Justice League), the X Men are actually the mutants version of the College of Enchanters. I mean, the X Men live all by themselves in Charles' mansion and keep to themselves for the most part. There are supervised by other more experienced mutants and when they are ready, they leave the school to join society.

 

This is literally how the College of Enchanter works. If X Men worked the way the Circle of Magi did, you would have government law enforcement officials or the Swiss Guard policing Xavier's school and administering the cure to mutants who do not toe the line. But they do not do this and if they ever do this, it will be seen as oppression and censorship.

 

Which is odd because mutants are very powerful and if they are not taught to control their powers, they will cause extreme damage and devastation. Strangely enough, people are okay with Xavier running his version of College of Enchanters but when mages in Thedas do it, it is somehow bad. What ? Mages and mutants alike can manipulate fire, phase through stuff, control weather, control minds, shapeshift, etc.

 

Why the double standard ? Tevinter ? Tevinter is the Magneto of Thedas, except that it is both a nation and a culture. & what do the X Men do when they come up against Magneto and his Brotherhood ? They fight them and sometimes work with them if the situation is dire.

 

Just help me understand the double standard at work here. Mages are not very different from mutants yet we are okay with Xavier's school that has no government law enforcement or Swiss Guard securing it, but we have problems with College of Enchanters ?

 

At Redcliffe, mages had no proper base of operations, quarters, etc. The did not have their version of Xavier's school at Redcliffe. They were on the run. In turn, they got manipulated by Magneto Alexius with his electromagnetic powers time magic. & terrible things happened but not all the Rebel Mages consented to it. I don't think they consented to the murder of the Tranquils or the driving out of Arl Teagan. That was Magneto's Alexius' doing.

[Steelcan]

Mutants don't have literal demons trying to possess them and turn them into mindless beings whose sole purpose is destructio

Also I can try and track down a comic that shows what happens when there are mutants who are too powerful to be contained, and its not a pleasant end.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

Mutants don't have literal demons trying to possess them and turn them into mindless beings whose sole purpose is destructio

Also I can try and track down a comic that shows what happens when there are mutants who are too powerful to be contained, and its not a pleasant end.

 

So ? When demons possess a mage and turn into an abomination, they lay waste to a particular place and kill lots of people there. A mutant out of control does the exact same, without demons. When mutants fight, they bring down train stations, wreck a public place, etc..Without demons. Despite all that, many of us still root for them.

 

As for mages being responsible for great tragedies and evils such as the Blight...One can argue that mutants such as Apocalypse and Magneto have caused great harm and suffering to the world...However, we still accept mutants and like them...

 

To clarify, my favorite class is the Rogue / Thief. So my view on this is that of an outsider. But you cannot deny that mages in Thedas share a lot in common with mutants in X Men, demon or no demon. Yet, we like mutants, we root for them, we think they are cool...Despite the crap they get up to...Yet somehow, we do not attempt to extend mages the same courtesy ?

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

You know that is actually a bad example. As much as I love the X Men (I like them more than the Avengers, they are my 2nd favorite comic book group after Justice League), the X Men are actually the mutants version of the College of Enchanters. I mean, the X Men live all by themselves in Charles' mansion and keep to themselves for the most part. There are supervised by other more experienced mutants and when they are ready, they leave the school to join society.

 

This is literally how the College of Enchanter works. If X Men worked the way the Circle of Magi did, you would have government law enforcement officials or the Swiss Guard policing Xavier's school and administering the cure to mutants who do not toe the line. But they do not do this and if they ever do this, it will be seen as oppression and censorship.

 

Which is odd because mutants are very powerful and if they are not taught to control their powers, they will cause extreme damage and devastation. Strangely enough, people are okay with Xavier running his version of College of Enchanters but when mages in Thedas do it, it is somehow bad. What ? Mages and mutants alike can manipulate fire, phase through stuff, control weather, control minds, shapeshift, etc.

 

Why the double standard ? Tevinter ? Tevinter is the Magneto of Thedas, except that it is both a nation and a culture. & what do the X Men do when they come up against Magneto and his Brotherhood ? They fight them and sometimes work with them if the situation is dire.

 

Just help me understand the double standard at work here. Mages are not very different from mutants yet we are okay with Xavier's school that has no government law enforcement or Swiss Guard securing it, but we have problems with College of Enchanters ?

 

At Redcliffe, mages had no proper base of operations, quarters, etc. The did not have their version of Xavier's school at Redcliffe. They were on the run. In turn, they got manipulated by Magneto Alexius with his electromagnetic powers time magic. & terrible things happened but not all the Rebel Mages consented to it. I don't think they consented to the murder of the Tranquils or the driving out of Arl Teagan. That was Magneto's Alexius' doing.

Two things.

 

A: I actually support the Super-Registration act that recently tore the Marvel Superhero community (and apparently its writing staff) in two. Theoretically. I guess to some degree it depends on the writer, since my understanding* is that Pro-Registration writers wrote it as a somewhat liberal process where you need to learn how to control your powers and be responsible in their use, and you're only locked away if your powers (or you) are uncontrollable and truly dangerous. And then once you get your super-diploma you're free, though if you want to be a superhero you need insurance to handle the collateral damage they're so fond of. It's Anti-Reg writers that had people forced to register and forced to use their powers, to the point of making a nine-year old girl who could conjure a cloud and use it to fly learn how to snipe (which I don't support and which the Circles are very preferable to.)

 

B: The vast majority of mutants need to choose to mess someone up. If Wolverine is ridiculously dangerous, he's also capable of choosing not to kill. If Cyclops is dangerous if he opens his eyes without his glasses or visor on, he can choose to close them. A mage who goes abomination is not capable of such restraint. Mind you there are mutants who can't control their powers and are city shattering threats. Some of these are actually worse than any abomination we encounter. But I think I'll let Steelcan handle that comparison.

 

*I'm getting my knowledge of the Civil War from Tv Tropes, which could be entirely wrong or could just be missing some nuances.

[Iakus]

Mutants don't have literal demons trying to possess them and turn them into mindless beings whose sole purpose is destructio
 

Well, there's one example.

 

Jean Grey/Dark Phoenix 

[Lumix19]

I was hoping this debate had died a painful death but apparently people really can't stop flogging that dead horse.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

I was hoping this debate had died a painful death but apparently people really can't stop flogging that dead horse.

 

Debates are fun. Apart from the occasional insults, it has been interesting to say the least.

 

 

Well, there's one example.

 

Jean Grey/Dark Phoenix 

 

That's precisely whom I had in mind. Jean Grey is not demonic but she can get out of control without her choosing due to the Phoenix.
 

[Iakus]

 

That's precisely whom I had in mind. Jean Grey is not demonic but she can get out of control without her choosing due to the Phoenix.
 

Which is precisely what makes mages so dangerous.

 

Imagine if all mutants are potentially subject to the Phoenix Force.  If they can all be possessed, willingly or not.  And while it can be resisted, all it would take is a single moment of weakness to unleash its terrible power.

 

You don't have to be Magneto or Apocalypse to cause destruction (though it helps), you just have to lose control.  Look at what happened to the Phoenix Five

[Ariella]

Well, there's one example.
 
Jean Grey/Dark Phoenix 

Anybody and Dark Phoenix actually.

An even better analogy for this is Babylon 5 Psi Corps.

Telepaths in the B5 universe have to keep their walls up at all times, have to wear gloves to keep from accidentally scanning someone if they touch them. They're pretty much forbidden life: the Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father. It's not one to one, but theses telepaths have to actively maintain to not use their powers. They can't put their swords down, and putting their shields gets that much worse.

[Lumix19]

Debates are fun. Apart from the occasional insults, it has been interesting to say the least.



That's precisely whom I had in mind. Jean Grey is not demonic but she can get out of control without her choosing due to the Phoenix.

Debates are fun but this one has been around for a long time now. Still a lot of the same people too.

Edit: Where's Warder? I'm surprised he's not here.

[Master Warder Z_]

.-. Yo