1551 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonflight288]

I don't think Viv will abandon what she was taught as gospel truth in the circle on the nature of spirits and the fade.

But Dorian and Fenris also bring up good points.

There was a time when Tevinter was similar to southern Thefas and Templars watched mages. But little by little, inch by inch, the magisters slowly regained what was lost and now Tevinter is indistinguishable from its past.

I find Viv becoming Divine is, while not guaranteed, a first step towards southern Thedas becoming Tevinter-like.

[The Baconer]

I don't think Viv will abandon what she was taught as gospel truth in the circle on the nature of spirits and the fade.

But Dorian and Fenris also bring up good points.

There was a time when Tevinter was similar to southern Thefas and Templars watched mages. But little by little, inch by inch, the magisters slowly regained what was lost and now Tevinter is indistinguishable from its past.

I find Viv becoming Divine is, while not guaranteed, a first step towards southern Thedas becoming Tevinter-like.

 

True, but it is important to note the factors that led to the original schism, and the return to the "old ways", most notably the antagonistic behavior of the Southern Chantry.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

True, but it is important to note the factors that led to the original schism, and the return to the "old ways", most notably the antagonistic behavior of the Southern Chantry.

I thought the antagonism from the South only started when the return to the "old ways" became overt? When the Tevinters changed the Chant (or so the White Chantry's account describes it) and the open rule by magisters resumed.

[The Baconer]

I thought the antagonism from the South only started when the return to the "old ways" became overt? When the Tevinters changed the Chant (or so the White Chantry's account describes it) and the open rule by magisters resumed.

 

At first, Tevinter made some concessions by diminishing the Archon's role in the Chantry, and by deferring to the authority of the Orlesian Divine. The Orlesian Chantry denied their counterparts' requests to be recognized as legitimate on the grounds that men were allowed to serve as priests. At this time, they were also unaware that mages were allowed to work within Tevinter's Chantry as well.

 

Towards the end of the Glory Age, an Exalted March was called to release Starkhaven from Tevinter control. As part of a larger move to curb Tevinter expansion, the Orlesian Chantry started hyping up the story of the Magisters' original trespass of the Golden City, which stirred up both anti-Tevinter and anti-mage sentiment. After more disagreements over the commandments regarding magic, Tevinter flipped the Orlesian Chantry the bird, and selected their own Divine from the mages of the Circle.

 

Some more Exalted Marches sowing some more bad blood, and now you have the two Chantries as they are today.

[Shienis]

So if Vivienne was faced with an ideology she vehemently despises, for reasons that don't change if mages are free, and is just as much an idiot to believe she'll be alive in two generations to enjoy a mageocracy, she'd reverse her positions and views that have already slid her towards irrelevance in order to... support a vision of 'stability' that defies the principles of what she considers stability? Because she's a politician in The Game?

 

Something like that. You may wish to pick better words in the morning.

 

Of course she won't change just because some fanatic shouts "Oh, freedom!". But if she's pushed far enough into beliving such change is irreversible (that's the example with rule-in-two-generations) and she can't revert it back to her preferred state, I don't see a reason why she wouldn't play it in her favour and take any advantage of it. 

 

But OK, I understand, you believe she will not change no matter the circumstances. But from my experience people change, either rational ones or emotional ones. Such thing as never-changing-human* doesn't exist. So yes, I believe there are circumstances under which Vivienne would change. They are unlikely to happen, but they are possible.

 

* add elves, dwarves and qunari for Thedas

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

At first, Tevinter made some concessions by diminishing the Archon's role in the Chantry, and by deferring to the authority of the Orlesian Divine. The Orlesian Chantry denied their counterparts' requests to be recognized as legitimate on the grounds that men were allowed to serve as priests. At this time, they were also unaware that mages were allowed to work within Tevinter's Chantry as well.

 

Towards the end of the Glory Age, an Exalted March was called to release Starkhaven from Tevinter control. As part of a larger move to curb Tevinter expansion, the Orlesian Chantry started hyping up the story of the Magisters' original trespass of the Golden City, which stirred up both anti-Tevinter and anti-mage sentiment. After more disagreements over the commandments regarding magic, Tevinter flipped the Orlesian Chantry the bird, and selected their own Divine from the mages of the Circle.

 

Some more Exalted Marches sowing some more bad blood, and now you have the two Chantries as they are today.

I'm working entirely off the White Chantry's version, so I'd probably defer to yours. Is it WoT?

[The Baconer]

I'm working entirely off the White Chantry's version, so I'd probably defer to yours. Is it WoT?

 

Volume 1, yes.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Yeah but I think Tevinter had already begun slowly reverting back to it's old ways even by the Towers Age. It didn't happen all at once.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Volume 1, yes.

So, I figured the White history was probably incomplete, but I didn't think it was that bad...

[The Baconer]

Yeah but I think Tevinter had already begun slowly reverting back to it's old ways even by the Towers Age. It didn't happen all at once.

 

That would be placing it within the timeline of events I described.

[FiveThreeTen]

Circle a ladden with "internal" Politic. None of which matter to the outside world or to chang e the fate of the mages in a circle. It's all pointless, which Vive saw and never took part of. None of it made any real change to the circle at all. Sorry, but the fact thing got so bad is because the circle has no say with chantry dealing. They are so powerless that they can have the right of assembly taken at anytime from them and be censored on with topic to debate.

 

The thing is Vive get it. To make change to the circle she needs to be apart of non-mage politics.

None of which matter? The fact that some libertarians took certain actions mattered a great deal ultimately when they split from the Chantry. Saying it didn't have any effect on mages circle everyday life is also wrong. While I agree ultimately the mages fate rested on the hands of the chantry, it's completely unrealistic (and non-canon) to think of the Circles has completely isolated from the outside world. It also matters a great deal if like Vivienne you need to prove yourself (ie, becoming an enchanter) to have more freedoms.

Vivienne still climbs up within the confines of Chantry supervision.

 

Her position is not typical sure, but she is never cut-out from some of her contacts among loyalists, she took part in it and kept being involved in it even while living outside.

[FiveThreeTen]

Which is funny given how she does things almost exactly like Tevinter with the Templars leashed to her hand, Mage divine, and killing all who oppose her

I typically don't even make Vivienne divine in my games, but no, that's really an over-simplification. see Illegitimus response

[Kakistos_]

Arguably no worse off. And the arguments aren't that strong in the case of the Dalish, since their mage system's failure can mean the annihilation of an entire clan and some clans practice exiling mage children into what is basically certain death barring outside intervention. (Not to mention that Inquisition is the first game in which the Dalish clan that can be wiped out to a man isn't in that position entirely due to the Keepers being irresponsible with their magic.)

 

Nor do I think I wouldn't have an opinion if I had to choose between being a Tevinter with no idea where on the social ladder I'd end up or an Orlesian with no idea where on the social ladder I end up. For the most part there's little to choose, but let's not skate over the problem of leaders irresponsible to those they govern being mages in a magic system where blood magic is so broken. Many Orlesian nobles are no doubt willing to let a servant die for their own gain, but there's only certain situations where they benefit from it. Just imagine an Orlesian Lord who can build a bridge or summon a large thunderstorm over a rival's yatch or shield themselves against an upcoming assassination attempt by killing a servant. You are now imagining a Tevinter Magister. (On a side note, I could swear I've pointed this out to you before. I don't think you've ever adequately answered it.)

 

Now we don't know much about Rivain. I guess. We have Word Of Gaider that heavily implies they have an abomination problem worse than the rest of Thedas, but that's about it. But let's also not stake over that. Entire cities have fallen to abominations. Rivain considers them to be the equivalent of a natural disaster due to their scale. It seems like trying to control them (or at least cause them to happen somewhere where there aren't civilians) is a pretty understandable desire.

Yes, Arguably. This suggest a relative and comparable peace in so far as Free Mages are concerned. A far cry from the bleak Abomination filled wasteland some paint as the picture of Mage Freedom. Also a far cry from the reality of Thedas when the first Inquisition formed, when they welcomed the help of Free Mages such as Inquisitor Ameridan. Ameridan was of the Dales, who for hundreds of years lived with Free Mages but was ultimately destroyed by Chantry forces.

 

I would argue that a Free Mage of the Dales becoming the leader of the Inquisition and friends with an Emperor is an example of Mage Freedom working for the Dales. I would also argue that it continued to be a success and that the Dalish were no worse off after becoming nomadic. Here is the part where one would bring up a specific example of an individual Dalish Mage making a poor decision that adversely affected their Clan. This argument will never sway me.

 

It seems that the only standard for working Mage Freedom that some will accept is that all Mages are perfect, never make any mistakes and are subservient. This is unreasonable. Just as one could cite examples of Dalish Keepers falling short I could do the same of non-Mage human and Dwarf leaders. That does not mean their overall systems have failed. The Dalish have existed as they are for hundreds of years, led by their Keepers.

 

If instances of Keepers harming their Clans was as common as some would suggest then the beleaguered Dalish would have collapsed long ago. This is not the case. It is a matter of fact that Elves, from the Dales to the Dalish, have existed with Free Mages longer than the Chantry and existence of Templars and Circles. Considering the aforementioned Circles have utterly failed and the Dalish have thus far not then I would argue that they better off. We see first hand in The Jaws of Hakkon that the Free Avvar Mages provide clear benefits to their people via their interactions with Spirits. They are better off.

 

Rivain has also existed with Free Mages before the Chantry and exists seemingly fine after the Circle's failure. On Abominations I would infer that Gaider was referring to the Seers that allow themselves to be possessed as a part of millennia old tradition and not necessarily roving monsters considering that the Rivaini people's attachment to them is what stopped the Chant of Light from being widely accepted.

 

The fact that they allow themselves to be possessed and yet still retain their status as revered leaders suggest that, like the Avvar, they have methods of exorcising unwanted Spirits. Also, that followers of the Qun willingly follow Seers and Orlesian Nobles cling to Rivaini heritage doesn't paint the picture of a land filled with Abominations, though I have no doubt that not all are happy with the Seer's practices.

 

I do not recall the point on Tevinter. You may have been discussing that with someone else.

[Dean_the_Young]

Of course she won't change just because some fanatic shouts "Oh, freedom!". But if she's pushed far enough into beliving such change is irreversible (that's the example with rule-in-two-generations) and she can't revert it back to her preferred state, I don't see a reason why she wouldn't play it in her favour and take any advantage of it.

 

There's a very simple reason, and one already demonstrated by her own history: Vivienne's politics and views can see her sidelined and made irrelevant.

 

'Play it in her favor and take any advantage of it' is not the same thing, and not really relevant, to whether she'll change her views as opposed to her actions. Since this line of discussion is about the malleability of her views, not the adaptability of her actions, it's on you to support any argument that she's likely to change her views.

 

If, in your hypothetical 'mages will rule after you are dead, get power while she can' scenario, Vivienne seeks power... how is that in any way a reversal of her beliefs, if her goal with that power is to try and stop or even reverse the mage gains overall?

 

 

 

But OK, I understand, you believe she will not change no matter the circumstances.

 

 

*Citation needed.
 

 

But from my experience people change, either rational ones or emotional ones. Such thing as never-changing-human* doesn't exist. So yes, I believe there are circumstances under which Vivienne would change. They are unlikely to happen, but they are possible.

 

* add elves, dwarves and qunari for Thedas

 

 

Which, returning back to our original point about whether Vivienne is remarkably adaptive in her  beliefs... completely unremarkable, and so much so that it begs why it's being raised as a consideration when it can apply to everyone else.

 

This isn't an argument of 'can Vivienne change her actions at all?' This is a discussion of 'is Vivienne's views fickle enough that she will change them easily to fit the views of her current patron?'

 

Arguing 'well, if extreme and irreversable circumstances presented themselves, she'd adapt,' isn't an argument towards that. The same applies to, well, everyone.

[Dean_the_Young]

Sorry, but us regular folks would say any answer would be uneasy to make being the fact they don't know if you have the same goals of said person and the fact people are social beings and work better with people they can relate to. People in general are not pure logical. It's a mix of emotional and logic reaction. It's why alot of people are uneasy and don't like Vivian.

 

Logically, can work with her be emotional....It's uneasy.

 

 

Except you do know if you have the same goals as said person. Vivienne tells you what she wants: to restore order. She indicates what that means to her: the end to the mage rebellion, the closure of the Breach, the defeat of Corypheus, the end of the chaos that hurts innocents. She has preferences in how it should be done, but none that sunder your alliance for the duration of Corypheus.

 

Nor is Vivienne emotionally duplicitous. She's scornful of the people she dislikes, rather than pretend to like them. She's openly approving of the people she respects and admires. She's patronizing for most- but that's her nature, not an act.

 

What Vivienne hides emotionally isn't her dislike of people, not in the sense of 'I'm being nice to stab you later', but the strength of her affections. Whether you can relate to that, or not, is up to you.

 

 

The problem, if there is one, is your refusal to acknowledge that Vivienne is honest about many of the things you insist she is dishonest about. You haven't, and refuse to, even raise which views or allies she's betrayed to justify your opinion. Your emotional reasoning isn't even reflecting the reality of Vivienne's expressed emotions.

 

 

 

But, let's raise this honesty/integrity issue a bit more. Do you apply this same standard to Sara? Blackwall? Varic? Solas? Iron Bull?

 

All of these people keep secrets from, lie to, and deliberatly decieve the Inquisitor for their own ends and ambitions. Some of these secrets are Very Big Deals- far surpassing Vivienne's.

 

Let's be honest here: is this honesty issue really about demonstrated (lack of) integrity, or are you just using it as a smoke screen to justify your personal dislike in something more authoritative? Because if your issue is supposed to be integrity, but you give proven and far more serious deceivers regular passes, than a condemnation of Vivienne is more than a slight doublestandard.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

1. Only in case they lose nothing as a result. hat's not the case for her.

 

2.Not is the same case. The issue you bring up would be one  under normal circumstance. At that, all power in any other circle is pointless. Everything is going to be destroyed so what is the point of political power else were. The chantry is in shamble. The mages and templers are fighting among themselves and Orlis is in a civil war and can't do anything.  It matters not what resources and number the inquisition has, nobody else is functional. The Inquisition is the strong power by default because they are the only ones functional in any form even after the breach closed. And after doing so the land is still in chaos and they still need to investigate what was seen in hushed whispers/champion of the just. No way would the inquistion disperse after closing the breach.

 

You confuse 'strong' with 'active'. You also ignore the context of time- before there was an Inquisition of any sort, there were still factions, and opportunities, Vivienne had chance and reason to seek out if her view was that she needed the strongest patron immediately.

 

Between Mages and Templars, the Templars were wiping the Mages from the corners of Southern Thedas until only one remained- and while Ferelden offered sanctuary to the last, before then (and until then) there was clearly a dominant power in the conflict, to the point that the mages themselves sold their own into slavery rather than face an (imagined) Templar force.

 

Whereas the Orlais Civil War was something in which mages themselves could have intervened in. Mage power is treated with varying degrees of potency between lore and mechanics, but the last bastion of the Loyalist Mages would have been a potent force to break the deadlock. One patron or the other, supporting them in return for their support of Vivienne's desired circle system, with their armies easily able to break the Templars should the Templars try to fight them rather than the rebels. This is the sort of power balance, and opportunism, that Vivienne should be most primed to exploit.

 

Even before the Inquistion was an option, Vivienne wasn't jumping for the strongest/most desirable patrons around.

 

 

And honestly, if it weren't for Corypheus showing himself, the Inquisition's intent to dispersing would be irrelevant. The Inquisition is dependent on the patronage of nobles and nations across Thedas. If they don't give money, the Inquisition has no resources to disperse, and if the Breach were closed with no clue or indication about who was behind it, then outside powers would have little interest in sustaining the Inquisition.

 

Without the Villain of Corypheus to continue justifying the Inquisition, the rest of the Inquisition would carry on by momentum and wither. The Inquistor might be desired to close Fade Tears... but that doesn't mean the organization itself needs to be particularly impressive.

[Shienis]

There's a very simple reason, and one already demonstrated by her own history: Vivienne's politics and views can see her sidelined and made irrelevant.

 

'Play it in her favor and take any advantage of it' is not the same thing, and not really relevant, to whether she'll change her views as opposed to her actions. Since this line of discussion is about the malleability of her views, not the adaptability of her actions, it's on you to support any argument that she's likely to change her views.

 

If, in your hypothetical 'mages will rule after you are dead, get power while she can' scenario, Vivienne seeks power... how is that in any way a reversal of her beliefs, if her goal with that power is to try and stop or even reverse the mage gains overall?

 

 

 

*Citation needed.
 

 

Which, returning back to our original point about whether Vivienne is remarkably adaptive in her  beliefs... completely unremarkable, and so much so that it begs why it's being raised as a consideration when it can apply to everyone else.

 

This isn't an argument of 'can Vivienne change her actions at all?' This is a discussion of 'is Vivienne's views fickle enough that she will change them easily to fit the views of her current patron?'

 

Arguing 'well, if extreme and irreversable circumstances presented themselves, she'd adapt,' isn't an argument towards that. The same applies to, well, everyone.

 

Wait, what? All the time I thought it was about her actions, not inner beliefs. I'm truly sorry for this misunderstanding.

[Dean_the_Young]

Wait, what? All the time I thought it was about her actions, not inner beliefs. I'm truly sorry for this misunderstanding.

 

It's alright. There's grounds for confusion- though what actions you think would be changed I'm still not sure. Vivienne seeking power in a mage-supremacist setting isn't a change, considering she seeks power in a non-mage-supremacist setting. The change would have to be in what she seeks power for- which would be her stated/practiced beliefs.

 

The premise being addressed was that Vivienne would change her tune (her views, and her actions) to suit the patron at hand.

[MisterJB]

Dean and leaguer.
It's like Anakin and the younglings.

[MisterJB]

Yes, Arguably. This suggest a relative and comparable peace in so far as Free Mages are concerned. A far cry from the bleak Abomination filled wasteland some paint as the picture of Mage Freedom.

 

Nobody paints that as the picture of mage freedom.

Well, maybe kommandor but he is an exception.

 

You don't need societal collapse in order for conditions to be disagreable.

 

It seems that the only standard for working Mage Freedom that some will accept is that all Mages are perfect, never make any mistakes and are subservient. This is unreasonable

 

it is good to see you acknowledging the inevitability of both mass murder by magic and acquisition of power over normals by mages.

Less encouraging to see that you place the freedom of one person over the lives and freedom of a hundred.

 

And that is what is unreasonable. That normal people should risk life, limb, family, freedom EVERYTHING so mages who, in ways, are already part of an elite can be even more powerful.

 

The Dalish have existed as they are for hundreds of years, led by their Keepers.

 

not necessarily roving monsters considering that the Rivaini people's attachment to them is what stopped the Chant of Light from being widely accepted.

And yet, the very existence of the Keepers and the Dalish as you yourself acknowledge is a prime example of how society does not need to be destroyed by mages in order for them to be a problem. See the four clans directly destroyed by the decisions of their Keepers and Firsts.

Likewise, despite this abject record, there are still Keepers which are accepted by their fellow elves.

 

Therefore, since we have already extablished how societies can persist despite having terrible leaders using the very examples you provided, we can't simply accept "Rivain is still there" as evidence of how Seers never become Abominations or just made bad decisions.

 

Considering the aforementioned Circles have utterly failed and the Dalish have thus far not

The Circles have experienced one rebellion in the span of 900 years and not only did this rebellion not lead to the collapse of Andrastian civilization or even the resurgence of Tevinter, it was defeated largely thanks to the effects the Circle had on both mages and non. Mages didn't use blood magic, non-mages closed the doors of every city but Redcliff to mages, etc.

And yet, it was not sucessful.

 

We have seen four Dalish clans destroyed by the direct actions of their Keepers and Firsts in the span of 10 years and yet, they are sucessful.

What exactly is your criteria for sucess? "Mages are free"?

 

We see first hand in The Jaws of Hakkon that the Free Avvar Mages provide clear benefits to their people via their interactions with Spirits.

 

No, we don't. We see mages taking steps to lessen the threat they represent. We never actually see them doing anything benefitial unless you count turning your Thane into a Revenant benefitial.

 

They are better off.

 

 

 

Seriously, you have strange standards.

[leaguer of one]

You confuse 'strong' with 'active'. You also ignore the context of time- before there was an Inquisition of any sort, there were still factions, and opportunities, Vivienne had chance and reason to seek out if her view was that she needed the strongest patron immediately.

 

Between Mages and Templars, the Templars were wiping the Mages from the corners of Southern Thedas until only one remained- and while Ferelden offered sanctuary to the last, before then (and until then) there was clearly a dominant power in the conflict, to the point that the mages themselves sold their own into slavery rather than face an (imagined) Templar force.

 

Whereas the Orlais Civil War was something in which mages themselves could have intervened in. Mage power is treated with varying degrees of potency between lore and mechanics, but the last bastion of the Loyalist Mages would have been a potent force to break the deadlock. One patron or the other, supporting them in return for their support of Vivienne's desired circle system, with their armies easily able to break the Templars should the Templars try to fight them rather than the rebels. This is the sort of power balance, and opportunism, that Vivienne should be most primed to exploit.

 

Even before the Inquistion was an option, Vivienne wasn't jumping for the strongest/most desirable patrons around.

 

 

And honestly, if it weren't for Corypheus showing himself, the Inquisition's intent to dispersing would be irrelevant. The Inquisition is dependent on the patronage of nobles and nations across Thedas. If they don't give money, the Inquisition has no resources to disperse, and if the Breach were closed with no clue or indication about who was behind it, then outside powers would have little interest in sustaining the Inquisition.

 

Without the Villain of Corypheus to continue justifying the Inquisition, the rest of the Inquisition would carry on by momentum and wither. The Inquistor might be desired to close Fade Tears... but that doesn't mean the organization itself needs to be particularly impressive.

1. Not really.  The orlisan factions we in a civil war with no side coming on top. And it was not know that the mages were losing till after the conference.

 

2.Also, Inquisition financing was never dependent on nobles. Heck we had a missions about this. Aid was ask for  but the main financing for the inquisition is security and be the middle man for trade. Nobles or not, they would of still got the financing they needed.

 

3.You do understand the entire conflict started because of Cory. The only thing Cory did was ensure the inquisition stay independent from the chantry. It's not the the inquisition would not exist with out Cory, it's the the breach would never had open if Cory was never there. If the breach never open the inquisition would still be part of the chantry. That's it

 

You're ignoring the fact that all the sides of conflict  before the conference started were on equal grounds.

[leaguer of one]

None of which matter? The fact that some libertarians took certain actions mattered a great deal ultimately when they split from the Chantry. Saying it didn't have any effect on mages circle everyday life is also wrong. While I agree ultimately the mages fate rested on the hands of the chantry, it's completely unrealistic (and non-canon) to think of the Circles has completely isolated from the outside world. It also matters a great deal if like Vivienne you need to prove yourself (ie, becoming an enchanter) to have more freedoms.

Vivienne still climbs up within the confines of Chantry supervision.

 

Her position is not typical sure, but she is never cut-out from some of her contacts among loyalists, she took part in it and kept being involved in it even while living outside.

Sorry, it did not matter. the inner politics only control the debate of the circle and some minor dealings in the circle. If there was any changes, any real changed, it had to be brought up with the chantry. A party for free mages could be the majority of the circle and it would change nothing because only the chantry can change major things.

 

And of cource Vive is monitored the by the chantry, that does not matter. As soon as she gets support from a powerful noble she can be a free as she wants via support from the noble.

[Boost32]

2.Also, Inquisition financing was never dependent on nobles. Heck we had a missions about this. Aid was ask for but the main financing for the inquisition is security and be the middle man for trade. Nobles or not, they would of still got the financing they needed.

You are wrong, Josephine clearly tells you the Inquisition army is financied by the coin of the nobles.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Yes, Arguably. This suggest a relative and comparable peace in so far as Free Mages are concerned. A far cry from the bleak Abomination filled wasteland some paint as the picture of Mage Freedom. Also a far cry from the reality of Thedas when the first Inquisition formed, when they welcomed the help of Free Mages such as Inquisitor Ameridan. Ameridan was of the Dales, who for hundreds of years lived with Free Mages but was ultimately destroyed by Chantry forces.

 

I would argue that a Free Mage of the Dales becoming the leader of the Inquisition and friends with an Emperor is an example of Mage Freedom working for the Dales. I would also argue that it continued to be a success and that the Dalish were no worse off after becoming nomadic. Here is the part where one would bring up a specific example of an individual Dalish Mage making a poor decision that adversely affected their Clan. This argument will never sway me.

 

It seems that the only standard for working Mage Freedom that some will accept is that all Mages are perfect, never make any mistakes and are subservient. This is unreasonable. Just as one could cite examples of Dalish Keepers falling short I could do the same of non-Mage human and Dwarf leaders. That does not mean their overall systems have failed. The Dalish have existed as they are for hundreds of years, led by their Keepers.

 

If instances of Keepers harming their Clans was as common as some would suggest then the beleaguered Dalish would have collapsed long ago. This is not the case. It is a matter of fact that Elves, from the Dales to the Dalish, have existed with Free Mages longer than the Chantry and existence of Templars and Circles. Considering the aforementioned Circles have utterly failed and the Dalish have thus far not then I would argue that they better off. We see first hand in The Jaws of Hakkon that the Free Avvar Mages provide clear benefits to their people via their interactions with Spirits. They are better off.

 

Rivain has also existed with Free Mages before the Chantry and exists seemingly fine after the Circle's failure. On Abominations I would infer that Gaider was referring to the Seers that allow themselves to be possessed as a part of millennia old tradition and not necessarily roving monsters considering that the Rivaini people's attachment to them is what stopped the Chant of Light from being widely accepted.

 

The fact that they allow themselves to be possessed and yet still retain their status as revered leaders suggest that, like the Avvar, they have methods of exorcising unwanted Spirits. Also, that followers of the Qun willingly follow Seers and Orlesian Nobles cling to Rivaini heritage doesn't paint the picture of a land filled with Abominations, though I have no doubt that not all are happy with the Seer's practices.

 

I do not recall the point on Tevinter. You may have been discussing that with someone else.

The Inquisition accepted the help of free mages because Mages are needed to handle some threats and because all mages were free. That doesn't speak to whether mage freedom is a good idea or not.

 

The standard of mage freedom I'm willing accept is if mages don't consistently cause massive disasters*. I don't care if they lead, and I don't care if they make mistakes, as long as these mistakes aren't big enough that they can be compared with natural disasters. While I don't like Harrowmont's decisions, only slightly prefer Bhelen's, and think the Orlesian Civil War was some complete crap, at least these leaders aren't causing centuries-long werewolf curses on top of being poor leaders. And at least Zathrian's clan is alive in some (probably most) World States: Merrill states that when a Dalish mage goes abomination, the entire clan goes hunting for the abomination, and this has led to entire clans being wiped out. The Dalish exist. That's not the same as thriving.

 

And even ignoring that, you didn't answer my point that in some clans, this comes at the cost of superfluous mage children being thrown out into the wilderness.

 

Gaider is clearly not referring to beings like Wynne when he says "abominations," since they're compared to natural disasters. The fact that Seers are still respected despite this is probably either for the same reason Zathrian is still respected despite nearly destroying his clan (whatever that is) or because everyone is able to believe that their Seer is somehow different (which is possible but rather a gamble.)

 

The Seers might well have some way to remove spirits from anothers' body, but if it's like the Avvar method the possessed individual apparently needs to agree to it. And while I hadn't specifically addressed the Avvar themselves in my original post, their methods seem risky. We've had it driven home over the course of two previous games that using spirits is freaking dangerous whether or not they count as demons, and here the Avvar are basing their system on it. I'm willing to accept that they haven't yet run into any serious dangers other than that dragon thing with Hakkon, primarily because apparently Solas said they haven't and he has no reason to lie about this. That said, I still see a potential for them to one day either corrupt one of their gods (again) or attempt to replace one of their dead gods and wind up with a disguised Pride Demon in their midst. Then who knows what might happen.

 

And even if they don't, a large part of the reason their system works is because their spirit gods kill the mages among them who would at least be given a choice between Tranquility or death in the Circles.

 

And while apparently I had made the Tevinter argument to two others rather than you (my mistake) are you able to answer it?

 

And as for the Circles failing: yes, they did, due to consistent failures by the Templars to treat the mages as human. But the Templars who so failed apparently got wiped out by the events of Inquisition to judge by the War Table missions to use the Templars having them spare mages who just got caught up in the rebellion and wound up over their heads. At any rate the Templars are reined in during the epilogues where the Circle is reformed: no Divine lets them have as much leeway as they did before because they've seen how that ends. So, the worst of the flaws of the Circle have been mitigated. Every other system's flaws are still in evidence.

 

*Edit: Also, if they don't go crazy with blood magic, that'd be great.

[leaguer of one]

You are wrong, Josephine clearly tells you the Inquisition army is financied by the coin of the nobles.

She tells you later that you're getting financed from nobles as well, not Nobles alone.