I'm going to respond to other things when I have more time(maybe).
But first!
LOLOLOL!
Clearly someone is too young to remember what the US was like immediately post 9/11.
Or before.
Anyone else remember the good old days, when we were so invested in Presidential Sex Scandals that everyone else trying to raise Serious Issues was practically talking to the wind?
Or before.
Anyone else remember the good old days, when we were so invested in Presidential Sex Scandals that everyone else trying to raise Serious Issues was practically talking to the wind?
The Interment of Japanese, Italian and German Americans without due process clearly in violation of the 6th Amendment comes to mind or if you want more modern?
I'd rather not make inept, ineffectual, and blatantly illegal-on-their-own-terms arguments that are extremely poor in application towards mages.
Kinda undermines my position to see an intended supporting argument argued so badly.
The NSA's little spying program from a few years back
Less illegal, more misunderstood, and really not related to the relevance of quarantine principle.
I wouldn't say it was retconned. Finn (?) of Witch Hunt was our earliest example of a mage that had relative freedom. Of course, his case was unique in that he was/ is a noble with the full support of his noble parents, which lead most of us back then to think that if you're a noble you're treat better and have a better life with more freedoms in the circle.
I still think it's like that for the most part, though if you've proven yourself capable and trust worthy you're award more freedom
I'd rather not make inept, ineffectual, and blatantly illegal-on-their-own-terms arguments.
Really your position on mages depends on whether you believe the following statement is unchangeable in lore:
'Every mage, necessarily, at any given moment, is dangerously close to becoming an abomination.'
It is worth noting that ancient elven society was highly magical - in fact, it's suggested every elf was once a mage in the same way every elf was once immortal. I would imagine that if every mage, necessarily, at any given moment, is dangerously close to becoming an abomination, that society would struggle to function. You could say something similar of Tevinter, actually. If mages are so damn dangerous - and given the Tevinter tradition to play fast & loose with what's safe at most other people's detriment - how is it still standing? Can the chance of a mage turning into an abomination change with social conditions? Are environmental factors at play here?
If the elves are anything to go by, I would imagine the risk of magic was once significantly lesser - lore hints that could be possible. If there is any chance of lessening that risk in future (without a higher cost) I think there is a very strong case for mage freedom.
If not, then I think the case is much weaker.
Still, I'm pretty damn annoyed at how little out-of-the-box thinking goes on w/r/t mages. From a mage-restriction point of view, however unethical and unfair the current condition of mages are, however frequent and systematic abuses within the templar order are, even in the worst-case Kirkwall-is-everywhere scenario, that is always trumped by the fact that general public safety must come first. "Be practical", is what's argued. So why haven't other, less expensive, less resource-draining solutions been tried? For instance - magical charms that can detect presence of abominations, or maybe charms/trinkets which activate magical barriers when triggered during emergencies around houses/public buildings, or investment into researching detection methods for figuring when someone might be more susceptible to becoming an abomination, or even research attempts at reversal of the condition? Why aren't abominations treated more like cancer?
I know - I know - scaremongering amongst an mostly ignorant and probably illiterate population, in a country which doesn't have much of a tradition of academic research outside of certain schools of magic, means this is unlikely. I'm just annoyed we never see any mages attempt to limit risk, of all things. Danger is a fact of life but if risk can be limited to much more reasonable levels (say, abominations are about as common as public shootings) it would be harder for the likes of Meredith to see the necessity to restrain them.
I just think the way the mages problem is dealt with in game is just... rubbish, really. Most mages seem to make a habit of running off and doing ill-considered, risky, ridiculous things like join a coven or start up a den of blood mages or blow up public buildings. It's just not realistic. Given how much of an evil demons are made out to be, I struggle to see how so many mages are completely unaffected, undettered, and not even slighty worried by the ruling ideology which is absolutely everywhere (unless circles quietly have their own alternative views on such things - evidence of that would be nice, though). I want to see mages who want to try normal things like learning how to cook or trying to barter but failing to understand the ettiquette or attempting to aspire for something beyond what has defined them so far: magic. I want to see mages who are driven by more than fear and have spent those long years locked up thinking about the politics of their situation and the parameters of debate that are used and whether those are flexible.
I want smart mages. And no, that doesn't mean more libraries.
. Oh, she goes back to the Circle but she can leave whenever she likes. Other mages can't. And a prison where you're given an education and good meals and even allowed to go out if you ask nicely is still a prison.
Other mages can. If they get permission from the First Enchanter. SOme Circles are more strict about that than others.
I really like your comparision to X-Men.
Most X-Men are not in danger of being possessed by the Phoenix Force and start laying waste to the countryside, though.
It's not "illegal" it was done under emergency war time powers granted to the executive branch.
Not to mention the Supreme Court Justice Chief Stone found it legal anyway.
Warder, there's a forest of reasons that the WW2 internment argument is a bad argument to make when it comes to mages if you're trying to do anything but discredit the Templars.
You just ran face-first into the tree of nit-picks.
Warder, there's a forest of reasons that the WW2 internment argument is a bad argument to make when it comes to mages
On Vivienne: I do like Vivienne for the reasons I've kind of hinted at. She's clearly thought the issue through and has considered different arguments and points of view when she argues her case. She speaks primarily from her own experience rather than taking into consideration the variety of experiences of mages in southern Thedas, however. Meaning, she misses the point: of course the restrictions aren't fair or fun or really very nice at all for a respectable quantity of mages. If you start from the premise 'the restrictions on mages are fair', you're fighting an uphill battle.
The better question is whether restrictions are necessary for a functioning society. I think it is also a more interesting question.
Or before.
Anyone else remember the good old days, when we were so invested in Presidential Sex Scandals that everyone else trying to raise Serious Issues was practically talking to the wind?
There this elven scout in Jaws of Hakkon.
Doesn't join the rebellion, joins the Inquisition. Is not very good at combat so he picks up a sword. Nice kid, yeah. Trying to do good and doesn't let his magic define him.
Is wounded in battle, willingly lets a demon in. Poor bugger.
Other mages can. If they get permission from the First Enchanter. SOme Circles are more strict about that than others.
Which is major problem of the Circle system. There needs to be an agreed upon standard what what's allowed in a Circle. Without that we get extreme differences like Kirkwall and Dairsmuid.
Most X-Men are not in danger of being possessed by the Phoenix Force and start laying waste to the countryside, though.
True, but most trained mages are strong enough to never get possessed in the first place. Which begs the question why said trained mages can't permanently leave after they've finished their training and get jobs or positions that benefit Thedas. Cullen says it best with his ideas about mage hospitals and military service.
Really your position on mages depends on whether you believe the following statement is unchangeable in lore:
'Every mage, necessarily, at any given moment, is dangerously close to becoming an abomination.'
It is worth noting that ancient elven society was highly magical - in fact, it's suggested every elf was once a mage in the same way every elf was once immortal. I would imagine that if every mage, necessarily, at any given moment, is dangerously close to becoming an abomination, that society would struggle to function. You could say something similar of Tevinter, actually. If mages are so damn dangerous - and given the Tevinter tradition to play fast & loose with what's safe at most other people's detriment - how is it still standing?
There's a pretty simple answer to that: on top of the dead bodies no one cares about.
'Functioning' doesn't mean 'functions well', at least when 'well' is any sort of standard that would appeal to modern day Westerners. If you're willing to accept lots of casualties, and replace pretty much anyone, then any system with positive population growth can endure any challenge 'well.'
Still, I'm pretty damn annoyed at how little out-of-the-box thinking goes on w/r/t mages. From a mage-restriction point of view, however unethical and unfair the current condition of mages are, however frequent and systematic abuses within the templar order are, even in the worst-case Kirkwall-is-everywhere scenario, that is always trumped by the fact that general public safety must come first. "Be practical", is what's argued. So why haven't other, less expensive, less resource-draining solutions been tried? For instance - magical charms that can detect presence of abominations, or maybe charms/trinkets which activate magical barriers when triggered during emergencies around houses/public buildings, or investment into researching detection methods for figuring when someone might be more susceptible to becoming an abomination, or even research attempts at reversal of the condition? Why aren't abominations treated more like cancer?
Because cancer doesn't jump out of your body without warning and slaughter everyone else in the hospital with superpowers.
Detecting the presence of abominations is already easy, because in the vast majority of cases you just have the follow the trail of bodies. Magical barriers are limited means with no clear claim to 'less expensive, less resource-draining', and are by no means a solution.
Research into when someone is susceptible to becoming an abomination is already at the stage of 'it can happen potentially at any time'- whenever there's a demon ready (which there may or may not be at any given moment, but is possible), and whenever there's a mage who, in distress or duress or just plain stress, is ready to make the deal.
Abomination reversal is possible. It just tends to happen that by the time a demon can be tracked down in the fade, the abomination has already wiped out everyone in the area or been killed itself.
I know - I know - scaremongering amongst an mostly ignorant and probably illiterate population, in a country which doesn't have much of a tradition of academic research outside of certain schools of magic, means this is unlikely. I'm just annoyed we never see any mages attempt to limit risk, of all things. Danger is a fact of life but if risk can be limited to much more reasonable levels (say, abominations are about as common as public shootings) it would be harder for the likes of Meredith to see the necessity to restrain them.
American or European shootings? That would probably give you a sense of public risk tolerance: Andrastian Thedas takes a nearly british view towards gun ownership.
Americans accept shootings on a daily basis. Then again, American public shootings almost never leave double digits dead, while an abomination in a non-Templar area can easily reach tripple digits. Europeans look at American gun violence and think the gun amendment is insane.
I just think the way the mages problem is dealt with in game is just... rubbish, really. Most mages seem to make a habit of running off and doing ill-considered, risky, ridiculous things like join a coven or start up a den of blood mages or blow up public buildings. It's just not realistic. Given how much of an evil demons are made out to be, I struggle to see how so many mages are completely unaffected, undettered, and not even slighty worried by the ruling ideology which is absolutely everywhere (unless circles quietly have their own alternative views on such things - evidence of that would be nice, though). I want to see mages who want to try normal things like learning how to cook or trying to barter but failing to understand the ettiquette or attempting to aspire for something beyond what has defined them so far: magic. I want to see mages who are driven by more than fear and have spent those long years locked up thinking about the politics of their situation and the parameters of debate that are used and whether those are flexible.
I want smart mages. And no, that doesn't mean more libraries.
Your desires are fine, and I won't argue them, but I would argue that it's not realistic. The mage system deliberatly tries to depoliticize mages and keep them separated from the mundane world. People who live in cloisters don't tend to have worldly interests or political interests.
Well yes, potential saboteurs aren't the same as potential abominations. Mages are always dangerous.
That's one, now let's see if you can count the other fingers on your hands...
His friend was killed, he wanted vengeance against the Hakkonites, his anger drew the attention of a rage demon and he willingly let it possess him to kill all Hakkonites. Clearly mages arent dangerous, only those within the Circle become abominations.There this elven scout in Jaws of Hakkon.
Doesn't join the rebellion, joins the Inquisition. Is not very good at combat so he picks up a sword. Nice kid, yeah. Trying to do good and doesn't let his magic define him.
Is wounded in battle, willingly lets a demon in. Poor bugger.
There this elven scout in Jaws of Hakkon.
Doesn't join the rebellion, joins the Inquisition. Is not very good at combat so he picks up a sword. Nice kid, yeah. Trying to do good and doesn't let his magic define him.
Is wounded in battle, willingly lets a demon in. Poor bugger.
Well to be fair as abominations go he was actually helpful in killing those Hakkonite arseholes.
And if he went back to society? Do you really think he could control himself and never hurt someone? And what would happen if he ever found non-combatent Hakkonites and their children? Would he spare them? We both know the answer.Well to be fair as abominations go he was actually helpful in killing those Hakkonite arseholes.
Other mages can. If they get permission from the First Enchanter. SOme Circles are more strict about that than others.
Most X-Men are not in danger of being possessed by the Phoenix Force and start laying waste to the countryside, though.
Really, the mutants are ridiculous. Magneto can shift the Earth's magnetic field, Xavier can control the minds of everyone on the planet and he has probably had his powers augmented to interplanetary levels at some point, the Scarlet Witch can casually rewrite the history of the universe.
Had not it been for the need to maintain the status quo, one side would have wiped the other long ago.
That's one, now let's see if you can count the other fingers on your hands...
Which is major problem of the Circle system. There needs to be an agreed upon standard what what's allowed in a Circle. Without that we get extreme differences like Kirkwall and Dairsmuid.
'One size fits all' is rarely effective. Extreme deviations are bad, but uniformity, besides being impossible in practice, often isn't even desirable for any institution that wishes to adapt, evolve, or simply survive.
Circles don't exist in vacuumes. They exist in different political contexts, with different local actors, and different ability to coerce, achieve support, and influence their local environments.
True, but most trained mages are strong enough to never get possessed in the first place. Which begs the question why said trained mages can't permanently leave after they've finished their training and get jobs or positions that benefit Thedas.
Trained mages aren't 'strong enough to never get possessed in the first place,' because that's the wrong approach to think about possession. Possession isn't a matter of 'strength'- it's a matter of 'will', 'reason', 'opportunity,' and (as with anything) 'luck.' Anyone can have a bad enough day, or week, or month, to meet (or fail) any of these conditions. There is no 'you are permanently safe, so you are permanantly not a concern.'
And the mundane perspective on it is 'response to what happens if it does happen.'
Cullen says it best with his ideas about mage hospitals and military service.
I get that Cullen is supposed to be likable and amiable, but military service is one of the worst things that mages could do to themselves.
One of the greatest, least appreciated aspects of the Circle system is that the Chantry more or less de-miltarized mages as a competitive advantage between nations.
The real stickler is though that the premise wasn't entire unwarranted given that in the prior war Germany had in fact sent over dozens of sabotage teams into the mainland continental US.
They did everything from destroying arms and munitions plants to giving anthrax to horses.
Blew up an island in New York harbor too.
Still *shrugs* its all a matter of historical context.
Warder, I'm going to put this bluntly- just stop.
You're making a very weak argument, on a mis-matched equivalence, that undermines your intended premise from different directions, without supporting any significant point of your intended stance. German (and Japanese) sabateurs were not a major threat. They were not inherently present in the populations put in the detainment camps. The detainment camps did not meaningfully contribute to the war effort, or prevent grievious harm.. The execution of the detainments was a remarkably corrupt, arbitrary, inconsistent affair replete with widespread graft and exploitation in the name of a (unsubstantiated) threat to public interest. The rationals behind it have widely and consistently been rejected, despite the occasional defender, in the many decades since.
And, and this is important- the threat being guarded again in no way is equivalent to the mage situation of Thedas. You are making an argument based on the equivalence of mundanes and magic- the cardinal sin of false equivalence when discussing the Dragon Age universe- with a case study of mundanes who weren't even a signficiant threat group. You are picking a group that is not only (rightly) sympathized as facing unjust treatment that even the government of the United States has apologized for, but a group that was never a signficant threat in the first place.
This is a bad line of argument. I am being kind right now in suggesting you cease it- or else I will pick it apart, piece by piece, to the point that you will think I am pro-Mage.
I'd rather not deal with that. And believe me when I say you'd rather I not do that either, or else you will be dealing for some time with people who try to appropriate my arguments against this context and try to apply them to the Mage issue.
And if you can't understand why WW2 internment camps are a bad line of argument to make, you sure as hell won't be able to argue against the counter-arguments.
Wait.
You mean there were more important things going on in the 90's than who was polishing Clinton's knob and whether or not he could be tossed out for lying about it?
Madness.
Well I guess there was that thing a bit earlier with the ex-football player.
Of course there was. The Nintendo 64 came out.
On Vivienne: I do like Vivienne for the reasons I've kind of hinted at. She's clearly thought the issue through and has considered different arguments and points of view when she argues her case. She speaks primarily from her own experience rather than taking into consideration the variety of experiences of mages in southern Thedas, however. Meaning, she misses the point: of course the restrictions aren't fair or fun or really very nice at all for a respectable quantity of mages. If you start from the premise 'the restrictions on mages are fair', you're fighting an uphill battle.
The better question is whether restrictions are necessary for a functioning society. I think it is also a more interesting question.
Of course they aren't necessary. Tevinter has functioned for some time with ritual sacrifice, mass slavery, a permanent war footing, and mass corruption, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
All a society needs to function is culture and a higher birth rate than death rate. Everything else is a matter of preference.
I won't be setting a precedent.
There are always only two exceptions to the Circle.
Morrigan and Kieran. They can do whatever they want, I don't care. Don't touch my family.
Yes, you will be.
Retour en haut