1551 réponses à ce sujet

[TevinterSupremacist]

 

Only that mage will freedom will, inevitably, lead to a greater number of deaths caused by magic due to the reasons I have repetedly pointed out.
 

You haven't been arguing that. You argued that it'd be so greater that it warrants circles.

[Boost32]

But that's exactly what Vivienne's own experience was in the Circle.
 
Of course, if she goes hard-Tevinter, ensuring potential competitors don't get the same opportunity would make sense.

I disagree, she was allowed because she showed herself trustworth, and even after that she still working to improve the Circle. It was not like "I passed my Harrowing, now I'm leaving, see ya".

[The Baconer]

I disagree, she was allowed because she showed herself trustworth, and even after that she still working to improve the Circle. It was not like "I passed my Harrowing, now I'm leaving, see ya".

 
That's not what Diaspora said, though.

 

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that a mage that passes his/her harrowing and any appropriate testing ought to be able to earn their freedom as graduation from the circle- and given how Vivienne's mages are described as enjoying historical new freedoms I wouldn't be surprised if she did just that.

 

It's vague, but I myself would construe that as demonstrating whatever capabilities that allowed Viv, Rhys, Wynne etc. the right to be outside the Circle for extended periods, but in a more standardized implementation.

[Steelcan]

 
That's not what Diaspora said, though.

 

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that a mage that passes his/her harrowing and any appropriate testing ought to be able to earn their freedom as graduation from the circle- and given how Vivienne's mages are described as enjoying historical new freedoms I wouldn't be surprised if she did just that.

 

It's vague, but I myself would construe that as demonstrating whatever capabilities that allowed Viv, Rhys, Wynne etc. the right to be outside the Circle for extended periods, but in a more standardized implementation.

According to Vivienne it is a standardized practice, all that is required is the consent of the First Enchanter, and presumably the Knight Commander as well.

[The Baconer]

According to Vivienne it is a standardized practice, all that is required is the consent of the First Enchanter, and presumably the Knight Commander as well.

 

Officially, yes, but in practice it probably wasn't. One reason why we're starting over.

[Iakus]

According to Vivienne it is a standardized practice, all that is required is the consent of the First Enchanter, and presumably the Knight Commander as well.

This is true, but it seems that the First Enchanter has a lot of discretionary authority as to it's use.  A First Enchanter could in theory be capricious or arbitrary in who they let out.  Or could be browbeaten by others (like Templars) into letting people go, or restricting their travel.

 

I think the thought is standardizing the rules.  "If a mage passes X, Y, and Z tests, they can be allowed to come and go as they please, checking in every *insert length of time here*"

 

An argument can be made into setting down more specific criteria than "the First Enchanter says so"

[MisterJB]

See, you're just proving my point. Wynne, the botanist, Vivienne, and the archivist/researchers in Weisshaupt are perfect examples of how to properly engage mages outside of the circle. The problem with Anders, Uldred, and stupidass-Fiona are that they wanted freedom for freedom's sake; the point that Vivienne and Cullen are trying to make is that mages have value in society and outside the circle tower so long as they're able to contribute. The problem prior to the rebellion is that mages have no place allowed for them in society or more importantly the job market outside of the circle; they can't be hired as guards, healers, librarians, researcher, into the army, commerce, etc. This is why Cullen suggests offering mages the ability to join the military services/healing units and Vivienne glows at the idea of integrating them into the chantry; it's because their skills are being put to productive use rather than magic being done and researched... just because.

 

edit: Uldred was a libertarian extremist, why in the hell would anyone let that guy out?

 

How do you prevent mages from taking over?

It's all well and good to talk about mages contributing. Certainly, a lot of good can come from magic.

But power begets power. Magic is a good means of acquiring both monetary and political power. What measures should be in place to prevent this from happening?
 

[Boost32]

That's not what Diaspora said, though.
 
I don't think it's unreasonable to say that a mage that passes his/her harrowing and any appropriate testing ought to be able to earn their freedom as graduation from the circle- and given how Vivienne's mages are described as enjoying historical new freedoms I wouldn't be surprised if she did just that.
 
It's vague, but I myself would construe that as demonstrating whatever capabilities that allowed Viv, Rhys, Wynne etc. the right to be outside the Circle for extended periods, but in a more standardized implementation.

I was going to agree with you until you mentioned Rhys, all Libertarians should be killed, specially the one who helped to start a war.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I was going to agree with you until you mentioned Rhys, all Libertarians should be killed, specially the one who helped to start a war.

To be fair, Rhys was kinda railroaded into it.

[Boost32]

To be fair, Rhys was kinda railroaded into it.

He had a choice, he chose to start a war, he need to pay for the damage he helped create.

[Drasanil]

I was going to agree with you until you mentioned Rhys, all Libertarians should be killed, specially the one who helped to start a war.

 

Nah, killing them all creates martyrs, what you need to do is keep them around but subtly discredit and sabotage them, so the mages view them as more of a joke until their fraternity looses any prestige or credibility. That way if they start trouble the other mages will shut them down with out even having to get the templars involved.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

He had a choice, he chose to start a war, he need to pay for the damage he helped create.

I agree with all that in part, but wasn't he facing execution for Cole and Adrian's crimes if he went back? Not to say Rhys's actions were right, but they were understandable.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Nah, killing them all creates martyrs, what you need to do is keep them around but subtly discredit and sabotage them, so the mages view them as more of a joke until their fraternity looses any prestige or credibility. That way if they start trouble the other mages will shut them down with out even having to get the templars involved.

Why bother? Anders already blew up a church and Fiona sold her mages to the Venatori.

[Boost32]

Nah, killing them all creates martyrs, what you need to do is keep them around but subtly discredit and sabotage them, so the mages view them as more of a joke until their fraternity looses any prestige or credibility. That way if they start trouble the other mages will shut them down with out even having to get the templars involved.

Because that way you dont create anymore Uldreds, Adrains, Fionas or new Resolutionists. That faction only brought problems and will bring more if it is allowed to exist.
The Circles need a new begnning and those who want to destroy it need to go.

[Boost32]

I agree with all that in part, but wasn't he facing execution for Cole and Adrian's crimes if he went back? Not to say Rhys's actions were right, but they were understandable.

It would be better than condemm thousands of mages to fight in a war they didnt wanted and he was always a Libertarian, he would have done the same thing even if he wasnt faring exdcution.

[Drasanil]

Why bother? Anders already blew up a church and Fiona sold her mages to the Venatori.

 

Because there is more to the libertarians than just Anders and Fiona and their ideas did not necessarily die with them. I'm sure there are at least some of libertarians that have the wits to publicly disavow those two and present seemingly reasonable and respectable façade. By slowly discrediting and undermining the faction in the long term you kill, or at least stiffle, the idea behind it.  

[Drasanil]

Because that way you dont create anymore Uldreds, Adrains, Fionas or new Resolutionists. 

 

You arrange accidents and mishaps for the more extreme ones of that ilk. Oh Uldred wants to travel? Sure buddy, you're a good mage! *Two weeks later* Oh my such a shame, Uldred that jolly old chap was ambushed and killed by bandits who wanted his fine silks and gold, that's really sad isn't it?

[thesuperdarkone2]

This is why I never like Templar supporters. It always devolves into talk of genociding mages

[Drasanil]

This is why I never like Templar supporters. It always devolves into talk of genociding mages

 

How does politically undermining the most problematic faction of mages constitute genocide? Heck even Boost32's position isn't even genocide given it leaves the vast majority of mages (Aequetarians, Lucrosians, Isolationists and Loyalists) completely unscathed. 

[Boost32]

This is why I never like Templar supporters. It always devolves into talk of genociding mages

I dont want to genocide mages, I want to kill a terrorist group composed by mages. Those others fraternities are fine.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

This is why I never like Templar supporters. It always devolves into talk of genociding mages

We're not talking about killing all mages. Just Uldred and those like him. We actually want most mages to live, both because they're useful and because they're people. Killing Uldred makes it easier for us to do that.

[Drasanil]

We're not talking about killing all mages. Just Uldred and those like him. We actually want most mages to live, both because they're useful and because they're people. Killing Uldred makes it easier for us to do that.

 

You know a pro-mager is wacko when even killing the Uldreds is viewed as bad. 

[thesuperdarkone2]

We're not talking about killing all mages. Just Uldred and those like him. We actually want most mages to live, both because they're useful and because they're people. Killing Uldred makes it easier for us to do that.

Tks advocated killing all mages at birth.

[thesuperdarkone2]

You know a pro-mager is wacko when even killing the Uldreds is viewed as bad.

Ah there is that condescension classic to you people. You are just proving my point. Glad I was never pro Templar if it meant being lumped with you lunatics

[Kakistos_]

How do you prevent mages from taking over?

It's all well and good to talk about mages contributing. Certainly, a lot of good can come from magic.

But power begets power. Magic is a good means of acquiring both monetary and political power. What measures should be in place to prevent this from happening?
 

Ask the Avvar, the Rivaini's and the Grey Wardens.