However, those who have their Tranquil status reversed go through a period (of unknown duration) of extreme emotional instability. Like "threat to yourself and others" bad.
Do the Seekers go through the same thing? Because it just seems to me that some part of the ritual besides the Tranquility seems to do something that alters the effects to the point of unrecongnizability: Cassandra doesn't realize that she is a former Tranquil until it is made inescapably obvious that all Seekers are.
So give them some land and make it forbidden for any non-mages to go there or vice versa. Keep templars on the borders.Only on the BSN. But in this case, I'm less anti-mage than I am pro-history.
The history of Thedas is one where normal people and mages cannot coexist peacefully. For the safety of both, the groups must be kept separate, with well trained and effective anti-magic troops in place to defend against magical excess and accident, while also protecting their charges from outside aggression.
I don't really care what you call them or who they pledge themselves to so long as they are not controlled by the mages themselves.
Only on the BSN. But in this case, I'm less anti-mage than I am pro-history.
The history of Thedas is one where normal people and mages cannot coexist peacefully. For the safety of both, the groups must be kept separate, with well trained and effective anti-magic troops in place to defend against magical excess and accident, while also protecting their charges from outside aggression.
I don't really care what you call them or who they pledge themselves to so long as they are not controlled by the mages themselves.
They need to pledge themselves to someone with the education to not fall into stupid crap like the "Man Accused of Abomination" war table mission, and they need to not be sworn to the mages themselves to cut down on potential for abuse. The Chantry would have been ideal if they hadn't already dropped the ball.
So give them some land and make it forbidden for any non-mages to go there or vice versa. Keep templars on the borders.
Oh right, you wouldn't be able to exploit the mages that way.
Actually that seems like a great idea. It just needs some kind of early warning system near the borders so everyone outside gets a warning when it's abomination time again.
They need to pledge themselves to someone with the education to not fall into stupid crap like the "Man Accused of Abomination" war table mission, and they need to not be sworn to the mages themselves to cut down on potential for abuse. The Chantry would have been ideal if they hadn't already dropped the ball.
They can only be sworn to the mages, or else they'll make themselves masters of the mages. Abuse is inevitable either way; we might as well go with the sort that exists in every single government ever, as opposed to the whole oppressive prison guards thing.
They can only be sworn to the mages, or else they'll make themselves masters of the mages. Abuse is inevitable either way; we might as well go with the sort that exists in every single government ever, as opposed to the whole oppressive prison guards thing.
The oppressive prison guards at least stop the mages from oppressing everyone else, and if they don't make working with demons impossible they at least make it harder. If I have to choose, which at first I don't think we do but which down the line becomes inevitable, I'm going to side with everyone else against the mages.
They can only be sworn to the mages, or else they'll make themselves masters of the mages.
Is this irony or hypocrisy?
Either way, I'm certain the sheer amount of it slowed universe contraction by a few millennia.
The oppressive prison guards at least stop the mages from oppressing everyone else, and if they don't make working with demons impossible they at least make it harder.
I shared this view of the Seekers and Templars as necessary oppressive prison guards, until I went to Caer Oswin with Cassandra and found that Lord Seeker Lucius had allowed a demon to appear in Val Royeux in his form to throw down the Chantry and march the Templars out, infect seekers (Daniel) with demons, and arrange for the Templars to serve Corypheus in the interest of creating a world apocalypse in the hopes of a new start. He claims to know the truth about Seekers, and offers written proof. He claims the Seekers are "abominations". And then we get to fight Red Templar Horrors and Behemoths which look awfully like the kind of abominations mages can become.
Now I have a changed view. When it comes to extremists on one side or the other, there is little difference between them.
On topic, I like Fiona despite her mistake and a perceived weakness derived for care of people in her charge.
So give them some land and make it forbidden for any non-mages to go there or vice versa. Keep templars on the borders.
Oh right, you wouldn't be able to exploit the mages that way.
Prohibit industry within their territory,open legal channels to purchase mage services and sell mundane goods and I'm on board.
There are still some issues to iron out but, if that is a compromise pro-mages would accept, I would be fine with it.
Prohibit industry within their territory,open legal channels to purchase mage services and sell mundane goods and I'm on board.
There are still some issues to iron out but, if that is a compromise pro-mages would accept, I would be fine with it.
The oppressive prison guards at least stop the mages from oppressing everyone else, and if they don't make working with demons impossible they at least make it harder. If I have to choose, which at first I don't think we do but which down the line becomes inevitable, I'm going to side with everyone else against the mages.
Only if you assume that absolute magocracy is A. inevitable, and B. worse than what we have now, and I don't agree with either notion. It's in every mage's best interests not to be possessed, so for the most part, any guards should be able to do the abomination protection task just as well regardless of who pays them.
Is this irony or hypocrisy?
Either way, I'm certain the sheer amount of it slowed universe contraction by a few millennia.
'Tis more than you did today.
What sort of industry? If you mean food production or any other essential product then that's still exploitation.
Nations forbid the production of certain goods in return for others all the time.
Nations forbid the production of certain goods in return for others all the time.
I'm reasonably sure that food isn't included on that list.
I shared this view of the Seekers and Templars as necessary oppressive prison guards, until I went to Caer Oswin with Cassandra and found that Lord Seeker Lucius had allowed a demon to appear in Val Royeux in his form to throw down the Chantry and march the Templars out, infect seekers (Daniel) with demons, and arrange for the Templars to serve Corypheus in the interest of creating a world apocalypse in the hopes of a new start. He claims to know the truth about Seekers, and offers written proof. He claims the Seekers are "abominations". And then we get to fight Red Templar Horrors and Behemoths which look awfully like the kind of abominations mages can become.
Now I have a changed view. When it comes to extremists on one side or the other, there is little difference between them.
On topic, I like Fiona despite her mistake and a perceived weakness derived for care of people in her charge.
The difference here is that the Templars (at least in the vast majority of cases) only victimize mages. It's unfortunate, and the Templars' masters (whoever they are) should work to prevent that, but if they fail, it's a minority which suffers. If it gets to the point that mages are able to subvert the system at will, and that subversion leads to untrained mages being watched less carefully than they ought to be and people like Quentin being able to do what they do, that's to the detriment of everyone. I would prefer that the system be kept honest, but if we're working on the assumption that it's going to fail, it's better the mages suffer than that everyone does.
Only if you assume that absolute magocracy is A. inevitable, and B. worse than what we have now, and I don't agree with either notion. It's in every mage's best interests not to be possessed, so for the most part, any guards should be able to do the abomination protection task just as well regardless of who pays them.
Absolute magocracy isn't the only thing the Templars are preventing. They also prevent dangerous and unethical experiments, and just keep apprentices from wandering into bad situations, losing their heads, and then turning into threats to the entire city; it's in no mage's best interests to lose their heads that far, and that stops most of them, but any one who turns is a very serious danger.
As for absolute magocracy not being worse than most forms of government, the main reason I disagree with you is that harming and even killing others makes magic more powerful in this setting and that the absolute magocrats know how to use that art. (The Tevinter version has the additional problem that the priests and those with governmental power are all Magisters, which means the same small special interest group has that much more pull, but that's not inevitable if the lands that were White Thedas go in that direction.) Other than that, I'll concede that you have a point.
Nations forbid the production of certain goods in return for others all the time.
Let's not forget that Templars were also to protect mages from everyone else. There are war table missions (if you recruit the Templars as allies) that show this in a few settings. Templars are seen as protectors by the common folk, so even having them as a symbol is beneficial for the people as it provides a sense of order to the unknown that is magic. Anyone potentially can be a mage, but a Templar is like a super policeman/firefighter/EMT/Social worker (listening to the original monster researcher in Haven). Yes, they have great power, but as Uncle Ben told me, along with that comes great responsibility.
Prohibit industry within their territory,open legal channels to purchase mage services and sell mundane goods and I'm on board.
There are still some issues to iron out but, if that is a compromise pro-mages would accept, I would be fine with it.
Yeah, well screw your prohibitions.
Yeah, well screw your prohibitions.
Yeah, I got the feeling the Ferelden Circle was good at that.
The difference here is that the Templars (at least in the vast majority of cases) only victimize mages. It's unfortunate, and the Templars' masters (whoever they are) should work to prevent that, but if they fail, it's a minority which suffers. If it gets to the point that mages are able to subvert the system at will, and that subversion leads to untrained mages being watched less carefully than they ought to be and people like Quentin being able to do what they do, that's to the detriment of everyone. I would prefer that the system be kept honest, but if we're working on the assumption that it's going to fail, it's better the mages suffer than that everyone does.
Perhaps that was true at one point. Initiation into Dragon Age: Inquisition negated that belief from the beginning scene in Hinterlands. Practical illustration includes: Cassandra calls to the Templars attacking the crossroads, "We are not apostates!" Solas observes, "I do not think they care." Another example: I took a promise ring off of a dead Templar and gave it back to the wife of the victim - she said the Templars couldn't tell the difference between a shovel and a mage's staff and had to take the wedding ring off of victim's dead finger in case it was magic. Once Templars are cleared from the road, people start remarking that refugees and innocent travelers will be safer.
But lets entertain the idea that the necessary purpose of the Templars is to watch the Mages and prevent them from corruption. Who then watches the Templars and the Seekers and prevents them from corruption? The question presented, I believe, is an old one.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
So give them some land and make it forbidden for any non-mages to go there or vice versa. Keep templars on the borders.
Oh right, you wouldn't be able to exploit the mages that way.
Actually, that would work fine for me. I wrote a lengthy reply advocating exactly that, once, as a hypothetical solution. I'm not even remotely convinced that magic is a positive force in Thedas, or that most of the time the world wouldn't be better off without it.
I'm all for completely removing mages to their own area and letting them Isle of Dr. Moreau themselves into abominations all day, just as long as nothing tries to get in or out of the enclave.
Perhaps that was true at one point. Initiation into Dragon Age: Inquisition negated that belief from the beginning scene in Hinterlands. Practical illustration includes: Cassandra calls to the Templars attacking the crossroads, "We are not apostates!" Solas observes, "I do not think they care." Another example: I took a promise ring off of a dead Templar and gave it back to the wife of the victim - she said the Templars couldn't tell the difference between a shovel and a mage's staff and had to take the wedding ring off of victim's dead finger in case it was magic. Once Templars are cleared from the road, people start remarking that refugees and innocent travelers will be safer.
But lets entertain the idea that the necessary purpose of the Templars is to watch the Mages and prevent them from corruption. Who then watches the Templars and the Seekers and prevents them from corruption? The question presented, I believe, is an old one.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
See also: in the vast majority of cases.
As for your question of who guards the guards, you've managed to hit the right question, and managed to hit exactly the problem I have with Xilizhra's suggestion.
Keeping the Templars in line was the Seekers' job, which they failed at due to their sympathizing more with the Templars than with the Mages or the Priests. Essentially the original problem was that, at least in practice, the Templars answered to themselves rather than any outside group; that was a problem then and will be again if the people who are supposed to keep mages from threatening others answer either to themselves or to the mages. Then the Seekers decided they no longer answered to the people who were supposed to keep them honest, and the Chantry couldn't do anything about it because their ability to enforce their will came from the Templars, which displays another aspect of the problem: namely, the fact that if you aren't a military power, you aren't going to be able to guard the guards if they say you can't.
With all that in mind, I think the only solution is to hope to the Maker the Inquisition sticks around for a while: it's the only group that has a prayer of doing this job properly.
Actually, that would work fine for me. I wrote a lengthy reply advocating exactly that, once, as a hypothetical solution. I'm not even remotely convinced that magic is a positive force in Thedas, or that most of the time the world wouldn't be better off without it.
I'm all for completely removing mages to their own area and letting them Isle of Dr. Moreau themselves into abominations all day, just as long as nothing tries to get in or out of the enclave.
Are the Wardens exceptions to these rules, or do they need to do without mages in this hypothetical? Because while we don't know that the mages are necessary for the Joining, we know they're used in it, and if it was for any reason other than there being a large benefit (and possibly an necessary one) to the person doing the prep-work having magic you'd think the Wardens would learn to do it themselves. Since, you know, what they're doing instead is letting the Circle in on a secret ritual that might be worth a tremendous side-eye from most of Thedas and a good portion of the Templars. (And that's not counting the benefits of having mages to actually use against the darkspawn.)
Actually, that would work fine for me. I wrote a lengthy reply advocating exactly that, once, as a hypothetical solution. I'm not even remotely convinced that magic is a positive force in Thedas, or that most of the time the world wouldn't be better off without it.
I'm all for completely removing mages to their own area and letting them Isle of Dr. Moreau themselves into abominations all day, just as long as nothing tries to get in or out of the enclave.
See also: in the vast majority of cases.
As for your question of who guards the guards, you've managed to hit the right question, and managed to hit exactly the problem I have with Xilizhra's suggestion.
Keeping the Templars in line was the Seekers' job, which they failed at due to their sympathizing more with the Templars than with the Mages or the Priests. Essentially the original problem was that, at least in practice, the Templars answered to themselves rather than any outside group; that was a problem then and will be again if the people who are supposed to keep mages from threatening others answer either to themselves or to the mages. Then the Seekers decided they no longer answered to the people who were supposed to keep them honest, and the Chantry couldn't do anything about it because their ability to enforce their will came from the Templars, which displays another aspect of the problem: namely, the fact that if you aren't a military power, you aren't going to be able to guard the guards if they say you can't.
With all that in mind, I think the only solution is to hope to the Maker the Inquisition sticks around for a while: it's the only group that has a prayer of doing this job properly.
Because the last Inquisition was so widely successful? I may believe that my Inquisitor is in the right but who knows what the Inquisition will become.
I don't think there's a better long-term option, and unless I'm missing something I've given reasons against all the other short-term options.
Retour en haut
