119 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

 

Which is why I never make her Divine despite agreeing with basically everything she says.

 

 

 

[AtreiyaN7]

The danger of a sword is not the same as the danger of the magic, the latter have way more power do destroy.
And Tevinter proves why mages should be watched, Blood magic sacrifices, Blight, Lyrium Tatoos, Venatori, etc. All of those things wouldnt exist if they were in the Cirlce.

 

I expressly stated that the Tevinter Imperium was not something I held up as an ideal because of the practice of blood magic, the existence of slavery, and the general corruption of the Magisterium (twice). If one is actually capable of temporarily setting aside the negative aspects of their society and being objective about it, my point stands that it shows that you can actually have mages live with non-mages in close proximity without all the mages going ballistic and constantly raining hellfire down on everyone.

 

In other words, mages can control themselves - and though they undeniably present a danger, they're also people who deserve to be treated like other people, not as some separate sub-species because of what they can do. To add to what I said earlier, one could just as easily say that a nuclear physicist is dangerous because he/she can design and build a nuclear weapon that can kill more people than any modern Thedan mage could ever manage to do (even if that mage went into full abomination mode). You could also say that the leader of a nation equipped with many nukes is an even bigger danger because he/she is the ultimate authority who can launch multiple nuclear weapons at once. You can even call a microbiologist a threat because he/she has access to smallpox or can create/modify especially deadly viruses that could kill hundreds of thousands or millions of people.

 

What are you going to do? Lock everyone up who can - hypothetically - kill lots of people based on a bunch of what-ifs or because someone in the same profession did bad thing x/y/z in the past? No, because despite certain people having particularly dangerous and powerful kinds of knowledge, they're generally trained and responsible (and there are also safeguards in place - ones that don't include imprisoning them). Additionally, they also have skills that can be (and generally are) directed towards good and beneficial purposes.

 

Look, in every profession, you're probably going to find someone with aberrant personalities or mental health issues that could, conceivably, make them act out violently. And honestly, even regular people with no particular training or skills can be dangerous if they have access to a gun or to explosives, or things as simple as rocks and tree branches. But back to mages: for every abomination you might have ended up with like Uldred, you probably had hundreds of mages across Thedas who were perfectly nice people and who were never going to present any kind of threat.

 

I'd guess that most of them probably just wanted to stick their noses into their books and do research or lead fairly quiet lives with their families and loved ones. Although people throw around names like Uldred, Orsino, et al., just consider the fact that there have been heroic mages in the past who actually sacrificed themselves for the greater good, unquestionably saving many, many lives in the process - like a certain someone in JoH:

Spoiler

Inquisitor Ameridan who was a mage - an elven mage to be precise - something that I imagine will be a great big double whammy for the Chantry if/when Professor Kenric ever gets back to Orlais and reveals his findings.

 

I suspect that a lot of history and stories about mages who have done really good/great things were lost due to the passage of time and the destructiveness of past Blights, along with some surviving history possibly having been distorted/altered a bit by the Chantry. I wouldn't say that if the Chantry didn't have this nasty habit of changing/rewriting/altering anything that goes against their teachings. Can anyone deny that the Canticle of Shartan ended up being excised from the Chant of Light? I imagine that that they didn't want anything positive or flattering being said about the elves after the Exalted Marches.

 

As for Andrraste herself - the whole foundation for the religion and whose teachings the Chant of Light springs from - we still don't know if Andraste was or wasn't a mage (and never will find out the truth, I suspect), but if she was one, then oh, the irony of everything that has happened to mages since her time! For those who claim that the Chantry doesn't teach people to hate mages, well, sorry but what the Chantry largely seems to have done is to, in essence, instill a fear of magic, rather than teaching people to view it as a gift. Just because the official Chant (or banned canticles, etc.) might have lines about magic being gift, it seems to me that the part about how the original Tevinter magisters were responsible for the darkspawn and how magic is meant to serve man tends to get hammered home a lot more often than the part about it being a gift does.

 

Seriously, how many non-mages have ever indicated that they thought mages and magic were good? For all intents and purposes, very, very few that I can recall from the games. If the Chantry really taught people that magic was not to be feared and that it was a gift, then why does almost everyone (some exceptions aside) seem to be fear mages and to treat magic as a curse? I'm pretty sure that this fear didn't just spontaneously occur, and I remember one codex entry in DA:I where some charlatan describes a way to eliminate a child's magical ability - said method consisting of pretty much near-drowning the child until the magic is gone from them (as if that would work). This kind of thing shows that the Chantry hasn't done a great job of teaching people not to fear magic.

[The Baconer]

Which is why I never make her Divine despite agreeing with basically everything she says.

 

Okay, but she is still for all intents and purposes "free". If your platitude regarding the freedom of one mage and the potential destruction that one mage could cause, situations like Vivienne's and Wynne's wouldn't even exist.

 

And that's something Cassandra (or any of the candidates) is going to change. Quite the contrary, in fact.

[AtreiyaN7]

Is a torch as dangerous as a flamethrower just because fire is the basis of both?

When was the last time a non-mage child destroyed an entire village without even meaning to?

 

 

 

And what about mages dominating society? It has occured in many societies where they are not controlled. Tevinter, Rivain, the Dalish, Chasind, etc.

Can you assure Thedosians this won't happen in Orlais or Ferelden?
 

 

Meredith's sister killed 70 people before being killed. And this was an Abomination created from a mage who couldn't cast a single spell and had no political power.
 How many people did Connor kill?

What about Corypheus? How many millions?

 

 

If mages are free, will all abuse their powers? No. Will all become Abominations? Again, no.

But many will on both cases. Is the freedom of one mage more important than the lives of 70 non-mages?

 

You can refer to my other post that I just put up in response to Boost32, because I pretty much address that stuff and the whole scale of massive deaths, etc. Frankly, I'd rather get back to finishing Seveneves than repeating myself in another hideously long essay-length piece of writing.

[MisterJB]

Okay, but she is still for all intents and purposes free". If your platitude regarding the freedom of one mage and the potential destruction that one mage could cause, situations like Vivienne's and Wynne's wouldn't even exist.

 

And that's something Cassandra (or any of the candidates) is going to change. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Wynne and Vivienne could potentially kill a lot more than 70 people, especially possessed.

Still, within every group there are exceptional individual for whom the rules can be bent so long as they work towards the interests of the Circle. Having influential mages with Pro-Circle leanings leading charmed lives encourages mages to work within the system rather than rebel against it, potentially saving many more lives in the process.

 

[The Baconer]

Wynne and Vivienne could potentially kill a lot more than 70 people, especially possessed.

Still, within every group there are exceptional individual for whom the rules can be bent so long as they work towards the interests of the Circle. Having influential mages with Pro-Circle leanings leading charmed lives encourages mages to work within the system rather than rebel against it, potentially saving many more lives in the process.

 

Yes, as Drasanil put it in another thread, individuals who are "one of the good ones", a credit to their "mage race". That in itself is a gamble, and actually a gesture of good faith toward mages, because it encourages the propagation of more mages working within the system... and thus more cases of rules being bent in exchange for good behavior.

[MisterJB]

Yes, as Drasanil put it in another thread, individuals who are "one of the good ones", a credit to their "mage race". That in itself is a gamble, and actually a gesture of good faith toward mages, because it encourages the propagation of more mages working within the system... and thus more cases of rules being bent in exchange for good behavior.

 

Hence the need for strict boundaries. Court advisor living in a palace? Sure.

Mage Divine? Oh nooooo...
 

 

 

 

 

[Drasanil]

Yes, as Drasanil put it in another thread, individuals who are "one of the good ones", a credit to their "mage race". That in itself is a gamble, and actually a gesture of good faith toward mages, because it encourages the propagation of more mages working within the system... and thus more cases of rules being bent in exchange for good behavior.

 

Best excuse ever, works on anything really, that's the rational one of my wardens (non-cannon) used for letting the Architect architect live.

 

Hence the need for strick boundaries. Court advisor living in a palace? Sure.

Mage Divine? Oh nooooo...

 

Nothing wrong with a mage divine, if anything the mage will be surrounded by even more templars than they usually would. Double, maybe even triple, safe!

[MisterJB]

Best excuse ever, works on anything really, that's the rational one of my wardens (non-cannon) used for letting the Architect architect live.

 

 

Nothing wrong with a mage divine, if anything the mage will be surrounded by even more templars than they usually would. Double, maybe even triple, safe!

 

The precedent is too dangerous.

 

 

 

 

[Drasanil]

The precedent is too dnagerous.

 

I'm torn on the issue, objectively I think Cassandra is probably the best bet. But I kind of want to see what Divine Viv leaves in her wake. The precedent she sets says one thing, her actions as Divine however uphold the system entirely. Be fun to see the resulting shytestorm as Thedas tries to sort that conundrum out. 

[The Baconer]

Hence the need for strict boundaries. Court advisor living in a palace? Sure.

Mage Divine? Oh nooooo...

 

That's kind of funny, because I'd find the court advisors more potentially dangerous. You know, as opposed to being constantly scrutinized and judged by pretty much everyone in Southern Thedas.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 Mage ruling over man =/= magic ruling over man.

[Sifr]

 

Ines

 

Which is why I specified that the lucky ones either escape or include those who "happen to suck up to the guards or get the ear of the Knight-Commander and/or First Enchanter" (although I missed the FE out originally), which we know is true as Cullen states in DA2, those who are loyal aren't deemed flight risks, so are allowed to have permission to leave the Circle for a period of time, as it's known they'll return.

 

Which is the point, the only way to actually win freedom in the Circle is to play ball and become so institutionalised, the Templars can show you the door to freedom and you won't want to walk through it.

[Lady Artifice]

I disagree with you

 

I'm not surprised. 

 

 

the only high ranking templar mentioned is a Knight Liutenant, there is no mention of others.

 

And it show us what mages have, not in any moment the templar in the letter says they had it, so to me the letter show us they have a cushy, enviable state of existence, specially if you compare their lives to a peasent.

 

 

What he says, specifically, is that this is what they "can" have. 

 

"Do you have any idea how wealthy the Circle of Magi can be?" 

 

My core point is that the circles are not simple or standardized, one can be a dramatically different place from another, something Vivienne herself makes a particular point of early in DAI. I'm certainly not saying that circle mages aren't often lucky to have access to education and a warm place to sleep. 

 

The whole, "but circle mages have it better than peasants argument," has some place in the discussion, definitely, insofar as it establishes that there are upsides to circle life. However, it's often used to belittle criticism of the circle, as though the existence of bigger problems can render any discussion of the ones facing mages obsolete. Because they're often better off in the circle than they might be starving on the street (unless of course, they're starving in a circle prison cell) this is used to suggest that anyone who finds fault with the circle as it currently operates is irredeemable biased and short sighted. 

 

It's called the fallacy of relative privation  (http://en.wikipedia....ative_privation). It's an informal fallacy, so it isn't actually a failing in logic, it's just not a particularly effective argument, because the existence of bigger problems only goes so far to temper concern over smaller ones (if my toe is cut off, knowing that it could hurt a lot more if it were my whole foot doesn't necessarily make losing my toe less painful). And I see this argument relied on really often by supporters of the traditional circle system. 

 

And once again, the declining functionality, cooperation, and growing tension of the circle leading up to the rebellion is entirely canonical. We don't need our friend Ser Golan Drader to establish that, because it's so well documented in the lore. 

[Sifr]

The whole, "but circle mages have it better than peasants argument," has some place in the discussion, definitely, insofar as it establishes that there are upsides to circle life. However, it's often used to belittle criticism of the circle, as though the existence of bigger problems can render any discussion of the ones facing mages obsolete. Because they're often better off in the circle than they might be starving on the street (unless of course, they're starving in a circle prison cell) this is used to suggest that anyone who finds fault with the circle as it currently operates is irredeemable biased and short sighted. 

 

It's called the fallacy of relative privation  (http://en.wikipedia....ative_privation). It's an informal fallacy, so it isn't actually a failing in logic, it's just not a particularly effective argument, because the existence of bigger problems only goes so far to temper concern over smaller ones (if my toe is cut off, knowing that it could hurt a lot more if it were my whole foot doesn't necessarily make losing my toe less painful). And I see this argument relied on really often by supporters of the traditional circle system.

 

Yeah, we even see this phenomenon in game from Dorian and Bull.

 

Dorian when he suggests that at least slavery in Tevinter means that there are fewer people begging for food on the streets, while Bull defends the Qun as it gives everyone a purpose, despite them having no say in what that purpose is.

 

Just because the Tevinters managed to curb homelessness and the Qun totally eliminates unemployment, doesn't mean that each of their respective solutions to those societal issues are actually good ones. Nor is it necessarily proof of their own society having some sense of enlightenment as Dorian and Bull seem to think it does?

[Lulupab]

I think we can look at the issue based on how Bioware wanted to continue its story. The mage rebellion is there, caused by many factors and people. But the true monsters behind it aka Lambert and Adrian are died an off-screen death and will be forgotten for both sides and become irrelevant. Some argue why they can't "punish" Fiona when they are sided with the mages, its simply because she was locked and ready for execution for merely raising an issue, and she would have been dead if it wasn't for the Divine and Leliana. Fiona need to exist for the possibility of mage-favored result of the rebellion, there is simply no one else. But this is semantics, let me get to my point.

 

Dragon Age is more about Thedas than one hero, given this simple fact, all the endings result in better lives for mages. Its simply the scale of "better" which is different between them. If the previous circumstances of mages was favorable, I honestly think that it would be included, but the writing team want to condition to player for these endings. Considering the fact that you can go to point of disbanding Templars order as a whole, but there is no equivalent thing that can be done for mages, I think mages having better lives has ultimately become a canon in the series and for a good reason.

[TK514]

The equivalent to disbanding the Templars, insomuch as it is the opposite of the starting state, is reinstating the Circles or the creation of the new College of Enchanters. When we first encounter the rebel Mages, they have already reached a point where any organization they may have been part of has been dissolved. They are no longer part of a circle, fraternity, or college, and their rebellion is over pretty much the moment they made their agreement with Alexius. They have given up being individuals seeking to control their own future in favor of becoming property it is someone else's responsibility to defend.

Functionally, for the organization of the Inquisition, the equivalent would be conscription, since the Mages give up organizational identity just as the Templars do.

In any case, it is absolutely possible to end with a Thedas world state that returns the Mages and Templars to the status quo that presumably existed for most of the last thousand years prior to the recent insanity on both sides. A status quo with Mages in Chantry operated Circles watched over by Chantry Templars.

[Lulupab]

But the reinstated circles are far better than the previous ones, both in case of Vivienne and Cassandra, its explicitly stated on epilogue that the circles are better and more free. the equivalent would be mage rebellion achieving no sort of freedom for mages, which it does in every single ending, only the scale of it is different.

 

There is no way to go back to the told system of status quo. 

[TK514]

And yet there they are, back in Chantry Circles watched by Chantry Templars. What isn't returned to is the system we saw spring up in the last twenty years ago, with mages and Templars taking increasingly adversarial stances to one another. Prior to that, Mages already enjoyed this heightened 'freedom'. Rhys discusses being able to stroll through the city, we saw mages like Wynne and her herbalist acquaintance wandering Thedas without even an escort, mages were allowed to acquire wealth and status to use as they saw fit and so on. It seems that, up until relatively recently, the only real restriction was that they had to live in Circles and submit to Circle controlled training and testing. And even the restriction on living in a Circle could be waived in some cases.

The letter in the OP actually seems to illustrate the time period in which these things start changing. You have the old guard, from a time when Templars and Mages seem to have been more cordial, admonishing the new guard for being an overly zealous ass.

In any case, pretty it up how you like and pretend the Mages never had these freedoms, but the basic premise remains the same. It is entirely possible that, at the end of Inquisition, the status quo where Mages must live in Circles monitored by Templars is maintained.

[Lulupab]

What sort of chantry? Pretty much all the divines are thinking of changing the chantry from top to bottom.

 

Vivienne makes Templars her own puppets and Cassandra, well it varies a lot between who you side with. But even if you side with Templars, the Templars are now proper knights and no longer hold any sort of power on their own. Exact wording is "They rejoin the Templar Order under the new Divine – on the condition that her leash will not be reattached."

 

The "Chantry" and "templar" order you speak of are quite different than what you have in mind, Just have a conversation with Cassandra about the changes she has in mind, You'll be surprised how much she blames the chantry and Templar order, not the mages at all.

 

Also mages didn't have those freedom at beginning and invention of towers. Some freedoms were given to them as boons after they participated in blights or fought against the Qunari. But these freedoms were taken away whenever it was willed.