348 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

In this thread, I would like to discuss how magic and rulership relate. In particular, I propose the following statements as a base for debate:

 

(1) The common assumption that any society with free mages will inevitably end up being ruled by them is flawed.

(2) A magocracy isn't any worse than any other system of class-based rulership. 

 

To see how I end up with these statements, let's start with a rather intuitive assumption: apart from having magic, a mageborn individual is like any other individual. Magic doesn't make you a better person, and it doesn't make you a worse person. A mageborn has the same range of character traits, the same range of preferences, the same capacity for hate or love as anyone else. As the non-mageborn population has its share of ruthlessly power-hungry individuals, so does the mageborn population. Which means that mages are more likely to end up being rulers if and only if their magic gives them an advantage in gaining and retaining political power.

 

That, however, I question. What magic grants is autonomy, to be more independent from others in various aspects of life, and a measure of personal power. Neither translates easily into political power. Politics is a much more social game, it's about dealing with groups of people and their interests, about compromise, trade of favors and suchlike. It's also about enforcement, of course, but enforcement on a large scale that transcends what a mage can do in person, except, maybe, for the kind of power Corypheus aspired to, if that's even possible to attain. The skillset of a ruler and the skilset of a mage do not necessarily overlap at all.

 

For the same reason, I think in a society where mages are free, a mageborn is less likely to even desire rulership than anyone else. You're far more likely to end up in a position where your magic - or the education that comes with mandatory training - is actually of some immediate use to you. If there is to be a large-scale problem caused by free magic, it's far more likely to be mageborn criminals. The typical skillset of a mage is far more advantageous in that environment than in government.

 

People fear the mageborn because they're unpredictable when their magic manifests, and they continue to fear them later because they're to some degree immune to social control. Those fears are personal, and they have some basis in reality, for a mage's power exists on the same scale. They have, however, little reason to fear being ruled by a mageborn, at least not more than they have reason to fear being ruled by anyone else. A mageborn ruler would be well-advised not to use their powers in politics except in exceptional circumstances, because the more a ruler needs to use their powers of enforcement, the weaker their rule actually becomes.

 

Which brings me to the next point. There is no reason to believe mageborn rulers should be worse rulers than anyone else just because they have magic. Consequently, a magocracy isn't necessarily any worse - or any better - than any other system of government that restricts roles in government to a specific class of people. Like every culture on Thedas does. In Tevinter, the magisters have made themselves immune to many laws that apply to commoners, mageborn and non-mageborn alike, but Orlais' nobility has done the same. Both nations' ruling classes profit from an attitude that defines the lives of some people (slaves, elves) as more expendable than others'. Tevinter's magisters profit more from it because of the possiblity of human sacrifice, but the primary problem is slavery, not magic, and the tendency of the ruling class to set up a system where they aren't accountable before the law, which is also independent from magic.

 

Dorian cites the statement "You always need more" as the main reason why blood magic is used among the magisters, but as I said, magic isn't actually a good tool in politics, and apart from that, that statement applies to every sort of power. Whether your power is magical or not, there's no such thing as "enough power". Regardless of where you stand in society, there's always the desire to have more, and always the temptation to cross lines in order to get it. In any functional, reasonably just society, the killing of another human is one of the most highly-punished crimes, and in the end human sacrifice is no different from premeditated murder for any other reason. As a rule, I wouldn't expect the ruling class to get away with that on a regular basis (as opposed to common preconceptions, even most medieval societies weren't like that), unless there are specific cultural circumstances like certain religious ideas or a tradition of slavery. 

 

So, if you imagine a nation ruled by a mageborn elite, it doesn't have to look like Tevinter, nor is it destined to become like Tevinter over time. And if you imagine a culture where mages are as free as everyone else apart from requiring mandatory training, subject to the same laws as everyone else, you are not necessarily seeing a magocracy in the making.

[SgtSteel91]

I agree with the points you made.

 

I believe the argument that free Mages will inevitably rule over society is perpetuated by the Chantry so that Mages are kept under their control through the Circles, giving them political and financial benefits, and justifies their private army of Templars and Seekers.

 

This also takes a stab at dismantling some of the common arguments for keeping the Circle system and Templar Order and supporting your points.

[Drasanil]

So the jist of it is, controlling mages is bad, because lets face it if they're free they're far more likely to become super powered criminals as opposed to tyrants. And if they were to become the political elite any ways magic, including the ability to influence/control peoples' minds, really isn't all that big a deal when it comes to influencing people/society.

 

You sure set the record straight there! Circle controls and templars really are just unnecessary repression of otherwise harmless individuals. 

[Reznore57]

Mages will always end up on top if free , at least in human societies ...

You've got an example of what could happen with mage freedom , Malcolm Hawke , apostate , was forced by the Grey wardens to turn to blood magic.

If mages don't get on the top of the food chain , their powers will be used by those who are in charge wether they like or not.

 

In small communities , mages are accepted but their magic is used for the good of the society they live in.

And if they don't follow the rules of that society , they get kicked out .

Merrill and blood magic .

The Avaar girl who didn't want to let her spirit friend go , for example.

 

A society lead by mages is worst imho because...you can't pretend you're a mage.You can't fake it whatsoever.

So anyone not born mage will never ever have any chance to rule .

It's not better for a mage in a place where mages are forbidden to rule but you could pretend you were not a mage and get somewhere.Mage Hawke can end up being a noble etc...

Besides people know magic is useful , even the Chantry never went as far as a full on mage genocide.

On the other hand the Tevinter Imperium were killing their slaves left and right because...they had nothing special .Once they were too tired to work , they had no more value .(cf all the atrocities in Kirkwall)

[Sah291]

I agree and disagree....I agree a mageocracy would be no better or worse than any other ruling class, and that various forms of slavery are the result of one class imposing one set of rules for itself and another for everyone else, and not caused by magic in of itself. But I disagree that magic would not be a political advantage, especially blood magic (and I'm talking mind control abilities in particuar), which is why even Tevinter bans it officially. But as we have seen in southern Thedas, and in other societies, like the Qunari, Mages are not at all immune to social control, and that magic can also be suppressed.

[Drasanil]

I agree and disagree....I agree a mageocracy would be no better or worse than any other ruling class, and that various forms of slavery are the result of one class imposing one set of rules for itself and another for everyone else, and not caused by magic in of itself. 

 

Maybe in the broadest sense, where one can expect a certain level of corruption to be endemic in any entrenched ruling class. However, magocracy in practical day-to-day terms has the potential to be a much worse ruling class than a mundane one.

 

1) Because the detachment from their mundane subjects goes far beyond a question of wealth/privilege, into the realm of genuinely superhuman abilities. Tipping the already skewed balance of power even further in the elites favour, not to mention creating even more fertile idealogical grounds where their subjects can easily be dehumanised further. 

 

2) Because the sheer amount of ways they can abuse their powers [not to mention the reasons why they could/would] goes beyond what can be expected of muggle rulers. Celene already staged one fake assasination which saw most of her servants murdered in order to gain power. Bad yes? Now imagine you gave her magic, especially blood magic, how many more servants do you think she'd go through in the course of her reign to make her life easier and her power more secure? How many innocents would her rivals burn through to try to dislodge and weaken her? How many otherwise uninterested nobles would go through servants just to make sure they aren't viewed as weak and preyed upon even if they otherwise have no great ambitions or designs beyond living their lives in relative peace and security?  

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 I agree that magic is not reason enough to keep them out of rulership -- mages ruling over man is not the same as magic ruling over man.

 

Besides which, mundanes can be total mage-sympathizing loonies too, so it's not like it guarantees that nobody overrides their restrictions.

 

In light of Tevinter, though, a strong and -- more importantly -- jointly-ruled (between mages and mundanes) Circle (or any comparable magic-regulating entity) governing the general mage populace is not negotiable. A mage-only governing body has always gotten lax with things and in principle is just not good policy -- you leave the door wide-open to corruption/fraud when the group is left alone to watch over itself.

[Ieldra]

 I agree that magic is not reason enough to keep them out of rulership -- mages ruling over man is not the same as magic ruling over man.
 
Besides which, mundanes can be total mage-sympathizing loonies too, so it's not like it guarantees that nobody overrides their restrictions.
 
In light of Tevinter, though, a strong and -- more importantly -- jointly-ruled (between mages and mundanes) Circle (or any comparable magic-regulating entity) governing the general mage populace is not negotiable. A mage-only governing body has always gotten lax with things and in principle is just not good policy -- you leave the door wide-open to corruption/fraud when the group is left alone to watch over itself.

True, but that applies to any ruling elite. Also, I question the assumption that mages would tend to band together as mages, rather than by their varying interests. Why wouldn't there be, for any faction of supremacist mages, another equally strong one that proposes coexistence with the non-mageborn on a more equal basis?

[The Ascendant]

Magic is a huge evolutionary advantage, it's a lot like X-Men mutants are simply the next stage of human evolution and eventually everyone will gain similar abilities, it will take a very long time but it is eventually going to happen. It's been mentioned several times that the number of mage births is increasing and with the Breach a huge amount of Fade Energy has flooded into the world, I imagine the numbers will continue to rise until almost the numbers will be treated in the same way like normal people. Noble born and royal born mages will be able to inherit their titles and since magic is a prevalent trait that passes on to children we might see a situation similar to the Imperium rising where mages are in power. 

[Drasanil]

Why wouldn't there be, for any faction of supremacist mages, another equally strong one that proposes coexistence with the non-mageborn on a more equal basis?

 

Because it's human nature and better, or worse, yet the supremacists have the benefit of actually being right. Add in the fact that power has a tendency to beget more power unless it is actively checked and they're more or less bound to get their way eventually.

 

Everything else being equal, your standard mage will pretty much always have a leg up over your standard muggle. This will naturally and understandably breed feelings of superiority in many if not most mages, and while the coexisters could prevail for a while, those feelings will eventually grow stronger as the generations carry on and the "free" mages become more prominent whilst the cultural impact of the old circle system lessens.

 

The societies of Thedas didn't just come up with the idea of templars and specifically anti-mage abilities by accident. They were thought up for a reason, namely to counter-balance the overwhelming advantage mages have over normal people. 

[Sah291]

Maybe in the broadest sense, where one can expect a certain level of corruption to be endemic in any entrenched ruling class. However, magocracy in practical day-to-day terms has the potential to be a much worse ruling class than a mundane one.

1) Because the detachment from their mundane subjects goes far beyond a question of wealth/privilege, into the realm of genuinely superhuman abilities. Tipping the already skewed balance of power even further in the elites favour, not to mention creating even more fertile idealogical grounds where their subjects can easily be dehumanised further.

2) Because the sheer amount of ways they can abuse their powers [not to mention the reasons why they could/would] goes beyond what can be expected of muggle rulers. Celene already staged one fake assasination which saw most of her servants murdered in order to gain power. Bad yes? Now imagine you gave her magic, especially blood magic, how many more servants do you think she'd go through in the course of her reign to make her life easier and her power more secure? How many innocents would her rivals burn through to try to dislodge and weaken her? How many otherwise uninterested nobles would go through servants just to make sure they aren't viewed as weak and preyed upon even if they otherwise have no great ambitions or designs beyond living their lives in relative peace and security?

Worse to whom? Blood magic is bad, yes, but when you have elites waging imperial wars to enforce their ideology (exalted marches, qunari invasions, etc), is there a difference? I mean, is there is a difference between sacrificing thousands of slaves to a blood magic ritual, and 1000s to a war effort (many of which might be innocents and children), on behalf of a ruling class? Did it matter objectively whether Anders in DA2 blew up the Chantry with magic or with gun powder?

It matters politically (who gets blamed, etc). But anyone could use gun powder in theory, although not everyone will have access to it (just like lyrium). And judging by DAI, and what Corypheus was trying to accomplish, maybe anyone could potentially learn magic also (if not for the veil--which according to some codex, is not so much a physical barrier but state of mind).

So what is the real currency of any ruling class? Resources and ideology. Take that away and it really doesn't matter if the peasants have magic or not. The Dalish have magic, but what are they going to do with it when the Chantry controls the lyrium trade. If it was just a matter of wielding magic, the southern Mages would have abolished the circle system ages ago if they had wanted to.

[Drasanil]

Worse to whom? Blood magic is bad, yes, but when you have elites waging imperial wars to enforce their ideology (exalted marches, qunari invasions, etc), is there a difference? I mean, is there is a difference between sacrificing thousands of slaves to a blood magic ritual, and 1000s to a war effort (many of which might be innocents and children), on behalf of a ruling class?

 

Just going to stop you right there. Because your underlying assumption seems to be an either [blood magic] or [imperial wars]. What makes you think a mage-elite wouldn't do both? There's no reason for them not to. So you tell me, what's worse thousands dying in a war effort or thousands dying in a war effort along with thousands more getting sacrificed at the altar? 

 

Did it matter objectively whether Anders in DA2 blew up the Chantry with magic or with gun powder?

 

Yes. Objectively Anders wouldn't have been able to blow up the Chantry in DA2 if he didn't have magic, because Thedas' human societies don't have access to gun powder. That aside, gun powder is hardly the great equaliser you seem to think it would be, until you got to the revolvers they were finicky, slow to load and prone to misfiring. 

 

How about this then, once Thedas gets to the level where your average middle class commoner can afford a revolver we can revisit the issue of mage freedom 

[ComedicSociopathy]

(1) Agreed. Just because someone has abilities or skills that could be used to forcefully dominate others doesn't mean they'd use them. A person who happens to have the build of Gregor Clegene won't necessarily use his gifts to be a bully.

 

That said, having free mages and independent Circles doesn't have to mean that groups like the templars, seekers or Inquisition shouldn't exist in some form ensuring that mages that would use their powers to harm people can be dealt with. A mixed group of mages, templars and seekers who act more like a police force then prison guards would be preferable. 

 

(2) Not sure that I agree with you here. I mean, Corypheus and his cronies did help in unleashing a horde of monstrous creatures that have nearly destroyed five times over.  Even Celene with her elf burning shenanigans can't  match that.

 

Furthermore, even if a magocracy were no worse than other class-based system that shouldn't mean we should just shrug and accept it as a fact of life in Thedas. These systems are still terrible for the societies that are governed by them and allow monsters like Livius Erimond and Vaughan Kendells to have power.

 

Meritocracy or GTFO. 

[Sah291]

Just going to stop you right there. Because your underlying assumption seems to be an either [blood magic] or [imperial wars]. What makes you think a mage-elite wouldn't do both? There's no reason for them not to. So you tell me, what's worse thousands dying in a war effort or thousands dying in a war effort along with thousands more getting sacrificed at the altar? 

 

 

Yes. Objectively Anders wouldn't have been able to blow up the Chantry in DA2 if he didn't have magic, because Thedas' human societies don't have access to gun powder. That aside, gun powder is hardly the great equaliser you seem to think it would be, until you got to the revolvers they were finicky, slow to load and prone to misfiring. 

 

How about this then, once Thedas gets to the level where your average middle class commoner can afford a revolver we can revisit the issue of mage freedom 

 

I'm not comparing commoners/peasants though, both mage ruled and non mage ruled societies have those. Probably very few mages in Tevinter actually belong to the ruling class there, and even then only those with the right bloodlines, and connections, etc. And there are relatively few non mages who belong to nobility as well...and again, only those with the right bloodlines, connections, etc.

 

True gun powder is new to human societies in Thedas, but the Qunari have it, and Tevinter considers them a rival. Anyway, my point was not to suggest that gun powder is more powerful than magic at this point, but that it isn't magic, and it is hinted there may come a point in the future of Thedas where science/tech might displace the role of magic.

 

I guess where you and I differ is I don't see the non mages as "muggles" exactly, but simply have a different way of thinking. Elite Templars and Seekers like Cassandra are gifted with reason/logic, and Qunari likewise have a strong preference for order. Dwarves are cut off from the fade and don't dream, but they are especially gifted with stone and have made many inventions. If a non mage ruled society came to power and ruled long enough, magic might even become a lost art (as it has for elves). 

[Kakistos_]

I completely agree. There are in fact societies in Thedas that have had Free Mages for hundreds if not thousands of years that in no way resemble Tevinter.

[Ieldra]

Because it's human nature and better, or worse, yet the supremacists have the benefit of actually being right. Add in the fact that power has a tendency to beget more power unless it is actively checked and they're more or less bound to get their way eventually.

 

Everything else being equal, your standard mage will pretty much always have a leg up over your standard muggle. This will naturally and understandably breed feelings of superiority in many if not most mages, and while the coexisters could prevail for a while, those feelings will eventually grow stronger as the generations carry on and the "free" mages become more prominent whilst the cultural impact of the old circle system lessens.

 

The societies of Thedas didn't just come up with the idea of templars and specifically anti-mage abilities by accident. They were thought up for a reason, namely to counter-balance the overwhelming advantage mages have over normal people. 

If you're arguing human nature, I can do that, too: most people actually don't want conflict. They want stability in their lives and to be left alone to live their lives as they want. Why the heck would I want to oppress others as a mage, just because I have abilities others don't have? If anything, it's too much of a hassle to bother with. 

 

However, the last sentence of your post illustrates the problem better: mage supremacism can arise as a reaction to the non-mage population's desire to "counter-balance" their advantages. That inevitably translates into discrimination, and against that mages have justified cause to act. Any attempt at counterbalancing that goes beyond enforcing equal rights will feed the supremacists. Acceptance goes both ways, after all.

 

This means that as long as acceptance - on both sides - is the prevailing cultural attitude, people's desire for stability and aversion to conflict and chaos will most likely prevail, and coexistence will be possible. In such an atmosphere, the inevitable extremists won't have much of an effect. The problem is that there isn't such an attitude in most places on Thedas at the moment, and creating it is an uphill battle. The culture of the Avvar may serve as a positive example. 

[Ieldra]

(1) Agreed. Just because someone has abilities or skills that could be used to forcefully dominate others doesn't mean they'd use them. A person who happens to have the build of Gregor Clegene won't necessarily use his gifts to be a bully.
 
That said, having free mages and independent Circles doesn't have to mean that groups like the templars, seekers or Inquisition shouldn't exist in some form ensuring that mages that would use their powers to harm people can be dealt with. A mixed group of mages, templars and seekers who act more like a police force then prison guards would be preferable.

Of course there needs to be an arm of law enforcement specially equipped to deal with crimes committed with magic. As I said in the OP, mageborn criminals are likely going to be a bigger problem than mageborn rulers.
 
 

(2) Not sure that I agree with you here. I mean, Corypheus and his cronies did help in unleashing a horde of monstrous creatures that have nearly destroyed five times over.  Even Celene with her elf burning shenanigans can't  match that.
 
Furthermore, even if a magocracy were no worse than other class-based system that shouldn't mean we should just shrug and accept it as a fact of life in Thedas. These systems are still terrible for the societies that are governed by them and allow monsters like Livius Erimond and Vaughan Kendells to have power.
 
Meritocracy or GTFO. 

No argument from me. I didn't say a magocracy was a good system in comparison with others we may imagine. Just not worse than anything else that currently exists on Thedas. Tevinter's system is not something I'd shrug off and accept. But then, neither is Orlais'.

As an aside, a meritocratic system - which is my personal ideal as well - creates its own problems: who sets and supervises the standards, and how does the system ensure that those who set the standards don't set them to benefit themselves. The qunari have a meritocratic system, but it's not one under which I'd like to live.

[Shienis]

@leldra: Your idea of "if everyone will accept everyone, they will all be happily riding rainbow unicorns together, mage or not" is nothing but a utopia.

 

I agree that in ideal, perfect world it doesn't matter if mages rule or not. But the last time I checked, Thedas is far, far from ideal.

[Ieldra]

@leldra: Your idea of "if everyone will accept everyone, they will all be happily riding rainbow unicorns together, mage or not" is nothing but a utopia.
 
I agree that in ideal, perfect world it doesn't matter if mages rule or not. But the last time I checked, Thedas is far, far from ideal.

No. I said if acceptance is the *prevailing* attitude, not the universal one. I can see the difference in my country and its attitude towards foreign fugitives attempting to immigrate. There are extremists, and their actions are sometimes violent and cause a lot of problems, but the prevailing attitude, according to studies and the sum of interviews, is acceptance. It's not utopian to imagine something similar towards people born with magic. I agree things are not like that in most places in Thedas, but such places do exist. Consider the Avvar.

[MisterJB]

No. I said if acceptance is the *prevailing* attitude, not the universal one. I can see the difference in my country and its attitude towards foreign fugitives attempting to immigrate. There are extremists, and their actions are sometimes violent and cause a lot of problems, but the prevailing attitude, according to studies and the sum of interviews, is acceptance. It's not utopian to imagine something similar towards people born with magic. I agree things are not like that in most places in Thedas, but such places do exist. Consider the Avvar.

The "prevailing attitude" is what the regime attempts to sell you.
As if anti-immigration activists would receive a fair interview without the term "supremacist" attached by the writer with some pictures of children in life jackets for good measure.
There are just as many polls pointing towards the majority of people being against what is happening.

But this is off topic and a loaded discussion.

[Drasanil]

If you're arguing human nature, I can do that, too: most people actually don't want conflict. They want stability in their lives and to be left alone to live their lives as they want. Why the heck would I want to oppress others as a mage, just because I have abilities others don't have? If anything, it's too much of a hassle to bother with. 

 

Yes people generally want stability in their lives and to be left alone. People however also tend to cut corners, think short term, look for the easy way out and generally try to get away with as much as they plausibly can.

 

Someone with magic will invariably have more tools at their disposal to do exactly that, sure it may start out small, and sure only a few mages will do it at first. While most won't go out looking to oppress normals, the more the free mages do it, the more wide-spread it will become and the more it will be seen as acceptable, at least to the free mages. Until eventually you'll get to a point where the hassle of not oppressing people, most of whom will object to being taken advantage of in a dozen petty ways, will outweigh the hassle of oppressing them ie: getting them to shut up about the surely trivial inconveniences they have to endure so you can be left alone to your life of assuredly modest comfort and stability. 

 

You think the orlesian nobility really puts effort into making the lower classes' lives miserable? Nope, that would be hassle as you point out, it's a by-product that evolved from the system and largely takes care of itself. Same would happen with free mages in the long run.  

[Ieldra]

The "prevailing attitude" is what the regime attempts to sell you.

I'm ok with "the regime" selling my preferred attitude if the majority isn't clear. Wouldn't it be better for the nations of Thedas to explore the possibilities for coexistence first, and only go back on that idea after evidence shows it won't work? Surely co-existence is fundamentally desirable if it can be achieved, is it not? And don't mention Tevinter. I'd like to see co-existence attempted in a society without a prevailing acceptance of slavery.

As for the other thing being a loaded discussion, not for me. I'm not emotionally invested in either side, though I do have a preference, basically because I don't see the point of the other side. Also, we live in different countries.

[TobiTobsen]

I still don't get why people demand equal rights for two groups of people who are clearly not equal.

 

Equal rights is a good concept in real life, because at the end of the day we're actually all the same. Black, white, brown, yellow, red, whatever, doesn't matter, we're all humans in the end.

 

That concept isn't working in Thedas. Normal people and mages are not equal. Even the weakest mage, who's only able to light a candle, immediately has an advantage over his normal peers of the same "skill level". Magic makes him a better and more effective candle lighter than a normal guy. He snips with his fingers, candle is burning. The normal dude needs to have some sort of help to accomplish this, like firestones, pieces of wood, whatever.

The advantage gap only gets wider the more capable a mage becomes.

 

Without some sort of technological "great equalizer" free mages and equal rights will only lead to mages dominating most, if not all, aspects of a society, malicious intentions being optional and depending on the personality of each individual mage.

[Ieldra]

Yes people generally want stability in their lives and to be left alone. People however also tend to cut corners, think short term, look for the easy way out and generally try to get away with as much as they plausibly can.
 
Someone with magic will invariably have more tools at their disposal to do exactly that, sure it may start out small, and sure only a few mages will do it at first. While most won't go out looking to oppress normals, the more the free mages do it, the more wide-spread it will become and the more it will be seen as acceptable, at least to the free mages. Until eventually you'll get to a point where the hassle of not oppressing people, most of whom will object to being taken advantage of in a dozen petty ways, will outweigh the hassle of oppressing them ie: getting them to shut up about the surely trivial inconveniences they have to endure so you can be left alone to your life of assuredly modest comfort and stability. 
 
You think the orlesian nobility really puts effort into making the lower classes' lives miserable? Nope, that would be hassle as you point out, it's a by-product that evolved from the system and largely takes care of itself. Same would happen with free mages in the long run.

I have to admit that you have a point. It's similar to how natural social inequality perpetuates itself until it results in the fundamental injustices of a class society - which is, all propaganda notwithstanding, the unacknowledged reality in most of the developed world.

The reality for the mageborn in Thedas, however, is not so clear. Again, look at the Avvar, their society has been stable for a very long time with no oppression of the mageborn, even as the necessity of the occasional drastic measure is acknowledged. So we can conclude that co-existence is possible, if perhaps harder to achieve than I'd like to believe. The question is then: how can we tweak the other systems so that individual mages can use their advantages in legitimate ways, without that eventually resulting in unbalanced influence for mages as a political faction? Any solution must appear reasonably fair to either side, or it will just fan the conflict. Disenfranchising the mageborn is no solution, it serves no purpose but to turn more mages into supremacists, based on the reasoning: "We can't have coexistence, and we won't accept subservience, so we must rule."

[Ieldra]

I still don't get why people demand equal rights for two groups of people who are clearly not equal.
 
Equal rights is a good concept in real life, because at the end of the day we're actually all the same. Black, white, brown, yellow, red, whatever, doesn't matter, we're all humans in the end.
 
That concept isn't working in Thedas. Normal people and mages are not equal. Even the weakest mage, who's only able to light a candle, immediately has an advantage over his normal peers of the same "skill level". Magic makes him a better and more effectice candle lighter than a normal guy. He snips with his fingers, candle is burning. The normal dude needs to have some sort of help to accomplish this, like firestones, pieces of wood, whatever.
The advantage gap only gets wider the more capable a mage becomes.
 
Without some sort of technological "great equalizer" free mages and equal rights will only lead to mages dominating most, if not all, aspects of a society, malicious intentions being optional and depending on the personality of each individual mage.

People in RL are actually not equal either. For instance, IQ ranges between 90 and 180. Some people are born into rich families, which is an advantage very hard to balance out, if at all. Equal rights is the idea that regardless of your individual capabilities, your political weight, and the regard the law has for you, should not be more or less than anyone else's. I say the idea rather gains, not loses importance the more natural inequality exists. It gains importance because it's the only distribution of political weight and rights that's regarded as reasonably fair by everyone, as a rule. There's actually no reason at all why a mage's natural advantages should legitimately translate into more political power.

The only other idea that could reasonably be regarded as fair is political weight and rights based on merit. The problem: nobody has yet come up with a definition of that acceptable by everyone. Having magic (or a lot of money) alone certainly doesn't qualify.

Edit:
It follows that applying the idea of equal rights to a society where some people have magic means leaving the mageborn to use their advantages legitimately in any lawful endeavour, but to prevent them from acquiring more political weight or advantages before the law. It is what we attempt with regard to social inequality in our modern democracies. It doesn't work very well, in some cases to the point where our societies have become plutocracies in all but name, but so far it has managed to keep the peace.