348 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

and Meredith's death squads openly killing people in broad daylight helps how?

 

Aside from when they hit legitimate targets? They don't. How much of an aside that is, isn't clear.

 

Regardless, you're repeating exactly what I pointed out-
 

 

 

Arguments about removing Meredith rely on removing her before the problem develops- but arguments to that invaribly rely on the meta-knowledge, rather than what she has and hasn't done at the time.

 

 

 

Meredith's Templar squads across the streets are an Act 3 issue. They aren't a rational to remove her in Act 2, unless we expect the Seekers to be able to see the future- and, having seen it, to then conclude that the issue is kicking at all, rather than the precision thereof.

 

By the time it gets to a point that Meredith is using Templars to kick down doors, there are definitely doors that deserve to be kicked down. In Act 3 alone, Hawke handles something like two or three maleficar gangs, a Tevinter agitator group (possibly the proto-Venatori) instigating rebellion, a Templar coup attempt headed by a corrupt templar and a blood mage, and the corrupt First Enchanter of the Kirkwall Circle. And that's not including the individual odds-and-ends Hawk handles, and is even involved in- Anders the abomination, Merrill the almost-abomination, and possibly Hawke him/herself.

[sandalisthemaker]

Actually, That is why the mage rebellion was inevitable: Templars were ruthless, abusive, sometimes murderous even, toward the weakest mages, but the most powerful mages, characters like a mage-Warden, a mage-Hawke, Wynne, Vivienne, Morrigan or Wilhelm were pretty much allowed to do whatever they wanted and more often than not permitted to garner a lot of political power.

 

How a system supposed to protect muggles from abuse by mages can maintain its legitimacy if every time the really dangerous ones start weaving their spells the Templars look the other way rather than risk punching above their weight-class?

 

 

 

Vivienne is fabulous. Therefore, I believe her when she says that all Circles were different, and I do not believe they were all miserable hell holes brimming with mage abuse. We've only been shown an example of one that was in game, Kirkwall, and the incident that occurred there fueled crack downs elsewhere. 

 

Also, all of those 'dangerous' powerful mages you named were actually the responsible relatively trustworthy ones.  Vivienne says that mages in good standing were allowed outside of most Circles so long as they had permission from the First Enchanter.    It's the weaker, disgruntled, power-hungry mages who end up causing the most trouble. 

[The Baconer]

What corruption of what duties? This is not an idle question- this is about system practices, not the views of individuals, and what they actually are reasonably expected to do. 'Act the way I like' is not a meaningful standard.
 
'Corruption' as an organizational concept has two meanings. The dominant meaning, relevant in modern political discourse, is 'dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.'

 
In the sense that the Seekers' efforts became geared toward cultivating the powers and authority granted to them by the original Accords, but not actually really fulfilling the duties that said powers and authority were meant to facilitate. 
 
With Kirkwall being the most egregious example, the platform isn't really "swoop in, wrap Meredith in chains, and throw her into the Waking Sea. Problem solved", it's that their general response should have been more than literally nothing at all. That Kirkwall had exceptional problems was well-known, and it shouldn't be unreasonable to expect that they should be on-location and conducting inquiry at some point. This wouldn't just mean observing the superficial conditions of the Gallows, but also determining where the Templars were unsuccessful in finding and excising toxic elements within the mages, and lending their expertise where necessary. The extent of their ignorance regarding the how and why of the Gallow's rebellion manifests in the total ineptitude that was the restructuring of Circle policy following the event, that would only serve to escalate tensions and ultimately culminating in the Circle's dissolution. Of course, the Chantry itself holds a lot of responsibility in that. 
 
 

Tranquility is an established part of the Circles, legitimized by the mages themselves- enough so that, if Tevinter is a guide, they won't give it up if they could. Tranquility as a punishment is not a norm- not yet, and fully deserves to be fought back against- but the Tranquil Cure doesn't real resolve anything- the vast majority of Tranquil are Tranquil because mages wanted them to be. The Tranquil Cure is a political firecracker, but doesn't do much to make things better- it's not really an issue of purpose-corruption under traditional purpose.

 

What, then, was the value of their efforts to hide the cure's existence? The knowledge of it may resolve nothing, but it was in their attempts to cover it up that would it become a liability, inhibiting the fulfillment of their original purpose. 

[In Exile]

Vivienne is fabulous. Therefore, I believe her when she says that all Circles were different, and I do not believe they were all miserable hell holes brimming with mage abuse. We've only been shown an example of one that was in game, Kirkwall, and the incident that occurred there fueled crack downs elsewhere. 

 

Also, all of those 'dangerous' powerful mages you named were actually the responsible relatively trustworthy ones.  Vivienne says that mages in good standing were allowed outside of most Circles so long as they had permission from the First Enchanter.    It's the weaker, disgruntled, power-hungry mages who end up causing the most trouble. 

 

Vivienne's testimony is suspect, given her views on the rebellion itself and, for example, the nature of abuse in Kirkwall. Remember, she denies the justifiably of the mages uprising even while accepting their grievances as legitimate (or rather, suggesting that the nature of their grievances doesn't warrant an uprising against the Chantry). 

 

There is also something to be said for the mages that we do see receive permission to leave the Circle (and the very fact that one requires "permission" to leave it). That system is in itself oppressive. Suppose, for example, we were not allowed to leave our homes unless we received permission from a state authority. House arrest with discretionary leave is not exactly the pro-rights system. 

[Dean_the_Young]

 
In the sense that the Seekers' efforts became geared toward cultivating the powers and authority granted to them by the original Accords, but not actually really fulfilling the duties that said powers and authority were meant to facilitate. 
 
With Kirkwall being the most egregious example, the platform isn't really "swoop in, wrap Meredith in chains, and throw her into the Waking Sea. Problem solved", it's that their general response should have been more than literally nothing at all. That Kirkwall had exceptional problems was well-known, and it shouldn't be unreasonable to expect that they should be on-location and conducting inquiry at some point. This wouldn't just mean observing the superficial conditions of the Gallows, but also determining where the Templars were unsuccessful in finding and excising toxic elements within the mages, and lending their expertise where necessary. The extent of their ignorance regarding the how and why of the Gallow's rebellion manifests in the total ineptitude that was the restructuring of Circle policy following the event, that would only serve to escalate tensions and ultimately culminating in the Circle's dissolution. Of course, the Chantry itself holds a lot of responsibility in that. 

 

This is still vague on what the Seekers should have, and could have, done that would make the situation better rather than worse- especially since we know that agents of the Divine were sent, and did identify problems (Leliana's cameo, the issues that Seekers found that they thought Meredith's actions were justified against).

 

I don't see a case that Seekers did nothing, so much as that we weren't around to see it (fair enough) and that there were more problems than the ones they settled at (also fair enough). But short of taking over- and picking a fight with the most powerful woman in Kirkwall who's crazy enough not to simply roll over to authority- what could they do that wouldn't escalate tensions?

 

If they fight Meredith, they escalate tensions. If they support Meredith, they escalate tensions. If they do nothing, tensions escalate.

 

 

What, then, was the value of their efforts to hide the cure's existence? The knowledge of it may resolve nothing, but it was in their attempts to cover it up that would it become a liability, inhibiting the fulfillment of their original purpose.

 

 

In general- a (useful) monopoly on the Seeker's unique powers, which would potentially enable mages to counter Templars as well as undermine the security assumptions that underly Tranquility.

 

As a tool for safety for unsafe mages, Tranquility's security relies on the assumption that it is irreversable. Because it is irreversible, the mages who undergo it are considered safe as Tranquil- never a threat again, never needed to be particularly concerned about. It's a non-lethal method to mitigate not only weak mages, but the most dangerous mages- without tranquility, the alternative to a successful harrowing is simply death.

 

When Tranquility can be cured, though- then mages remain a security threat even as Tranquil, because a Tranquil is simply a mage in waiting to be restored. Even independent that restored mages are emotionally volatile- very dangerous on their own, with or without the risk of possession- the concern becomes for those tranquil mages who were too weak or too wicked to be trusted with magic. Now these tranquil will have to be watched as well- lest someone attempt a gambit, with the tranquil's consent or not, of 'let's go tranquil, escape lower security, and regain magic.' With a tranquility cure, even Tranquil are now potential mage threats to be restricted like mages.

 

Finally, the Seekers powers over Templars- such as the ability to light lyrium in the veins- would be a remarkable boon for any mages who wanted to oppose the Templars. It doesn't matter if mages can have those powers or not- though it'd be worse if they did- but rather that mages could create their own power base of anti-Templar warriors. That would, at the very least, be a very dangerous thing to fall into the underground and criminal networks (which often intertwine), and be a tool as potent as blood magic for opposing the Circle system.

 

And that's without the poltical rammifications of timing, which IIRC Lambert muses on (in that he opposed the timing, not the actual research on tranquility-light).

[Lumix19]

This is still vague on what the Seekers should have, and could have, done that would make the situation better rather than worse- especially since we know that agents of the Divine were sent, and did identify problems (Leliana's cameo, the issues that Seekers found that they thought Meredith's actions were justified against).
 
I don't see a case that Seekers did nothing, so much as that we weren't around to see it (fair enough) and that there were more problems than the ones they settled at (also fair enough). But short of taking over- and picking a fight with the most powerful woman in Kirkwall who's crazy enough not to simply roll over to authority- what could they do that wouldn't escalate tensions?
 
If they fight Meredith, they escalate tensions. If they support Meredith, they escalate tensions. If they do nothing, tensions escalate.
 

 
In general- a (useful) monopoly on the Seeker's unique powers, which would potentially enable mages to counter Templars as well as undermine the security assumptions that underly Tranquility.
 
As a tool for safety for unsafe mages, Tranquility's security relies on the assumption that it is irreversable. Because it is irreversible, the mages who undergo it are considered safe as Tranquil- never a threat again, never needed to be particularly concerned about. It's a non-lethal method to mitigate not only weak mages, but the most dangerous mages- without tranquility, the alternative to a successful harrowing is simply death.
 
When Tranquility can be cured, though- then mages remain a security threat even as Tranquil, because a Tranquil is simply a mage in waiting to be restored. Even independent that restored mages are emotionally volatile- very dangerous on their own, with or without the risk of possession- the concern becomes for those tranquil mages who were too weak or too wicked to be trusted with magic. Now these tranquil will have to be watched as well- lest someone attempt a gambit, with the tranquil's consent or not, of 'let's go tranquil, escape lower security, and regain magic.' With a tranquility cure, even Tranquil are now potential mage threats to be restricted like mages.
 
Finally, the Seekers powers over Templars- such as the ability to light lyrium in the veins- would be a remarkable boon for any mages who wanted to oppose the Templars. It doesn't matter if mages can have those powers or not- though it'd be worse if they did- but rather that mages could create their own power base of anti-Templar warriors. That would, at the very least, be a very dangerous thing to fall into the underground and criminal networks (which often intertwine), and be a tool as potent as blood magic for opposing the Circle system.
 
And that's without the poltical rammifications of timing, which IIRC Lambert muses on (in that he opposed the timing, not the actual research on tranquility-light).

First the Seekers don't actually know what powers a Mage gets if tranquility is reversed since they never investigated that as a possibility. If they had they might have documented whether or not such mages are immune to demonic possession and mind control, useful attributes that would prevent even weak mages from becoming abominations - at best the Seekers could be accused of serious negligence.
And if we assume that it prevents demonic possession (and that mages gain new powers) than revealing the existence of a cure doesn't necessitate that Seekers reveal the nature of such a cure or the powers it entails. It could simply be a third option to the rite and the Harrowing. Those who are deemed worthy of the cure and the powers it entails, but don't wish to undergo the Harrowing (or might not pass it), can undergo the cure instead.
Instead what we have is precisely the scenario you describe, because it was Pharamond's research that uncovered the cure - something that was bound to occur eventually - every Circle in Thedas is aware of this cure and the nature of it.
And the latter is not something that every Seeker gets, each gift is unique which would make it pretty hard to build up a decently sized anti-Templar force.
Obviously the decision to keep it a secret was made at the foundation of the Seekers and they couldn't have known the repercussions, but I can't help but think that if they had been more open about it (and done their research) than a lot of the anger mages have towards tranquility wouldn't have happened.

[Dean_the_Young]

First the Seekers don't actually know what powers a Mage gets if tranquility is reversed since they never investigated that as a possibility. If they had they might have documented whether or not such mages are immune to demonic possession and mind control, useful attributes that would prevent even weak mages from becoming abominations - at best the Seekers could be accused of serious negligence.

 

Which is why I acknowledged the unknown and limited the risk of tranquility reversal to 'emotional volatility.'

 

 

And if we assume that it prevents demonic possession (and that mages gain new powers) than revealing the existence of a cure doesn't necessitate that Seekers reveal the nature of such a cure or the powers it entails. It could simply be a third option to the rite and the Harrowing. Those who are deemed worthy of the cure and the powers it entails, but don't wish to undergo the Harrowing (or might not pass it), can undergo the cure instead.

 

 

This is fanciful. If the Seekers open the ritual to the mages, the mages will know- and be able to study it or attempt to recreate it. The Seekers can only maintain a monopoly by keeping it a secret, and/or crushing all attempts to recreate it.

 

Nor should we assume that tranquility reversal prevents demonic possesion for mages as a matter of course. If it did, the entire point of the Harrowing and Tranquility would be obsolete. From a in-universe perspective, that goes against a lot of the Templar and Seeker interests- possession-proof mages are one of the ideal solutions, not the problem. From a meta-perspective of the universe, Bioware is remarkably unlikely to provide an easy, nearly ideal solution to a delimma they have deliberatly written to be difficult and non-ideal.

 

Instead what we have is precisely the scenario you describe, because it was Pharamond's research that uncovered the cure - something that was bound to occur eventually - every Circle in Thedas is aware of this cure and the nature of it.

 

This really isn't a counter-argument to any point I raised in what you quoted.

 

And the latter is not something that every Seeker gets, each gift is unique which would make it pretty hard to build up a decently sized anti-Templar force.

 

 

If only some mages might have a compelling interest in studying and weaponizing the research, in order to make an anti-Templar force more effective...

 

(And, IIRC, the 'cripple the Templars' wasn't a unique ability, but one shared across multiple seekers. Casandra has it- though it's told, never shown- as did at least one other.)

 

 

Obviously the decision to keep it a secret was made at the foundation of the Seekers and they couldn't have known the repercussions, but I can't help but think that if they had been more open about it (and done their research) than a lot of the anger mages have towards tranquility wouldn't have happened.

 

 

Why not? Under your proposal, everyone who hates Tranquility can point out not only how unjust it is, but that their friend/lover/whoever is forced to remain tranquil while others are not at the whims of the Templars and Seekers. Any mage denied it because the evaluators decided against them has all the same resentments, plus another, since they can hope to have the decision reversed if they put enough pressure about it.

 

That's plenty of grounds for antipathy against the system. The only issue about Tranquility that a Tranquility Cure really corrects is to reverse unjust-tranquilized- which, while an issue for a concern, aren't most tranquil.

[The Baconer]

This is still vague on what the Seekers should have, and could have, done that would make the situation better rather than worse- especially since we know that agents of the Divine were sent, and did identify problems (Leliana's cameo, the issues that Seekers found that they thought Meredith's actions were justified against).
 
I don't see a case that Seekers did nothing, so much as that we weren't around to see it (fair enough) and that there were more problems than the ones they settled at (also fair enough). But short of taking over- and picking a fight with the most powerful woman in Kirkwall who's crazy enough not to simply roll over to authority- what could they do that wouldn't escalate tensions?
 
If they fight Meredith, they escalate tensions. If they support Meredith, they escalate tensions. If they do nothing, tensions escalate.

 
They would gain a perspective of the Gallows' relations with the rest of Kirkwall, and how that in turn affected the Templars' endeavors, and where Meredith's policies succeeded or failed. They would also be able to target and approach Hawke and company whereas Meredith was hamstrung by politics. They certainly wouldn't have to wait (or, at least, feel the sudden need to wait) for Elthina's blessing before searching the Circle. In an ideal world, it wouldn't fall to supporting Meredith or supporting her detractors, as I imagine no one is going to come out looking particularly virtuous or justified. The optimal solution might have very well been the one that pleased the least amount of people... at least, in the short term. 
 
 

In general- a (useful) monopoly on the Seeker's unique powers, which would potentially enable mages to counter Templars as well as undermine the security assumptions that underly Tranquility.
 
As a tool for safety for unsafe mages, Tranquility's security relies on the assumption that it is irreversable. Because it is irreversible, the mages who undergo it are considered safe as Tranquil- never a threat again, never needed to be particularly concerned about. It's a non-lethal method to mitigate not only weak mages, but the most dangerous mages- without tranquility, the alternative to a successful harrowing is simply death.
 
When Tranquility can be cured, though- then mages remain a security threat even as Tranquil, because a Tranquil is simply a mage in waiting to be restored. Even independent that restored mages are emotionally volatile- very dangerous on their own, with or without the risk of possession- the concern becomes for those tranquil mages who were too weak or too wicked to be trusted with magic. Now these tranquil will have to be watched as well- lest someone attempt a gambit, with the tranquil's consent or not, of 'let's go tranquil, escape lower security, and regain magic.' With a tranquility cure, even Tranquil are now potential mage threats to be restricted like mages.

 
Is it enough to rule Tranquil as simply mages waiting to be restored? Given the actual process, one is much more likely to create a conventional Abomination (by several magnitudes) or simply fail than they are to actually reverse the Rite in any measure. Even more so when it is conducted as part of some hastily thrown-together scheme. 
 
 

Finally, the Seekers powers over Templars- such as the ability to light lyrium in the veins- would be a remarkable boon for any mages who wanted to oppose the Templars. It doesn't matter if mages can have those powers or not- though it'd be worse if they did- but rather that mages could create their own power base of anti-Templar warriors. That would, at the very least, be a very dangerous thing to fall into the underground and criminal networks (which often intertwine), and be a tool as potent as blood magic for opposing the Circle system.

 
It would also be a remarkable boon for anyone who wants to oppose mages, as the Seeker powers work just as well against them. Funnily enough, in this context most of the abilities that mages can use to coerce non-mages wouldn't even be of use against these individuals, meaning they don't have much in actually getting them to follow orders beyond hard currency. This is a dilemma I don't see coming to fruition in any regard.
 

Nor should we assume that tranquility reversal prevents demonic possesion for mages as a matter of course. If it did, the entire point of the Harrowing and Tranquility would be obsolete.

 

Not really. There's a reason why there are so few Seekers, and it's the same reason why the ritual is not considered a viable replacement for the Harrowing or Tranquility. 

[Lumix19]

This is fanciful. If the Seekers open the ritual to the mages, the mages will know- and be able to study it or attempt to recreate it. The Seekers can only maintain a monopoly by keeping it a secret, and/or crushing all attempts to recreate it.
 

No more fanciful than the concept that the Harrowing is kept secret from apprentices until they undergo it, or the Joining is kept secret until Wardens are inducted. The secrecy of the ritual can be maintained by only permitting those who can understand the necessity of such secrecy to undergo it.

 

Nor should we assume that tranquility reversal prevents demonic possesion for mages as a matter of course. If it did, the entire point of the Harrowing and Tranquility would be obsolete. From a in-universe perspective, that goes against a lot of the Templar and Seeker interests- possession-proof mages are one of the ideal solutions, not the problem. From a meta-perspective of the universe, Bioware is remarkably unlikely to provide an easy, nearly ideal solution to a delimma they have deliberatly written to be difficult and non-ideal.

Whatever the meta-game perspective it doesn't justify that the Seekers didn't even bother to explore the possibility from an in-universe perspective, because, as you rightly point out, possession-proof mages are an ideal solution, not a problem. And if we aren't going to assume that tranquility reversal provides demonic possession protection why are we assuming that it grants additional powers, such as lyrium ignition? They seem to go together after all.

 

 

Why not? Under your proposal, everyone who hates Tranquility can point out not only how unjust it is, but that their friend/lover/whoever is forced to remain tranquil while others are not at the whims of the Templars and Seekers. Any mage denied it because the evaluators decided against them has all the same resentments, plus another, since they can hope to have the decision reversed if they put enough pressure about it.

 

That's plenty of grounds for antipathy against the system. The only issue about Tranquility that a Tranquility Cure really corrects is to reverse unjust-tranquilized- which, while an issue for a concern, aren't most tranquil.

As you've pointed out before tranquility was supposed to be used with the permission of the mages, not the templars solely. So if mages feel that tranquil are being unjustly kept from the cure than they would not just have issues with the seekers and templars but with the mages who have aligned themselves with them, presumably the aequitarians and the loyalists. If the First Enchanter is aware of the secret he can select candidates for reversal based on personal judgment and with Seeker advice. Or those mages that are allowed to undergo the cure and reversal can be brought in to select mages.

What would differ is that friends of mages who were unjustly made tranquil would have a reason to believe that the wrongs done to them could be corrected. Chantry reforms seem more promising then since an investigation into abuse of tranquility could result in mages who were subjected to such abuse being healed.

And it would make the templars and seekers less likely to abuse the rite since, as you point out, seekers wouldn't want mages who have lyrium ignition, or whatever other powers Seekers gain, from running around without being vetted first.

 

Which as it stands, is now going to be a problem if tranquil reversal does grant additional powers. The abuse of the rite, widespread or not, means that if plans to reverse the rite for those unjustly made tranquil are put into place than there are going to be a lot of mages running around with additional powers.

 

So the Seekers and Chantry now stand in the difficult position of granting additional powers to individuals who are likely going to bear no small amount of (justified) animosity towards the templars and the Chantry or preventing those who were unjustly made tranquil from accessing the cure. I imagine the latter would not work in a reformed Circle.

[Reznore57]

I'm not sure a mage cured from tranquility would be safe from possession.

The cure restores the link to the fade , and a mage casting spell channel the fade so demons would be able to see him.

 

A non mage is already almost invisible to demons , and the relationship with the fade is purely passive , it happens through dreams.

If I remember correctly the Seeker who dies in Cassandra's quest , had a demon inside of him .

And even the tranquil in Asunder book got possessed , of course it was difficult but far from impossible.

There's no way it seems to make possession 100% impossible , corpses , trees etc get possessed too afterall.

 

Anyway there's no alternative to tranquility right now , it was ment to be performed on mages who can't handle their magic and are dangerous to themselves and others.

It's not just a matter of demons, Jowan in DAO was going to get branded because he was using blood magic .

The goal is not to make mages possession proof , the goal is to take away magic from mages who can't handle it , have strange and powerful powers.(like the girl talking with dragons), or are likely to abuse their power in the future.

[Dean_the_Young]

 
They would gain a perspective of the Gallows' relations with the rest of Kirkwall, and how that in turn affected the Templars' endeavors, and where Meredith's policies succeeded or failed. They would also be able to target and approach Hawke and company whereas Meredith was hamstrung by politics. They certainly wouldn't have to wait (or, at least, feel the sudden need to wait) for Elthina's blessing before searching the Circle. In an ideal world, it wouldn't fall to supporting Meredith or supporting her detractors, as I imagine no one is going to come out looking particularly virtuous or justified. The optimal solution might have very well been the one that pleased the least amount of people... at least, in the short term. 
 

 

How do you know that didn't happen? The nature of hypothetical optimals is that they can never actually be tested against alternatives.

 

Problem is, you're still being vague on specifics past general hand-waving, and still not proposing any action that doesn't also risk inflaming tensions as much or more than what did happen.

 

Say the Seekers approach Hawke and company- why do you think this would help tensions when Hawke is, by public knowledge, an apostate-supporter (if not an apostate him/herself), with ties to a blood mage conducting demonology research in the city and a radical revolutionary abomination? On top of a corrupt guard captain and a professional blackmailer, and possibly a former slaver? Hawke lives and trives by corruption.

 

If we go back to your earlier criticisms of the Seekers being too corrupt and too tolerant of corruption, why do you believe they'd amicably work with Hawke in a way that de-escalates, when you haven't even established what they might even do?

 

 

Thedas is not an ideal world, and Kirkwall is not an ideal situation- it it was, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

 

 

 

 

Is it enough to rule Tranquil as simply mages waiting to be restored? Given the actual process, one is much more likely to create a conventional Abomination (by several magnitudes) or simply fail than they are to actually reverse the Rite in any measure. Even more so when it is conducted as part of some hastily thrown-together scheme. 

 

 

If the purpose of the Circles is an security state to manage abominations and keep mages from the public, yes.

 

The supposition that a process is 'more likely' to create significant harm than succede is a reason why responsible individuals committed to the circles wouldn't do it. We're not particularly worried about that. We're worried about irresponsible people.

 

In so much as mages are a concern in the 'mages are walking bombs' (with the bomb being abomination), tranquility was once a non-ideal solution in that we could disarm the bomb. Realizing that tranquility can be cured is learning that we can re-arm the bombs by crossing the wires. Whether it blows up again immediately, or simply reactivated, doesn't change the security perspective.

 
 

 

 
It would also be a remarkable boon for anyone who wants to oppose mages, as the Seeker powers work just as well against them. Funnily enough, in this context most of the abilities that mages can use to coerce non-mages wouldn't even be of use against these individuals, meaning they don't have much in actually getting them to follow orders beyond hard currency. This is a dilemma I don't see coming to fruition in any regard.

 

 

Then you should look harder, or at least pray that your enemies don't. As a competitive advantage, open access to Seeker abilities favor mages more than non-mages.

 

Non-mages already have proven means for opposing mages- lyrium-fueled abilities of the Templars. Seekers are redundant for that. But Seekers provide those opposed to Templars (mages) a new ability that they didn't have before- the ability to negate the Templars. Between not gaining a new weakness, and gaining a powerful advantage against the one major group that can shut them down, Mages reduce the one significant disadvantage they have against mundanes.

 

Yes, mages do have to worry about their seeker-allies and supporters- but these are smaller worries than the Templars, who mages had even greater weakness over.

 

 

Not really. There's a reason why there are so few Seekers, and it's the same reason why the ritual is not considered a viable replacement for the Harrowing or Tranquility. 

 

 

In practice, I agree. In principle- and certainly in mage politics- I expect they have a different view. Many mage supporters already violently oppose the harrowing- unsuitability for the Seekers is not their concern.

[Dean_the_Young]

No more fanciful than the concept that the Harrowing is kept secret from apprentices until they undergo it, or the Joining is kept secret until Wardens are inducted. The secrecy of the ritual can be maintained by only permitting those who can understand the necessity of such secrecy to undergo it.

 

 

?

 

 

These work as secrets- in so much that they work (the harrowing is more of an open secret)- because of a monopoly of control and commitment by those who partake it. Wardens inherently know the taint.

 

The Seekers have commitment because of the nature of the cloistered identity they have. That's not going to apply if you're giving it to more and more mages, and then tell them they're free to go back to the circles and be mages but pretty please don't share this thing that everyone knows is possible now. The information control is just not there: neither the motivation or the means.

 

 

 

Whatever the meta-game perspective it doesn't justify that the Seekers didn't even bother to explore the possibility from an in-universe perspective, because, as you rightly point out, possession-proof mages are an ideal solution, not a problem. And if we aren't going to assume that tranquility reversal provides demonic possession protection why are we assuming that it grants additional powers, such as lyrium ignition? They seem to go together after all.

 

 

Here's where the meta-perspective is tripping you- we don't know that the Seekers didn't even bother to explore the possibility.

 

And frankly, we have no reason to believe they didn't- and a rather relevant reason to believe they did, because they discovered the means and the implications of reversing tranquility. They decided to hide it, yes- but that just means they made a decision for a cover up. It says nothing about what they did beforehand.

 

Also, you're conflating two different things- reversing tranquility, and the seekers themselves. Seekers powers are developed through ritual and training- they're not simply the result of reversing tranquility alone. Nor have we yet seen what the Seeker ritual itself does for mages.

 

I worry about seeker powers because if the mages know the seeker ritual, they can investigate it to orchestrate and cultivate mundanes to be their personal seekers, whether they themselves get lyrium ignition or not.

 

 

 

 

As you've pointed out before tranquility was supposed to be used with the permission of the mages, not the templars solely. So if mages feel that tranquil are being unjustly kept from the cure than they would not just have issues with the seekers and templars but with the mages who have aligned themselves with them, presumably the aequitarians and the loyalists. If the First Enchanter is aware of the secret he can select candidates for reversal based on personal judgment and with Seeker advice. Or those mages that are allowed to undergo the cure and reversal can be brought in to select mages.

 

 

 

This is the same problem as the old- if mages feel someone is unjustly made tranquil in the first place, they have issues not just with seekers and templars but also with the mages who aligned themselves with them. Because they're the ones who make the call.

 

This is, in fact, how tranquility in the circles work. Introducing a cure doesn't bring mage leadership into it, because it's already there. What a cure brings is new sustained pressure- instead of tranquility being a fait accompli, those who disagree with it can now have a goal (reversal) to agitate over.

 

And saying that it'd be a secret is, again, fanciful. Mages gossip and talk as much as anyone else- a tranquility cure won't be a secret if someone who was once tranquil is not a mage again.

 

 

 

What would differ is that friends of mages who were unjustly made tranquil would have a reason to believe that the wrongs done to them could be corrected. Chantry reforms seem more promising then since an investigation into abuse of tranquility could result in mages who were subjected to such abuse being healed.

 

 

Here's the thing, though-

 

A lot of people (mages and pro-mage supporters) think all tranquility is inherently wrong. They aren't going to be satiated with the healing of only some tranquil- they're going to be pushing for the healing of all tranquil.

 

Which is a problem as the system's public trust on mages is built around the harrowing, and the only alternative to the harrowing has been tranquility or death. Remove tranquility, and the system of trust (which is a key point to placating fear) is going to be a lot shakier when it's the harrowing or death.

 

 

 

 

And it would make the templars and seekers less likely to abuse the rite since, as you point out, seekers wouldn't want mages who have lyrium ignition, or whatever other powers Seekers gain, from running around without being vetted first.

 

 

 

This argument would have to be judged on two grounds-

 

First, how common is the abuse of the rite? By most non-Anders accounts, outside of Kirwall it was minor and generally unsanctioned.

 

Second, are there other ways to deter seekers and templars from abusing the right? Do other methods (such as, you know, punishment) provide as much or more deterrance value? If they do, will this actually deter abuse?

 

 

 

Which as it stands, is now going to be a problem if tranquil reversal does grant additional powers. The abuse of the rite, widespread or not, means that if plans to reverse the rite for those unjustly made tranquil are put into place than there are going to be a lot of mages running around with additional powers.

 

 

 

Sounds like an easily predictable problem. Why not avoid it?

 

Assuming we care about more people than just the unjustly tranquilized, of course.
 

 

So the Seekers and Chantry now stand in the difficult position of granting additional powers to individuals who are likely going to bear no small amount of (justified) animosity towards the templars and the Chantry or preventing those who were unjustly made tranquil from accessing the cure. I imagine the latter would not work in a reformed Circle.

 

 

 

'Work' is a relative term, and one that could be just as well applied to your first case.

 

Of course, this is all getting off track of the original premise- which was whether revealing that curing tranquility was possible was good or not.

 

So far, you've certainly raised numerous problems brought in by the cure, but not many ways it makes things better or shouldn't have been kept a secret in the first place.

[Iakus]

I'm not sure a mage cured from tranquility would be safe from possession.

The cure restores the link to the fade , and a mage casting spell channel the fade so demons would be able to see him.

 

A non mage is already almost invisible to demons , and the relationship with the fade is purely passive , it happens through dreams.

If I remember correctly the Seeker who dies in Cassandra's quest , had a demon inside of him .

And even the tranquil in Asunder book got possessed , of course it was difficult but far from impossible.

There's no way it seems to make possession 100% impossible , corpses , trees etc get possessed too afterall.

 

Anyway there's no alternative to tranquility right now , it was ment to be performed on mages who can't handle their magic and are dangerous to themselves and others.

It's not just a matter of demons, Jowan in DAO was going to get branded because he was using blood magic .

The goal is not to make mages possession proof , the goal is to take away magic from mages who can't handle it , have strange and powerful powers.(like the girl talking with dragons), or are likely to abuse their power in the future.

Non-mages can be possessed by demons.  It's just harder to do so because their link to the Fade is weaker.  THey can still be sensed by demons.  It's Tranquil that are "nearly invisible" to them because of their sundering from the Fade makes them not even show up as living beings to demons.  Yet even they can be possessed.  As you pointed out, so can trees, rocks, even the dead.

 

But Seekers cannot.  They're even immune to the effects of blood magic.  This is thier defining feature, what makes even Templars walk lightly around them.

 

I don't think it was demonic possession was involved in what happened to the Seekers.  Lucius was force-feeding them red lyrium to try and break them to Corypheus' will.  But they proved resistant to it's effects, though it was still fatal to them.

[The Baconer]

How do you know that didn't happen? The nature of hypothetical optimals is that they can never actually be tested against alternatives.

 

Firsthand statement from Cassandra, and then the fact that her follow-up investigation of Kirkwall's last decade was required at all. We know that the Seekers (or at least a Seeker) was responsible for the formation of the Band of Three, yet they decided to do nothing of use with the Three's findings. 

 

 

Say the Seekers approach Hawke and company- why do you think this would help tensions when Hawke is, by public knowledge, an apostate-supporter (if not an apostate him/herself), with ties to a blood mage conducting demonology research in the city and a radical revolutionary abomination? On top of a corrupt guard captain and a professional blackmailer, and possibly a former slaver? Hawke lives and trives by corruption.

 

If we go back to your earlier criticisms of the Seekers being too corrupt and too tolerant of corruption, why do you believe they'd amicably work with Hawke in a way that de-escalates, when you haven't even established what they might even do?

 

Who said anything about working amicably? On the contrary, I'd think a more probable (and even useful) approach would have been to just black-bag Hawke and begin interrogation regarding his/her relations with known apostates and criminals, as well as his/her interactions with Kirkwall's Templars. 

 

 

Then you should look harder, or at least pray that your enemies don't. As a competitive advantage, open access to Seeker abilities favor mages more than non-mages.

 

Non-mages already have proven means for opposing mages- lyrium-fueled abilities of the Templars. Seekers are redundant for that. But Seekers provide those opposed to Templars (mages) a new ability that they didn't have before- the ability to negate the Templars. Between not gaining a new weakness, and gaining a powerful advantage against the one major group that can shut them down, Mages reduce the one significant disadvantage they have against mundanes.

 

Yes, mages do have to worry about their seeker-allies and supporters- but these are smaller worries than the Templars, who mages had even greater weakness over.

 

That is a rather liberal use of "open access", given what the cure's administration would require and its success rate. Even then, would these mages take on even more expenses to ensure their soldiers have anywhere near the Seekers' training in martial ability, or even that of the Templars? Is it going to be worth the sunk costs when these soldiers are then flattened by cheap conscripts? 

 

For this scheme to even work you would need a mage or a group of mages who already possess exceptional wealth and the means to carry out large-scale operations without attracting much attention. I can think of a great number of ways those resources can be better used to further their interests, as opposed to trying to construct an army of quasi-Seekers. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Firsthand statement from Cassandra, and then the fact that her follow-up investigation of Kirkwall's last decade was required at all. We know that the Seekers (or at least a Seeker) was responsible for the formation of the Band of Three, yet they decided to do nothing of use with the Three's findings. 

From what I recall of Cassandra, she said that there were investigations and found problems they concluded validated meredith- not that they never happened or found something.

 

We also have no idea what the end results of the Band of Three was- that's a lack of information there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who said anything about working amicably? On the contrary, I'd think a more probable (and even useful) approach would have been to just black-bag Hawke and begin interrogation regarding his/her relations with known apostates and criminals, as well as his/her interactions with Kirkwall's Templars. 

 

 

 

 

Which would cause remarkable tensions considering that Hawke is, by that point, the third most powerful person in the city.

 

I thought you were criticizing the Seekers for letting tensions escalate and/or making the situation worse. Is this acceptable or not?

 

 

That is a rather liberal use of "open access", given what the cure's administration would require and its success rate. Even then, would these mages take on even more expenses to ensure their soldiers have anywhere near the Seekers' training in martial ability, or even that of the Templars? Is it going to be worth the sunk costs when these soldiers are then flattened by cheap conscripts? 

 

 

 

Sure- because the mages don't need their seekers to have Seeker-quality training or martial ability. They just need their seekers to light templar lyrium on fire. With the anti-magics nullified, mages can do the rest- or at least, have the greater freedom to do the rest.

 

The value of the seeker-lights isn't as canon fodder- it's to negate the primary people who can negate the Mages. That allows the secondary and tirtiary effects. The less overwhelming power the Templars have over mages, the less effective they are at restricting them: the less they restrict them, the more the mages can gather further powers (magical, mundane, or political) to further reduce and overcome that gap.

 

When Templars can no longer stop mages from doing magic, a very significant limiter on mage power and influence is gone.

 

 

 

For this scheme to even work you would need a mage or a group of mages who already possess exceptional wealth and the means to carry out large-scale operations without attracting much attention. I can think of a great number of ways those resources can be better used to further their interests, as opposed to trying to construct an army of quasi-Seekers. 

 

Hey, it's almost like the Circles have factions interested in lucrative business, and ties to mage undergrounds who can do things secretly!

 

You're also over-estimating the needs of quasi-seekers. The danger of quasi-seekers is as a core force that negate Templar influence, not armies made of them.

[The Baconer]

From what I recall of Cassandra, she said that there were investigations and found problems they concluded validated meredith- not that they never happened or found something.
 
We also have no idea what the end results of the Band of Three was- that's a lack of information there.

 
The Band of Three died. The point of their endeavors was to find the root of Kirkwall's problems with blood magic and demonry, but after they deceased it was decided that further investigation was inadvisable. 
 
 

Which would cause remarkable tensions considering that Hawke is, by that point, the third most powerful person in the city.
 
I thought you were criticizing the Seekers for letting tensions escalate and/or making the situation worse. Is this acceptable or not?

 
I'm criticizing them for inaction when action was required, and when they did decide to act, it was to adopt harsher policies across all Circles, even though said approach was demonstrably ineffective Kirkwall (and the result went about just as well). The escalation of tensions is referring to this latter period, where the act of "clamping down" is what set the ball rolling for upheaval in the first place.
 
 

Sure- because the mages don't need their seekers to have Seeker-quality training or martial ability. They just need their seekers to light templar lyrium on fire. With the anti-magics nullified, mages can do the rest- or at least, have the greater freedom to do the rest.
 
The value of the seeker-lights isn't as canon fodder- it's to negate the primary people who can negate the Mages. That allows the secondary and tirtiary effects. The less overwhelming power the Templars have over mages, the less effective they are at restricting them: the less they restrict them, the more the mages can gather further powers (magical, mundane, or political) to further reduce and overcome that gap.
 
When Templars can no longer stop mages from doing magic, a very significant limiter on mage power and influence is gone.

 
So the quasi-Seekers don't have martial ability, training, or even a standard of organization. They wouldn't even have the advantage of numbers. How far can the benefits of their single gimmick take them when they are still largely outnumbered and outgunned by Templars (we don't even know how many knights one individual can disable at one time), let alone regular soldiers who render their abilities wholly inconsequential?
 

Hey, it's almost like the Circles have factions interested in lucrative business, and ties to mage undergrounds who can do things secretly!
 
You're also over-estimating the needs of quasi-seekers. The danger of quasi-seekers is as a core force that negate Templar influence, not armies made of them.

 

Said faction benefits far more in sustaining the organization of the Circle, rather than in its subversion (and in the existence of Tranquil as well, as opposed to former-Tranquil). We have also not seen an underground collective that is capable of secretly conducting such a large-scale operation, or at least of the scale required to do what you think it could do. 

 

I think the benefits of quasi-Seekers are being massively overestimated, especially as a "core" force existing solely for the negation of Templar influence. 

[Dean_the_Young]

 
The Band of Three died. The point of their endeavors was to find the root of Kirkwall's problems with blood magic and demonry, but after they deceased it was decided that further investigation was inadvisable. 
 

 

Which doesn't change that we don't know what was or wasn't done with what they had found. There's an absence of information, not information of absence.

 

 

 

 
I'm criticizing them for inaction when action was required, and when they did decide to act, it was to adopt harsher policies across all Circles, even though said approach was demonstrably ineffective Kirkwall (and the result went about just as well). The escalation of tensions is referring to this latter period, where the act of "clamping down" is what set the ball rolling for upheaval in the first place.

 

 

Criticizing inaction when you (still) won't provide an acceptable course of action that would succeded by your own metrics of success and failure is hypocritical.

 

Ignoring, of course that there was an action- investigations that found problems they concluded validated practices. The seekers not resolving the problems that did send things over doesn't mean that what they found wouldn't have done the same had they not made their choices- or that 'choosing an action' wouldn't have done the same thing.

 

Moreover, the post-Kirkwall situation was a context well beyond the Seeker's power or mandate to simply 'step in.' The Seekers don't set policy in the Circles between Templars and Mages. Again, propose what they should have done that wouldn't (a) have been corrupt, and ( raised tensions: coup every Templar commander of every Circle and dictate everything proceed like it was before Kirkwall?
 
 

 

So the quasi-Seekers don't have martial ability, training, or even a standard of organization. They wouldn't even have the advantage of numbers. How far can the benefits of their single gimmick take them when they are still largely outnumbered and outgunned by Templars (we don't even know how many knights one individual can disable at one time), let alone regular soldiers who render their abilities wholly inconsequential?

 

 

Because they set lyrium in blood aflame. Or, as Cassandra so modestly put it, Templars will bow to their will.

 

Without Templar anti-magic, Templars are just soldiers. With their veins afire, they're less than equivalent mundanes. This makes it a fight of mages and their mundane proxies versus just mages- a dynamic that favors the mages far more than when mages face templars.

 

 

Said faction benefits far more in sustaining the organization of the Circle, rather than in its subversion (and in the existence of Tranquil as well, as opposed to former-Tranquil). We have also not seen an underground collective that is capable of secretly conducting such a large-scale operation, or at least of the scale required to do what you think it could do. 

 

 

This is only true if the faction's perception of benefits mirrors what yours are. Since there was a not-so-insiginificant fraction of mages who didn't want to sustain the organization of the Circles at all- in fact, they were rather violently opposed to it- this is unlikely.

 

And yes, we have seend underground collectives capable of conducting a large-scale operation. Maleficar cabals within the Circles- as well as groups like the mage underground, and the various mage gangs and cults elsewhere.

 

 

I think the benefits of quasi-Seekers are being massively overestimated, especially as a "core" force existing solely for the negation of Templar influence. 

 

Since Templar influence is one of the primary restraints on mage autonomy, disproportionate, I believe you are wrong. Templars are disproportionately effective against mages than any other mundane warrior- and so mitigating Templars is disproportionately beneficial to any group that can expect (or desires) opposition from them.

[The Baconer]

Which doesn't change that we don't know what was or wasn't done with what they had found. There's an absence of information, not information of absence.

 

It was said that they "looked into reports" of Meredith's policies and that they had "found" multiple cases of magical corruption. This sentence is immediately followed with "If we'd been there when it happened, if we looked at the root causes..." 

 

 

Criticizing inaction when you (still) won't provide an acceptable course of action that would succeded by your own metrics of success and failure is hypocritical.

 

The course of action was provided when it was initially requested. The bar wasn't even being set very high ("You just have to leave the station"), let alone in accordance with my own standards. 

 

 

Moreover, the post-Kirkwall situation was a context well beyond the Seeker's power or mandate to simply 'step in.' The Seekers don't set policy in the Circles between Templars and Mages. Again, propose what they should have done that wouldn't (a) have been corrupt, and ( raised tensions: coup every Templar commander of every Circle and dictate everything proceed like it was before Kirkwall?

 

I'm assuming that the restructuring of Circle policies post-Kirkwall was either due to the Grand Clerics or the various Templars. Either way, it would fall to the Templars to carry it out, and the Seekers acted as a direct authority to them, for better or worse. Still, I believe it is entirely possible for Lambert to dictate new terms for the Knight Commanders, who would then act in accordance with his word. He was certainly comfortable acting as their supreme commander in Asunder. 

 

In the event that they had bothered to learn what actually happened in Kirkwall before all the Circles rebelled, the Knight Commanders could have been urged (or ordered) to pump the brakes on their fruitless system-wide reprisal. 

 

 

Because they set lyrium in blood aflame. Or, as Cassandra so modestly put it, Templars will bow to their will.

 

Without Templar anti-magic, Templars are just soldiers. With their veins afire, they're less than equivalent mundanes. This makes it a fight of mages and their mundane proxies versus just mages- a dynamic that favors the mages far more than when mages face templars.

 

Bow to her will. It is never said that this is the standard gift, nor is it even explained how it works in practice. If they can only match a fraction of the Templar's numbers, they'll serve as little more than a speed bump unless their powers have an area of effect as well. 

 

 

This is only true if the faction's perception of benefits mirrors what yours are. Since there was a not-so-insiginificant fraction of mages who didn't want to sustain the organization of the Circles at all- in fact, they were rather violently opposed to it- this is unlikely.

 

That fraction coincidentally lacked most of the elements it would require for this plan to work: wealth, foresight, organization, charisma etc. 

 

 

And yes, we have seend underground collectives capable of conducting a large-scale operation. Maleficar cabals within the Circles- as well as groups like the mage underground, and the various mage gangs and cults elsewhere.

 

Coincidentally (again), this would also require the large-scale participation of individuals who cannot be threatened by said maleficar's most efficient tools. 

 

 

Since Templar influence is one of the primary restraints on mage autonomy, disproportionate, I believe you are wrong. Templars are disproportionately effective against mages than any other mundane warrior- and so mitigating Templars is disproportionately beneficial to any group that can expect (or desires) opposition from them.

 

And these Templar-mitigating fleshturrets are completely negated in turn by regular dudes with long sticks, it stops looking so disproportionately beneficial. 

 

In addition, that still does not address the fact that, for these quasi-Seekers, there are no forms of payment or coercion inherent to mages that can actually be used to guarantee continued service to mages. 

[Dean_the_Young]

It was said that they "looked into reports" of Meredith's policies and that they had "found" multiple cases of magical corruption. This sentence is immediately followed with "If we'd been there when it happened, if we looked at the root causes..."

 

Reads to me like 20-20 hindsight, not inaction.

 

 

 

The course of action was provided when it was initially requested. The bar wasn't even being set very high ("You just have to leave the station"), let alone in accordance with my own standards. 

 

 

Then you've frankly confused me on what your great idea was supposed to be. How is 'looked into reports' not 'just have to leave the station' or doing nothing?

 

I was under the impression you were also looking for actions that de-escalated tensions. I'm still not sure what your suggestions to that extent, as so far they amounted to enabling Meredith (helping her investigations with Seeker power) and kidnapping the second most important person in Kirkwall and Mereidth's primary political rival (Hawke.)

 

 

I'm assuming that the restructuring of Circle policies post-Kirkwall was either due to the Grand Clerics or the various Templars. Either way, it would fall to the Templars to carry it out, and the Seekers acted as a direct authority to them, for better or worse. Still, I believe it is entirely possible for Lambert to dictate new terms for the Knight Commanders, who would then act in accordance with his word. He was certainly comfortable acting as their supreme commander in Asunder. 

 

In the event that they had bothered to learn what actually happened in Kirkwall before all the Circles rebelled, the Knight Commanders could have been urged (or ordered) to pump the brakes on their fruitless system-wide reprisal. 

 

 

The Seekers aren't a direct authority over the Templars. They're an investigating authority. Lambert can certainly be permissing about what is considered out of line, but there's not much to indicate that the post-Kirkwall policy was 'illegitimate' in a Seeker-relevant way, even if it was unsuccessful.

 

And you also don't know that tey didn't try to learn before the Circles rebelled. Aside from how one of the endings of DA2 ends with entire Hawke party as fugitives, even the 'side with Templars/become Viscount' path is evidently a short and temporary one.

 

 

Bow to her will. It is never said that this is the standard gift, nor is it even explained how it works in practice. If they can only match a fraction of the Templar's numbers, they'll serve as little more than a speed bump unless their powers have an area of effect as well. 

 

 

As a proven potential ability that is non-exclusive, it is a realistic and achievable goal of research.

 

Nor do proto-Seekers need to match all the Templars numbers to be relevant and useful. An effective enough speed bump is an obstacle, and obstacles shape and direct the direction of conflicts. An obstacle to the Templars is disproportionate by nature of the Templars abilities, even if it's not a disproportate to other threats.

 

That fraction coincidentally lacked most of the elements it would require for this plan to work: wealth, foresight, organization, charisma etc. 

 

 

Coincidentally (again), this would also require the large-scale participation of individuals who cannot be threatened by said maleficar's most efficient tools. 

 

 

Since nearly all mages rebelled, it's odd to say that the fraction utterly lacked those abilities, or will forever lack them upon reconstitution of the circles.

 

As we don't need to have participants be threatened by a maleficar's most efficient tools (I assume you mean blood magic), only effective enough tools, our hypothetical mage cabal is still good- so long as they can use tools other than magic to influence and maintain control of people.

 

Given mundanes do this with eachother all the time, hardly impossible.

 

 

 

And these Templar-mitigating fleshturrets are completely negated in turn by regular dudes with long sticks, it stops looking so disproportionately beneficial. 

 

In addition, that still does not address the fact that, for these quasi-Seekers, there are no forms of payment or coercion inherent to mages that can actually be used to guarantee continued service to mages. 

 

 

 

Which is why you also have your own regular dudes with long sticks- and your wizards with lightning bolts- to counter the regular dudes with long sticks. Why you insist on presuming the proto-seekers are the army, I still don't understand. Seems an invented dependance to me.

 

Mages don't need forms of payment or coercion inherent to mages to keep the services of their seekers. They can use the same (or similar) guarantees that 'guarantee' the services of the Seekers to the mundane Divine: faith/ideology, and whatever motivations can be applied as research determines the limit and extent of seeker creation. Even if faith alone alows seeker abilities, cultivating a cult is the proven method of securing the services and loyalty of seekers.

 

Mages don't have to be dependent on magic to get people to work for them. 'Inherent to mages' isn't a requirement for their power base.

[The Baconer]

Reads to me like 20-20 hindsight, not inaction.

 

Then you've frankly confused me on what your great idea was supposed to be. How is 'looked into reports' not 'just have to leave the station' or doing nothing?

 

Reports were 'looked into', and they felt safe in following their initial assumptions for over a decade, despite the Gallows continually being regarded as an anomaly (and an escalating situation at that) despite the application of policies they originally deemed justified. Again, over a decade. 

 

 

I was under the impression you were also looking for actions that de-escalated tensions. I'm still not sure what your suggestions to that extent, as so far they amounted to enabling Meredith

(helping her investigations with Seeker power) and kidnapping the second most important person in Kirkwall and Mereidth's primary political rival (Hawke.)

 

Investigations of the Circle and Hawke would enable Meredith in the sense they would be working to find and eradicate magical corruption that previously eluded Kirkwall's Templars. Of course, the Seekers are tasked with rooting out Templar corruption as well, meaning a good number of those serving the Gallows, including Meredith will be implicated as well. 

 

The Seekers may very well have the Gallows annulled regardless, but the important part would be understanding the root causes of its ails in the first place, and working to prevent them from manifesting again. 

 

 

The Seekers aren't a direct authority over the Templars. They're an investigating authority. Lambert can certainly be permissing about what is considered out of line, but there's not much to indicate that the post-Kirkwall policy was 'illegitimate' in a Seeker-relevant way, even if it was unsuccessful.

 

And you also don't know that tey didn't try to learn before the Circles rebelled. Aside from how one of the endings of DA2 ends with entire Hawke party as fugitives, even the 'side with Templars/become Viscount' path is evidently a short and temporary one.

 

De jure, perhaps, but its certainly not how it worked out in practice. 

 

I don't know what the endings of DA2 have to do with possible Seeker follow-up. Both of them, combined with the investigation Cassandra started after the Seekers themselves went rogue, are more indicative of the acceptance of hearsay and rumor. 

 

 

As a proven potential ability that is non-exclusive, it is a realistic and achievable goal of research.

 

Proven in the sense that Cassandra mentions it, sure. To achieve what you're surmising here requires a culmination of multiple factors that are quite unproven. 

 

 

Since nearly all mages rebelled, it's odd to say that the fraction utterly lacked those abilities, or will forever lack them upon reconstitution of the circles.

 

We both know the context under which said mages rebelled, and that there is a disconnect between that and the fraction of mages who were violently opposed to the Circle, prior to the cataclysm. 

 

 

As we don't need to have participants be threatened by a maleficar's most efficient tools (I assume you mean blood magic), only effective enough tools, our hypothetical mage cabal is still good- so long as they can use tools other than magic to influence and maintain control of people.

 

Given mundanes do this with eachother all the time, hardly impossible.

 

So, measures that culminate in self-destruction are necessary to safeguard against powers that can potentially be used by anyone, controlled by the same methods available to everyone, for the fear of mages using it against Templars, even though it is just as dangerous to mages. 

 

 

Which is why you also have your own regular dudes with long sticks- and your wizards with lightning bolts- to counter the regular dudes with long sticks. Why you insist on presuming the proto-seekers are the army, I still don't understand. Seems an invented dependance to me.

 

Mages don't need forms of payment or coercion inherent to mages to keep the services of their seekers. They can use the same (or similar) guarantees that 'guarantee' the services of the Seekers to the mundane Divine: faith/ideology, and whatever motivations can be applied as research determines the limit and extent of seeker creation. Even if faith alone alows seeker abilities, cultivating a cult is the proven method of securing the services and loyalty of seekers.

 

Mages don't have to be dependent on magic to get people to work for them. 'Inherent to mages' isn't a requirement for their power base.

 

So for this to work, it requires a mage or mages who are, before the fact, wealthy and influential enough to field conventional armies to screen their special-forces groups of quasi-Seekers, and developed faiths/ideologies for the sake of indoctrinating individuals into serving cults or cult-like organizations. 

 

It sounds like the system these quasi-Seekers pose such a threat to has already failed several times over before they've even sprung into existence. 

[Lumix19]

?

 

 

These work as secrets- in so much that they work (the harrowing is more of an open secret)- because of a monopoly of control and commitment by those who partake it. Wardens inherently know the taint.

 

The Seekers have commitment because of the nature of the cloistered identity they have. That's not going to apply if you're giving it to more and more mages, and then tell them they're free to go back to the circles and be mages but pretty please don't share this thing that everyone knows is possible now. The information control is just not there: neither the motivation or the means.

 

How is the Harrowing an open secret? The Magi Origin from DAO establishes that apprentices don't know what the Harrowing is, so unless you and Jowan are supposed to be the most anti-social apprentices ever I don't think it's as open as you think it is.

 

Here's where the meta-perspective is tripping you- we don't know that the Seekers didn't even bother to explore the possibility.

 

And frankly, we have no reason to believe they didn't- and a rather relevant reason to believe they did, because they discovered the means and the implications of reversing tranquility. They decided to hide it, yes- but that just means they made a decision for a cover up. It says nothing about what they did beforehand.

 

Also, you're conflating two different things- reversing tranquility, and the seekers themselves. Seekers powers are developed through ritual and training- they're not simply the result of reversing tranquility alone. Nor have we yet seen what the Seeker ritual itself does for mages.

 

I worry about seeker powers because if the mages know the seeker ritual, they can investigate it to orchestrate and cultivate mundanes to be their personal seekers, whether they themselves get lyrium ignition or not.

We do because if they had explored the possibility they would have written the results in their secret book, the one Cassandra gets and reads after dealing with Lucius? She does state that they are emotional, irrational and unable to focus but promises to investigate it further.

To be fair we don't know that the cure and the seeker ritual is different. Cassandra certainly seems to conflate them, stating that she was made tranquil and then a faith spirit was summoned to touch her mind. And you're assuming that seeker powers are developed through ritual and training, it's perfectly plausible that the faith spirit touching their minds gives them their powers. For some time people argued that templars gained their powers from training rather than lyrium, I find it equally unlikely that seekers are given their powers through training than the tranquility reversal process.

Would mages having Seekers be an issue? Say for the College of Enchanters, wouldn't cultivating their own Seekers to help them manage their issues be somewhat helpful? Immune to mind control and demonic possession sound like useful tools against blood mages to me.

I can understand having an issue with mage self-governance but if it's going to exist than why not give them the tools to help them succeed?

 

 

This is the same problem as the old- if mages feel someone is unjustly made tranquil in the first place, they have issues not just with seekers and templars but also with the mages who aligned themselves with them. Because they're the ones who make the call.

 

This is, in fact, how tranquility in the circles work. Introducing a cure doesn't bring mage leadership into it, because it's already there. What a cure brings is new sustained pressure- instead of tranquility being a fait accompli, those who disagree with it can now have a goal (reversal) to agitate over.

 

In the former case they would be agitating anyway since many mages considered tranquility an essential death, performing it didn't cause mages to go "oh, it's too late now, they're already tranquil, let's return to our normal lives". They would be even angrier because there's supposedly no way of correcting the problem, did the permanence of Karl's tranquility make Anders feel any better?

The cure provides some possibility that the issue can be corrected. Now the Chantry or Seekers can promise investigations into cases of corruption and those who are unjustly made tranquil can have it reversed. In my view this would lessen the animosity mages who were victimized by templars would feel toward the system. Instead of their friend being permanently lost and their hatred toward the system being justified, some justice can at least be served.

 

 

And saying that it'd be a secret is, again, fanciful. Mages gossip and talk as much as anyone else- a tranquility cure won't be a secret if someone who was once tranquil is not a mage again.

 

They may be aware of the fact that they were cured but not how. If you'll recall Cassandra was unaware that she had even been made Tranquil and then cured, until she read the book she had no idea. So mages who undergo the cure may not be able to replicate it.

 

 

Here's the thing, though-

 

A lot of people (mages and pro-mage supporters) think all tranquility is inherently wrong. They aren't going to be satiated with the healing of only some tranquil- they're going to be pushing for the healing of all tranquil.

 

Which is a problem as the system's public trust on mages is built around the harrowing, and the only alternative to the harrowing has been tranquility or death. Remove tranquility, and the system of trust (which is a key point to placating fear) is going to be a lot shakier when it's the harrowing or death.

People may ask for all tranquil to be healed, but really that's predicated on the belief that the Harrowing is not a useful tool for testing mages. That's a different discussion.

Is the system's public trust truly built around the Harrowing? Nobody outside of the Circle even seems to really mention it, or even be aware of it's existence. I think the Circle itself is what people trust, not the Harrowing or Tranquility. When apostates run around nobody is thinking "has he/she been through the harrowing?".

 

This argument would have to be judged on two grounds-

 

First, how common is the abuse of the rite? By most non-Anders accounts, outside of Kirwall it was minor and generally unsanctioned.

 

Second, are there other ways to deter seekers and templars from abusing the right? Do other methods (such as, you know, punishment) provide as much or more deterrance value? If they do, will this actually deter abuse?

 

Care to bring up such sources? I will grant that the abuse of the rite probably didn't occur in Lake Calenhad but we really don't know about the rest. And we know that there are hundreds of tranquil, surely not every one of them would have failed their Harrowing or asked for tranquility.

Your second point is predicated on the assumption that the rite should be used if mages are abusing their powers. And we know that's not what it's supposed to be for, it's only supposed to be used for mages who cannot control their powers and it's codified in chantry law that making a Harrowed mage tranquil is illegal.

 

 

 

Sounds like an easily predictable problem. Why not avoid it?

 

Assuming we care about more people than just the unjustly tranquilized, of course.
 

 

'Work' is a relative term, and one that could be just as well applied to your first case.

 

Of course, this is all getting off track of the original premise- which was whether revealing that curing tranquility was possible was good or not.

 

So far, you've certainly raised numerous problems brought in by the cure, but not many ways it makes things better or shouldn't have been kept a secret in the first place.

 

I'm not even sure how to respond to that first point. Are you proposing that those unjustly tranquilized remain tranquil so that they don't have additional powers and legitimate animosity toward the templars/chantry? First how is that moral? Second how does that make the mages feel like their going to be fairly and justly treated by the Chantry?

Revealing the cure for tranquility was not really the issue in the first place, by the time Pharamond's research came to light it was far too late. Keeping it a secret in the first place was what did it in my opinion. If they had shared the possibility of a cure mages would have possibly been more trusting of the Chantry, or at mages wouldn't be so angry at the possibility that their friends are being made tranquil without hope for a cure. Of course the Chantry would need to actually do some work, instigate investigations into such corruption, the Seekers would actually have to do their jobs and not just ignore the breaking of Chantry law but in the end having unjustly made tranquil cured would have gone a long way to restoring the faith of mages in the system. If the Seekers hoped that the permanence of Tranquility would cow the mages into submitting then they got that horribly wrong, it only made them all the more determined that the Chantry and the system itself needed to be overturned.

[Dean_the_Young]

How is the Harrowing an open secret? The Magi Origin from DAO establishes that apprentices don't know what the Harrowing is, so unless you and Jowan are supposed to be the most anti-social apprentices ever I don't think it's as open as you think it is.

 

 

Mages- or at least some of them- know what the harrowing is in terms of 'the big test they have to pass.' The secret of the harrowing is what it entails, not it's existence- or else we wouldn't have mentions (including some item equipment descriptions) of mages who voluntarily took tranquility rather than do the harrowing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

We do because if they had explored the possibility they would have written the results in their secret book, the one Cassandra gets and reads after dealing with Lucius? She does state that they are emotional, irrational and unable to focus but promises to investigate it further.

 

 

Wonderful- it's like she's building off of what someone else looked into long ago.

 

 

 

Skipping a bit here and there to help reduce the clutter.

 

 

 

Would mages having Seekers be an issue? Say for the College of Enchanters, wouldn't cultivating their own Seekers to help them manage their issues be somewhat helpful? Immune to mind control and demonic possession sound like useful tools against blood mages to me.

 

 

Oh, yes, this would certainly be an issue- quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

 

Mages being seekers (if that's possible) is not itself a bad thing- so long as they do not dominate the Seekers- but the College of Enchanters cultivating their own brand of seekers, under their own control, would be a disaster in the making. Organizations are notoriously bad at self-policing, and the mages of Southern Thedas in particular have a recent and consistent history of failure in doing so.

 

In Thedas, the very relevant comparison is the Tevinter Templars. The problem with Tevinter's Templars isn't that they're mind-controled or suffer demonic possession- it's that they answer to the people they're nominally supposed to oversee. In the College, this is weak oversight begging for corruption at best, or actively building an anti-Templar force to resist external oversight and interferance at worst.

 

(Which, shout out to Baconer, is where I'm going towards.)

 

 

I can understand having an issue with mage self-governance but if it's going to exist than why not give them the tools to help them succeed?

 

 

Because of the issues with mage self-governance governance succeeding. Tevinter is an actually appropriate example of successful mage self-governance- in fact, Tevinter has done so well, it has the tools to succeed.

 

 

 

 

In the former case they would be agitating anyway since many mages considered tranquility an essential death, performing it didn't cause mages to go "oh, it's too late now, they're already tranquil, let's return to our normal lives". They would be even angrier because there's supposedly no way of correcting the problem, did the permanence of Karl's tranquility make Anders feel any better?

The cure provides some possibility that the issue can be corrected. Now the Chantry or Seekers can promise investigations into cases of corruption and those who are unjustly made tranquil can have it reversed. In my view this would lessen the animosity mages who were victimized by templars would feel toward the system. Instead of their friend being permanently lost and their hatred toward the system being justified, some justice can at least be served.

 

 

Here's the difference between us- you're thinking in terms of false positive, people unjustly tranquilized who will be healed, while I'm thinking in terms of false negatives, people rightly tranquilized but who will also have demands to be healed.

 

I also disagree that the feeling of victimization would lesson- but then, I've been with people who were accused of oppression and murder for shooting back after being shot at. In my experience, people still feel victimized if someone they know or care about is affected by the system for legitimate reasons. The option to reverse such a condition sustains and fuels such resentments- far more so than things that are fait accompli and allow time to come to terms with irreversibility.

 

Anders is a poor case to bring up- not least because he didn't know Karl's tranquility ahead of time. He was in the emotional reactive state. Years later, he really doesn't bring it up much- which is the point of irreversible things.
 

 

They may be aware of the fact that they were cured but not how. If you'll recall Cassandra was unaware that she had even been made Tranquil and then cured, until she read the book she had no idea. So mages who undergo the cure may not be able to replicate it.

 

Here's where we have to remember who's involved in this: Cassandra.

 

Cassandra isn't going to allow the Seekers to monopolize the cure ritual.

 

 

 

People may ask for all tranquil to be healed, but really that's predicated on the belief that the Harrowing is not a useful tool for testing mages. That's a different discussion.

Is the system's public trust truly built around the Harrowing? Nobody outside of the Circle even seems to really mention it, or even be aware of it's existence. I think the Circle itself is what people trust, not the Harrowing or Tranquility. When apostates run around nobody is thinking "has he/she been through the harrowing?".

 

 

I suppose I could have said 'institutional' trust. The harrowing is the key measure for allowing mages a greater degree of autonomy and freedom- harrowed mages get to leave the Circles more, rise to positions of power and authority, conduct research of their own desire, and engage in mage politics. Harrowing the universal proof of 'I've got this, you can trust me to handle the demons and not blow myself and everyone else up.'

 

 

Care to bring up such sources? I will grant that the abuse of the rite probably didn't occur in Lake Calenhad but we really don't know about the rest. And we know that there are hundreds of tranquil, surely not every one of them would have failed their Harrowing or asked for tranquility.

Your second point is predicated on the assumption that the rite should be used if mages are abusing their powers. And we know that's not what it's supposed to be for, it's only supposed to be used for mages who cannot control their powers and it's codified in chantry law that making a Harrowed mage tranquil is illegal.

 

 

The first point is on the rarity of unjustified tranquilities we see even in Kirkwall, with is the worst of the worst places of Templar conduct in Thedas. In Acts 1, it's mostly done by Alrik- who's explicitly avoiding orders, while we learn that tranquilization of mages is illegal under chantry law. Meredith gets away with it in Act 3 because of the defacto state of emergency and the fact that she's taken major political power in the city and is mad enough to not be worth provoking- in Circles where the Knight Commander is not mad, extraordinarily powerful in politics, or have the contextual excuse, Chantry law can safely be assumed to still hold.

 

You misunderstand the second point. Mage abusing their powers is irrelevant to it. You used a supporting argument that reversing tranquility would offer a deterrance effect on Templars doing bad behavior if their bad behavior leads to mages being de-tranquilized and empowered. The first question is 'is this true?'- deterrance is an iffy prospect at best, especially in time-delayed contexts like these. The second question is 'is it effective?'- as in, is this value of deterrance best or better achieved through other means?

 

 

I'm not even sure how to respond to that first point. Are you proposing that those unjustly tranquilized remain tranquil so that they don't have additional powers and legitimate animosity toward the templars/chantry? First how is that moral? Second how does that make the mages feel like their going to be fairly and justly treated by the Chantry?

 

 

You familiar with the phrase 'fiat justitia ruat caelum'?

 

The Circles are, at the end of a day, a security state based on consequentialism, not justice. Mages are segregated from mundanes because of bad history, real concerns, and realistic (and recently proven) fears. In order to manage relations, prevent certain political dynamics, and prevent harm to both sides, a system is put in place that exacts exceptional sacrifices on mages (and lesser, often overlooked sacrifices by mundanes). This is not done because it is inherently just, but because of the expected consequences if it is not done (which is a different sort of justice, and one that matters).

 

The system does not work perfectly. That is not desired, but it is expected, because no system can realistically be expected to work perfectly. What matters when a system fails is not that failure happens at all, but the scope and scale of the consequences. When the system does not work right, and people are harmed, the answer is not 'reverse the harm at all costs'- the decision must be weighed against the costs, and benefits, for both the person and those around them. If the cure is worse than the disease, then it's not actually a good thing.

 

I could, for example, point out that from the start the process of curing tranquility is not a guarantee, or even safe- that it entails real risk, regardless of demon possesion, to the mage and those around them during the period of being emotionally empowered with powers. The death of one other person, in this case, would outweigh all the gain- even as it would almost certainly lead to the volatile mage being put down as a menace as well.

 

I could also point out that you aren't even raising the prospects or relevance of the tranquil's point of view. I will be the first to say that I view tranquil as people- enough so that I would expect and want the consent of the tranquil before they be 'cured', just as I would before they be 'put out of their misery.' The person they once were may have hated it, and the person they might be might hate having been, but the person they are now is real, valid, and most of all present. They are, after all, the victim here- and if an unjustifiably tranquil does not want to be 'cured', I see little reason to do so.

 

But most of all, I would point out to the mages that if they are doomed to exist within a security state in the first place, I will not do them the dishonor of wasting their sacrifice with an ineffective security state. They are already required to give up many freedoms- I would not tell them that I will disregard their lifetime of sacrifices to gamble with their lives and the lives of others instead. Justice that can be metted out, should- perpetrators of unjust tranquilization judged as appropriate.

 

But I do not believe in justice above all else- I do not even believe it to be justice after a point- and that is what fairness often is. The compromise between restitution, retribution, and acceptance of what has happened.

 

 

 

 

 

Revealing the cure for tranquility was not really the issue in the first place, by the time Pharamond's research came to light it was far too late. Keeping it a secret in the first place was what did it in my opinion. If they had shared the possibility of a cure mages would have possibly been more trusting of the Chantry, or at mages wouldn't be so angry at the possibility that their friends are being made tranquil without hope for a cure. Of course the Chantry would need to actually do some work, instigate investigations into such corruption, the Seekers would actually have to do their jobs and not just ignore the breaking of Chantry law but in the end having unjustly made tranquil cured would have gone a long way to restoring the faith of mages in the system. If the Seekers hoped that the permanence of Tranquility would cow the mages into submitting then they got that horribly wrong, it only made them all the more determined that the Chantry and the system itself needed to be overturned.

 

 

In order- the past was set so revealing the cure for tranquility is the issue, people angry without hope for a cure are the sort who will be angry until a cure is given whether warranted or not, the Chantry does actually do 'some' work such as investigations, the Seekers do do their jobs, tranquility was a relatively minor part of the mages faith in the systems, and the permanence of tranquility was not to cow the mages into submission.

[Dean_the_Young]

Reports were 'looked into', and they felt safe in following their initial assumptions for over a decade, despite the Gallows continually being regarded as an anomaly (and an escalating situation at that) despite the application of policies they originally deemed justified. Again, over a decade. 

 

 

 

Investigations of the Circle and Hawke would enable Meredith in the sense they would be working to find and eradicate magical corruption that previously eluded Kirkwall's Templars. Of course, the Seekers are tasked with rooting out Templar corruption as well, meaning a good number of those serving the Gallows, including Meredith will be implicated as well. 

 

The Seekers may very well have the Gallows annulled regardless, but the important part would be understanding the root causes of its ails in the first place, and working to prevent them from manifesting again. 

 

 

 

De jure, perhaps, but its certainly not how it worked out in practice. 

 

I don't know what the endings of DA2 have to do with possible Seeker follow-up. Both of them, combined with the investigation Cassandra started after the Seekers themselves went rogue, are more indicative of the acceptance of hearsay and rumor. 

 

 

 

Proven in the sense that Cassandra mentions it, sure. To achieve what you're surmising here requires a culmination of multiple factors that are quite unproven. 

 

 

 

We both know the context under which said mages rebelled, and that there is a disconnect between that and the fraction of mages who were violently opposed to the Circle, prior to the cataclysm. 

 

 

 

So, measures that culminate in self-destruction are necessary to safeguard against powers that can potentially be used by anyone, controlled by the same methods available to everyone, for the fear of mages using it against Templars, even though it is just as dangerous to mages. 

 

 

 

So for this to work, it requires a mage or mages who are, before the fact, wealthy and influential enough to field conventional armies to screen their special-forces groups of quasi-Seekers, and developed faiths/ideologies for the sake of indoctrinating individuals into serving cults or cult-like organizations. 

 

It sounds like the system these quasi-Seekers pose such a threat to has already failed several times over before they've even sprung into existence. 

 

Baconer, I'm going to end here. I don't agree with your position(s), but I don't see us doing anything but talk in circles and quote chains if we keep it up.

 

I'm not going to leave off with some massive rebuttal post and then try and walk away with the last word- it really annoys me when I see people do that- so instead I'm going to thank you for a courteous exchange and call it quits with you for now.

 

Thanks for the courteous exchange, and hope you have a good evening/day/morning.

 

V/R

 

Dean

[The Baconer]

Much obliged.