348 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

The thing is, while mages are people like everyone else, they are not in fact like everyone else.  You can take a sword away from a murderous chevalier.  You can seize the property of a corrupt merchant.  You can even topple the throne of a wicked king.  How how do you take magic away from a mage?

 

How does a city watch deal with a criminal mage who can set constables on fire with a wave of the hand?  How can you imprison a mage who can call down lightning?  You will need mages to protect you from them.  They will become leaders against other mages.  And remember how Solas described things after their mysterious war:  "Generals became respected elders, then kings, then finally gods.  The Evanuris."

Here my original point comes in: tell me: are we ruled by technocrats? By the police? By the same people who do law enforcement? What roles do technical specialists have in law enforcement and government in our societies? If anything, they tend to have subordinate roles - and why? Because their skillsets are largely irrelevant to leadership, and most of those who have an interest in developing those special skills don't even have an interest in leadership.

 

Mages are technical specialists. Their powers take years of training to master, and if you don't have the dedication and stop your training at the point where you won't destroy yourself, you're not likely to be any good.

 

So yes, you need a mage to protect people against magic, just as you need a programmer or hacker to protect people against computer-based crimes. In both cases, the skills required are irrelevant to leadership, and even if you have a big weapon, forcing the issue will get you only so far. In the end, leadership and rulership are social skills, and magic won't help you there except if you have power on Corypheus' level.

 

The assumption that mages will end up in power is based on a different assumption: that mages will always band together with other mages. If mages are integrated into society, that is unlikely to happen because being mageborn does not predispose you towards any specific interest - again, consider the analogy of technical specialists in modern society. When that happens, it's more likely because of antagonism against mages as a group, just as in modern societies minorities tend to band together if they have a history of being oppressed. So really, fear of magic turned into oppression is rather more likely to create the conditions where mages will end up in power. Integrate them into society, and all you'll have to deal with is the occasional mageborn criminal, and the other mages will help with that.

 

BTW, compare the stories set in the X-Men universe....it's exactly the same kind of scenario.

[Iakus]

Here my original point comes in: tell me: are we ruled by technocrats? By the police? By the same people who do law enforcement? What roles do technical specialists have in law enforcement and government in our societies? If anything, they tend to have subordinate roles - and why? Because their skillsets are largely irrelevant to leadership, and most of those who have an interest in developing those special skills don't even have an interest in leadership.

 

Mages are technical specialists. Their powers take years of training to master, and if you don't have the dedication and stop your training at the point where you won't destroy yourself, you're not likely to be any good.

 

So yes, you need a mage to protect people against magic, just as you need a programmer or hacker to protect people against computer-based crimes. In both cases, the skills required are irrelevant to leadership, and even if you have a big weapon, forcing the issue will get you only so far. In the end, leadership and rulership are social skills, and magic won't help you there except if you have power on Corypheus' level.

 

The assumption that mages will end up in power is based on a different assumption: that mages will always band together with other mages. If mages are integrated into society, that is unlikely to happen because being mageborn does not predispose you towards any specific interest - again, consider the analogy of technical specialists in modern society. When that happens, it's more likely because of antagonism against mages as a group, just as in modern societies minorities tend to band together if they have a history of being oppressed. So really, fear of magic turned into oppression is rather more likely to create the conditions where mages will end up in power. Integrate them into society, and all you'll have to deal with is the occasional mageborn criminal, and the other mages will help with that.

Given we're having this conversation via computer and likely thousands of miles away from each other, I'd say, yeah technocrats have a strong influence on society 

 

But at any rate, I would say mages are not technical specialists.  It is a physical talent.  Like being strong, fast, or clever.  Training lets you so more, achieve greater potential.  But you have this ability whether you want it or not.  And it will develop, again whether you want it to or not.

 

And yes, having magic does not preclude you to any desire to rule or dominate.  A mage raised by a couple of farmers taught right from wrong at an early age and instilled with a desire to help those in need may well end up being a champion for humanity.  With a red cape and everything.

 

But having a power others around you lack will be tempting.  Why shouldn't you impose your will on them after all?  You know best.  and you have the ability to make it happen.  Once they see that you were right all along, they'll come around, won't they?

 

And as we see in other nations, there is social stratification wherever you go.  Even comparatively egalitarian Ferelden.  Integrate mages into these societies, and they will either rise or fall.  Given their power to reshape reality, I'd say rise.

[ComedicSociopathy]

I'm not sure I buy the "mages will always attempt to use their abilities to take over" theory. Mages are ultimately people with independent thoughts and decides that don't always include control over others. If mages were integrated into society its just as likely that many will be entirely unambitious and decide to have normal domesticated lives, especially if getting into politics and rulership involves the dangerous Machiavellian power struggles present in Orlais or Tevinter. Now, should some or even many mages try to dominate? Sure. But if they tried to do so in a confrontational and direct way than they would rather quickly be shut down by the armies of the nobility who clearly have numerical supremacy over mages. Add that to the anti-magical abilities of lyrium and anti-blood magic tools like the Litany of Adrella, I'd imagine that a mage coup would be incredibly difficult. 

[Wulfram]

If you're worried about magocracy, tell Varric to share Bianca's schematics. Technology can help level the playing field.

If it needs levelling. The military failure of the mage rebellion suggests that they aren't all that powerful anyway. Though that's mages as a group. Mages in DA seem to follow Conservation of Ninjutsu logic sometimes - mages as a group are basically cannon fodder, but individual mages can really screw things up.

[Bleachrude]

So, I would assume you want to eliminate hereditary nobility as well, given that the same psychological effects of power and seeing others as inferior is at least as strong among them?

 

Er, isn't that what NATURALLY happens anyway? As the average literacy rate goes up, suffrage extends further and further away from being "a hereditary right". 

[EmperorSahlertz]

Once we get to see a society, that doesn't rigorously control their mages, either through strict governmental control, confinement, ritual and/or tradition, which aren't ruled by mages, then I will change my mind. But until then, I am gonna go ahead and say, that ALL societies with free mages, end up being ruled by mages.

[Iakus]

If you're worried about magocracy, tell Varric to share Bianca's schematics. Technology can help level the playing field.

 

Not sure if that was a joke or not, but it's a good point.  If muggles had readily available tools that put them on equal footing with mages, that would go a  long way towards true integration.

[MisterJB]

A mage rebellion happened even without ideas of inherent governmental equality; if you'd try to introduce them to everyone except for mages, they'd become far more frequent. The only way it'll work in a stable manner is to give the mages an incentive to buy into the system, and they'll need to have representation for that. If you're going to try to create some kind of parliament, you could have regional representatives for various nations, plus a representative for the mages; they can be considered their own demographic, due to their special needs, provided your government possesses the necessary minority protections.

When has any group of people, ever, took only a little bit of power and said "That is enough" if they could take more?

Did the mages of Tevinter seek only representation, 50/50 or did they take all power and forbade those without magic from holding any seats in the Magisterium and positions above Brother in the Chantry?

 

Instead of speaking of "rebellion", let us talk of "conflict". Yes, there will be more conflicts between mages and non-mages in Thedas. Because they are competing groups and they will always be competing groups. The mages have won in Tevinter, non-mages won in Orlais, Ferelden, etc.

 

What you suggest is that non-mages ignore this fundamental rule of nature and knowingly give power to their competitors thus endagering their own position and safety for no perceivable reason.

 

Proposals for equality between normals and mages are doomed to failure because it simply cannot be done and will never be done because it is as impossible as stopping the sun from rising by throwing peebles at it.

[ComedicSociopathy]

Once we get to see a society, that doesn't rigorously control their mages, either through strict governmental control, confinement, ritual and/or tradition, which aren't ruled by mages, then I will change my mind. But until then, I am gonna go ahead and say, that ALL societies with free mages, end up being ruled by mages.

 

Rivain and its seers are revered but aren't rulers of the country like Tevinter. Also, there's the Avvar. 

[MisterJB]

Rivain and its seers are revered but aren't rulers of the country like Tevinter. 

 

According to The World of Thedas Volume 1, in the more traditional communities, Seers make all the decisions.

That is an authoritarian ruler to me. They may not hold power in the most Andrastian areas or those invaded by the qunari but again, both societies have institutions meant to prevent mages from ruling over others.
 

[EmperorSahlertz]

Rivain and its seers are revered but aren't rulers of the country like Tevinter. 

Rivain also subject all of their amges to strict traditions. And they do adhere their Seers in local cases of governance, so Rivain is not an example of a free mages society not ruled by mages.

[ComedicSociopathy]

Rivain also subject all of their amges to strict traditions. And they do adhere their Seers in local cases of governance, so Rivain is not an example of a free mages society not ruled by mages.

 

But are these traditions forced upon Rivain and its people by force like in Tevinter or they accepted by the people who simply prefer that way of doing things? Furthermore, local governance in small villages isn't really domination by mages and evidence of exclusive in who gets to rule. Rivain is a kingdom that has a nobility, not a council of mages that make all decisions of state. 

 

According to The World of Thedas Volume 1, in the more traditional communities, Seers make all the decisions.

That is an authoritarian ruler to me. They may not hold power in the most Andrastian areas or those invaded by the qunari but again, both societies have institutions meant to prevent mages from ruling over others.
 

 

Rivain was a kingdom before Andrastian reached them and there hasn't been any evidence so far to imply said kingship was controlled by mages. 

. 

[EmperorSahlertz]

But are these traditions forced upon Rivain and its people by force like in Tevinter or they accepted by the people who simply prefer that way of doing things? Furthermore, local governance in small villages isn't really domination by mages and evidence of exclusive in who gets to rule. Rivain is a kingdom that has a nobility, not a council of mages that make all decisions of state. 

We don't really know how old the monarchy in Rivain is, but given the information we got, it would seem that it is a "recent" development, brought by Andrastian influence. It would seem that Rivain was ruled by a loose confederation of tribes/communities, each ruled by their seer. Because that is how "traditional Rivain" (as in the not Andrastian, nor Qunari parts) seems to be ruled currently.

[ComedicSociopathy]

We don't really know how old the monarchy in Rivain is, but given the information we got, it would seem that it is a "recent" development, brought by Andrastian influence. It would seem that Rivain was ruled by a loose confederation of tribes/communities, each ruled by their seer. Because that is how "traditional Rivain" (as in the not Andrastian, nor Qunari parts) seems to be ruled currently.

 

Even if that is the case then wouldn't that mean that between the foundation of the Kingdom of Rivain and the formal creation of the Circles there was period where mages were free and yet lived in a nation that had rulers that could of likely been non-mages nobles? Also, reverence and direct rulership aren't necessary the same thing. 

 

Oh, and as I edited in a previous post there's the Avvar shamans who only seem to dictate things when it comes to magical matters and spirits. 

[EmperorSahlertz]

Even if that is the case then wouldn't that mean that between the foundation of the Kingdom of Rivain and the formal creation of the Circles there was period where mages were free and yet lived in a nation that had rulers that could of likely been non-mages nobles? Also, reverence and direct rulership aren't necessary the same thing. 

 

Oh, and as I edited in a previous post there's the Avvar shamans who only seem to dictate things when it comes to magical matters and spirits. 

The Avvar also subject their shamans to rigorous rituals and traditions, and it would seem that they get rid of any "excess" mages, just like the Dalish.

 

And the Seers of Rivain aren't just revered. They are adhered.

[The Baconer]

There's the "Psyker" paradigm. That runs the whole gamut: from internment, surveillance, sacrifice, and even enslavement to positions of extraordinary authority and prominence... or deification. To be simultaneously feared and venerated. 

[Iakus]

 Also, there's the Avvar. 

Where potentially weak mages "mysteriously" die in their sleep.  Is that really better?

[ComedicSociopathy]

Where potentially weak mages "mysteriously" die in their sleep.  Is that really better?

 

Hey, at least their not twirling their mustaches and ruling over puny mundanes. Which is the point of this entire debate, right? 

[Hazegurl]

Not sure if that was a joke or not, but it's a good point.  If muggles had readily available tools that put them on equal footing with mages, that would go a  long way towards true integration.

Or mages could also use those tools which would just double their power.  Not saying they shouldn't be created, but I don't see how Mages would be immune to using those same tools when needed.

[Iakus]

Hey, at least their not twirling their mustaches and ruling over puny mundanes. Which is the point of this entire debate, right? 

I don't think "pre-crime" is the answer

 

 

 

Or mages could also use those tools which would just double their power.  Not saying they shouldn't be created, but I don't see how Mages would be immune to using those same tools when needed.

 

Except a mage using such weapons would still be no more powerful than a muggle using those same weapons.  

[The Baconer]

Except a mage using such weapons would still be no more powerful than a muggle using those same weapons.  

 

Sure they would. They would just have the weapon, and magic. Or maybe even some weird magical amplification. 

 

Of course, it's probably more complicated with Dragon Age's guns... unlike transplanting black powder guns into the world, which would just be a trap. 

[Il Divo]

I'm not sure I buy the "mages will always attempt to use their abilities to take over" theory. Mages are ultimately people with independent thoughts and decides that don't always include control over others. If mages were integrated into society its just as likely that many will be entirely unambitious and decide to have normal domesticated lives, especially if getting into politics and rulership involves the dangerous Machiavellian power struggles present in Orlais or Tevinter. Now, should some or even many mages try to dominate? Sure. But if they tried to do so in a confrontational and direct way than they would rather quickly be shut down by the armies of the nobility who clearly have numerical supremacy over mages. Add that to the anti-magical abilities of lyrium and anti-blood magic tools like the Litany of Adrella, I'd imagine that a mage coup would be incredibly difficult. 

 

It's not a "Mages inherently have this desire" sort of issue. Rather, it's a human nature issue. The possibility of power and absolute power having a corrupting influence aren't unknown to our own history. I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that those with additional power beyond what others can achieve are going to face far more temptation.
 

[Il Divo]

If you're worried about magocracy, tell Varric to share Bianca's schematics. Technology can help level the playing field.

If it needs levelling. The military failure of the mage rebellion suggests that they aren't all that powerful anyway. Though that's mages as a group. Mages in DA seem to follow Conservation of Ninjutsu logic sometimes - mages as a group are basically cannon fodder, but individual mages can really screw things up.

 

 I'm getting a Legend of Korra Season 1 type of vibe from this and I'm okay with that. ​

[Iakus]

Sure they would. They would just have the weapon, and magic. Or maybe even some weird magical amplification. 

 

Of course, it's probably more complicated with Dragon Age's guns... unlike transplanting black powder guns into the world, which would just be a trap. 

UNless Dragon Age introduces Powder Mages I don't see how it would amplify anything.  

[Nixou]

Except a mage using such weapons would still be no more powerful than a muggle using those same weapons.  

 

 

Ahem:

 

On my right, a hulking twelve feet tall Ogre, on my my left a tiny five feet tall, 90 pounds heavy elven waif with a sword and an unhealthily large reserve of Mana

Guess who wins

 

Spoiler