348 réponses à ce sujet

[Lulupab]

Most mages are not actually trained for combat, you know that right? The majority of mages, probably don't even know a single spell applicable to combat situations. On the other hand, Templars are trained for the specific purposes of being an army and combatting mages and magic in all its forms. Does it really come as a surprise then that the mages fared poorly in the war? Hell, the only reasons that they weren't bulldozered immediately by the Templars are probably becasue Lambert was murdered by Cole, and Lucius fell under the influence of Corypheus.

 

This was discussed a year before release of Inquisition.

 

If Templars didn't break away from chantry, they would have defeated mages instantly. But going rogue made them become unorganized, the lost stable lyrium supplies and more importantly support of the people. There are more common people who support the mages than they do the Templars in Inquisition. Specially in Ferelden. Some people in Redcliff are obviously unhappy with Fiona's decision, but most common people you can talk to complain about how cruel the Templars are.

 

Also this is from the book:

 

"The surviving first enchanters, the Grand Enchanter among them, retreated to the fortress of Andoral's Reach. Most of the fifteen Circles rose against the templars, with thousands of mages gathering at Andoral's Reach in the following months. It is predicted that with hundreds of mages manning the battlements, they could fend off an army ten times their size."

 

Not to mention 14 circles rebelled SUCCESSFULLY. Meaning the Templars utterly failed to stop the mages from escaping the circles. Which proves the few mages who knew how to fight were more than enough to battle Templars.

[Ieldra]

That's the k​ey issue: it's not that it's utterly impossible to have a government where Mages don't engage in abuse, assuming a class-system based government. It's that the likelihood is far higher, given the disparity in their position/status is further enhanced relative to your mundanes, as well as when abuse/corruption occurs, its effects will be amplified. ​

Not the point. I did say the typical skillset of a mage gives itself to being abused for crime. That will most likely be a problem in any society where the mageborn are free. However, that does not translate into "mages will always end up in power". Things that work in a one-on-one (or even one-on-three) situation in hidden alley fail to work if you're a ruler and highly visible. All you'll achieve with such displays is increasing the number of assassins targeting you - and some of them will even be mages and negate any advantage you might have for being a mage.
 

Still, this is assuming that we put aside the mind control abilities inherent to Blood Magic, also a critical aspect. Also with us assuming class-based societies, while politics itself might be a social skill, we're not talking about true democratically elected leaders in any modern sense of the word.

Governing has always been a social skill to some degree, simply because the number of people you can dominate by force as a single person is limited. The number is higher if you're a mage, but still you won't last long if everyone is out to kill you if they get the chance. Mind control is always noticeable at least by the victim, and evidence suggests it can't be made permanent without a steady expenditure of magical power, thus it's not a good tool in government either. What you *can* expect is a high number of mages in certain professions, but they'd still be technical specialists and much more likely to be employed by those who rule rather than ruling in their own right. Even if you do have a mage-king, the fact they're a mage won't be very significant.

Tevinter is special because its social structure descends from a time when Dreamers ruled, and they're are a completely different thing from regular mages. Their powers are much more relevant to rulership because they can project themselves into people's dreams, apparently at a very long distance (see Feynriel in DA2), and they're much less obvious. Dreamers can do a significantly better job of enforcing their rules personally than any other mage, probably by a factor of 1000 or more. So the bloodlines of Dreamers ended up in power, unsurpringly, and stayed in power as simply magical bloodlines - today's Altus families - when Dreamers were no longer born, or did no longer survive, for whatever reason. In addition, the practice of slavery meant that there were always expendable lives to use for blood sacrifice. These two special circumstances favored the rise and the continuance of a magocracy in Tevinter. There is no reason to believe a similar development would occur elsewhere without special circumstances of its own.

[dragonflight288]

Redcliffe (DAI): a terrified group of people meets a person who says "I have the solution", and they end up following him on the road to hell. Why does that sound very familiar from the real world, where magic doesn't exist? I'd rather say a single person - mage or not - can hold sway over communities of substantial size, given the right situation. Also, Redcliffe isn't "substantial". It's a village.

Redcliffe (DAO): That wasn't the mage but the demon.

Blackmarsh: I'll have to check up on the story, but wasn't this a demon as well?

The Baroness was, well, a noble from Orlais as well as a blood mage. She ruled as a tyrant, and I'm sure she felt it her right and due because of her social position. She forced the villagers to give her their young daughters so she could steal their youth through blood magic.

Eventually the whole town rebelled and rioted and managed to burn down her mansion. In an effort to survive, she banished herself and the whole town into the fade, where she continued to be a tyrant and the people rebelled again.

I'm not sure when she got possessed by a pride demon, but I think it was in the fade.

[Ieldra]

The Baroness was, well, a noble from Orlais as well as a blood mage. She ruled as a tyrant, and I'm sure she felt it her right and due because of her social position. She forced the villagers to give her their young daughters so she could steal their youth through blood magic.

Eventually the whole town rebelled and rioted and managed to burn down her mansion. In an effort to survive, she banished herself and the whole town into the fade, where she continued to be a tyrant and the people rebelled again.

I'm not sure when she got possessed by a pride demon, but I think it was in the fade.

Ah, now I recall the story....no doubt inspired by legends of Elizabeth Báthory. One wonders, though, if she had been able to exert such power on that town if she hadn't been a noble with the supporting infrastructure of a noble house and the right to command the town's guard.   

[MisterJB]

Governing has always been a social skill to some degree, simply because the number of people you can dominate by force as a single person is limited. The number is higher if you're a mage, but still you won't last long if everyone is out to kill you if they get the chance. Mind control is always noticeable at least by the victim, and evidence suggests it can't be made permanent without a steady expenditure of magical power, thus it's not a good tool in government either. What you *can* expect is a high number of mages in certain professions, but they'd still be technical specialists and much more likely to be employed by those who rule rather than ruling in their own right. Even if you do have a mage-king, the fact they're a mage won't be very significant.

I disagree.

We are told that there are palaces in Tevinter that were erected from the stone through the use of blood magic. And this is just one practical use of magic.

There are positives to this. Sheltering the homeless for instance. But what is important is to recall that those who provide amenities have power over others. The majority of mages may remain as laborers or specialists rather than nobility but their leadership would be exceptionally wealthy and have a powerful hold over the infrastructure of society.

Thus, they would not need to wear crowns in order to be the rulers.

 

I don't expect the Merchant Princes of Antiva to be swept aside overnight, of course. The process would take generations.

[EmperorSahlertz]

This was discussed a year before release of Inquisition.

 

If Templars didn't break away from chantry, they would have defeated mages instantly. But going rogue made them become unorganized, the lost stable lyrium supplies and more importantly support of the people. There are more common people who support the mages than they do the Templars in Inquisition. Specially in Ferelden. Some people in Redcliff are obviously unhappy with Fiona's decision, but most common people you can talk to complain about how cruel the Templars are.

 

Also this is from the book:

 

"The surviving first enchanters, the Grand Enchanter among them, retreated to the fortress of Andoral's Reach. Most of the fifteen Circles rose against the templars, with thousands of mages gathering at Andoral's Reach in the following months. It is predicted that with hundreds of mages manning the battlements, they could fend off an army ten times their size."

 

Not to mention 14 circles rebelled SUCCESSFULLY. Meaning the Templars utterly failed to stop the mages from escaping the circles. Which proves the few mages who knew how to fight were more than enough to battle Templars.

The 14 Circles were ALLOWED to rebel. The Templars didn't start going after the mages until AFTER the mages had left the Circles. And since the mages are no longer in control of Andoral's Reach, that should tell you just how well they stood their ground there (as in not at all). Fiona herself puts it quite plainly, that the Templars would destroy the mages, if not the mages had allied with the Venatori. That is comming from the leader of the rebellion with full access to reports and knowledge about the war effort.

[Silcron]

The thing as always is that we need context, if we use TheDAS at least in the southern parts the problem is that mages are a group, historically they have been defined as a group. Even if they don't outright rule if they'd get to make a lot more pressure than anyone else. Our work conditions are bad? We go on strike, and it's not a case of being able to hire anyone else, you can't train someone to be a mage. They try to force mages to do something? If it gets to violence things are going to scalate very quickly, specially if a mage sees that he's going to get beaten to death and decides to let a demon in.

They could even just abuse the excuse of "if you make us overwork we get stressed, if we're stressed we may loose control. If we loose control abominations happen. So really, by having us work one day a week (and not from midnight to midnight) you're making people's life safer."

If we consider them in a setting in which they're integrated there's still a lot of tension. Simply put smith A has to spend hours hammering steel while smith B, whose a mage could use telekinesis to have a chunk of metal hammering or if he's skilled enough use said telekinesis to mold the steel directly. Smith A ends up being really tired and only being able to do X amount of equipment, Smith B can produce equipment faster with his magic, being able to cover more requests and deliver them faster, and even use the extra income to have lirium potions to solve that getting tired problem, something smith A cannot solve inmediatly.

If they happen to live in the same village that will create tension if not outright hostility because smith A cannot simply compete against B. "He could hire someone to enchant his equipment, or get a golem, or ...." With what money? If smith B is doing better. And that's the main problem, mages, except for the demons, have it easier and if they want to, they can cause a lot more trouble. I mean, for gameplay limitations we haven't really seen mages used their powers to their full potential (it's a videogame, the only thing that gets kind of close is pen and paper rpgs or books). No need to go as far as blood magic. DA2 force mage:

In the thread we had the dicussion of a group of people with crossbows. Well, say Smith A manages to get a group of people with crossbows to end smith B, unless he's paralized with fear (which being a civilian could happen, he isn't trained for that) just using the telekinesis he's mastered for his job he can pull a Neo and stop bolts middair, when not throwing his attackers around at bonebreaking speeds...

If things go well, mages have more than enogh advantages to cause friction with mundanes, if things go south mages have it far easier to enforce their will or defend themselves, and without any specific laws they have the same access as the mundanes to the tools and training for fighting. A soldier against a civilian mage will be decided mostly by the mage's psychology. A soldier mage should easily be able to outperform his coworkers. Simply put, to continue just with the possibilities of telekinesis, the mundane archers in the unit won't be able to make the arrows curve to hit targets, (and they actually need the bow, the mage just needs arrows.)

So, in the case of ruling? If ruthless a mage has it far easier, if not a mage will have it far worse, because he will have to act as a paragon. Just because of the What if? "What if Mage Ruler isn't as good as we think?" "What if he uses mind control?" "What if one day he snaps?" "If we go on strike in front of his palace he wouldn't throw a fireball at us, but what if he does?." "What if he's so wise because he used spells to memorize information?"

The problem is twofold when simplified like this. If integrated there will be tension and suspition against mages and, without getting to violence mages will simply outperform mundanes in their fields, and that will make them much prefered if not essential, and they moment they realize that they will end up abusing it. (Again, no need to go to extremes. Just think, if you were essential to your job because of how you were born, wouldn't you try to push for better work conditions, on the grounds that at best there will be two or three, much less experienced people that could replace you, and if not you can go on strike. And your coworkers? Well, they can't make that argument)

[dragonflight288]

Ah, now I recall the story....no doubt inspired by legends of Elizabeth Báthory. One wonders, though, if she had been able to exert such power on that town if she hadn't been a noble with the supporting infrastructure of a noble house and the right to command the town's guard.

Not likely. When the town rioted she pretty much lost the battle and had to rely on sending herself and everyone else to the fade to survive.

[Iakus]

Ah, now I recall the story....no doubt inspired by legends of Elizabeth Báthory. One wonders, though, if she had been able to exert such power on that town if she hadn't been a noble with the supporting infrastructure of a noble house and the right to command the town's guard.   

AS I said before, a corrupt rules can be rebelled against and removed from power.  But how can one take magic from a corrupt mage?

[dragonflight288]

AS I said before, a corrupt rules can be rebelled against and removed from power. But how can one take magic from a corrupt mage?

Death, tranquility, those magic wards that negated a mages power in the Mage origin?

[Iakus]

Death, tranquility, those magic wards that negated a mages power in the Mage origin?

Death is a rather permanent option.

 

Tranquility is considered by many to be worse than death.

 

How easy is it to deploy those wards?

[dragonflight288]

Death is a rather permanent option.

 

Tranquility is considered by many to be worse than death.

 

How easy is it to deploy those wards?

 

No idea on the wards. I do know that the rod of fire, Amell's/Surana's and Jowan's powers were completely negated and Lily noted the wards on the door. 

 

I'm assuming that it's a form of enchantment requiring lyrium and a knowledge of runes that apply one of the school of spirit's magic negation abilities. As the tranquil in Ostagar says, any spell can be given permanency provided the lyrium and knowledge of the rune is there. 

[The Baconer]

Death is a rather permanent option.

 

Permanence is fine. 

[Lulupab]

The 14 Circles were ALLOWED to rebel. The Templars didn't start going after the mages until AFTER the mages had left the Circles. And since the mages are no longer in control of Andoral's Reach, that should tell you just how well they stood their ground there (as in not at all). Fiona herself puts it quite plainly, that the Templars would destroy the mages, if not the mages had allied with the Venatori. That is comming from the leader of the rebellion with full access to reports and knowledge about the war effort.

 

Yes, but they were not as helpless as you think they would be.

 

The claim that most mages were not trained for combat is only partly true. Summoning elements of nature is a prime aspect of being a mage. ALL of them can do it, they are trained to defend themselves. Its matter of how much practice they had. When the chantry uses mages in masses to fight the blight, who do you think joins? Crybabies?

 

A good example of this is Anders in awakening and his epilogue. He single handedly kills hundreds of darkspawn and is named champion of vigil's keep, provided he is left to defend. Even if he allegedly dies, he still kills all those darkspawn by himself. He was a mage from circle, he did not receive any special training or had any help.

 

And no, mages were not allowed to rebel. Make a Hawke who romanced an alive Anders. In that case Hawke's codex clearly states Andersa and Hawke visited circles and helped mages escape, and that includes killing Templars in there. Templars always relied on their number and reinforcement. For example Orsino's mages easily dispatch the Templars already in the circle, but start losing when Templars arrive from all over free marches. The Templars were not ready for an all out rebellion in every single circle at once. The mages had to just kill enough to open a path, I didn't claim all Templars died in the circles.

 

Also I think there was an indication that there was no supplies in Andoral's reach.

[Ieldra]

AS I said before, a corrupt rules can be rebelled against and removed from power.  But how can one take magic from a corrupt mage?

If a mageborn ruler had been so bad that they triggered a rebellion, they'll probably be killed, and they probably deserve it. Apart from that, while you can't take their magic away from them, the lore suggests that you can confine mages in a way that they can't escape. There are ways to make things impervious to most magic, and so it should be possible to build a magic-proof cell.

[Kakistos_]

I'm not sure about the possibility/risk of randomly bursting into an abomination while walking down the street, but The Last Flight touches on how merely casting spells allows demons to touch a mage's thoughts and whisper to their minds.  It talks about how abominations are more common during times of war or blights, when fatigued or desperate mages are more likely to lose control. 

 

But the jist of it is that the demons are always there whenever a mage draws from the fade and casts spells, and are even more insistent when a mage draws from blood to cast. 

 

That we don't see this implemented in game is likely just due to gameplay mechanics, the fact that they have other things to focus on in the narrative, and the fact that the mage PC is a special snowflake who never has to worry about the risks of being a mage. 

Abominations are very rare, despite what gameplay might suggest. The Mage PC is not special in this respect as a majority of Mages probably never encounter a Demon powerful enough to tempt them.

 

Quite. Why work to tempt and possess a mage when you can simply manifest yourself entirely by coming through a rift? Granted, the smarter ones probably did try to keep possessing mages, so they could hide in plain sight.

Demons want more than simply being in the real world, they want to experience life. That is why their ultimate goal is possession, so that they can see the corporeal world through the eyes of a living being. By themselves they have a very hard time understanding the nature of the physical world which is why when they do pass through the Veil the try to possess anything they perceive as being alive. This is why Demons end up possessing corpses and trees, not because they want to but that they didn't know any better.

[Ieldra]

@Silcron:

An interesting argument, but there we come to a fundamental question: if mageborn have advantages in certain fields (not government), is it fair to artificially balance those advantages out, or is it more fair to accept them, and let the mageborn dominate those fields? After all, we are all born unequal and everyone is more able to excel in X than in Y. Our prevailing value system is based on equality before the law, including equal political weight as much as that's possible to implement, but equal opportunity everywhere else. If you have an innate disadadvantage at doing X compared to another individual, you cannot demand redress, you're rather expected to do Y instead. Dwarves have an innate resistance to lyrium, so they dominate lyrium mining, and they would continue to do so in a multi-racial society. In much the same way, mageborn would dominate certain fields, and certain specific areas of broader fields. This is a society with which we have no experience, since we don't have innate differences of that kind, but I don't see why such innate differences should be incompatible with a stable and reasonably just society.

[MisterJB]

There are more common people who support the mages than they do the Templars in Inquisition. Specially in Ferelden. Some people in Redcliff are obviously unhappy with Fiona's decision, but most common people you can talk to complain about how cruel the Templars are.

In Dragon Age Inquisition, Connor will tell you how every city in Thedas except Redcliff has closed their doors to the mages. Lysas and Fiona tell us how everyone is blaming the mages for the war and the Divine's death. There are multiple War Table missions where we must save mages from mobs.

 

On the other hand, Leliana says how the people trust Templars and allying with them will help the Inquisition. There are war table missions where grateful populace wants to build statues to honor the Templars. Val Royeaux was all but begging for the Templars to protect them.

 

You may not like it but the people of Thedas clearly prefer the Templars over the mages.

 

 

Not to mention 14 circles rebelled SUCCESSFULLY. Meaning the Templars utterly failed to stop the mages from escaping the circles. Which proves the few mages who knew how to fight were more than enough to battle Templars.

 

Asunder, page 400:
 

"they came hungry, with empty hands and fear in their eyes as well as tales of what was now happening in the other Circles. The Templars had cracked down. In some places they received the news of the White Spire weven before the mages there did and had struck preemptively. It made no difference. In each tower, the mages reacted the same way: They fought. Many died. The rest fled."

 

Sure, if you count terrified, hungry and poor people fleeing as a "successfull rebellion".

 

 

[MisterJB]

Really, this cannot be overstated.

In Dragon Age Inquisition, the Chantry and nobles of Val Royeux, the singular most important city in Thedas were all but begging the Templars to come in and defend them.

Meanwhile, every city in Thedas, with the exception of Redcliff, closed their doors to the mages.

 

There is nothing to support the notion that the mage rebellion was supported by the people of Thedas and ton of evidence otherwise.

[SgtSteel91]

Really, this cannot be overstated.

In Dragon Age Inquisition, the Chantry and nobles of Val Royeux, the singular most important city in Thedas were all but begging the Templars to come in and defend them.

Meanwhile, every city in Thedas, with the exception of Redcliff, closed their doors to the mages.

 

There is nothing to support the notion that the mage rebellion was supported by the people of Thedas and ton of evidence otherwise.

 

And somehow allying with the Mages will give Leliana the biggest boost in getting elected as the new Divine (or maybe it's a case  they fear the Inquisitior crushing the Chantry if they don't elect a Divine that suits their personal politics, which happens to match Leliana's)?

 

Really there should have been more content/consequences for allying with the Mages than paying Redcliff for reparations and the option to try to improve their image in the eyes of Southern Thedas. Like one more War Table Ops where the Inquisition's reputation takes a big hit in public support from allying with the Mages, especially after what happened at Redcliff (or even blowing up the story like Josie's sister does), and you have to convince major noble houses to not pull their support. Or having the Mages do operations like supporting refugees or training them to fight Demons and Venatori and win the people's trust in them and the Inquisition.

[Iakus]

If a mageborn ruler had been so bad that they triggered a rebellion, they'll probably be killed, and they probably deserve it. Apart from that, while you can't take their magic away from them, the lore suggests that you can confine mages in a way that they can't escape. There are ways to make things impervious to most magic, and so it should be possible to build a magic-proof cell.

But look a the amount of damage a corrupt mage can cause.  Look at what the Baroness did to Blackmarsh.  Alone

[SgtSteel91]

But look a the amount of damage a corrupt mage can cause.  Look at what the Baroness did to Blackmarsh.  Alone

 

And Empress Celene burned down an Alianage yet no one wants the nobility locked up when they can do as much damage as any Mage.

[Silcron]

@Ieldra

Yeah, the problem I see is not of someone being able to do a job better per se, but a mage has acces to ways of doing things that can easily be more efficient and cannot be duplicated by a non mage. Sure, machines could be invented but in such a world they'd probably use magic (you know, the advantages of not having to develop new fields and no contamination) and thus if batteries run out the mage could recharge them himself, for a non mage that's an extra cost.

Magic in my eyes cannot be treated as being naturally taller or your mind having an easier time understanding how math works because its effects are much greater. Let's take bieng tall and for example basketball. A shorter person will have to jump higher, a mage could teleport, move the ball around with his mind...

I don't think the example you gave of the dwarves and lirium mining equiparates with being able to use magic. As lucrative a mining lirium is the side effects are really bad to your health so the people who would do it would be mostly those who had no choice, like coal miners in the industrial revolution. What I mean is that of course dwarves mine lyrium, no one else really wants to. Magic is not like being resistant to lyrium effects or radiation, so I don't think that comparison works.

So, could a society with integrated mages work? Sure, if that was the situation from the beggining, people adapt, find a way...(it could also end badly) In TheDAS I don't think it'll work, way too much historical baggage, unless in the final game we end up making everyone a mage like Solas wants but without killing everyone. Maybe that's it, the DA series ends like Korra.

[Iakus]

And Empress Celene burned down an Alianage yet no one wants the nobility locked up when they can do as much damage as any Mage.

She gave the order, yes.  And bears the responsibility.  But Empress Celene did not personally burn down an alienage.  

 

The Baroness killed every man, woman and child  in Blackmarsh all by her lonesome.

[Lulupab]

In Dragon Age Inquisition, Connor will tell you how every city in Thedas except Redcliff has closed their doors to the mages. Lysas and Fiona tell us how everyone is blaming the mages for the war and the Divine's death. There are multiple War Table missions where we must save mages from mobs.

There are mothers in Redcliff who think Templars are too cruel. The healer you recruit for Inquisition tells you Templars attacked Redcliff and killed mage or none-mage blindly.

Connor is irrelevant, because he is biased for obvious reasons. I remember clearly that mages were quite welcome in Ferelden, and Redcliff was given to them as shelter. It could have been any city in Ferelden. Evidently all the "mob quests" are on the Orlais side of the map, not Ferelden. In theory if Alexius didn't intervene, Ferelden openly chose the Mage side over the Templars. Not that it was not evident since DA2 where Alistair was considering kicking out the Templar order from Ferelden for good.
 

On the other hand, Leliana says how the people trust Templars and allying with them will help the Inquisition. There are war table missions where grateful populace wants to build statues to honor the Templars. Val Royeaux was all but begging for the Templars to protect them.

Leliana NEVER says that unless you side with Templars. She suggests going for the mages instead of Templars before deciding. Bioware tends to put satisfying conversations after you make a decision to make it seem right. If you side with the mages, Leliana can't stop talking about how Templars suck and siding with the mages was the best choice. You know, her actual opinion, as its evident in her epilogue when she becomes divine.

 

You may not like it but the people of Thedas clearly prefer the Templars over the mages.
 
 
 
Asunder, page 400:
 
"they came hungry, with empty hands and fear in their eyes as well as tales of what was now happening in the other Circles. The Templars had cracked down. In some places they received the news of the White Spire even before the mages there did and had struck preemptively. It made no difference. In each tower, the mages reacted the same way: They fought. Many died. The rest fled."
 
Sure, if you count terrified, hungry and poor people fleeing as a "successfull rebellion".

 

The annulment failed, no? The truth remains that Templars had over two years before Corypheus manipulated both sides. The Templars in Hinterlands are on even grounds with apostates.

 

Plus that was when Templar still had the resources of the Chantry. After the circles break, and Lambert died the order broke down and become much weaker and scattered. Which is why they couldn't really do anything to mages in two years. The Templars with resources of the Chantry could obliterate the mages in months. But that was not the case after the rebellion. Templars turned on each other, many went rogue, many left because what's "holy" about the Templars when they oppose the Chantry itself?