1158 réponses à ce sujet

[Sports72Xtrm]

Something we agree on! Now, to build on this piece of agreement, would you agree that greater power is more like to corrupt?

 

Or could make equal amounts of corruption of person have unequal harmful effects on others?

And mages have so much power that they are more corrupt than muggles? "The powerful have always preyed on the powerless, that's how they become powerful in first place." -Tyrion Lannister

 

If a muggle was propped up as ruler he wouldn't be a good ruler because he didn't earn that power and he isn't powerful, he'd be a bad ruler since he's weak. If anything, those types of rulers would then be dependent on people who are truly powerful and seek them out, which if the "Tevinter witch hunting" is true would be the mages and that's how people like Vivienne thrive. So corruption is relative,

[Bayonet Hipshot]

The cognitive dissonance at display is astounding.

 

So the premise is that if you give someone power, then they become corrupt. One form of gaining power is being made a ruler.

 

Mages possess inherent power because they can use the Fade and if possessed, turn into abominations which are strong but crazy.

 

So logically speaking, if you make a mage a ruler, doesn't that mean they have a higher probability, in this case double the probability to become more corrupted because they are already inherently have power and now they are granted another form of power ?

 

However, that is somehow not true. Smh.

[Sports72Xtrm]

The cognitive dissonance at display is astounding.

 

So the premise is that if you give someone power, then they become corrupt. One form of gaining power is being made a ruler.

 

Mages possess inherent power because they can use the Fade and if possessed, turn into abominations which are strong but crazy.

 

So logically speaking, if you make a mage a ruler, doesn't that mean they have a higher probability, in this case double the probability to become more corrupted because they are already inherently have power and now they are granted another form of power ?

 

However, that is somehow not true. Smh.

As Dorian says, sure there's the possibility of him becoming an abomination but it's the same probability of the likely chance a muggle could trip and fall on their sword. Trying to say that a trained mage is some sort of unstable abomination ticking time bomb is just an ignorant lie.

 

Also southern monarchies aren't made rulers, they are born rulers. They've never fought in battles to defend the people, earned the respect of their men, defended them from barbarians, installed trade policies that granted prosperity to their people. Most southern rulers have done none of that and probably most of them don't know squat about ruling. Hate on the Vints, but at least their leaders earned their power. They didn't inherit a crown.

[raging_monkey]

Idk if scheming and murder technically earned anything

[Sports72Xtrm]

Idk if scheming and murder technically earned anything

It's not the only way to rule but it's effective. If you played Dragon Age Awakening what happens if you don't intimidate a peasant rebellion in the epilogue?

 

 

• If the Warden gave the peasants food during their revolt or peacefully quelled the rebellion by persuading the peasants to disperse, they will continue with their uprisings due to their suffering both during the war and afterward. Their success at the first riot emboldened them, so more uprisings followed, which were often put down brutally.

They projected power. That's what rulers do. It's not pretty or nice, but neither is the world.

[raging_monkey]

I did and never got that ending. And again it's not earned more taken

[Bayonet Hipshot]

As Dorian says, sure there's the possibility of him becoming an abomination but it's the same probability of the likely chance a muggle could trip and fall on their sword. Trying to say that a trained mage is some sort of unstable abomination ticking time bomb is just an ignorant lie.

 

Also southern monarchies aren't made rulers, they are born rulers. They've never fought in battles to defend the people, earned the respect of their men, defended them from barbarians, installed trade policies that granted prosperity to their people. Most southern rulers have done none of that and probably most of them don't know squat about ruling. Hate on the Vints, but at least their leaders earned their power. They didn't inherit a crown.

 

Anders, Marethari Talas, Uldred, Grace, Baroness, etc are but a few trained mages that succumbed to becoming dangerous abominations. Marethari Talas was a leader and Baroness was the ruler of Blackmarsh.

[Sports72Xtrm]

Anders, Marethari Talas, Uldred, Grace, Baroness, etc are but a few trained mages that succumbed to becoming dangerous abominations. Marethari Talas was a leader and Baroness was the ruler of Blackmarsh.

Marethari and anders was by choice. They weren't taken by force. And if they were given the training of the augurs, they could repel demonic possession. Not that mages being more competent and in control appeals to your zealotry.

[Sports72Xtrm]

I did and never got that ending. And again it's not earned more taken

the fact is rulers can be effective and get the job done, they don't have to be loved.

[Lulupab]

Mages not being nobility is not a large concern, most people want mages to have their own separate society anyway (whilst remaining in contact with rest of the world).

 

In that case if a mage is a ruler, it means all his subjects are mages as well, therefore the idea of too much power is not valid. Because his relation with the subjects is not different when compared to a none-mage ruler and his none-mage subjects.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

Mages not being nobility is not a large concern, most people want mages to have their own separate society anyway (whilst remaining in contact with rest of the world).

 

In that case if a mage is a ruler, it means all his subjects are mages as well, therefore the idea of too much power is not valid. Because his relation with the subjects is not different when compared to a none-mage ruler and his none-mage subjects.

 

What are you blabbering on about ? In Thedas, mages are around non-mages.

[MisterJB]

If a muggle was propped up as ruler he wouldn't be a good ruler because he didn't earn that power and he isn't powerful, he'd be a bad ruler since he's weak. If anything, those types of rulers would then be dependent on people who are truly powerful and seek them out, which if the "Tevinter witch hunting" is true would be the mages and that's how people like Vivienne thrive. So corruption is relative,

 

Also southern monarchies aren't made rulers, they are born rulers. They've never fought in battles to defend the people, earned the respect of their men, defended them from barbarians, installed trade policies that granted prosperity to their people. Most southern rulers have done none of that and probably most of them don't know squat about ruling. Hate on the Vints, but at least their leaders earned their power. They didn't inherit a crown.

What? Seats in the Magisterium are entirely hereditary and mage rulers are just as dependant upon the cooperation of others in order to rule, regardless of how powerful they may be individually.

In fact, Archon Hessarian, whom you were praising a page ago, only remained in power because he aligned himself with the angry normal majority of the Imperium, converted to Andrastianism and directed that wrath towards the priesthood who were slaugthered en mass.

[raging_monkey]

Think lulu means is. Where the isolationist faction won they would rule over solely magi to the exclusion of Windies in their state. Voiding the mage ruler issue

[Dean_the_Young]

One mage ruler or one non-mage ruler? I don't see difference. The mage ruler know much type of dangerous magic,  The non mage ruler can hire mages, who know much type of dangerous magic.

 

Let's not dodge the question with a tangent, shall we? We're still talking about generalities. We can get to mages and mundanes later.

 

So, starting with first principles-

 

If we accept that power corrupts, does more power corrupt more frequently, or to a greater degree?

[Sports72Xtrm]

What? Seats in the Magisterium are entirely hereditary and mage rulers are just as dependant upon the cooperation of others in order to rule, regardless of how powerful they may be individually.

In fact, Archon Hessarian, whom you were praising a page ago, only remained in power because he aligned himself with the angry normal majority of the Imperium, converted to Andrastianism and directed that wrath towards the priesthood who were slaugthered en mass.

Not entirely hereditary and to maintain a seat in the Magisterium, you either have to make powerful friends or be fearsome enough that no one would want to assassinate you. You cannot possibly tell me that mastering intrigue and battle prowess is not a good sign of a good ruler.You want a leader from humble origins, look no further than Archon Tidarion. http://dragonage.wik...m/wiki/Tidarion So let it not be said that Teviner never kept the American dream alive.

 

As for archon hessarion, he was able to sway the masses and redirect blame from himself. Andrastians remember him as the saintly mage who showed mercy to a tortured Andraste, mages remember him a shrewd politician. He intimidated his enemies and inspired the people. Again you cannot possibly tell me that mastering intrigue and battle prowess is not a good sign of a good ruler.

[raging_monkey]

Let's not dodge the question with a tangent, shall we? We're still talking about generalities. We can get to mages and mundanes later.

So, starting with first principles-

If we accept that power corrupts, does more power corrupt more frequently, or to a greater degree?

imo more frequently but are we discussing personal conduct as Well or broadstrokes

[Daerog]

One can't just make a nation of mages, unfortunately. An organization, sure.

Mages have been advisors in Thedas, and I agree it is a decent fit. You have the Court Enchanter in Orlais and the Mortalitasi in Nevarra. One needs to still be wary and have a copy of the Litany, because Nevarra almost fell to the Venatori due to blood magic (reminiscent of King Theoden in Middle Earth/Arda).

Still, they comply with the Chantry even if they strain the rules of the Circle.

The augur do have knowledge of spirits, but they are kind of subservient to them, and being possessed is unnecessary. They are at the mercy of spirits that are more readily manipulated by the thoughts of people and possibly demons who readily manipulate. However, like the seers, it is just ingrained into their culture and tradition to greatly trust spirits... which has worked out for them, but may not be adoptable by all the other cultures.

Finding ways to incorporate magic and mages into everyday society is nice, (like making holidays a little more spectacular, clinics, or whatever that won't ruin the economy or livelihoods of engineers, since tech is important,) but they live a unique life with unique obstacles that can't just be ignored. Great power, great responsibility, bla, bla, bla.


On Dorian talking about a soldier falling on a sword. 1, falling on a sword sucks for the soldier, not everyone within a mile. 2, not everyone has the discipline and will to be a good soldier, just like weak willed (or just plain stupid) mage will always be at risk of demons like a clumsy swordsman who risks impaling himself.

It would be unfortunate for one to be born with magic and a poor mind, who can easily be fooled/tricked by a demon.

[Dean_the_Young]

imo more frequently but are we discussing personal conduct as Well or broadstrokes

 

Currently broad strokes.

 

I'm willing to entertain either answer for this discussion. If we agree that more power is more corruptive, we go down one avenue of discussion. If we deny it, we go down another- such as questioning the premise of whether power corrupts in the first place, since 'power' as an abstract is an inherently relative thing.

 

If we accept that power corrupts, we either have to come to a consensus of why greater relativity wouldn't lead to greater corruption, or try to identify some sensible reason that additional corruption stops after a certain power disparity.

[raging_monkey]

Currently broad strokes.

I'm willing to entertain either answer for this discussion. If we agree that more power is more corruptive, we go down one avenue of discussion. If we deny it, we go down another- such as questioning the premise of whether power corrupts in the first place, since 'power' as an abstract is an inherently relative thing.

If we accept that power corrupts, we either have to come to a consensus of why greater relativity wouldn't lead to greater corruption, or try to identify some sensible reason that additional corruption stops after a certain power disparity.

my philosophical side is telling both routes lead to one side pegging the other...

[Lulupab]

What are you blabbering on about ? In Thedas, mages are around non-mages.

 

The first enchanter is a ruler of sorts, he rules mages and mages alone. He has no influence over none-mages. Not sure how you didn't understand my post.

[raging_monkey]

The first enchanter is a ruler of sorts, he rules mages and mages alone. He has no influence over none-mages. Not sure how you didn't understand my post.

tbf the fe's clout is relative to how they toe the line....

I used to be a happy radical

[Bayonet Hipshot]

The first enchanter is a ruler of sorts, he rules mages and mages alone. He has no influence over none-mages. Not sure how you didn't understand my post.

 

 

From the Dragon Age wiki:-

 

 

First Enchanter is the title given to the head of a Circle. The first enchanter is seen by apprentices as a father or mother figure, and an ambassador of peace to the templars by the other mages.

 

You must be high on Lyrium and Elfroot son. The First Enchanter is not a ruler.

[thesuperdarkone2]

From the Dragon Age wiki:-


You must be high on Lyrium and Elfroot son. The First Enchanter is not a ruler.

Head= leader. You srs bro?

[raging_monkey]

Perhaps we should break away from the term ruler and use leader instead if only to prolong the fire

[Daerog]

Let's not dodge the question with a tangent, shall we? We're still talking about generalities. We can get to mages and mundanes later.

So, starting with first principles-

If we accept that power corrupts, does more power corrupt more frequently, or to a greater degree?

Unrestrained power? I'd say frequency of temptation increases, and the more one falls to temptation, the more corrupt one gets. So... both?

This is why power needs to be tempered with restrictions/restraints. The more power, the more focus on how and where such power can be used must be defined.

This is why Captain America is wrong in that Civil War movie.