|
|
Post by Vallerie on Jun 3, 2017 12:48:26 GMT
DAO circle can be terrible prison, if you play it that way. It can also be a wondrous place of higher learning, where you're free to pursue your craft the way you wish without anyone hindering you. For some it indeed is a terrible prison (Anders, Jowan), but for others, it is home (Minaeve, Wynne). And no, I'm not saying Circles are good. I'm saying they are better than the alternative (war, witch hunts, angry mobs, riots). I didn't say Viviene is right. I said she is smart. Besides she isn't saying she doesn't trust her fellow mages, she is pointing out the obvious problem of them being outnumbered by common people and them trying to win their freedom at the worst possible moment. But yes, she worked only for herself. The issue is, we barely see average Circle during normal day. We only see that in Fereldan Circle, which is only a short section. However, we see no pointless abuse, most mages don't seem too inconvenienced and Jowan is proven to be blood mage at the end of the origin. He might not be evil, but he knew it was against the rules, and he knew the punishment for it. The punishment might not be justified, but it's not like anyone is hiding what the punishment is. And in the end the one who very nearly destroys the Circle is a mage, not a Templar. Also please, don't try to turn my arguments into Circles are needed and Chantry is right. I'm arguing that blowing up churches (or any other buildings for that matter) nor murdering innocents is never justified, no matter the reason. And you don't go villainizing the group you claim to help when said group is outnumbered 10 to 1 by everyone else and any special skills said group possesses are canceled out by the opposing group. Tell that to the survivors and families of those caught in the explosions, I wonder what would they think of it. "Oh yeah, mr. Anders, you killing our families is totally justified." At least blow up building full of Templars (which still wouldn't have been justified), that way at least he wouldn't have murdered common people who are majority of Thedas and probably wouldn't have completely ruined public opinion of mages. I also wonder whether you would argue for his position had he not been our companion and friend. Edit: Anyway, in the end it doesn't matter whether I agree with Anders or not. He did what he did and it had the effect it had. 1. In a wrong system, the legality's not a value. 2. People with massive Stockholm syndrome can support their captors: Minaeve, Wynne, and also Vivienne... 3. Every war has innocent victims, this is inevitable. In fact, almost ALL victims are innocent. 4. The worst thinking to accept the captivity for the captives safety. This only supports the fear. Right, because most of the non-hostile mages we encounter have stockholm syndrome, that's so plausible  |
|
Catilina
The Beastmaster
Wanted Apostate
Posts: 827 
Likes: 3,282
|
Post by Catilina on Jun 3, 2017 12:52:35 GMT
I don't know if I have a dog in this fight, but can anyone name a single instance in history where an oppressed group of people were handed their rights on a silver platter without any bloodshed? The mages were already villainized by the chantry. The whole idea of a circle to keep the muggle plebs safe from rabid mages is an instrument of oppression. I don't know if I would have gone about it exactly as Anders did, but I can understand his POV and his frustration. You can only oppress a group so far before they snap. The resulting bang is not just the perpetrator's fault. But of course a status quo power will point out the needless war you've started and innocents who've lost their lives. “For if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them.” -Moore, Utopia. The circles teach the mages that they're monsters, unfit for the world of good, pure men. And when they actually do something monstrous, everyone is appalled. Silver platter? None. No bloodshed? None. Can you however, name a single group of people that went around blowing up people with no stake in the fight that didn't have it blow right back in their face? However, as far as non-violent solutions go, Czechoslovkia got from under communist oppression by (mostly) peaceful protests. You know how could they do that? Because they waited for an opportune moment, instead of trying to fight in the moment the odds were stacked against them the most they were in centuries. And they did that precisely because they were insanely outnumbered by Soviets, much like mages vs Chantry supporters, and before that, they were building up alliances and support from outside. There were bloody uprisings in the Soviet bloc, before, and these rebellions undermined the system and gave hope to people to survive. Of course, many people (innocents, kids died for it). I can't consider these unnecessary. And still: the Soviet block even not Thedas. (50 years communism, what was unacceptable in most people's eyes versus 1000 years oppression, supported by a strong religion, what kept people in fear. And I not mentioned yet, that the communism died by financial problems, not because the people gathered alliances...) |
|
Catilina
The Beastmaster
Wanted Apostate
Posts: 827
Likes: 3,282
|
Post by Catilina on Jun 3, 2017 13:07:24 GMT
1. In a wrong system, the legality's not a value. 2. People with massive Stockholm syndrome can support their captors: Minaeve, Wynne, and also Vivienne... 3. Every war has innocent victims, this is inevitable. In fact, almost ALL victims are innocent. 4. The worst thinking to accept the captivity for the captives safety. This only supports the fear. Right, because most of the non-hostile mages we encounter have stockholm syndrome, that's so plausible. Yes. Everyone in the Circle is damaged. Every Mages and Templars. |
|
|
|
Post by Vallerie on Jun 3, 2017 13:08:23 GMT
Silver platter? None. No bloodshed? None. Can you however, name a single group of people that went around blowing up people with no stake in the fight that didn't have it blow right back in their face? However, as far as non-violent solutions go, Czechoslovkia got from under communist oppression by (mostly) peaceful protests. You know how could they do that? Because they waited for an opportune moment, instead of trying to fight in the moment the odds were stacked against them the most they were in centuries. And they did that precisely because they were insanely outnumbered by Soviets, much like mages vs Chantry supporters, and before that, they were building up alliances and support from outside. There were bloody uprisings in the Soviet bloc, before, and these rebellions undermined the system and gave hope to people to survive. Of course, many people (innocents, kids died for it). I can't consider these unnecessary. And still: the Soviet block even not Thedas. He asked about oppressed group getting free of the oppression. A related point, considering most fiction is at least partially based on reality. Point still stands. They did that when odds were in their favor, and they had allies that would support their position. And USSR didn't crumble because of the rebellions in Romania and Poland, those happened after it was significantly weakened. It crumbled because they were in deep economical trouble thanks to their screwed up way of government and denial of any problems, and this in turn allowed the rebellions to be successful (both the violent and non-violent ones). Mages on the other hand started their rebellion after weakening their position with common people (blowing up the church), which in turn strengthened position of the Chantry that was saying they are evil. Pretty much the only thing that saved them was the the Divine at that point was Justinia V, who was in favor of free mages. And had he not blown up the Chantry, change of status quo in favor of mages was not far away thanks to Justinia. He couldn't have known about that, but that just shows that radical solutions are often premature (as it had been in this case). |
|
|
|
Post by Vallerie on Jun 3, 2017 13:13:29 GMT
Silver platter? None. No bloodshed? None. Can you however, name a single group of people that went around blowing up people with no stake in the fight that didn't have it blow right back in their face? However, as far as non-violent solutions go, Czechoslovkia got from under communist oppression by (mostly) peaceful protests. You know how could they do that? Because they waited for an opportune moment, instead of trying to fight in the moment the odds were stacked against them the most they were in centuries. And they did that precisely because they were insanely outnumbered by Soviets, much like mages vs Chantry supporters, and before that, they were building up alliances and support from outside. I don't know about Czechoslovakia so I can't comment on it, but if true I'm glad there is at least one such example.  And personally, I was not happy with what Anders did. But sure, I'll play this game. Isn't the whole point of blowing up the chantry to start an open conflict rather than a clandestine one masquerading as "Business as usual" that's been going on forever to the slow but certain detriment of the mages? To force people to pick sides and settle the issue once and for all? The mages are ready for it to blow up in their faces. They'd rather fight a war they have some remote chance of winning than slowly die locked in towers. The templars may outnumber the mages but the mages have, y'know, magic, and also numerous apostates who either escaped or were never part of the circles to begin with. So I don't know if the numbers argument is as simple as that. Also, what alliances are the mages expected to build, exactly? When will this mythic "opportune moment" arrive? Additionally, how can one expect perfectly rational decision making from a group of people who are essentially removed from their families as children, locked up in the circles under templar guards who abuse them, made to feel like outsiders and monsters who cannot be allowed to harm the normals? When someone snaps, the decisions they make are hardly ever rational ones. Did the Chantry think they would never pay a price for their own crimes? What efforts did the Chantry make to improve the mage's plight? They've had tons of time. What progress excuses the continued incarceration of the mages for the simple crime of being born with magic? Open rebellion isn't neccessarily a bad thing. I just disagree with the notion that it has to be started with action that weakens your position of NOT being the bad guys. |
|
Catilina
The Beastmaster
Wanted Apostate
Posts: 827
Likes: 3,282
|
Post by Catilina on Jun 3, 2017 13:31:50 GMT
Silver platter? None. No bloodshed? None. Can you however, name a single group of people that went around blowing up people with no stake in the fight that didn't have it blow right back in their face? However, as far as non-violent solutions go, Czechoslovkia got from under communist oppression by (mostly) peaceful protests. You know how could they do that? Because they waited for an opportune moment, instead of trying to fight in the moment the odds were stacked against them the most they were in centuries. And they did that precisely because they were insanely outnumbered by Soviets, much like mages vs Chantry supporters, and before that, they were building up alliances and support from outside. And personally, I was not happy with what Anders did. But sure, I'll play this game. Isn't the whole point of blowing up the chantry to start an open conflict rather than a clandestine one masquerading as "Business as usual" that's been going on forever to the slow but certain detriment of the mages? To force people to pick sides and settle the issue once and for all? The mages are ready for it to blow up in their faces. They'd rather fight a war they have some remote chance of winning than slowly die locked in towers. The templars may outnumber the mages but the mages have, y'know, magic, and also numerous apostates who either escaped or were never part of the circles to begin with. So I don't know if the numbers argument is as simple as that. Also, what alliances are the mages expected to build, exactly? When will this mythic "opportune moment" arrive? Additionally, how can one expect perfectly rational decision making from a group of people who are essentially removed from their families as children, locked up in the circles under templar guards who abuse them, made to feel like outsiders and monsters who cannot be allowed to harm the normals? When someone snaps, the decisions they make are hardly ever rational ones. Did the Chantry think they would never pay a price for their own crimes? What efforts did the Chantry make to improve the mage's plight? They've had tons of time. What progress excuses the continued incarceration of the mages for the simple crime of being born with magic? The 50 years old communism was a financial anomaly. This passive resistance did nothing, the system murdered by it's own impossibility. Despite this, the passive resistance was important, just as the rebellions, because they gave hope to people. (Even Anders was not "happy" with his own act... ) |
|
Catilina
The Beastmaster
Wanted Apostate
Posts: 827
Likes: 3,282
|
Post by Catilina on Jun 3, 2017 13:56:44 GMT
I don't know about Czechoslovakia so I can't comment on it, but if true I'm glad there is at least one such example. And personally, I was not happy with what Anders did. But sure, I'll play this game. Isn't the whole point of blowing up the chantry to start an open conflict rather than a clandestine one masquerading as "Business as usual" that's been going on forever to the slow but certain detriment of the mages? To force people to pick sides and settle the issue once and for all? The mages are ready for it to blow up in their faces. They'd rather fight a war they have some remote chance of winning than slowly die locked in towers. The templars may outnumber the mages but the mages have, y'know, magic, and also numerous apostates who either escaped or were never part of the circles to begin with. So I don't know if the numbers argument is as simple as that. Also, what alliances are the mages expected to build, exactly? When will this mythic "opportune moment" arrive? Additionally, how can one expect perfectly rational decision making from a group of people who are essentially removed from their families as children, locked up in the circles under templar guards who abuse them, made to feel like outsiders and monsters who cannot be allowed to harm the normals? When someone snaps, the decisions they make are hardly ever rational ones. Did the Chantry think they would never pay a price for their own crimes? What efforts did the Chantry make to improve the mage's plight? They've had tons of time. What progress excuses the continued incarceration of the mages for the simple crime of being born with magic? Open rebellion isn't neccessarily a bad thing. I just disagree with the notion that it has to be started with action that weakens your position of NOT being the bad guys. The open rebellions, no matter, that seems foolish or suicidal, can show the despair to the world. It's hard to show the violence behind closed doors. The Circles was golden cages, the people only saw the good side. Most of the revolutions generate fear and antipathy in the people, who not involved. (Maybe I'm weird with this position, but I think, everyone in Thedas involved the mage issues. There's no family, which would be free from the chance to born a mage child...) |
|
|
|
Post by nocte on Jun 3, 2017 15:02:14 GMT
My problem with the "Anders should have done things peacefully" argument is how it places all the responsibility to act rationally on the party that's already under attack from a superior military power. Mages are being killed, sexually abused by Templars in massive numbers, magically lobotomized at the slightest excuse, even just for saying what is happening to them is wrong. The Chantry was the aggressor, but so many people never see the party in power as the problem when those they oppress refuse to just roll over and take it. Whoever has power is allowed to keep it by any means necessary, while oppressed groups are expected to work within the system the oppressors have created in order to "peacefully" change the lack of peace they already face without upsetting their oppressors too greatly. And why? Why should they prolong the unjustifiable suffering of themselves and others like them for the comfort of those making the active decision to subjugate them? I can't see the reason in it at all. It reminds me of this Martin Luther King Jr quote: "First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;' who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a 'more convenient season.'" |
|
Catilina
The Beastmaster
Wanted Apostate
Posts: 827
Likes: 3,282
|
Post by Catilina on Jun 3, 2017 15:11:54 GMT
My problem with the "Anders should have done things peacefully" argument is how it places all the responsibility to act rationally on the party that's already under attack from a superior military power. Mages are being killed, sexually abused by Templars in massive numbers, magically lobotomized at the slightest excuse, even just for saying what is happening to them is wrong. The Chantry was the aggressor, but so many people never see the party in power as the problem when those they oppress refuse to just roll over and take it. Whoever has power is allowed to keep it by any means necessary, while oppressed groups are expected to work within the system the oppressors have created in order to "peacefully" change the lack of peace they already face without upsetting their oppressors to greatly. And why? Why should they prolong the unjustifiable suffering of themselves and others like them for the comfort of those making the active decision to subjugate them? I can't see the reason in it at all. It reminds me of this Martin Luther King Jr quote: "First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;' who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a 'more convenient season.'" Exactly so! The people expect that the oppressed people MUST tolerate to oppression and the abuses, for the "bigger good": the peace of "innocents commoners". The oppressed people MUST be tolerant and be understanding toward the oppressors, because the bloodshed is so ugly and cruel, and the peace so beautiful. Until we aren't involved personally... (UPDATED):"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
Martin Niemoller |
|
|
|
Post by nocte on Jun 3, 2017 16:11:13 GMT
Not to derail what is a pretty interesting conversation about Anders and mage rights in the DA world, but I'm going to start a new Origins character for the first time in a while and I want advice on which PC to make.  - City Elf, Duel-wield Rogue: My favorite canon is already a city elf warden, but it's been years and I might just replay my canon for nostalgia. - Dalish Elf, Archer: I've played Dalish before, but I think archers are underrated and I like the Dalish origin a lot. - Circle Elf, Mage: I've never played an elf mage, so it would be new! My sometimes also kind of canon is an Amell mage, but everything is improved by being elfier! |
|
Catilina
The Beastmaster
Wanted Apostate
Posts: 827
Likes: 3,282
|
Post by Catilina on Jun 3, 2017 16:42:45 GMT
Not to derail what is a pretty interesting conversation about Anders and mage rights in the DA world, but I'm going to start a new Origins character for the first time in a while and I want advice on which PC to make. - City Elf, Duel-wield Rogue: My favorite canon is already a city elf warden, but it's been years and I might just replay my canon for nostalgia. - Dalish Elf, Archer: I've played Dalish before, but I think archers are underrated and I like the Dalish origin a lot. - Circle Elf, Mage: I've never played an elf mage, so it would be new! My sometimes also kind of canon is an Amell mage, but everything is improved by being elfier! I vote Surana. But: I don't think, that would been a significant difference between human and elf mage, sadly. (I already have done the game as Surana, years ago, I need an Amell now, but the fucking DAO crash my PC...) True, I also loved the dalish Origin (Archer). I started a playthrough as a city elf girl, but I only finished the Origin part with her. Not really remember. Circle Mage was my favorite Origin. *** I also need a little help, whit my aggressive/sarcastic Hawke (self-confident blood mage), for Carver's fate. I have been stuck in Act 1, because I planned a Warden Carver, but I don't know: probably their relationship a Templar fit better... and I can't find a reason, why he would bring this annoying little pimple to Deep Roads... A hard choice... |
|
|
|
Post by nocte on Jun 3, 2017 17:02:07 GMT
I also need a little help, whit my aggressive/sarcastic Hawke (self-confident blood mage), for Carver's fate. I have been stuck in Act 1, because I planned a Warden Carver, but I don't know: probably their relationship a Templar fit better... and I can't find a reason, why he would bring this annoying little pimple to Deep Roads... A hard choice... I like Carver as a Warden narratively, because I feel like he really grows as a person in the Wardens. My reasons in game for taking him is that I feel like he'll probably get in even more trouble on his own. lol My Hawke was sarcastic, but mostly deflected with humor and genuinely wanted to take care of the people he cared about. Bethany's death made him want to fix things with Carver before it was too late and it felt like leaving him would be the most likely thing to push him away and deepen the divide between us. Considering he goes off and becomes a Templar, that definitely proved true. So, basically my Hawke's thinking was, maybe if we do this together we can put our differences aside and it'll also be easier to watch over him and teach him if he's with me. What I also realized was that, even though the Deep Roads are dangerous, so was Kirkwall. So, if I had to pick one, it was going to be the one where I could at least try to protect him myself. |
|
Catilina
The Beastmaster
Wanted Apostate
Posts: 827
Likes: 3,282
|
Post by Catilina on Jun 3, 2017 17:18:45 GMT
I also need a little help, whit my aggressive/sarcastic Hawke (self-confident blood mage), for Carver's fate. I have been stuck in Act 1, because I planned a Warden Carver, but I don't know: probably their relationship a Templar fit better... and I can't find a reason, why he would bring this annoying little pimple to Deep Roads... A hard choice... I like Carver as a Warden narratively, because I feel like he really grows as a person in the Wardens. My reasons in game for taking him is that I feel like he'll probably get in even more trouble on his own. lol My Hawke was sarcastic, but mostly deflected with humor and genuinely wanted to take care of the people he cared about. Bethany's death made him want to fix things with Carver before it was too late and it felt like leaving him would be the most likely thing to push him away and deepen the divide between us. Considering he goes off and becomes a Templar, that definitely proved true. So, basically my Hawke's thinking was, maybe if we do this together we can put our differences aside and it'll also be easier to watch over him and teach him if he's with me. What I also realized was that, even though the Deep Roads are dangerous, so was Kirkwall. So, if I had to pick one, it was going to be the one where I could at least try to protect him myself. Yes, this is my reason too. My Hawke not a bad person, just impatient, seems cold, but rather protective. I don't think they hate each other with Carver, but I can imagine that Carver really feels that his brother is an ass, and Hawke even does everything for it... So: I don't see any reason to this Hawke. to take Carver to the Deep Roads. But I would like a Warden Carver finally. In my last three mage pt Carver was a Templar, but this Hawke is who really deserves a Templar brother... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2017 17:43:43 GMT
Not to derail what is a pretty interesting conversation about Anders and mage rights in the DA world, but I'm going to start a new Origins character for the first time in a while and I want advice on which PC to make. - City Elf, Duel-wield Rogue: My favorite canon is already a city elf warden, but it's been years and I might just replay my canon for nostalgia. - Dalish Elf, Archer: I've played Dalish before, but I think archers are underrated and I like the Dalish origin a lot. - Circle Elf, Mage: I've never played an elf mage, so it would be new! My sometimes also kind of canon is an Amell mage, but everything is improved by being elfier! I don't know if there will be much difference between a human and elf mage. That origin will prioritize mage over elf with most dialogues. There might be some different lines when you finally get to the Denerim alienage, or Brecilian Forest, but I don't know for sure. If you're not making this character for a specific purpose (like me, changing my canon) then why not do something you think is fun and know you will enjoy? I also need a little help, whit my aggressive/sarcastic Hawke (self-confident blood mage), for Carver's fate. I have been stuck in Act 1, because I planned a Warden Carver, but I don't know: probably their relationship a Templar fit better... and I can't find a reason, why he would bring this annoying little pimple to Deep Roads... A hard choice... I always like to bring the sibling along. They're an adult and capable of making their own choices. Also, it has always seemed like the Deep Roads expedition is a family project. |
|
Catilina
The Beastmaster
Wanted Apostate
Posts: 827
Likes: 3,282
|
Post by Catilina on Jun 3, 2017 17:56:22 GMT
Not to derail what is a pretty interesting conversation about Anders and mage rights in the DA world, but I'm going to start a new Origins character for the first time in a while and I want advice on which PC to make. - City Elf, Duel-wield Rogue: My favorite canon is already a city elf warden, but it's been years and I might just replay my canon for nostalgia. - Dalish Elf, Archer: I've played Dalish before, but I think archers are underrated and I like the Dalish origin a lot. - Circle Elf, Mage: I've never played an elf mage, so it would be new! My sometimes also kind of canon is an Amell mage, but everything is improved by being elfier! I don't know if there will be much difference between a human and elf mage. That origin will prioritize mage over elf with most dialogues. There might be some different lines when you finally get to the Denerim alienage, or Brecilian Forest, but I don't know for sure. If you're not making this character for a specific purpose (like me, changing my canon) then why not do something you think is fun and know you will enjoy? I also need a little help, whit my aggressive/sarcastic Hawke (self-confident blood mage), for Carver's fate. I have been stuck in Act 1, because I planned a Warden Carver, but I don't know: probably their relationship a Templar fit better... and I can't find a reason, why he would bring this annoying little pimple to Deep Roads... A hard choice... I always like to bring the sibling along. They're an adult and capable of making their own choices. Also, it has always seemed like the Deep Roads expedition is a family project. This is my main problem especially with this impatient, asshole Hawke: I must decide, that he sees Carver as an adult, or see him just as an annoying little child, who must to stay with their mom. |
|
|
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Jun 3, 2017 18:32:04 GMT
I don't know if I have a dog in this fight, but can anyone name a single instance in history where an oppressed group of people were handed their rights on a silver platter without any bloodshed? The mages were already villainized by the chantry. The whole idea of a circle to keep the muggle plebs safe from rabid mages is an instrument of oppression. I don't know if I would have gone about it exactly as Anders did, but I can understand his POV and his frustration. You can only oppress a group so far before they snap. The resulting bang is not just the perpetrator's fault. But of course a status quo power will point out the needless war you've started and innocents who've lost their lives. “For if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them.” -Moore, Utopia. The circles teach the mages that they're monsters, unfit for the world of good, pure men. And when they actually do something monstrous, everyone is appalled. Silver platter? None. No bloodshed? None. Can you however, name a single group of people that went around blowing up people with no stake in the fight that didn't have it blow right back in their face? Hang on, are you referring to the Chantry with this description? Because if you are, I don't think you understand what the Chantry is. |
|
|
|
Post by toomanyclouds on Jun 3, 2017 19:32:54 GMT
My problem with the "Anders should have done things peacefully" argument is how it places all the responsibility to act rationally on the party that's already under attack from a superior military power. Mages are being killed, sexually abused by Templars in massive numbers, magically lobotomized at the slightest excuse, even just for saying what is happening to them is wrong. The Chantry was the aggressor, but so many people never see the party in power as the problem when those they oppress refuse to just roll over and take it. Whoever has power is allowed to keep it by any means necessary, while oppressed groups are expected to work within the system the oppressors have created in order to "peacefully" change the lack of peace they already face without upsetting their oppressors too greatly. And why? Why should they prolong the unjustifiable suffering of themselves and others like them for the comfort of those making the active decision to subjugate them? I can't see the reason in it at all. It reminds me of this Martin Luther King Jr quote: "First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;' who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a 'more convenient season.'" I don't disagree with this, but I think comparing anti-mage-ism to racism (or homophia) is inherently flawed, even if the DA universe constantly tries to force that view. These sort of prejudices have at their base that they are baseless because a black man is not more likely to hurt you than a white man, and a lesbian is not threatening anyone's way of life by just existing anymore than a straight woman does. They don't have inherent destructive powers more than all humans do just because of what they are. The fear of mages is not baseless. It's just not. They are more powerful than everyone else (not in combat because gameplay balance, but realistically speaking). Aside from being able to burn down a village's whole livelihood with a flick of their wrists summoning fire from the heavens if they so please, and the options of mind control or basically any of the macabre attacks from the blood magic trees (or even the Entropy/Necromancer trees, no blood magic required), they can also make deals with demons if they want to, which is an option magic-less humans don't usually have. Does that mean all or even most mages would do that or justify what the Templars do? No. But the fact of human(oid) nature is, some people (not all, but some), when granted powers eclipsing those of most others, will always go: "Hey, why aren't we running this show, anyway?" And then it's hello, Tevinter 2.0. I may have a cynical view of human nature, but I really don't see that the DA universe will ever have a society of any considerable size that is balanced for more than a decade or so. It'll always either be mages or non-mages in power, unless the core groups of the society are as small as Dalish clans, where personal acquaintance and accountability would prevent ideological takeovers. At best, I could see a city-state of Kirkwall's size manage it for a few decades if a Viscount and Head Mage (whatever title s/he may have outside the Circle) are appointed that see eye-to-eye and are both politically talented. Eventually, though, it'll come crashing down. Some idiot is gonna explode into a Pride demon in a town square and kill a bunch of kids, then another idiot is gonna unearth the old Templar doctrines and rally the mob, then the mages will go on the barricades and feel justified in making more deals with demons to defend themselves (like the ones in Kirkwall did) and away we go again. |
|
Catilina
The Beastmaster
Wanted Apostate
Posts: 827
Likes: 3,282
|
Post by Catilina on Jun 3, 2017 20:08:02 GMT
My problem with the "Anders should have done things peacefully" argument is how it places all the responsibility to act rationally on the party that's already under attack from a superior military power. Mages are being killed, sexually abused by Templars in massive numbers, magically lobotomized at the slightest excuse, even just for saying what is happening to them is wrong. The Chantry was the aggressor, but so many people never see the party in power as the problem when those they oppress refuse to just roll over and take it. Whoever has power is allowed to keep it by any means necessary, while oppressed groups are expected to work within the system the oppressors have created in order to "peacefully" change the lack of peace they already face without upsetting their oppressors too greatly. And why? Why should they prolong the unjustifiable suffering of themselves and others like them for the comfort of those making the active decision to subjugate them? I can't see the reason in it at all. It reminds me of this Martin Luther King Jr quote: "First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;' who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a 'more convenient season.'" I don't disagree with this, but I think comparing anti-mage-ism to racism (or homophia) is inherently flawed, even if the DA universe constantly tries to force that view. These sort of prejudices have at their base that they are baseless because a black man is not more likely to hurt you than a white man, and a lesbian is not threatening anyone's way of life by just existing anymore than a straight woman does. They don't have inherent destructive powers more than all humans do just because of what they are.
The fear of mages is not baseless. It's just not. They are more powerful than everyone else (not in combat because gameplay balance, but realistically speaking). Aside from being able to burn down a village's whole livelihood with a flick of their wrists summoning fire from the heavens if they so please, and the options of mind control or basically any of the macabre attacks from the blood magic trees (or even the Entropy/Necromancer trees, no blood magic required), they can also make deals with demons if they want to, which is an option magic-less humans don't usually have. Does that mean all or even most mages would do that or justify what the Templars do? No. But the fact of human(oid) nature is, some people (not all, but some), when granted powers eclipsing those of most others, will always go: "Hey, why aren't we running this show, anyway?" And then it's hello, Tevinter 2.0.
I may have a cynical view of human nature, but I really don't see that the DA universe will ever have a society of any considerable size that is balanced for more than a decade or so. It'll always either be mages or non-mages in power, unless the core groups of the society are as small as Dalish clans, where personal acquaintance and accountability would prevent ideological takeovers. At best, I could see a city-state of Kirkwall's size manage it for a few decades if a Viscount and Head Mage (whatever title s/he may have outside the Circle) are appointed that see eye-to-eye and are both politically talented. Eventually, though, it'll come crashing down. Some idiot is gonna explode into a Pride demon in a town square and kill a bunch of kids, then another idiot is gonna unearth the old Templar doctrines and rally the mob, then the mages will go on the barricades and feel justified in making more deals with demons to defend themselves (like the ones in Kirkwall did) and away we go again. Yes, the danger always exists. But: force people, children into a prison, just because they are dangerous is inherently wrong. There's no excuse, nor explanation for it, because, in addition to being cruel and unjust, even dangerous: makes the dangerous prisoners mad and desperate, and creates false sense of security in the commoners. The whole system is wrong. The innocent majority inside the Circle, the dangerous minority outside. The parents hide their dangerous mage child from the Circles, with jeopardizing teir close environment (Connor, Meredith's sister). |
|
|
|
Post by toomanyclouds on Jun 3, 2017 20:46:08 GMT
I don't disagree with this, but I think comparing anti-mage-ism to racism (or homophia) is inherently flawed, even if the DA universe constantly tries to force that view. These sort of prejudices have at their base that they are baseless because a black man is not more likely to hurt you than a white man, and a lesbian is not threatening anyone's way of life by just existing anymore than a straight woman does. They don't have inherent destructive powers more than all humans do just because of what they are. The fear of mages is not baseless. It's just not. They are more powerful than everyone else (not in combat because gameplay balance, but realistically speaking). Aside from being able to burn down a village's whole livelihood with a flick of their wrists summoning fire from the heavens if they so please, and the options of mind control or basically any of the macabre attacks from the blood magic trees (or even the Entropy/Necromancer trees, no blood magic required), they can also make deals with demons if they want to, which is an option magic-less humans don't usually have. Does that mean all or even most mages would do that or justify what the Templars do? No. But the fact of human(oid) nature is, some people (not all, but some), when granted powers eclipsing those of most others, will always go: "Hey, why aren't we running this show, anyway?" And then it's hello, Tevinter 2.0. I may have a cynical view of human nature, but I really don't see that the DA universe will ever have a society of any considerable size that is balanced for more than a decade or so. It'll always either be mages or non-mages in power, unless the core groups of the society are as small as Dalish clans, where personal acquaintance and accountability would prevent ideological takeovers. At best, I could see a city-state of Kirkwall's size manage it for a few decades if a Viscount and Head Mage (whatever title s/he may have outside the Circle) are appointed that see eye-to-eye and are both politically talented. Eventually, though, it'll come crashing down. Some idiot is gonna explode into a Pride demon in a town square and kill a bunch of kids, then another idiot is gonna unearth the old Templar doctrines and rally the mob, then the mages will go on the barricades and feel justified in making more deals with demons to defend themselves (like the ones in Kirkwall did) and away we go again. Yes, the danger always exists. But: force people, children into a prison, just because they are dangerous is inherently wrong. There's no excuse, nor explanation for it, because, in addition to being cruel and unjust, even dangerous: makes the dangerous prisoners mad and desperate, and creates false sense of security in the commoners. The whole system is wrong. The innocent majority inside the Circle, the dangerous minority outside. The parents hide their dangerous mage child from the Circles, with jeopardizing teir close environment (Connor, Meredith's sister). Yeah, I agree, the Circles don't work as a system. Tevinter works, sort of, in the sense that it prevails whereas the Circle system seems constantly on the brink of collapse anyway. They couldn't hold their Imperium, but they still stand relatively strong. However, Tevinter is a hive of injustice, slavery and oppression, just in the other direction. I just don't know what system would work on a larger scale and not treat someone unfairly. I mean, peace and tolerance and general understanding out of the kindness of everyone's hearts, but... that takes optimism. I think the general gist is, mages are not bad because they're mages, which is what most people in South Thedas seem to believe. Mages are bad because they're people and quite a lot of people suck or do stupid things out of fear, naivety, righteous anger, etc., and people who have a lot of power have the opportunity to suck and do stupid things on previously unthought levels. Corypheus and Solas are prime examples of this. As far as we have been able to witness, quite some a few of the most catastrophic events in the history of Thedas are largely caused by magic (except for the Blights because that they are a punishment against Corypheus and pals is only Chantry doctrine, not proven; however, Corypheus and the other mages certainly messed up something, even if it wasn't God). That's just because magic is the most powerful force on Thedas and by all rights its wielders will be the most powerful people, which could turn out unfortunate for everyone else. That's why I always find it a bit strange when people don't understand that the "muggles" of Thedas may feel some trepidation, even if it doesn't justify this useless Circle thing or the atrocities committed in its name. |
|
Catilina
The Beastmaster
Wanted Apostate
Posts: 827
Likes: 3,282
|
Post by Catilina on Jun 3, 2017 20:50:41 GMT
Yes, the danger always exists. But: force people, children into a prison, just because they are dangerous is inherently wrong. There's no excuse, nor explanation for it, because, in addition to being cruel and unjust, even dangerous: makes the dangerous prisoners mad and desperate, and creates false sense of security in the commoners. The whole system is wrong. The innocent majority inside the Circle, the dangerous minority outside. The parents hide their dangerous mage child from the Circles, with jeopardizing teir close environment (Connor, Meredith's sister). Tevinter works, sort of, in the sense that it prevails whereas the Circle system seems constantly on the brink of collapse anyway. They couldn't hold their Imperium, but they still stand relatively strong. However, Tevinter is a hive of injustice, slavery and oppression, just in the other direction. I just don't know what system would work on a larger scale and not treat someone unfairly. I mean, peace and tolerance and general understanding out of the kindness of everyone's hearts, but... that takes optimism. I think the general gist is, mages are not bad because they're mages, which is what most people in South Thedas seem to believe. Mages are bad because they're people and quite a lot of people suck or do stupid things out of fear, naivety, righteous anger, etc., and people who have a lot of power have the opportunity to suck and do stupid things on previously unthought levels. Corypheus and Solas are prime examples of this. As far as we know, the most catastrophic events in the history of Thedas are largely caused by magic (except for the Blights because that they are a punishment against Corypheus and pals is only Chantry doctrine, not proven; however, Corypheus and the other mages certainly messed up something, even if it wasn't God). That's just because magic is the most powerful force on Thedas and by all rights its wielders will be the most powerful people, which could turn out unfortunate for everyone else. But then what's wrong with Anders? The Circle system is wrong. The Chantry's wrong about it, and guilty in a 1000 years sin. Anders was right. |
|
Much love right back at ya!
