inherit
749
0
Mar 10, 2024 18:44:44 GMT
3,652
Iddy
3,727
August 2016
iddy
|
Post by Iddy on Apr 14, 2019 1:11:52 GMT
This is a big theme in DAI: Organizations start off with a good premise (Chantry, Seekers, Grey Wardens, Inquisition) but then go corrupt.
So what are we to take from this? That having faith in an organization is pointless because it will inevitably turn bad?
Or that it's just something you keep fixing as many times as needed?
|
|
xerrai
N3
Posts: 839 Likes: 1,155
inherit
1451
0
1,155
xerrai
839
September 2016
xerrai
|
Post by xerrai on Apr 14, 2019 1:32:29 GMT
I mean, basically yeah. Nothing lasts forever. That is as true in the real world as it is in Thedas.
Most of the organizations listed were created durring the Divine Age so its not really surprising that they are starting to fall apart. By all accounts they already have had a stellar shelf life. It actually seems appropriate that thier decomposition is happening around this point. The holy roman empire lasted about 1000 years give or take, and even though there is still debate about it, the decay of the empire itself had started long before its eventual collapse.
But of course I am by no means a historical expert.
|
|
inherit
154
0
Mar 28, 2024 19:05:32 GMT
1,979
Reznore
936
August 2016
reznore
|
Post by Reznore on Apr 14, 2019 5:37:13 GMT
You fix it as long as you believe in it...but also sometimes things need to get destroyed. Power corrupts, it doesn't even have to be in a cackling evil way, but power isolate people, and when you're too powerful, you're not challenged anymore. So you end up missing cues when changes are badly needed. Or you end up thinking might makes right and you're always right.
You want some counter power in places, but even that can go haywire. There's no 100% neat formula, or peaceful state of affair that lasts forever. The best you can do is not letting some organisation or entities get too powerful to the point of absurdity. Like the Evanuris. You don't want godlike beings that can only be challenged by some kind of worldwide apocalypse.
|
|
Blaze
N3
Everyone seem normal till you get to know them
Posts: 893 Likes: 952
inherit
1150
0
Mar 26, 2023 11:03:39 GMT
952
Blaze
Everyone seem normal till you get to know them
893
Aug 23, 2016 12:15:31 GMT
August 2016
blaze
|
Post by Blaze on Apr 14, 2019 6:43:11 GMT
the problem is never organizations, the problem is that people use ideals as an excuse to execute their own twisted agenda. think of the spanish inquisition, everything they did was in the name of christ. well i don't think a guy who preached about "turning the other cheek" had "we'll torture you till you believe what we tell you" in mind.
every good cause or idea can be used in a misplaced way by people with agendas, not to mention that good and bad are by nature subjective. as the saying goes; you put two people in a room, you gonna have four opinions.
so to sun up, organizations are not a bad thing, but yeah things change over time, so the original idea can be misused or executed differently than originally intended. on the other hand, easier to get things done as an organization. and as i type this, i realize i didn't give a clear answer to the question, but there is no clear answer so that's really the best i can give.
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
Mar 28, 2024 16:27:05 GMT
26,626
gervaise21
10,745
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Apr 14, 2019 8:22:03 GMT
This is a big theme in DAI: Organizations start off with a good premise (Chantry, Seekers, Grey Wardens, Inquisition) but then go corrupt. Whilst I would agree that there does seem to be a general theme of power corrupts behind the thinking of DA and Solas in expressing that corruption of an organisation is inevitable seems to be voicing the writers opinion on the matter, with these three organisations that you give as examples, I would argue that each of them was corrupt from the start. The Chantry: This was not an organisation started by Andraste but by the Emperor Drakon. When he started his rise to power there were many different clans across the south vying for secular power and each had their own version of the teaching of Andraste. If you look at Ferelden, where she orginated, there does seem evidence that the tribes there continued to worship their other gods alongside the Maker. This is why Ameridan worshipping both Andraste and Ghilan'nain would not have seemed strange to the majority of his human neighbours. Then Drakon had a convenient empire building endorsement from the Maker in the form of his "vision". He now considered himself to have divine mandate to "simplify" things (in Ameridan's words), which he did. Across what became the Empire of Orlais, he systematically conquered the other clans and eradicated all forms of Andrastrian worship but his own. This was then the version he took across the rest of Thedas, initially by conquest or the grateful conversion of people that he saved from the Blight. The Chant of Light as sung in the Chantry is his Divine's version of Andraste's teaching, presumably selecting from those oral traditions that best backed up Drakon's claims and omitting those that did not. The first Divine and her successors also put their own interpretation on Andraste's teaching, for example about the treatment of mages or condemnation of blood magic for which there is no actually basis in the text. Yet they conveniently overlooked the moral imperative of her teaching that should have condemned Drakon for what he had done to the other worshipers of Andraste. That there were other versions of the faith is evidenced by the Imperial Chantry (although this one could be regarded dodgy in itself), the Ash Warriors, who worship the Maker but do not acknowledge the Chantry or its Chant of Light (although since they were eradicated so soon after the beginning of DAO and this information confined to a weapons pack, not many people are aware of this) and of course Ameridan himself. The Seekers of Truth: Once they were no longer an independent organisation committed to ensuring justice for all regardless of the status of the individual but an enforcement arm of the Chantry, its purpose was directly influenced by that organisation. The change of use of the rite of tranquillity from a Seeker creating ritual into a device for controlling mages happened very early in its history. Ameridan had foreseen the possibility of misuse of the rite and had been assured this would not happen. Then once he was conveniently out of the way (I still think it suspicious that no one thought to follow up on his disappearance) they ignored this promise. So again, I would say the corruption was there from the outset. The Grey Wardens: I don't think they ever claimed to purity of purpose. It is rather hard to do so when initiation involves corrupting yourself with the very thing you are seeking to destroy. Right from the outset the end justified the means of achieving this. Such a philosophy is always going to have people make questionable decisions, for example the griffons, which seem necessary at the time but it is easy to condemn with hindsight. With the criteria for enlistment being basically you can survive the Joining and the wastage rate among willing recruits somewhat high as a result, they were always a mixed bunch of the virtuous and those co-opted from among the condemned. However, when it comes to corruption of the organisation as a whole, I would say that they are one of the few organisations that still seems to broadly follow the aims of its founders. What happened in DAI was largely the result of stupidity among the southern leadership and poor lines of communication with the north (something I find odd once they introduced the idea of ravens to carry messages swiftly across Thedas). Also the fact that the Grey Warden plot in DAI necessitated ignoring the entire plot of DAA.
|
|
inherit
Wanted Apostate
127
0
18,241
Catilina
11,030
August 2016
catilina
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Catilina on Apr 14, 2019 10:55:36 GMT
There's no perfect solution to prevent the corruption of the power. Only chance is the constant supervision, and to change the leaders constantly, and to make it clear: nobody can commit abuses without consequences. And if this realized, can give a chance to the for corruption-free operation – and a new chance for a different type of the corruption: the crusade against the old leader...
But still the best: to change the leaders constantly. Who able to handle the unlimited power? The possibility of the change always a hope.
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,066
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Apr 14, 2019 11:50:46 GMT
It's a bad idea to have blind faith in anything. Faith should always be tempered with cynicism. Believing that people are basically good, for instance, shouldn't mean ignoring their enormous capacity to do harm.
|
|
Noxluxe
N4
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 1,979 Likes: 3,489
inherit
10359
0
Mar 14, 2019 16:10:11 GMT
3,489
Noxluxe
1,979
Jul 21, 2018 23:55:09 GMT
July 2018
noxluxe
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Noxluxe on Apr 14, 2019 12:48:19 GMT
Having faith in an organization fulfilling its intended purpose is important for it to be able to do so. Having faith in it staying entirely true to that purpose forever, regardless of how big and bloated it gets over time, is stupid.
It really is mostly a matter of group size. Once something gets too big, the possibility that some of the links in the chain are weak and undisciplined and compromised becomes a certainty instead. And the organization gradually becomes more concerned with its own survival, because more and more intimately familiar lives, not to mention more influence and resources, are at stake to the leadership. Meanwhile, the increasing pressure can start getting to that leadership, making them more and more individually unreliable.
That doesn't mean that an organization's purpose can't be important enough for people to need to see past those flaws though. A big organization that mostly serves its function in spite of some corruption and some greed is often worth holding on to and not messing too much with too quickly, because the consequences of severely undercutting it could be far worse.
Having organizations with occasionally despicable policies and tendencies in an otherwise somewhat organized world is far preferable to total chaos and uncertainty caused by people refusing to believe in organized effort out of hand because of cynicism. So on the whole yes, organizations are definitely worth having faith in, and putting work into, and priding yourself on being an important part of.
Which is another thing. People naturally band together for solidarity, and naturally need to feel useful to each other to be healthy. The ones most vulnerable to imbalance and excess are the ones without peers and a group with common goals to identify themselves by and whose interests to serve.
Thus disenfranchised school shooters and selfish out-of-touch assholes beholden to no-one who use their time and resources to destabilize whatever they can out of idealism or for instant gratification instead of working to the benefit of a community they feel they actually belong to. For example.
|
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
Sept 14, 2023 6:08:41 GMT
9,897
Ieldra
4,771
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Apr 14, 2019 13:59:53 GMT
Having faith in an organization fulfilling its intended purpose is important for it to be able to do so. Having faith in it staying entirely true to that purpose forever, regardless of how big and bloated it gets over time, is stupid. s It really is mostly a matter of group size. Once something gets too big, the possibility that some of the links in the chain are weak and undisciplined and counterproductive becomes a certainty instead. And the organization gradually becomes more concerned with its own survival, because more and more intimately familiar lives, not to mention more influence and resources, are at stake to the leadership. Meanwhile, the increasing pressure can start getting to that leadership, making them more and more individually unreliable. That doesn't mean that an organization's purpose can't be important enough for people to need to see past those flaws though. A big organization that mostly serves its function in spite of some corruption and some greed is often worth holding on to and not messing too much with too quickly, because the consequences of severely undercutting it could be far worse. Having organizations with occasionally despicable policies and tendencies in an otherwise somewhat organized world is far preferable to total chaos and uncertainty caused by people refusing to believe in organized effort out of hand because of cynicism. So on the whole yes, organizations are definitely worth having faith in, and putting work into, and priding yourself on being an important part of. Which is another thing. People naturally band together for solidarity, and naturally need to feel useful to each other to be healthy. The ones most vulnerable to imbalance and excess are the ones without peers and a group with common goals to identify themselves by and whose interests to serve. Thus disenfranchised school shooters and selfish out-of-touch assholes beholden to no-one who use their time and resources to destabilize whatever they can for idealism or instant gratification instead of working to the benefit of a community they feel they actually belong to. For example. I'd like to add that people who are cynically towards organizations to the point that they want to disband them should ask themselves what will most likely happen if they don't exist any more. In many cases, a less-than-ideal status quo supported by an organization is preferable to the state of things that would ensue if it were destroyed. As an example, I really dislike the Chantry in the world of DA, but I do not, as a rule, choose Leliana, i.e. the most revolutionary option, even though it's most likely to result in the kind of upheaval that would significantly reduce the Chantry's power. I would prefer to see the Chantry lose power, but not at the price of the complete shattering of a supra-national cultural compact that may just become useful in the fight against the Qunari, to say nothing about the possibility of widespread chaos.
As opposed to you, though, I have much more faith in large organizations, even though they're usually less efficient with everything else being equal. This is because they're much more likely to be moderate in their approach to things, because it is usually in their interest to integrate the interests of diverse groups of people. From the same individualist's perspective, the larger "society" is preferable to the smaller "community", because it imposes less personal constraints on its members. If you disband the Chantry, one most likely result would be the growth of a variety of dedicated cults with more narrowly-held beliefs. A rather unpleasant prospect from my point of view, though perhaps, if my estimation of your stance is correct, less so for you.
|
|
Noxluxe
N4
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 1,979 Likes: 3,489
inherit
10359
0
Mar 14, 2019 16:10:11 GMT
3,489
Noxluxe
1,979
Jul 21, 2018 23:55:09 GMT
July 2018
noxluxe
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Noxluxe on Apr 14, 2019 14:24:32 GMT
I'd like to add that people who are cynically towards organizations to the point that they want to disband them should ask themselves what will most likely happen if they don't exist any more. In many cases, a less-than-ideal status quo supported by an organization is preferable to the state of things that would ensue if it were destroyed. As an example, I really dislike the Chantry in the world of DA, but I do not, as a rule, choose Leliana, i.e. the most revolutionary option, even though it's most likely to result in the kind of upheaval that would significantly reduce the Chantry's power. I would prefer to see the Chantry lose power, but not at the price of the complete shattering of a supra-national cultural compact that may just become useful in the fight against the Qunari, to say nothing about the possibility of widespread chaos. As opposed to you, though, I have much more faith in large organizations, even though they're usually less efficient with everything else being equal. This is because they're much more likely to be moderate in their approach to things, because it is usually in their interest to integrate the interests of diverse groups of people. From the same individualist's perspective, the larger "society" is preferable to the smaller "community", because it imposes less personal constraints on its members. If you disband the Chantry, one most likely result would be the growth of a variety of dedicated cults with more narrowly-held beliefs. A rather unpleasant prospect from my point of view, though perhaps, if my estimation of your stance is correct, less so for you.
No disagreement at all, I'd say we're on entirely the same page. The function a unified church performs in medieval society is much too important to want to tear it down or reform it in a radical sense, especially not at a point of wide-spread cultural instability, for exactly the reasons you state. I'd also add that their practical function of organizing and restraining magical power in the general population makes them indispensable in a way no equivalent organisation in the real world can claim to be, at least until a tested and reliable alternative is found. Especially given what mages have historically been up to in this setting. Same with the Grey Wardens, with the caveat that their use has forseeable end when all the remaining Old Gods have been turned into Archdemons and/or slain and there's no longer any possibility of future Blights.
|
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
Sept 14, 2023 6:08:41 GMT
9,897
Ieldra
4,771
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Apr 14, 2019 15:08:58 GMT
I'd also add that their practical function of organizing and restraining magical power in the general population makes them indispensable in a way no equivalent organisation in the real world can claim to be, at least until a tested and reliable alternative is found. Especially given what mages have historically been up to in this setting. Well...that's a rather more problematic area. While "completely unregulated magic" is an unpleasant prospect as well, the current setup strikes me a recipe for atrocity. Given the Chantry's attitude towards magic, the potential for ideologically-motivated abuse is high enough that my mageborn characters do consider revolution rather than evolution, if not by overthrowing the Chantry, then by supporting the Circles' separation from the Chantry. It is likely that some kind of temporary segregation is necessary, but, for instance, a network of self-governed circles is a much less unpleasant prospect than the current setup. The fear of a "Tevinter scenario" is also problematic, because of the intrinsic difference between magical power, which is highly personal, and political power, which is based on networking rather than personal enforcement. It's like saying that owning a powerful weapon makes it more likely to become ruler. The Tevinter scenario won't happen unless there is a policy that is likely to unite the mageborn into one faction.
I agree with you insofar as there needs to be an organization that guides and educates the mageborn, and that such education must continue to be mandatory - but I'd rather have the Chantry supplanted by, say, the Mage Collective in that role.
|
|
Noxluxe
N4
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 1,979 Likes: 3,489
inherit
10359
0
Mar 14, 2019 16:10:11 GMT
3,489
Noxluxe
1,979
Jul 21, 2018 23:55:09 GMT
July 2018
noxluxe
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Noxluxe on Apr 14, 2019 16:03:55 GMT
I'd also add that their practical function of organizing and restraining magical power in the general population makes them indispensable in a way no equivalent organisation in the real world can claim to be, at least until a tested and reliable alternative is found. Especially given what mages have historically been up to in this setting. Well...that's a rather more problematic area. While "completely unregulated magic" is an unpleasant prospect as well, the current setup strikes me a recipe for atrocity. Given the Chantry's attitude towards magic, the potential for ideologically-motivated abuse is high enough that my mageborn characters do consider revolution rather than evolution, if not by overthrowing the Chantry, then by supporting the Circles' separation from the Chantry. It is likely that some kind of temporary segregation is necessary, but, for instance, a network of self-governed circles is a much less unpleasant prospect than the current setup. The fear of a "Tevinter scenario" is also problematic, because of the intrinsic difference between magical power, which is highly personal, and political power, which is based on networking rather than personal enforcement. It's like saying that owning a powerful weapon makes it more likely to become ruler. The Tevinter scenario won't happen unless there is a policy that is likely to unite the mageborn into one faction.
I agree with you insofar as there needs to be an organization that guides and educates the mageborn, and that such education must continue to be mandatory - but I'd rather have the Chantry supplanted by, say, the Mage Collective in that role.
Absolutely. But a tested and reliable Mage Collective. I'm not at all opposed to someone other than the Chantry having that responsibility, provided that such an entity has demonstrated that its methods don't cause more problems large-scale than the Chantry's model does or that the Chantry is left in a position to step in if it goes sideways. No contender in the series has yet proven that so far as I know. Partially because such attempts have been driven underground, true, which is why I'd personally back Cassandra as Divine. She appears open to exploring and experimenting with different setups for the Circle system, unlike Vivienne, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater and risking the world shattering on principle, like Leliana does. My stance is that magic and mages in this setting are just too dangerous and unreliable not to be beholden to a regulatory power, like yours, and that recklessly messing with that, such as what Leliana attempts as Divine if she gets there, as you point out, is a recipe for even bigger disaster than the status quo of mages being somewhat oppressed.
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
Mar 28, 2024 16:27:05 GMT
26,626
gervaise21
10,745
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Apr 14, 2019 16:55:45 GMT
That having faith in an organization is pointless because it will inevitably turn bad? Or that it's just something you keep fixing as many times as needed?
It is never pointless having faith in an ideal or code of mortality and so long as the organisation embodies those ideals then it is worth putting your trust in it. Justinia made this point to Lambert in Asunder after he had criticised her objections to the Rite of Tranquility and incarceration of mages:
"Idealism is our stock-in-trade, Lambert. A religion without ideals is tyranny."
The problems tend to come when the organisation seeks to force its ideals on others. Also if over time those ideals have been used in corrupt ways. The abuse of mages by Templars who were meant to be protecting them, for example. Using the Rite of Tranquility as a punishment instead of a mercy and making it non-voluntary.
However, you do not have to have faith in the Chantry to be Andrastrian, which is why I feel that if I am going to put my trust in the Chantry, they need to maintain adherence to the ideals found in Andraste's teaching and, more importantly, act against those who don't. The Chantry has seemed too willing to back the status quo of the ruling class and in the case of Orlais subscribe to the notion that the nobility rule by Divine Right and thus have mandate to act as they please. The Chantry ought to have condemned the actions of the Chevaliers against commoners and particularly their training methods against elves, which directly contradict the teaching in the Chant of Light, but it would seem never to have done so. In DAO why didn't the Chantry sister immediately call upon the City Guard to arrest Vaughan and rescue the elven women who had been abducted from their wedding? Divine Justinia no longer seemed such an idealist when she practically ordered Celene to put down the elven rebellion by force as the price of doing something about the mages, when the rebellion had been brought about by the unjust treatment of an elf by a cruel member of the nobility. This is why I cannot put my faith in the Chantry as an organisation even though my PCs do try and follow the mortal code of the Chant of Light.
As for the Grey Wardens it is less a matter of putting your faith in them than your trust. No one denies that the darkspawn are a problem, although because they tend to stay underground between Blights, outside of the Anderfels people are apt to forget the reason Grey Wardens are necessary. If someone could come up with a better way of dealing with darkspawn then it might be worth questioning their methods. To date no one has and until the first Wardens took the initiative in the First Blight, there had seemed no end to it. So, leaving aside the collective idiocy of the southern Wardens in DAI, which was still done because they wished to save the world from the Blights, it does seem worth placing continued trust in their organisation.
What needs watching more is the tendency of certain nations to invade other countries under the pretext of aiding the Wardens against the Blight. Both Tevinter and Orlais have been guilty of this in the past.
|
|
inherit
Wanted Apostate
127
0
18,241
Catilina
11,030
August 2016
catilina
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Catilina on Apr 14, 2019 17:36:29 GMT
Well...that's a rather more problematic area. While "completely unregulated magic" is an unpleasant prospect as well, the current setup strikes me a recipe for atrocity. Given the Chantry's attitude towards magic, the potential for ideologically-motivated abuse is high enough that my mageborn characters do consider revolution rather than evolution, if not by overthrowing the Chantry, then by supporting the Circles' separation from the Chantry. It is likely that some kind of temporary segregation is necessary, but, for instance, a network of self-governed circles is a much less unpleasant prospect than the current setup. The fear of a "Tevinter scenario" is also problematic, because of the intrinsic difference between magical power, which is highly personal, and political power, which is based on networking rather than personal enforcement. It's like saying that owning a powerful weapon makes it more likely to become ruler. The Tevinter scenario won't happen unless there is a policy that is likely to unite the mageborn into one faction.
I agree with you insofar as there needs to be an organization that guides and educates the mageborn, and that such education must continue to be mandatory - but I'd rather have the Chantry supplanted by, say, the Mage Collective in that role.
Absolutely. But a tested and reliable Mage Collective. I'm not at all opposed to someone other than the Chantry having that responsibility, provided that such an entity has demonstrated that its methods don't cause more problems large-scale than the Chantry's model does or that the Chantry is left in a position to step in if it goes sideways. No contender in the series has yet proven that so far as I know. Partially because such attempts have been driven underground, true, which is why I'd personally back Cassandra as Divine. She appears open to exploring and experimenting with different setups for the Circle system, unlike Vivienne, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater and risking the world shattering on principle, like Leliana does. My stance is that magic and mages in this setting are just too dangerous and unreliable not to be beholden to a regulatory power, like yours, and that recklessly messing with that, such as what Leliana attempts as Divine if she gets there, as you point out, is a recipe for even bigger disaster than the status quo of mages being somewhat oppressed. Dangerous. Unreliable. Etc. Bullshit. The Circles are failed. The whole system caused a disaster, not the "mages". This is a magical world. It's not a solution to lock everyone who able to use the magic. Education? Important. Effective anti-magical force? Important. Prisons? Of course important – to lock up the criminals, but never the people who just born with this ability. Leliana's way is the only way. After this chaos, the best timing for a radical change – Cassandra is just a wasted opportunity. And perhaps she has some reforms, perhaps, she will eliminate the practice of the Tranquility and to cure the Tranquils (she promised!), but if the system back, the fears remains and the freedom will be even more distant desire. And the chance for another rebellion still a threat – just like the old zealots' attacks... So: Cassandra isn't safer than Leliana. Not mentioned, neither Cassandra, nor Vivienne didn't success to shepherd every mage back to the Circles. THIS is the danger. The old problem returns – without solution, because of the false sense of security. While if the system changes, people forced to find a better solution... And don't say me, that the idea of freedom is something new liberal thing because this is the most ancient idea in the world.
|
|
Noxluxe
N4
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 1,979 Likes: 3,489
inherit
10359
0
Mar 14, 2019 16:10:11 GMT
3,489
Noxluxe
1,979
Jul 21, 2018 23:55:09 GMT
July 2018
noxluxe
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Noxluxe on Apr 14, 2019 17:58:31 GMT
Dangerous. Unreliable. Etc. Bullshit. The Circles are failed. The whole system caused a disaster, not the "mages". This is a magical world. It's not a solution to lock everyone who able to use the magic. Education? Important. Effective anti-magical force? Important. Prisons? Of course important – to lock up the criminals, but never the people who just born with this ability. Leliana's way is the only way. After this chaos, the best timing for a radical change – Cassandra is just a wasted opportunity. And perhaps she has some reforms, perhaps, she will eliminate the practice of the Tranquility and to cure the Tranquils (she promised!), but if the system back, the fears remains and the freedom will be even more distant desire. And the chance for another rebellion still a threat – just like the old zealots' attacks... So: Cassandra isn't safer than Leliana. Not mentioned, neither Cassandra, nor Vivienne didn't success to shepherd every mage back to the Circles. THIS is the danger. The old problem returns – without solution, because of the false sense of security. While if the system changes, people forced to find a better solution... Caitilina, there are people born in real life psychologically and chemically unbalanced enough that they have no real chance of ever walking the streets without being a danger to everyone else. These people are locked up. All over the world. For something they were born with. Because there's too high a risk of them being dangerous not to. Their lives are restricted and controlled and lonely and miserable. Mostly not through any malice on anyone else's part, but because there's no practical way they can live their lives the way they'd want to without endangering everyone else. You and me among them. Locking people up because they're unreliable and dangerous isn't a controversial thing, it's what humans do with people who are unreliable and dangerous, barring summary execution. And many, many mages are unreliable and dangerous, or can very, very easily become it. This has been demonstrated again and again and again throughout the series, and the setting's history. Your speculations that every problem with mages would disappear if people just did this or that doesn't change that, and aren't likely enough to hold water to warrant risking Thedas on them in one big radical revolution freeing the mages with no checks and no leverage held over them if you're wrong. Again, I'm not at all opposed to "finding a better solution", so long as the mages aren't left to do whatever they feel like with their magic until we do so. Which seems to be more or less Cassandra's position as well.
|
|
inherit
Wanted Apostate
127
0
18,241
Catilina
11,030
August 2016
catilina
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Catilina on Apr 14, 2019 18:12:30 GMT
Dangerous. Unreliable. Etc. Bullshit. The Circles are failed. The whole system caused a disaster, not the "mages". This is a magical world. It's not a solution to lock everyone who able to use the magic. Education? Important. Effective anti-magical force? Important. Prisons? Of course important – to lock up the criminals, but never the people who just born with this ability. Leliana's way is the only way. After this chaos, the best timing for a radical change – Cassandra is just a wasted opportunity. And perhaps she has some reforms, perhaps, she will eliminate the practice of the Tranquility and to cure the Tranquils (she promised!), but if the system back, the fears remains and the freedom will be even more distant desire. And the chance for another rebellion still a threat – just like the old zealots' attacks... So: Cassandra isn't safer than Leliana. Not mentioned, neither Cassandra, nor Vivienne didn't success to shepherd every mage back to the Circles. THIS is the danger. The old problem returns – without solution, because of the false sense of security. While if the system changes, people forced to find a better solution... Caitilina, there are people born in real life psychologically and chemically unbalanced enough that they have no real chance of ever walking the streets without being a danger to everyone else. These people are locked up. All over the world. For something they were born with. Because there's too high a risk of them being dangerous not to. Their lives are restricted and controlled and lonely and miserable. Mostly not through any malice on anyone else's part, but because there's no practical way they can live their lives the way they'd want to without endangering everyone else. You and me among them. Locking people up because they're unreliable and dangerous isn't a controversial thing, it's what humans do with people who are unreliable and dangerous, barring summary execution. And many, many mages are unreliable and dangerous, or can very, very easily become it. This has been demonstrated again and again and again throughout the series, and the setting's history. Your speculations that every problem with mages would disappear if people just did this or that doesn't change that, and aren't likely enough to hold water to warrant risking Thedas on them in one big radical revolution freeing the mages with no checks and no leverage held over them if you're wrong. Again, I'm not at all opposed to "finding a better solution", so long as the mages aren't left to do whatever they feel like with their magic until we do so. Which seems to be more or less Cassandra's position as well. This is my point. Until the system exists, no matter how wrong is that, people will NOT look for another solution. The old must be destroyed to force people to find another way, because people if not forced to search for another solution, they will not search for it. Because it's the easy way. The false sense of security. Why we have to look for another solution if the old was "worked"? People are normally very conservative – or rather lazy. Until they don't feel involved.
|
|
Noxluxe
N4
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 1,979 Likes: 3,489
inherit
10359
0
Mar 14, 2019 16:10:11 GMT
3,489
Noxluxe
1,979
Jul 21, 2018 23:55:09 GMT
July 2018
noxluxe
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Noxluxe on Apr 14, 2019 18:27:54 GMT
Caitilina, there are people born in real life psychologically and chemically unbalanced enough that they have no real chance of ever walking the streets without being a danger to everyone else. These people are locked up. All over the world. For something they were born with. Because there's too high a risk of them being dangerous not to.
Their lives are restricted and controlled and lonely and miserable. Mostly not through any malice on anyone else's part, but because there's no practical way they can live their lives the way they'd want to without endangering everyone else. You and me among them.
Locking people up because they're unreliable and dangerous isn't a controversial thing, it's what humans do with people who are unreliable and dangerous, barring summary execution. And many, many mages are unreliable and dangerous, or can very, very easily become it. This has been demonstrated again and again and again throughout the series, and the setting's history.
Your speculations that every problem with mages would disappear if people just did this or that doesn't change that, and aren't likely enough to hold water to warrant risking Thedas on them in one big radical revolution freeing the mages with no checks and no leverage held over them if you're wrong. Again, I'm not at all opposed to "finding a better solution", so long as the mages aren't left to do whatever they feel like with their magic until we do so. Which seems to be more or less Cassandra's position as well. This is my point. Until the system exists, no matter how wrong is that, people will NOT look for another solution. The old must be destroyed to force people to find another way, because people if not forced to search for another solution, they will not search for it. Because it's the easy way. The false sense of security. Why we have to look for another solution if the old was "worked"? People are normally very conservative – or rather lazy. Until they don't feel involved. I think you're wrong. The recent templar/mage war did exactly that, proving to enough people that the old system was untenable in the long run and destroying that false sense of security you're talking about. Which is exactly why Cassandra wants to explore other options. She knows that the old circles didn't work well enough, and says as much, and she knows why, and she's ready to push hard to investigate the issue. She just doesn't see the point in letting mages run rampant until she's found a better and more reliable alternative. And she certainly isn't lazy or pointlessly conservative. She knows how important it is to figure this out in the future, and unlike Leliana she isn't satisfied throwing the weight of the entire Chantry behind a half-baked and untested new policy that very well may end up in disaster and instability all by itself. That's what you call responsible use of power and influence.
|
|
inherit
Wanted Apostate
127
0
18,241
Catilina
11,030
August 2016
catilina
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Catilina on Apr 14, 2019 18:39:17 GMT
This is my point. Until the system exists, no matter how wrong is that, people will NOT look for another solution. The old must be destroyed to force people to find another way, because people if not forced to search for another solution, they will not search for it. Because it's the easy way. The false sense of security. Why we have to look for another solution if the old was "worked"? People are normally very conservative – or rather lazy. Until they don't feel involved. I think you're wrong. The recent templar/mage war did exactly that, proving to enough people that the old system was untenable in the long run and destroying that false sense of security you're talking about. Which is exactly why Cassandra wants to explore other options. She knows that the old circles didn't work well enough, and says as much, and she knows why, and she's ready to push hard to investigate the issue. She just doesn't see the point in letting mages run rampant until she's found a better and more reliable alternative. And she certainly isn't lazy or pointlessly conservative. She knows how important it is to figure this out in the future, and unlike Leliana she isn't satisfied throwing the weight of the entire Chantry behind a half-baked and untested new policy that very well may end up in disaster and instability all by itself. That's what you call responsible use of power and influence. Progressive conservative, yes. And she's not lazy, I agree. The people are lazy. But she's mortal... and after her death, people will be still lazy. There is a chance, of course, that this will be a bit better system – Cassandra isn't malevolent. But I still don't see the reason, why that's safer than the other. Again: the system failed. Absolutely. To back to that is the wrong way – and the greatest weakness is, that it seems a "responsible", a "safe" choice. But this isn't. That "half-baked", "untested" way is the best to force people out of their comfort zone. I love it. As Bethany said at the Gallows: people will find a better way to live with the mages.
|
|
Noxluxe
N4
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 1,979 Likes: 3,489
inherit
10359
0
Mar 14, 2019 16:10:11 GMT
3,489
Noxluxe
1,979
Jul 21, 2018 23:55:09 GMT
July 2018
noxluxe
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Noxluxe on Apr 14, 2019 18:59:53 GMT
I think you're wrong. The recent templar/mage war did exactly that, proving to enough people that the old system was untenable in the long run and destroying that false sense of security you're talking about. Which is exactly why Cassandra wants to explore other options. She knows that the old circles didn't work well enough, and says as much, and she knows why, and she's ready to push hard to investigate the issue. She just doesn't see the point in letting mages run rampant until she's found a better and more reliable alternative. And she certainly isn't lazy or pointlessly conservative. She knows how important it is to figure this out in the future, and unlike Leliana she isn't satisfied throwing the weight of the entire Chantry behind a half-baked and untested new policy that very well may end up in disaster and instability all by itself. That's what you call responsible use of power and influence. Progressive conservative, yes. And she's not lazy, I agree. The people are lazy. But she's mortal... and after her death, people will be still lazy. There is a chance, of course, that this will be a bit better system – Cassandra isn't malevolent. But I still don't see the reason, why that's safer than the other. Again: the system failed. Absolutely. To back to that is the wrong way – and the greatest weakness is, that it seems a "responsible", a "safe" choice. But this isn't. That "half-baked", "untested" way is the best to force people out of their comfort zone. I love it. As Bethany said at the Gallows: people will find a better way to live with the mages. Do you imagine that mages will be safer or happier if Thedasian society falls completely apart because Leliana's policies cause too much chaos and resentment? Do you think they'd prefer disorganized mob justice and being forced to burn and freeze and suck the life out of people every day to survive on the run in a world that not only doesn't trust them, but also doesn't believe that anyone is keeping them under control anymore? At the exact time when zealots across the sea are practically salivating to invade and enslave and sew all their mouths shut? That's the sort of scenario tearing a more-or-less functioning system down because you're too lazy and arrogant to try to make it better risks. In comparison, the worst that Cassandra's approach risks is that mages are kept a bit oppressed for another few hundred years, if that, until the system blows up again, at which point maybe then it'll be violent enough to buck up people's ideas. And that's only if she fails catastrophically and nothing she does to change things manages to take, which I personally think is unlikely given exactly how much power she's granted, how well she knows the system and how determined and focused she is as a person. I've pointed this out before, but half-baked and untested policies are guilty of enough painful and miserable deaths to stack up bodies halfway to the moon over the last hundred years of our history alone. Forgive me for being less excited at the idea of using them to "force people out of their comfort zone".
|
|
inherit
Wanted Apostate
127
0
18,241
Catilina
11,030
August 2016
catilina
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Catilina on Apr 14, 2019 19:18:40 GMT
Progressive conservative, yes. And she's not lazy, I agree. The people are lazy. But she's mortal... and after her death, people will be still lazy. There is a chance, of course, that this will be a bit better system – Cassandra isn't malevolent. But I still don't see the reason, why that's safer than the other. Again: the system failed. Absolutely. To back to that is the wrong way – and the greatest weakness is, that it seems a "responsible", a "safe" choice. But this isn't. That "half-baked", "untested" way is the best to force people out of their comfort zone. I love it. As Bethany said at the Gallows: people will find a better way to live with the mages. Do you imagine that mages will be safer or happier if Thedasian society falls completely apart because Leliana's policies cause too much chaos and resentment? Do you think they'd prefer disorganized mob justice and being forced to burn and freeze and suck the life out of people every day to survive on the run in a world that not only doesn't trust them, but also doesn't believe that anyone is keeping them under control anymore? At the exact time when zealots across the sea are practically salivating to invade and enslave and sew all their mouths shut? That's the sort of scenario tearing a more-or-less functioning system down because you're too lazy and arrogant to try to make it better risks. In comparison, the worst that Cassandra's approach risks is that mages are kept a bit oppressed for another few hundred years, if that, until the system blows up again, at which point maybe then it'll be violent enough to buck up people's ideas. And that's only if she fails catastrophically and nothing she does to change things manages to take, which I personally think is unlikely given exactly how much power she's granted, how well she knows the system and how determined and focused she is as a person. I've pointed this out before, but half-baked and untested policies are guilty of enough painful and miserable deaths to stack up bodies halfway to the moon over the last hundred years of our history alone. Forgive me for being less excited at the idea. It's not about the instant "happiness", this is about freedom. That's hard – and should learn. But not tomorrow. NOW. Because it's not happening now, then always just "tomorrow". It means: never. Or as you said: "risks is that mages are kept a bit oppressed for another few hundred years ... until the system blows up again" – and this is a plan? This is rather a joke. The system was dangerous. And it will be dangerous again. More like Leliana's system. The Circle system was not "more-or-less functioned system" – this was a disfunctional injustice.
|
|
Noxluxe
N4
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 1,979 Likes: 3,489
inherit
10359
0
Mar 14, 2019 16:10:11 GMT
3,489
Noxluxe
1,979
Jul 21, 2018 23:55:09 GMT
July 2018
noxluxe
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Noxluxe on Apr 14, 2019 19:45:22 GMT
Do you imagine that mages will be safer or happier if Thedasian society falls completely apart because Leliana's policies cause too much chaos and resentment? Do you think they'd prefer disorganized mob justice and being forced to burn and freeze and suck the life out of people every day to survive on the run in a world that not only doesn't trust them, but also doesn't believe that anyone is keeping them under control anymore?
At the exact time when zealots across the sea are practically salivating to invade and enslave and sew all their mouths shut?
That's the sort of scenario tearing a more-or-less functioning system down because you're too lazy and arrogant to try to make it better risks. In comparison, the worst that Cassandra's approach risks is that mages are kept a bit oppressed for another few hundred years, if that, until the system blows up again, at which point maybe then it'll be violent enough to buck up people's ideas.
And that's only if she fails catastrophically and nothing she does to change things manages to take, which I personally think is unlikely given exactly how much power she's granted, how well she knows the system and how determined and focused she is as a person.
I've pointed this out before, but half-baked and untested policies are guilty of enough painful and miserable deaths to stack up bodies halfway to the moon over the last hundred years of our history alone. Forgive me for being less excited at the idea. It's not about the instant "happiness", this is about freedom. That's hard – and should learn. But not tomorrow. NOW. Because it's not happening now, then always just "tomorrow". It means: never. Or as you said: "risks is that mages are kept a bit oppressed for another few hundred years ... until the system blows up again" – and this is a plan? This is rather a joke. The system was dangerous. And it will be dangerous again. More like Leliana's system. The Circle system was not "more-or-less functioned system" – this was a disfunctional injustice. You've stopped coming up with arguments and are just moralizing now, which isn't either useful or interesting. The conversation has run its course.
|
|
inherit
Wanted Apostate
127
0
18,241
Catilina
11,030
August 2016
catilina
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Catilina on Apr 14, 2019 20:15:01 GMT
It's not about the instant "happiness", this is about freedom. That's hard – and should learn. But not tomorrow. NOW. Because it's not happening now, then always just "tomorrow". It means: never. Or as you said: "risks is that mages are kept a bit oppressed for another few hundred years ... until the system blows up again" – and this is a plan? This is rather a joke. The system was dangerous. And it will be dangerous again. More like Leliana's system. The Circle system was not "more-or-less functioned system" – this was a disfunctional injustice. You've stopped coming up with arguments and are just moralizing now, which isn't either useful or interesting. The conversation has run its course. Those are my arguments because your argument was, that the system "more-or-less functioned" – and the system was built on this lie. Again: this isn't safe, only unjust. Calms the "common" people? Oh, I don't doubt. But why we should calm them to a false sense of a security? Or calm them there's no problem, because they don't see the problem? Just because it comfortable? Yes, I moralizing, because moral is the part of life – an important part. You can't ignore it for, just because of it unpleasant, or easier to ignore – to calm the people's conscience, or to avoid the conflicts? It's wrong. Or just to wait for a better timing? And when that better timing, a better solution come? As I said, if we just wait for it, then never. The whole question about the moral.
|
|
xerrai
N3
Posts: 839 Likes: 1,155
inherit
1451
0
1,155
xerrai
839
September 2016
xerrai
|
Post by xerrai on Apr 14, 2019 20:17:44 GMT
Well...that's a rather more problematic area. While "completely unregulated magic" is an unpleasant prospect as well, the current setup strikes me a recipe for atrocity. Given the Chantry's attitude towards magic, the potential for ideologically-motivated abuse is high enough that my mageborn characters do consider revolution rather than evolution, if not by overthrowing the Chantry, then by supporting the Circles' separation from the Chantry. It is likely that some kind of temporary segregation is necessary, but, for instance, a network of self-governed circles is a much less unpleasant prospect than the current setup. The fear of a "Tevinter scenario" is also problematic, because of the intrinsic difference between magical power, which is highly personal, and political power, which is based on networking rather than personal enforcement. It's like saying that owning a powerful weapon makes it more likely to become ruler. The Tevinter scenario won't happen unless there is a policy that is likely to unite the mageborn into one faction.
I agree with you insofar as there needs to be an organization that guides and educates the mageborn, and that such education must continue to be mandatory - but I'd rather have the Chantry supplanted by, say, the Mage Collective in that role.
Absolutely. But a tested and reliable Mage Collective. I'm not at all opposed to someone other than the Chantry having that responsibility, provided that such an entity has demonstrated that its methods don't cause more problems large-scale than the Chantry's model does or that the Chantry is left in a position to step in if it goes sideways. [...] I'm not sure about the testing bit as far new organizations go. By all means get them tested, but surely we aren't expecting these organizations to already be tested by the time we start looking at them as alternatives? One of the downsides the Chantry being extremely 'Circle/Templar Order only' is that no other organization even had the opportunity to be tested in weather the organization was enough to manage the mages on thier own. Any that tried were simply labeled illegal on principal (ex. the Mages' Collective) and had to either operate covertly or shut down completely. Besides it seems like an issue that will resolve itself if the system is put into place long enough. Eventually the organization/system of choice will experience problems. It's just bound to happen. How they respond/prepare for it will be enough 'testing' for me. But it just seems unreasonable to me to already expect a new organization to be 'tested and reliable' when there was little to no opportunity for that to be established beforehand.
|
|
Noxluxe
N4
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 1,979 Likes: 3,489
inherit
10359
0
Mar 14, 2019 16:10:11 GMT
3,489
Noxluxe
1,979
Jul 21, 2018 23:55:09 GMT
July 2018
noxluxe
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Noxluxe on Apr 14, 2019 20:45:45 GMT
Absolutely. But a tested and reliable Mage Collective. I'm not at all opposed to someone other than the Chantry having that responsibility, provided that such an entity has demonstrated that its methods don't cause more problems large-scale than the Chantry's model does or that the Chantry is left in a position to step in if it goes sideways. [...] I'm not sure about the testing bit as far new organizations go. By all means get them tested, but surely we aren't expecting these organizations to already be tested by the time we start looking at them as alternatives? One of the downsides the Chantry being extremely 'Circle/Templar Order only' is that no other organization even had the opportunity to be tested in weather the organization was enough to manage the mages on thier own. Any that tried were simply labeled illegal on principal (ex. the Mages' Collective) and had to either operate covertly or shut down completely. Besides it seems like an issue that will resolve itself if the system is put into place long enough. Eventually the organization/system of choice will experience problems. It's just bound to happen. How they respond/prepare for it will be enough 'testing' for me. But it just seems unreasonable to me to already expect a new organization to be 'tested and reliable' when there was little to no opportunity for that to be established beforehand. I'm just talking about their ideas and methods for containing rebellious or malevolent mages having been tested out on a smaller scale and proven actually effective before the Chantry rolls the Circles back and gives the reins away entirely. My problem with the Mage Collective, on the face of them, is that they're a very informal organization with few apparent rules and very limited coordination. Part of the reason for that is that the Chantry up to recently would eradicate them out of hand if they stepped out into the open, obviously, as I also said earlier, but the fact still remains. If Cassandra as Divine extended them an olive branch, and they proved to not only have sensible and practical and benevolent ideas for how to make Circles work humanely, but also the dedication and discipline to stick to them as a group when given such an important and dangerous responsibility as training other mages en masse control and responsibility, then giving them funding and locales and gradually giving young mages over to their care would obviously be ideal. But none of those things are a given, and just turning all the Circle mages in Thedas over to an underground organization of criminals without screening them or their plans or discussing checks and balances would be insane. Again, this is why Cassandra is my pick. Unlike Vivienne she actually might give such alternatives a chance if they look promising, and unlike Leliana she wouldn't immediately throw the old system away on the assumption that literally anything else would be better.
|
|
inherit
Wanted Apostate
127
0
18,241
Catilina
11,030
August 2016
catilina
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Catilina on Apr 14, 2019 22:54:15 GMT
Garbage must be thrown - or burned. There is no point in keeping it for nostalgia. It's stinky and infectious. Leliana's right.
|
|