133 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

If those are my only choices I would go with the Qunari, they seem fun. If I had other options then I would go off and either unite the Dalish clans or live with the Dwarves.

[LobselVith8]

errant_knight wrote...

stickmanhenry wrote...

I'm sure that there would be a more 'morally right' option than those three, because they all sounds pretty vulgar.

I'm not sure what you mean by vulgar there... Distasteful? In any case, not everyone sees the Chantry as immoral to support.

Denying mages basic human rights, treating them like their own personal slaves, sending templars into the Dales when the elves refused to convert to their religion, denying elves the right to worship their gods, supporting invasions of other nations in the name of the Maker. I have to say, those things seem pretty vulgar to me.

XxDeonxX wrote...

Well there was no real right option with the choosing a King for Orzamaar was there? and to a much lesser extent the anvil of the void. I mean if you choose the kinder, more what you would consider Good king. He ends up being a failure and all goes to hell once again. If you don't get the golems to be recreated then your essentially dooming Orzammar because those flesh golems will just come and wipe out the dwarves with ease.

Choices that are neither Black or White but instead shades of grey have happened before. Why not have them happen again?

Except Harrowmont was a bigot who thought casteless shouldn't have any rights and isolated Orzammar from the surface world, while Bhelen not only gave the casteless more rights, but increased trade with the surface and reclaimed lost thaigs. Moral ambiguity is fine, but choosing between three bad options doesn't sound entertaining to me.

XxDeonxX wrote...

Nyaore wrote...

I wouldn't support any of them in all honesty. Though if push came to shove and I was forced to choose a side, I'd go with the normal Chantry we all love to hate with the Imperial Chantry taking a close second if only for being suspected of turning a blind eye to slavery.
However with that said it's like asking you to choose between cancer, heart disease, and sickle cell anemia. Some options might be better than others, depending upon your outlook, but none of them are truly good for you.

Not Necessarily, I mean under Chantry rule things seem to be kept in Order and are alright overall. Ferelden apart from the whole blight and civil war seems like an alright place to live. Sure they have some bad ideas and views but they dont really effect most people as a whole. Most people seem to be happy under the chantry

Except for the elves and the mages. Not to mention the Chantry supported invasion of Ferelden that lead to the rape and murder of countless people, including Loghain's family.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

I guess it's the difference between religion for personal belief and religion as an institution. Religious bureaucracies tend to commit immoral acts in most situations due to intolerance funded by requisition of the faithful and enforced by misdirected fear. Andraste would likely disapprove of what her followers have done in name (same as Christ).



I'm not trying to get too serious here, but supporting a militant religious organization is a big no-no in my book.

[Sir JK]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Considering that a blood ritual is offered to the Warden at the end of Unrest in the Alienage, I have to respectfully disagree.

I was under the impression that while illegal officially (meaning the imperial chantry, the one you're accusing, don't openly practise it) it is rather easy to get away with if you know what you're doing. So it's not tolerated, just not actively hunted down.

They are taken from their families, forced to live in the Circle under armored soldiers who are trained to watch them with suspicion (and some of who talk about killing them with glee), they're not permitted to leave unless a rare exception is made, and they have their children taken from them. That doesn't even touch on how they can't own land, can't inherit a title, and can be killed with absolutely no evidence against them (like the Magnificent D'Sims was, and he was a fake healer). Saying they just have their freedom restrained is absolutely ludicrious when they have absolutely no freedom to begin with. They're little better than slaves.

Yes, they're treated horribly. But not like slaves. They are kept in house arrest because of what they are. But they are not property with a given monetary value.
Second class citzens (more like fifth class citzens)? Yes
As less than human? Yes
But not slaves.

Slavery means a person is owned and have a monetary value. The mages are neither owned nor have a monetary value. The towers are not selling mages to one another. They don't lease mages for services. They don't buy them. Hence not slaves.
(also, contrary to popular belief. Slavery does not have to mean that you're treated bad or lack freedom. Much of the goverments of the middle east in the ancient world or the middle ages consisted of slaves. So there it was the slaves living in luxury and commanding the free people)

However, you're absolutely right it's incredibly unfair that mages are put in housearrest on pain of death just by merit of being mages.

You mean the tranquil, the mages who lose all emotion and basically live to craft magical items because they lose their humanity? Jowan was willing to risk death to avoid becoming tranquil, so we're going to have to disagree about the tranquil not being little better than slaves.

But again. It is the mages themselves that have decided to make
enchanted goods. Not the chantry. It is also mages that do the
ritual, since it requires the tranquil to have his forehead branded by
magic. Also, I think Jowan was more afraid of the losing emotions part
(as he should be) than becoming a "slave".
Also, from talking with
Owain and other talking, I got the distinct impression that the tranquil
actually get some sense of satisfaction from working and it'd be more
cruel to them not to let them do that.

Also, as horrid the tranquilisation is as a punishment. Remember that it also the only way for mages to be rid of their powers (short of death). A fair few of them actually request it and some of them will have to face either tranquilisation or death by harrowing. I know you prefer death before tranquilisation, but should the option not be there for those willing to take it.

About the verim thing:
The choice of words was very delibirate on my part. Vermin you kill, beasts of burden or attack dogs you train but you keep them alive. You care for them. Albeit not like humans. So they're treated like animals you take care of, but not vermin which you kill.

[orpheus333]

Personally i would go with whatever power gave mages the most freedom. A puppet templar order would be good to me. Especially as you would ahve a standing army dedicated to the protection of kirkwall and its lands. As a ruler of kirkwall you would want some sort of loyalty. I don;t believe religion has anything to do with it and i could see my hawke manipulating the people to gain more power for his own ends.

[LobselVith8]

Sir JK wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Considering that a blood ritual is offered to the Warden at the end of Unrest in the Alienage, I have to respectfully disagree.

I was under the impression that while illegal officially (meaning the imperial chantry, the one you're accusing, don't openly practise it) it is rather easy to get away with if you know what you're doing. So it's not tolerated, just not actively hunted down.

They perform blood rituals on slaves. You're basically arguing that they do it in private. Caladrius' knowledge of the blood ritual basically illustrates that they still practice it on slaves, regardless of whether or not it's done in broad daylight.

Sir JK wrote...

Yes, they're treated horribly. But not like slaves. They are kept in house arrest because of what they are. But they are not property with a given monetary value.

House arrest? You mean prison. That's exactly how the VO for the Magi Origin terms the Tower of Magi.

Sir JK wrote...

Second class citzens (more like fifth class citzens)? Yes
As less than human? Yes
But not slaves.

Elves are treated like second class citizens in Ferelden. Mages have absolutely no rights and are basically property of the Chantry. They can't raise their children, own land, inherit a title, or even go outside unless given permission. Even Wynne, a Senior Enchanter, needed to ask permission to leave the Circle Tower to aid the Warden against the Blight.

Sir JK wrote...

Slavery means a person is owned and have a monetary value. The mages are neither owned nor have a monetary value. The towers are not selling mages to one another. They don't lease mages for services. They don't buy them. Hence not slaves.

Mages are owned by the Chantry. They're taken from their families and their lives are in the hands of the Chantry until the day they die or they get conscripted into the Wardens. They're used to fight their wars and craft their items and have absolutely no rights. The mages of the Circles across Thedas are all under the control of the Chantry. The mages have absolutely no rights to speak of unless they become a Grey Warden, and therefore are no longer bound by the Chantry.

Sir JK wrote...

(also, contrary to popular belief. Slavery does not have to mean that you're treated bad or lack freedom. Much of the goverments of the middle east in the ancient world or the middle ages consisted of slaves. So there it was the slaves living in luxury and commanding the free people)

Bad luck? I didn't realize having no rights, having no rights to your own children, not being able to inherit a title, and living in a prison under armed guard was merely bad luck.

Sir JK wrote...

However, you're absolutely right it's incredibly unfair that mages are put in housearrest on pain of death just by merit of being mages.

House arrest? They aren't living in a house, they're living in a prison.

Sir JK wrote...

But again. It is the mages themselves that have decided to make
enchanted goods. Not the chantry. It is also mages that do the
ritual, since it requires the tranquil to have his forehead branded by
magic. Also, I think Jowan was more afraid of the losing emotions part
(as he should be) than becoming a "slave".

Mages who are little more than property to the Chantry, mages who (as Irving says in the Magi Origin) do harsh things to survive in this system. I don't see why we need to pretend that it's anything but slavery. Mages have no rights and are basically property of the Chantry. The Chantry preaches hatred of mages and then has its templars snatch them from their families all in the name of the Maker, but the mages are little more than slaves. Simply because mages perform the process doesn't change that the tranquil basically craft items on command and they're the source of the Circle's income, and since the Circle's are owned by the Chantry, essentially the Chantry's source of income. Wynne voices her concern in Awakening about the Circles, stating that they will never be free, because risking a fight for freedom would mean their death at the hands of the Chantry.

Sir JK wrote...

Also, from talking with
Owain and other talking, I got the distinct impression that the tranquil
actually get some sense of satisfaction from working and it'd be more
cruel to them not to let them do that.

He had a lobotomy. He also couldn't go against what he was commanded - like when he's asked about the procure of how he was made tranquil.

Sir JK wrote...

Also, as horrid the tranquilisation is as a punishment. Remember that it also the only way for mages to be rid of their powers (short of death). A fair few of them actually request it and some of them will have to face either tranquilisation or death by harrowing. I know you prefer death before tranquilisation, but should the option not be there for those willing to take it.

They're living in a system where they're told their abilities are a punishment, so it's not a surprise. The Chantry preaches how mages are responsible for the Blight and how their powers are a curse, so is it any surprise that some actually buy into it? That certainly didn't stop the Chantry from using mages to win their war with the Qunari, of course.

[Augustei]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Well there was no real right option with the choosing a King for Orzamaar was there? and to a much lesser extent the anvil of the void. I mean if you choose the kinder, more what you would consider Good king. He ends up being a failure and all goes to hell once again. If you don't get the golems to be recreated then your essentially dooming Orzammar because those flesh golems will just come and wipe out the dwarves with ease.

Choices that are neither Black or White but instead shades of grey have happened before. Why not have them happen again?

Except Harrowmont was a bigot who thought casteless shouldn't have any rights and isolated Orzammar from the surface world, while Bhelen not only gave the casteless more rights, but increased trade with the surface and reclaimed lost thaigs. Moral ambiguity is fine, but choosing between three bad options doesn't sound entertaining to me.

XxDeonxX wrote...

Nyaore wrote...

I wouldn't support any of them in all honesty. Though if push came to shove and I was forced to choose a side, I'd go with the normal Chantry we all love to hate with the Imperial Chantry taking a close second if only for being suspected of turning a blind eye to slavery.
However with that said it's like asking you to choose between cancer, heart disease, and sickle cell anemia. Some options might be better than others, depending upon your outlook, but none of them are truly good for you.

Not Necessarily, I mean under Chantry rule things seem to be kept in Order and are alright overall. Ferelden apart from the whole blight and civil war seems like an alright place to live. Sure they have some bad ideas and views but they dont really effect most people as a whole. Most people seem to be happy under the chantry

Except for the elves and the mages. Not to mention the Chantry supported invasion of Ferelden that lead to the rape and murder of countless people, including Loghain's family.

You cannot fully determine all of that about Bhelen unless you have beaten the game or read up on it already. The warden couldn't just walk into the shaperate and determine future events. The only real evidence that Bhelen would help out the casteless is that he married one.. But that doesn't mean much. Plus Bhelen was a criminal who commited possible Regicide, Homocide, Patricide, Fratricide and framing it on someone else. So Upon findind all this out, which the warden hears all the rumours in the game. Then one would assume Bhelen is definitly the morally wrong choice.

The Ferelden Invasion would have happened with or without Chantry support, My Original point is that the General Populace of Thedas is happy under Chantry rule, especially considering the alternatives are the Qun which is essentially communism and many would end up with jobs they did not like, suicide rates would climb and mages would be leashed and have their tongues cut out. And the Imperial Chantry in which Blood Magic and Slavery are openly practiced.

And Most mages are used to the Circle and accept it as their home Only one of the Fraternaties is really against the chantry and the rest are not. They are Rased as Andrastians on top of that so no, Im pretty sure they are fine with being under chantry rule.

The "Flat-Ears" Elves, Have the option before them to join the dalish by simply leaving their cities and going to the forest. However they simply choose not to, they are raised as andrastians and although they are indeed mistreated. Like I said before, the other alternatives for them are far worse. Except for the dalish which as I already said they choose not to join.

The Dalish are permitted to live within the forest and havn't been burned out by an exalted march into the forest since the dales incident.

[Sir JK]

Phew... your posts are difficult to read some times. And even more difficult to answer to. Would you mind cropping them so only the most recent exchange is shown? I'd greatly appriciate it

LobselVith8 wrote...
They perform blood rituals on slaves. You're basically arguing that they do it in private. Caladrius' knowledge of the blood ritual basically illustrates that they still practice it on slaves, regardless of whether or not it's done in broad daylight.

Indeed. The difference is that if he did so blatantly and completely openly back home, he would be punished for it. That the Tevinter authorities might look between the fingers if he at least tries to look like he's hiding it but not if he does it publicly.
There's also a possibility the Tevinter authorities might just brand him a criminal and send their templars after him for any blood magic.
Or you're completely right.

But I have a vague recollection that mr. Gaider did mention in a thread some time ago that Bloodmagic is illegal on pain of death in Tevinter.

House arrest? You mean prison. That's exactly how the VO for the Magi Origin terms the Tower of Magi.

House arrest? They aren't living in a house, they're living in a prison.

Eh yes. The only real difference between house arrest and prison is that one is in the place you would call home and the other is not. To mages raised in the tower it could very much be house arrest, to mages who refuse to call it home or were raised elsewhere it would be a prison. It is however the only place mages as a group can be largely considered welcome.

But yes. Fair enough. It's a prison sentence for life. Very unfair.

Elves are treated like second class citizens in Ferelden. Mages have absolutely no rights and are basically property of the Chantry. They can't raise their children, own land, inherit a title, or even go outside unless given permission. Even Wynne, a Senior Enchanter, needed to ask permission to leave the Circle Tower to aid the Warden against the Blight.

Which does not make them slaves. Prisoners. Second class citzens. Crminals by merit of birth. But not slaves.
Being treated badly does not make you a slave. Having virtually no rights does not make you a slave. Being prohibited from moving does not make you a slave.
Being bought and sold like a commodity or forced into service by your debts makes you a slave. That's the definition. Mages in Andrastian Thedas are not being treated like that. They are not being bought and sold. They are not forced into service due to debts.

Just to be clear. The situation they are in is unacceptable. But they are not slaves.
There are however many more ways than slavery people can use to diminish individual's worth.

Also, let's leave the elves out of this and stay to mages. The elven situation is distinct enough to warrant full attention.

Mages are owned by the Chantry. They're taken from their families and their lives are in the hands of the Chantry until the day they die or they get conscripted into the Wardens. They're used to fight their wars and craft their items and have absolutely no rights. The mages of the Circles across Thedas are all under the control of the Chantry. The mages have absolutely no rights to speak of unless they become a Grey Warden, and therefore are no longer bound by the Chantry.

They're not owned by the Chantry. Controlled and imprisoned. Would you say modern prisons own their prisoners? After those people cannot go wherever they please, they may be prohibited from seing others, they are often required to work crafts or doing something else.
But prisons don't own them, do they?

In the same sense the Chantry does not own the mages. But I admit: not that it makes much of a difference in this case.

Bad luck? I didn't realize having no rights, having no rights to your own children, not being able to inherit a title, and living in a prison under armed guard was merely bad luck.

I think you misread me there. I wrote: "bad or lack". Not bad luck. It was merely a tangent to describe that slavery does not per definition mean you will have a life with no rights. In some cultures it was "better" to be a slave than free.

Mages who are little more than property to the Chantry, mages who (as Irving says in the Magi Origin) do harsh things to survive in this system. I don't see why we need to pretend that it's anything but slavery. Mages have no rights and are basically property of the Chantry. The Chantry preaches hatred of mages and then has its templars snatch them from their families all in the name of the Maker, but the mages are little more than slaves. Simply because mages perform the process doesn't change that the tranquil basically craft items on command and they're the source of the Circle's income, and since the Circle's are owned by the Chantry, essentially the Chantry's source of income. Wynne voices her concern in Awakening about the Circles, stating that they will never be free, because risking a fight for freedom would mean their death at the hands of the Chantry.

Well... mages have some rights. For one the templars were forbidden to kill Anders  because they could not prove he was a maleficar (according to mr. Gaider). So they had to keep bringing him back to the circle/Aeonar.
Yes... until that female templar decided to kill him. Fair enough. But the point was: The Templars were not allowed to kill him.
Furthermore we have the mage Wilhem (from the Stone Prisoner). He has a home, a family, a personal golem and no templar looking over his back.
There's Ines the botanist. Allowed to travel at her leisure, no templar guard.
Mages decide their own policy in Cumberland and the decisions of a Circle is decided by it's senior enchanters and First Enchanter. It is also they who elect their senior enchanter.
And let's not forget that the Libertarians are an organised group within the circles. So the mages are actually allowed to openly voice their desire to seperate from the Chantry with no repercussion.

Prisoners. Not slaves.
And yes. I know the difference is largely semantical but it is a important one. The mages are not slaves but prisoners. It is an important distinction.
Serfdom is not slavery, but serfs seldom had any rights at all.
Daylabour is not slavery, but day labourers were often discarded when they had no more use and had no rights.
Prisons are not slavery, but prisoners are severely limited in what they may do.

There are more ways to make someones life and position unenviable than make them slaves.

He had a lobotomy. He also couldn't go against what he was commanded - like when he's asked about the procure of how he was made tranquil.

Lobotomy or not, are what they do feel irrellevant?
Also, can you source me to that cannot disobey thing? I have not seen it so I'd to know where to find it

They're living in a system where they're told their abilities are a punishment, so it's not a surprise. The Chantry preaches how mages are responsible for the Blight and how their powers are a curse, so is it any surprise that some actually buy into it? That certainly didn't stop the Chantry from using mages to win their war with the Qunari, of course.

Actually the chantry teaches that Tevinter Blood Mages and secondly all men that are responsible for the Blights (and for the ruination of the golden city, which they see as worse... except during blights). That mages are cursed, and in the words of Gregoir (which I think is significant); also gifted.
I seem to recall the Chant of Andraste (i think... maybe it was one of the others) also referring to magic as a gift. I'll have to read throught them again to confirm that.

But fact is: Magic is dangerous and scary. It is hardly surprising that some mages are actually scared of it and wants to be rid of it. Especially the threat of demons, which is not exaggerated. Some people are intimidated by power and some easily give in to their fear. There's probably the odd person that panics before the harrowing too, sadly.

But yes. Some of them might listen to the more fierce of the anti-magic preachings. But I don't think they are the only ones that willingly go for tranquilisation.

Modifié par Sir JK, 07 janvier 2011 - 05:46 .

[slumlord722]

I really do like how people here absolutely hate the Chantry, when if you take out the issue of the mages, which not everyone even agrees about, it has been shown to be a largely beneficial organization.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

XxDeonxX wrote...

The "Flat-Ears" Elves, Have the option before them to join the dalish by simply leaving their cities and going to the forest. However they simply choose not to, they are raised as andrastians and although they are indeed mistreated. Like I said before, the other alternatives for them are far worse. Except for the dalish which as I already said they choose not to join.

The Dalish are permitted to live within the forest and havn't been burned out by an exalted march into the forest since the dales incident.

If you play the Dalish Origin the escapee from the cities named Pol (who is practicing archery with a Dalish-born) talks about how stories are spread about the Dalish being thieves, cannibals and savages by people in the cities. I doubt elves started those rumors. So the choice of just running off to find the Dalish or staying in an elven ghetto is not so simple, especially when there is no guarentee of finding a Dalish tribe amongst the hungry wilderness animals, lack of shelter, Chasind tribes, bandits, Darkspawn or the simple lack of wilderness survival skills a typical city elf might be subject to.



Leaving the cities is a very hard decision because it's all they know, it's their family and their skillset to survive. If the elves did it en masse, the Chantry might take notice and obliterate them as a race. They already tried it once with the Dales and before that (or Andraste) war was made on the elves by the humans. In a very generalized way, humanity in Thedas is a bully and the widespread bureaucracy developed around the cult of Andraste, like most organized religions, is a tool of tyrants which occaisionally perverts the original teachings of the religion. The Chantry, while not "evil," certainly has done many things of questionable morality towards the elves and likey others. In short the Chantry =/= Andrastism because it is a political force championing a religion at it's own convenience.

Modifié par Ryllen Laerth Kriel, 07 janvier 2011 - 06:15 .

[Graspiloot]

Imperial chantry, only because they allow mages freedom ^^

[Sir JK]

Graspiloot wrote...

Imperial chantry, only because they allow mages freedom ^^

Actually they don't. The mages must still be in the circle. Mages may still not do whatever they want. This despite the magisters are in control. Those mages are persecuting their fellow mages just as much as the andrastian chantry does.

[SemajChaos]

Qunari. Who else is going to keep people in line?, and I'd love to see Qunari Wardens vs a Blight.

[CitizenThom]

It's interesting that some people attribute to the Chantry the qualities that I would attribute to the Qun. Perhaps on the mage playthrough, if I'd been hounded more often for being a mage, I might think that the Chantry were more opressive. But my time travelling with Sten, great warrior that he was, leads me to believe that the Qun is much more opressive to mages than the Chant is. I may think the Chant is restrictive... but not as restrictive.



Now, if you think magic is more trouble than it's worth... then the Qun is definately the culture that you want running the show. The Qun restricts all magic, the Chant restricts only certian kinds of magic.

[BallaZs]

I still have to look deeper in their background.

I love Qunaris but theres still not much info about them.

I pass, for now.

[Augustei]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

XxDeonxX wrote...

The "Flat-Ears" Elves, Have the option before them to join the dalish by simply leaving their cities and going to the forest. However they simply choose not to, they are raised as andrastians and although they are indeed mistreated. Like I said before, the other alternatives for them are far worse. Except for the dalish which as I already said they choose not to join.

The Dalish are permitted to live within the forest and havn't been burned out by an exalted march into the forest since the dales incident.

If you play the Dalish Origin the escapee from the cities named Pol (who is practicing archery with a Dalish-born) talks about how stories are spread about the Dalish being thieves, cannibals and savages by people in the cities. I doubt elves started those rumors. So the choice of just running off to find the Dalish or staying in an elven ghetto is not so simple, especially when there is no guarentee of finding a Dalish tribe amongst the hungry wilderness animals, lack of shelter, Chasind tribes, bandits, Darkspawn or the simple lack of wilderness survival skills a typical city elf might be subject to.



Leaving the cities is a very hard decision because it's all they know, it's their family and their skillset to survive. If the elves did it en masse, the Chantry might take notice and obliterate them as a race. They already tried it once with the Dales and before that (or Andraste) war was made on the elves by the humans. In a very generalized way, humanity in Thedas is a bully and the widespread bureaucracy developed around the cult of Andraste, like most organized religions, is a tool of tyrants which occaisionally perverts the original teachings of the religion. The Chantry, while not "evil," certainly has done many things of questionable morality towards the elves and likey others. In short the Chantry =/= Andrastism because it is a political force championing a religion at it's own convenience.

The story of how the chantry went to war with the dales simply because they wouldn't convert to their religion is only from the Dalish point of view.

If you read some of the codex's in origins you will find out various other reasons that were given for the war waged on the dales. Human sacrifices to the elven pagan gods and kidnapping humans for these sacrifices. Even though its possible this is propaganda it should not be ruled out.

Thedas was also angry with the elves for refusing to help with the blight, That much is a fact (Cant remember which blight) and they wanted to make use of the expert Elven Archers.

The Elves would not give up on this battle either by fighting their way all the way up to Val Royeux and capturing many lands and sacking villages. This forced the hand of the chantry.

[Augustei]

slumlord722 wrote...

I really do like how people here absolutely hate the Chantry, when if you take out the issue of the mages, which not everyone even agrees about, it has been shown to be a largely beneficial organization.

Yeah I dont hate the chantry, My warden was a follower of their ways and despite the wrongs that it has made, it is as you say primarily beneficial and its beliefs are definitly in the right place (most of them anyway) Most likely the laws consisting of the most commen sense in thedas are based of the chantrys.. uuhh commandments if they have any. Like how most laws in America, England, Australia and most of europe are based off of the catholic church's commandments.

[LobselVith8]

Sir JK wrote...
Indeed. The difference is that if he did so blatantly and completely openly back home, he would be punished for it. That the Tevinter authorities might look between the fingers if he at least tries to look like he's hiding it but not if he does it publicly.
There's also a possibility the Tevinter authorities might just brand him a criminal and send their templars after him for any blood magic.
Or you're completely right.

Unless we get to know more about Tevinter, I suppose all we can do is speculate. Either way, I don't think there's a human rights commission looking to see if the slaves are being treated fairly, or if they perished as a result of a blood magic ritual. I doubt Caladrius would know such a ritual if it wasn't used.

Sir JK wrote...

Eh yes. The only real difference between house arrest and prison is that one is in the place you would call home and the other is not. To mages raised in the tower it could very much be house arrest, to mages who refuse to call it home or were raised elsewhere it would be a prison. It is however the only place mages as a group can be largely considered welcome.

But yes. Fair enough. It's a prison sentence for life. Very unfair.

And to the writers who wrote the voiceover for the Magi Origin, the term "prison" was specifically used to describe the Circle Tower, so I don't see the issue here.

Sir JK wrote...

Which does not make them slaves. Prisoners. Second class citzens. Crminals by merit of birth. But not slaves.
Being treated badly does not make you a slave. Having virtually no rights does not make you a slave. Being prohibited from moving does not make you a slave.
Being bought and sold like a commodity or forced into service by your debts makes you a slave. That's the definition. Mages in Andrastian Thedas are not being treated like that. They are not being bought and sold. They are not forced into service due to debts.

Just to be clear. The situation they are in is unacceptable. But they are not slaves.
There are however many more ways than slavery people can use to diminish individual's worth.

Let's look at the definition of slavery:

1
:[/b] a person held in servitude as the chattel of another

2
:[/b] one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence

That second description seems to describe the relationship between the Chantry and the mages very accurately.

Sir JK wrote...

Well... mages have some rights. For one the templars were forbidden to kill Anders  because they could not prove he was a maleficar (according to mr. Gaider). So they had to keep bringing him back to the circle/Aeonar.
Yes... until that female templar decided to kill him. Fair enough. But the point was: The Templars were not allowed to kill him.

First Enchanter Irving intervened to prevent the templars from killing him. Given the case of Wynne's apprentice, that doesn't always work, and Rylock seemed to have any intention of killing Anders despite the ruler of Ferelden allowing his conscription into the Wardens.

Sir JK wrote...

Furthermore we have the mage Wilhem (from the Stone Prisoner). He has a home, a family, a personal golem and no templar looking over his back.

He was a war hero.

Sir JK wrote...

There's Ines the botanist. Allowed to travel at her leisure, no templar guard.

Like Wynne, who is a Senior Enchanter who needed permission to leave.

Sir JK wrote...

Mages decide their own policy in Cumberland and the decisions of a Circle is decided by it's senior enchanters and First Enchanter. It is also they who elect their senior enchanter.

And Wynne makes it clear that trying to be free from the Chantry would mean their death, so I'm not certain how that illustrates that the mages are free when they all seem to know that trying to emancipate themselves from the Chantry would mean their demise. As Gaider himself admitted, the Circles are under Chantry control, and that's why asking for independence from the Chantry is such an issue for the ruler of Ferelden (in terms of the Magi boon).

Sir JK wrote...
Also, can you source me to that cannot disobey thing? I have not seen it so I'd to know where to find it  

You're basically saying that we're at a stalement, where neither of us can prove the other wrong because of too little information, and how we infer the little information we're presented.

[The Big Nothing]

I would elect Arnold Schwarzenegger--he has dealt with Predators, Terminators, Terrorists, and Superheroes; I trust him with anything.

[LobselVith8]

slumlord722 wrote...

I really do like how people here absolutely hate the Chantry, when if you take out the issue of the mages, which not everyone even agrees about, it has been shown to be a largely beneficial organization.

Ask the Dalish.

XxDeonxX wrote...

The story of how the chantry went to war with the dales simply because they wouldn't convert to their religion is only from the Dalish point of view.

If you read some of the codex's in origins you will find out various other reasons that were given for the war waged on the dales. Human sacrifices to the elven pagan gods and kidnapping humans for these sacrifices. Even though its possible this is propaganda it should not be ruled out.

Considering that none of the Dalish we encounter sacrifice humans to gods, I don't see how it can be viewed as anything but propaganda.

XxDeonxX wrote...

Thedas was also angry with the elves for refusing to help with the blight, That much is a fact (Cant remember which blight) and they wanted to make use of the expert Elven Archers.

None of the humans asked for their help during the Second Blight, and the elves of the Dales were trying to reclaim their immortality and history, so they didn't get close to humans because their history reads that humans caused the elves of Arlathan to grow old and die when they used to be immortal, not to mention the centuries of enslavement at human hands and the destruction of their homeland.

XxDeonxX wrote...

The Elves would not give up on this battle either by fighting their way all the way up to Val Royeux and capturing many lands and sacking villages. This forced the hand of the chantry.

And according to the Dalish, the Chantry sent in templars when they kicked out the missionaries because they refused to convert to their religion, so I'm not surprised that they defended themselves against an enemy and went into enemy territory to neutralize the threat. Considering the history of Orlais and their habit of "expansion," perhaps the elves version of events is correct.

[Augustei]

LobselVith8 Wrote...

Considering that none of the Dalish we encounter sacrifice humans to gods, I don't see how it can be viewed as anything but propaganda.

None of the humans asked for their help during the Second Blight, and
the elves of the Dales were trying to reclaim their immortality and
history, so they didn't get close to humans because their history reads
that humans caused the elves of Arlathan to grow old and die when they
used to be immortal, not to mention the centuries of enslavement at
human hands and the destruction of their homeland.

And according to the Dalish, the Chantry sent in templars when they
kicked out the missionaries because they refused to convert to their
religion, so I'm not surprised that they defended themselves against an
enemy and went into enemy territory to neutralize the threat.
Considering the history of Orlais and their habit of "expansion,"
perhaps the elves version of events is correct.

If your talking about the ferelden occupation then these two are not comparable. You cannot generalise the mindset of a country when during those two events which were seperated by hundreds, if not thousands of years. They had a different Monarchy between these times and different noble lords, Different generals. Basically different everything.

So really neither side of the story is more likely then the other

Also I'm pretty sure I read somewhere a while back that Orlais made repeated attempts to ask the Dales for help with the blight. I know I read it somewhere cant remember where was so long ago.

And Im sure they would have had alot of luck reclaiming their Immortality when the blight came to their doorstep. So it was pretty stupid of them not to help out were this the case.

Also just because they dont make sacrifices now, does not mean they never used to.. When the Dales was destroyed, Just like with Arlathan they lost alot of their ancient lore. So it is likely that they lost the knowledge of this practice.

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 07 janvier 2011 - 09:37 .

[Sir JK]

Do note that it took a year, the destruction of Montsimmard, the burning of at least one Chantry (and impalement of the sisters and mothers within) and the siege of Val Royeux before a exalted march was declared on the Dales. Then it took another 10 years and the destruction of Val Royeux before victory was declared.
That was one horrid war and by the sound of it the Dalish almost destroyed Orlais (and since the Andrastian Chantry was little more than two centuries old at the time, would probably have destroyed it as well).

Now... on to the round of responses:

LobselVith8 wrote:
Unless we get to know more about Tevinter, I suppose all we can do is speculate. Either way, I don't think there's a human rights commission looking to see if the slaves are being treated fairly, or if they perished as a result of a blood magic ritual. I doubt Caladrius would know such a ritual if it wasn't used.

Probably not no. All I've read is that officially blood magic is illegal. How well that is upheld is unknown.

And to the writers who wrote the voiceover for the Magi Origin, the term "prison" was specifically used to describe the Circle Tower, so I don't see the issue here.

Nor do I. I suppose the exact term used varies with how at home the mage feels in the circle

Let's look at the definition of slavery:
1 :[/b] a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2:[/b] one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence
That second description seems to describe the relationship between the Chantry and the mages very accurately.

Fair enough, according to that definition it is indeed slavery (but so is many other things). I was using another definition of slavery. Sorry for the confusion.

First Enchanter Irving intervened to prevent the templars from killing him. Given the case of Wynne's apprentice, that doesn't always work, and Rylock seemed to have any intention of killing Anders despite the ruler of Ferelden allowing his conscription into the Wardens.

Indeed. The point is that First Enchanter could do that. That says one or two things.
But yes, Anaeirin did suffer the other side of the coin. But at least the coin have two sides.
And Rylock appears to have gone rogue as far as I can gather.

He was a war hero.
Like Wynne, who is a Senior Enchanter who needed permission to leave.

But the point is: they are allowed it. Sure, it takes some effort. But the chance is there for them to reach. It is not an optimal situation no. But not a hopeless one either. It shows that both Chantry and Templars can be reasonable.

And Wynne makes it clear that trying to be free from the Chantry would mean their death, so I'm not certain how that illustrates that the mages are free when they all seem to know that trying to emancipate themselves from the Chantry would mean their demise. As Gaider himself admitted, the Circles are under Chantry control, and that's why asking for independence from the Chantry is such an issue for the ruler of Ferelden (in terms of the Magi boon).

That mages set their policy in Cumberland means that the future of mages is to an extent under the control of mages. They don't have full rights to govern themselves, but they have some power in the regard. And while they cannot separate themselves from the Chantry without declaring a revolution/war they might be able to decide more day to day matters. Such as for instance: what is and what is not sufficient evidence for a circle mage to be condemned as a maleficar.

You're basically saying that we're at a stalement, where neither of us can prove the other wrong because of too little information, and how we infer the little information we're presented.

No, I just want you to point me in the right direction so I myself can see that Tranquil cannot refuse orders

Modifié par Sir JK, 07 janvier 2011 - 10:13 .

[Warlokki]

Qunari. I cannot stand the Chantry in any way. Qunari are meritocratic, something i like.

Their ways will need to be changed a bit though, no more mage leashing (unless a mage deserves that, good alternative for other punisments, considerably more useful for the society) and both sexes should be able to serve as warriors or whatever castes there are.

[Augustei]

Warlokki wrote...

Qunari. I cannot stand the Chantry in any way. Qunari are meritocratic, something i like.
Their ways will need to be changed a bit though, no more mage leashing (unless a mage deserves that, good alternative for other punisments, considerably more useful for the society) and both sexes should be able to serve as warriors or whatever castes there are.

Changing the Qunari's ways... Damn, you got your work cut out for you. Lol

[LobselVith8]

XxDeonxX wrote...

If your talking about the ferelden occupation then these two are not comparable. You cannot generalise the mindset of a country when during those two events which were seperated by hundreds, if not thousands of years. They had a different Monarchy between these times and different noble lords, Different generals. Basically different everything.

Except that the Orlesian Empire began with the Exalted Marches of its first emperor, Kordillus Drakon I, who made one Cult of Andraste the official religion through his Exalted Marches and took territory to build his empire, so I don't see how it's any different since the Orlesian Empire continued the practice centuries later.

XxDeonxX wrote...

So really neither side of the story is more likely then the other

Considering that nothing in the history of Arlathan, the Dales, or the Dalish clans even alludes to human sacrifice, I don't see how this is anything but propoganda. Even the Arlathan elves were said to retreat from the Tevinters when they started to grow old. And looking at how Orlais invaded Tevinter due to their religious practices (and the Black Divine), the Dalish version of events looks to be the more accurate one, especially since the Dalish say that templars were sent in to the Dales because they refused to convert.

XxDeonxX wrote...

Also I'm pretty sure I read somewhere a while back that Orlais made repeated attempts to ask the Dales for help with the blight. I know I read it somewhere cant remember where was so long ago.

You're confusing the mention of traders being turned back at the border of the Dales with the Second Blight.

XxDeonxX wrote...

And Im sure they would have had alot of luck reclaiming their Immortality when the blight came to their doorstep. So it was pretty stupid of them not to help out were this the case.

You mean they didn't jump at the chance to help the race that destroyed their homeland, enslaved them, and was trying to force them to convert to their religion? I'm shocked, truly.

XxDeonxX wrote...

Also just because they dont make sacrifices now, does not mean they never used to.. When the Dales was destroyed, Just like with Arlathan they lost alot of their ancient lore. So it is likely that they lost the knowledge of this practice.

You realize the elves of the Dales had Emerald Knights to keep humans out, right? I don't see how they would have human sacrifices when their intent is to keep humans away so they reclaim their culture and their immortality. It simply doesn't go together. Honestly, I find it silly because the Dalish elves (of the Dales and the nomadic tribes) are all about reclaiming their lost lore, and stay away from humans because they blame humanity for elves going through the aging process. The Dalish have said that some elves live longer than typical elves (during Nature of the Beast) and no one ever makes reference to any such sacrifice. You'd think that they'd still do it if it was even remotely accurate.