499 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Sigh,

I can not believe that people are openly supporting bigotry and slavery just because of an accident of birth even in a fictional world. It makes me a sad panda to think such attitudes still exist even now. [And yes, pro-chantry posters, that is *precisely* what you are advocating and defending. Given this extreme position, the burden of proof is on you to show it's actually necessary. I've shown at least empirical evidence that strongly indicates it is not.]

-Polaris

Ah, I see the problem here.

You haven't paid attention to anything anyone else has said, and instead just substituted your own placeholder positions for our posts.

And your own, strangely enough.

No.  What I said was justified.  You are trying to defend legalized slavery (i.e. forced servitude).  There is nothing nice or pleasent about it.

-Polaris

[Raelis25]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

their families visit but don't stay

Hmmm, I got the impression any contact with their familes was discouraged, so families probably didn't visit their magical relatives, but I may be wrong. Does anyone remember this for certain?

[IanPolaris]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Not condoning the logic, I think fear will produce the same result, if not make it worse. But that may be the Chantry's logic there, I am not sure.

Say rather it's the chantry's excuse.  I don't think the chantry cares if every mage became an abomination and had to be killed as long as they controlled it.  Indeed a fair number of Reverend Mothers and Knight Commanders (post DAO Cullen and the Mother at Ostagar to name two) would likely applaud.

-Polaris

[Ryzaki]

Maybe the situation with the mages isn't nice and pleasant but the world isn't nice and pleasant.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 décembre 2010 - 10:13 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Raelis25 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

their families visit but don't stay

Hmmm, I got the impression any contact with their familes was discouraged, so families probably didn't visit their magical relatives, but I may be wrong. Does anyone remember this for certain?

I said if it was allowed, this might happen.

From what I know, family relations are discouraged. If not outright forbidden.

[Sarah1281]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Raelis25 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

their families visit but don't stay

Hmmm, I got the impression any contact with their familes was discouraged, so families probably didn't visit their magical relatives, but I may be wrong. Does anyone remember this for certain?

I said if it was allowed, this might happen.

From what I know, family relations are discouraged. If not outright forbidden.

I'm pretty sure it's forbidden. Otherwise, how are they going to 'discourage' concerned family members for visiting? Charge admission? 

[Ryzaki]

Sarah1281 wrote...
] I'm pretty sure it's forbidden. Otherwise, how are they going to 'discourage' concerned family members for visiting? Charge admission? 

By attaching a stigma to having a mage in the family.

Like they sort of do already? 

Then of course their is the typical make them feel unwelcome and turn their kid against them tatics.

That said it's probably forbidden.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 décembre 2010 - 10:17 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sarah1281 wrote...
 I'm pretty sure it's forbidden. Otherwise, how are they going to 'discourage' concerned family members for visiting? Charge admission? 

"If you keep visiting your boy, he might be distracted from training and burn you all by accident. A similar thing happened just a few days ago".

[Dean_the_Young]

Ryzaki wrote...

Raelis25 wrote...

The thing I just can't understand is why mages are not allowed to keep contact with their families at all, and how this inane law is connected to the possibility of their becoming abominations. It makes zero sense.

Now this I agree with. The no other human contact bit is complete nonsense.

So while I agree that the Circle is necessary some of it's rules could use a serious upheaval.

It makes sense. It just isn't nice.

In the simplist form: mages who know and remember their family have external ties that can (a) be used against them to coerce an abuse of their powers, and ( pull and motivate them to leave the tower, and offer them a support network outside.

While (a) might not be an overriding concern to the Chantry and the Templars, ( certainly is. By severing all ties external to the Circle, or as many as possible, the mages build and are largely refrained to ties within the Circle itself. With all their ties in one basket, mages who might otherwise be willing to leave won't, on account of not wanting to leave their friends/new family behind. As long as their entire world is in the Circle, many mages won't want to leave, which helps keep them in one place. Where the Templars and the Chantry can keep an eye on them.


In some respects, it's similar to the old Communist practice of providing wives for prisoners kidnapped/captured from the West: these woman, while forced to wed and bed Westerners, would (for a variety of reasons) become emotional bonds to help prevent those prisoners from leaving. Emotional bondage.

[Ryzaki]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

It makes sense. It just isn't nice.

In the simplist form: mages who know and remember their family have external ties that can (a) be used against them to coerce an abuse of their powers, and ( pull and motivate them to leave the tower, and offer them a support network outside.

While (a) might not be an overriding concern to the Chantry and the Templars, ( certainly is. By severing all ties external to the Circle, or as many as possible, the mages build and are largely refrained to ties within the Circle itself. With all their ties in one basket, mages who might otherwise be willing to leave won't, on account of not wanting to leave their friends/new family behind. As long as their entire world is in the Circle, many mages won't want to leave, which helps keep them in one place. Where the Templars and the Chantry can keep an eye on them.


In some respects, it's similar to the old Communist practice of providing wives for prisoners kidnapped/captured from the West: these woman, while forced to wed and bed Westerners, would (for a variety of reasons) become emotional bonds to help prevent those prisoners from leaving. Emotional bondage.

Gah. Your last paragraph just made me throw up in my mouth a little.

And it's my birthday too.

[Dean_the_Young]

IanPolaris wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Sigh,

I can not believe that people are openly supporting bigotry and slavery just because of an accident of birth even in a fictional world. It makes me a sad panda to think such attitudes still exist even now. [And yes, pro-chantry posters, that is *precisely* what you are advocating and defending. Given this extreme position, the burden of proof is on you to show it's actually necessary. I've shown at least empirical evidence that strongly indicates it is not.]

-Polaris

Ah, I see the problem here.

You haven't paid attention to anything anyone else has said, and instead just substituted your own placeholder positions for our posts.

And your own, strangely enough.

No.  What I said was justified.  You are trying to defend legalized slavery (i.e. forced servitude).  There is nothing nice or pleasent about it.

-Polaris

Huzaah! And he proves he didn't once read my very first post on the thread, not even two pages back!

Also indicating he neither noticed nor cared to address the minor part of how innacurate the slavery label is.

What is mandatory is detention, but we've never been given any sign that the mages are forced or coerced to work for the profit of the Chantry.

[IanPolaris]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

A skilled spy or sabateur had the realistic potential to kill a few dozen in acts of sabatoge.

Abominations, even from the weak and untrained, can potentially wipe out hundreds, and see entire settlements destroyed.

Actually a skilled sabateur (esp if used in conjuction with overt military action) could wipe out thousands as well (think Chernobyl...yes that was an accident, but it's something a sabateur could easily have done).  For that matter blowing up ammo factories, etc etc.  Also information can effectively kill far more than lives than just dozens.

So if anything the spy/sabateur is a greater threat than any "abomination" save perhaps the most powerful.

Hm, it's almost like there's a significant difference in the potential threat between an American citizen based on his ethnic coloring, and people with superpowers who can light people on fire by accident...

From a fundamental moral perspective there is not.  You are enslaving people based on who they are rather than what they've done.  It's fundamentally immoral.  If I have to explain that to you, then I feel very sorry for you.

The US has admitted it was a stain on it's honor.  Why can't you?  If anything, the comparison is a very mild one.

Where has he once suggested it was not?

If you agree that locking away mages is a good idea, then the internment of the Japanese was equally good.  It's almost the same thing for almost exactly the same reasons.  You don't get to hold one position without the other at least with any logical consistancy.

What has been done to the mage is rephrensible and there is no good solid positive evidence to justify it.  Only fear mongering.

-Polaris

Uldred, Conner, and Flemeth aren't proof of the potential dangers of rampant magic?

I mean, they are, what, two thirds water, so they might not be that solid, and Uldred and Flemeth were never particularly good. But that's slander against Conner, at least.

Flemmeth is not a threat.  She is a bogey-woman used to frighten children.  Outside her swamp, I've yet to see any solid evidence of how Flemeth is a real threat.  Uldred became what he did and could do what he did BECAUSE of the chantry and the circle system.  If anything Uldred is exhibit A in why the system has to be dismantled.  So for that matter is Conner.  The system is so bad that Isolde didn't want to put her son through it and set up conditions that invited the entire situation.

The point is there are plenty of magical traditions outside the chantry and none of them show evidence of a rife abomination problem.  To justify the highly extreme act of enslaving a group of people just for what they are (with no trial or consideration possible), you need overwhelming justification, and it just isn't there no matter how hard the Chantry (and it's apologists) insist upon it.  [Heck look at Anerin who escaped before his harrowing and was a branded malificar.  Abomination bait?  Nope. A nice, well adjusted young mage who just wants to be left alone.]

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Huzaah! And he proves he didn't once read my very first post on the thread, not even two pages back!

Also indicating he neither noticed nor cared to address the minor part of how innacurate the slavery label is.

What is mandatory is detention, but we've never been given any sign that the mages are forced or coerced to work for the profit of the Chantry.

I read it.  You're wrong.  If the Chantry wants to make money, they lobomize mages to make more tranquil (who can no longer complain afterwards) and the mages get no say. 

Forced servitude?  Yes I think so.

-Polaris

[KnightofPhoenix]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
In some respects, it's similar to the old Communist practice of providing wives for prisoners kidnapped/captured from the West: these woman, while forced to wed and bed Westerners, would (for a variety of reasons) become emotional bonds to help prevent those prisoners from leaving. Emotional bondage.

Wouldn't that practise be more efficient if the relationship between Templar and Mage is improved?

Now I know not all Templars hate mages and vice versa. I think Gregoir genuinely cares for them. We see a Templar outside the Circle once the quest is done, praying for Templar and mage alike who defended the Circle. 

But the general ambience seems to be of a mutual fear (if not terror) between the two groups. Indeed, in the Fade section of the Quest, there was 2 sections about a Templar's nightmare (with the crazy mages who kill everything including each other) and a mage's nightmare (with the burning Templars). 
This seems to indicate that deep down inside, both groups fear each other immensely and the irony here is that the Sloth Demon used that to his advantage and created two sections fueled by that fear (that's how I interpretted it at least).

If the relationship between Templar and mage is improved, a better emotional bondage can be established. And a fear that demons can potentially exploit would be alleviated.

But thats as far as my opinion goes, until I know exactly how both modern and ancient Tevinter delt with magic.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 29 décembre 2010 - 10:27 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ryzaki wrote...
And it's my birthday too.

Happy Birthday

[Dean_the_Young]

Ryzaki wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

It makes sense. It just isn't nice.

In the simplist form: mages who know and remember their family have external ties that can (a) be used against them to coerce an abuse of their powers, and ( pull and motivate them to leave the tower, and offer them a support network outside.

While (a) might not be an overriding concern to the Chantry and the Templars, ( certainly is. By severing all ties external to the Circle, or as many as possible, the mages build and are largely refrained to ties within the Circle itself. With all their ties in one basket, mages who might otherwise be willing to leave won't, on account of not wanting to leave their friends/new family behind. As long as their entire world is in the Circle, many mages won't want to leave, which helps keep them in one place. Where the Templars and the Chantry can keep an eye on them.


In some respects, it's similar to the old Communist practice of providing wives for prisoners kidnapped/captured from the West: these woman, while forced to wed and bed Westerners, would (for a variety of reasons) become emotional bonds to help prevent those prisoners from leaving. Emotional bondage.

Gah. Your last paragraph just made me throw up in my mouth a little.

And it's my birthday too.

If it makes you feel better, I believe there's a somewhat heartwarming story of such a woman, married to a US defector from the Korean War, who helped him defect (again) and return from North Korea after they well and truly fell in love.

(Though, if memory serves, she was also a kidnapped Japanese woman.)



In the interest of clarity, we know very well that the Chantry does not do that practice. Templar/Mage relations, and Mage/Chantry worker relations, are strictly forbidden. The similarity is in effect of emotional linkage to the location of detention, not the means of creating and maintaining such linkage.

[Ryzaki]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

If it makes you feel better, I believe there's a somewhat heartwarming story of such a woman, married to a US defector from the Korean War, who helped him defect (again) and return from North Korea after they well and truly fell in love.

(Though, if memory serves, she was also a kidnapped Japanese woman.)



In the interest of clarity, we know very well that the Chantry does not do that practice. Templar/Mage relations, and Mage/Chantry worker relations, are strictly forbidden. The similarity is in effect of emotional linkage to the location of detention, not the means of creating and maintaining such linkage.

That did make it somewhat better thaks.

Though I really don't see why the Chantry would want the mages and Templars so hostile. Even if the relationships were forbidden surely they would want the two groups friendly towards on another? (If only to make it harder for mages/templars to leave and for mages to willingly attack templars.

Then again I suppose that would backfire when said mage turns into an abomination and the templar is unwilling to kill them.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Happy Birthday [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/wizard.png[/smilie]

Thanks!

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 décembre 2010 - 10:30 .

[Dean_the_Young]

IanPolaris wrote...

I read it.  You're wrong.  If the Chantry wants to make money, they lobomize mages to make more tranquil (who can no longer complain afterwards) and the mages get no say. 

Forced servitude?  Yes I think so.

-Polaris

The Tranquil are not Tranquilized for the sake of labor, nor is there any evidence of any sort of systematic intent or abuse of the process for the making of the Tranquil, nor do we have evidence that the Tranquil, who are not incapable of thinking or choosing for themselves, are coerced into their work if they wish to decline, nor that the money from their work goes to anyone but the Circle itself.

We have nothing to support a claim that Tranquil can not complain. Only one Tranquil's word (with no sign of coercion) that he does not complain.

[IanPolaris]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

In the interest of clarity, we know very well that the Chantry does not do that practice. Templar/Mage relations, and Mage/Chantry worker relations, are strictly forbidden. The similarity is in effect of emotional linkage to the location of detention, not the means of creating and maintaining such linkage.

Of course it is.  Templars like all those in the Chantry that take holy vows are forbidden from having carnal relations at all.  Of course that just increases the likelyhood that mages in templar custudy will be abused (esp female ones) and I have seen no indication that the Chantry cares other than to say, "tut tut".

The reason is simple enough (and why many religions have such restrictions).  The chantry wants it's templars to be totally tied to itself with no inconvenient emotional bonds getting in the way.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

I read it.  You're wrong.  If the Chantry wants to make money, they lobomize mages to make more tranquil (who can no longer complain afterwards) and the mages get no say. 

Forced servitude?  Yes I think so.

-Polaris[/quote]The Tranquil are not Tranquilized for the sake of labor, nor is there any evidence of any sort of systematic intent or abuse of the process for the making of the Tranquil, nor do we have evidence that the Tranquil, who are not incapable of thinking or choosing for themselves, are coerced into their work if they wish to decline, nor that the money from their work goes to anyone but the Circle itself.
[/quote]

Really?  We know that the tranquil form the backbone of the circle's ability to make money.  We also know that only anonymous "eyewitness" testimony is needed to sentence a mage as a malificar and thus be made tranquil.

We also know that mages get no say as to whether they are tranquiled or not.

Please.  Wake up and smell the gold. Of course mages are tranquiled at least in part as forced labour.

[quote]
We have nothing to support a claim that Tranquil can not complain. Only one Tranquil's word (with no sign of coercion) that he does not complain.[/quote]

Without emotions, tranquil no longer free agents.  As described in the codex, they are essentially walking, talking machines.  To complain requires an emotional investment that tranquil no longer can have.  It's really is a fate worse than death becasue you can't understand what you've lost (as Lily rather eloquantly puts it).

-Polaris
[/quote]

Modifié par IanPolaris, 29 décembre 2010 - 10:34 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
The Tranquil are not Tranquilized for the sake of labor

Regardless of the intent, that's what they end up being. They are the main source of funds for the Circle, via enchantements and stores (like Wonders of Thedas) which only Tranquils are allowed to operate in.
But I agree that Tranquilization does not seem, to me, that it's a removal of free will. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
And yea, I don't think we know how much the Chantry profits from this. I think it's safe to say that it does, but we don't know the percentage it takes from the profits.

And that makes me more interested in knowing about the Lucrosians. How are they planing to accumulate wealth exactly? Only via Tranquils? Or do they plan on expanding their source of income? I can think of several uses for mages that does not involve dangerous magic where they can sell their services for money. Heck, they'd make excellent firefighters for instances. Healers. Improve agriculture....etc. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 29 décembre 2010 - 10:36 .

[IanPolaris]

Hanz54321 wrote...

OK . . . I'm laughing so hard I peed a little.

Seriously?  We're going real life with this debate?  WW2 real life?  Because if you are you likely have rough troubles ahead, my friend.  RL is going to toss real issues and problems at you.  If you get upset over make believe, wait until the real world hits ya.

I guess it's OK to be a moral monster in a game.  In fact it can be sort of fun as long as we remember it's a game, but the situations are very close (in fact almost exactly analogous) and that's why I used the RL example...to show what the Chantry Apologists are in fact defending.

If you want to defend a vile system for RPing in a game, more power to you.  But don't forget it is a game and it is a vile system.

-Polaris

[Sarah1281]

Though I really don't see why the Chantry would want the mages and Templars so hostile. Even if the relationships were forbidden surely they would want the two groups friendly towards on another? (If only to make it harder for mages/templars to leave and for mages to willingly attack templars.

I think it's because the templars aren't supposed to feel sorry for mages and try to help them escape or to be unwilling to kill them if need be. I don't think mages attacking templars is really something they need to worry about. Templars can smite mages and render them unable to do anything but blood magic and the minute a mage is revealed as a blood mage their fate is sealed anyawy.