1869 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

Irving doesn't want to do anything about teh fate of Jowan, because he doesn't believe in Jowan either. The First Enchanter and the Knight-Commander appears to be able to veto eachother. Except on the matter of annulment, but it would be wierd for the First Enchanter to be allowed to veto that.

[Sir JK]

Lobselvith8: I think the problem with calling the mages slaves according to that definition basically boils down to a unfortunate thing.



Who isn't?

The templars are raised to their part, takes their vows and then forced to serve. They may not choose where to serve, they may not choose where to go. Every moment they live they live in subservience to another.

Are they slaves?



The people of the land have to work it. Spend practically every waking moment doing manual labour to pay the tithe to their liege-lord. Practically subservient to their lord.

Are they slaves?



The nobles have their duties. They must care for their people, train their soldiers and serve their king and family. Subservient to their lord.

Are they slaves?



The qunari are born to their role and may never leave it.

Are they slaves?



Mages do not have to work. If they do work it is of their own choosing. Unlike peasants.

Mages do not have to go to war. If they do it is of their own choosing. Unlike nobles.



Mages are prisoners in a gilded cage. But slaves they are not. Or alternatively.. if they are slaves... so is almost everyone else.

[Malanek]

Beerfish wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...


This was a failing of the Chantry and the Templars. The current scheme failed and exasperated the situation. The mages rebelled because they were oppressed.

Correct, the chantry and templars did not find out about the mage child and thus they failed to prevent this tragedy.  That is how it would be spun to the general populace.

"We feel badly that children must be taken from their parents, we wish we did not have to do so.  However if you want proof as to why this must be done look no furhter than the Redcliffe tragedy. 

I wasn't talking about Connor, that was simply beyond their abilities*. I debolded that stuff. I was talking about the rebellion in the circle tower. This was clearly the Templars and Chantrys fault for two reasons. Firstly their own carefully laid police plans failed. They were completely inadequate to control the situation. Secondly, the reason it happened in the first place is because the Templars forced the mages hands through oppression. You see in cutscenes how scathingly the mages are treated by the Chantry. When Uldred volunteers to light the beacon the chantry woman steps in with a typical venomous and uncalled for response. Then when you talk to the blood mage in the tower you find they only turned to blood magic in the first place to be free. So the Chantry was both the root cause and then failed in policing.

*Although thinking about this some more that too is largely the Chantrys fault. Isolde did not want to send Connor to the tower because of the stigma and mistreatment that the chantry has created. So she sought an alternative. If the tower was accepted better, run by mages who knew how to handle mages fairly, she wouldn't have had that problem. As it stands so many mages are going to prefer to hide rather than seek out the tower because of that loss of freedom.

[Morroian]

JamesX wrote...

Morroian wrote...
No but does it matter for this discussion? Their opinion would matter if you're actually living in Ferelden and trying to implement it but we're talking on a theoretical level about human rights etc. Practically, it may never be able to happen but that doesn't make it right.  

It also doesn't make it wrong.  

 
Yeah it does actually, oppressing people is wrong. The chantry/templar solution is an easy one rooted in medieval values. So look for a solution that doesn't oppress mages while still allowing the same protection from abominations and mage power.

JamesX wrote...
Feralden/World of Dragon Age, is a world in constant crisis.  With petty wars and supernatural threats on every front.  It is not a world where people enjoy stability and the safety of Law.  To talk what works in Modernized Countries and apply that theoretics to an ancient society on the blink of destruction is rather impractical.  To try to summarize that as a practical solution is even worse.

 
It is a practical solution, the problem is that in a medieval society it may not be accepted because its not in accord with their values. However as I said elsewhere the existence of the libertarians implies some advance in political thinking.

JamesX wrote...
As for Circle being slave to the Chantry that is actually not true.  From all we can tell the Mages of the Circle are self-governing.  The Templar are there to oversee and execute if they turn abomination, but they have never demonstrated the power to Enforce any particilar course of action outside of that narrow jurisdiction.  In fact the Leader of the Circle (Irwin IIRC) can countermand Leader of the Templar (Gregor)'s orders.

 
Yeah it is true, Irving is only allowed as much power as Gregoir gives him. Under a more tyrannical templar commander Irving would not have those rights that Gregoir allows him. For evidence I refer to the epilogue slide about Cullen's rule of the circle. Make no mistake the templars are the ultimate power in the circle. There are very few checks and balances in the system.

[Seagloom]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Viable alternatives already exist. They have existed, in fact. I've named several of them. There are numerous examples of mages and nonmages living together. It'd be less of an issue in Ferelden if the Chantry didn't preach hatred and fear toward mages because of a baseless claim about what the Tevinter mages allegedly did. Given how a Warden can be celebrated as the Hero of Ferelden and be a mage, not to mention be handed over the regins to the teyrnir of Amaranthine, this seems to be the first steps towards changing and challenging people's views on mages. As for the mages themselves, most people aren't arguing against mages being properly instructed on the use of their abilities, only against imprisoning mages for having magical ability.

You did? I disagree. The only alternative you named that *might* have merit are Dalish clans, and we know next to nothing about how they operate. We have no idea how many instances of possession they have, if any, and how they are dealt with. We know even less about the Rivaini and the townsfolk of Haven. For all we know Rivaini spirit possession is a drug induced hallucination.

The Warden's accomplishments would be largely meaningless after a few incidents of magical misuse and rampaging abominations took place. All it would take is a few families dying or a noble losing a loved one and making a huge fuss before everyone went right back to fearing mages. Look at our modern society and how quickly public perception of an organization changes after a few colossal screw ups. How much worse would it be if those screw ups involved several deaths, or the loss of prominent nobles or their heirs? People are fickle.

Modifié par Seagloom, 19 janvier 2011 - 10:56 .

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Irving doesn't want to do anything about teh fate of Jowan, because he doesn't believe in Jowan either. The First Enchanter and the Knight-Commander appears to be able to veto eachother. Except on the matter of annulment, but it would be wierd for the First Enchanter to be allowed to veto that.

Actually, Irving admits he would do otherwise if it were up to him if you speak with him about Jowan. Clearly, it's not up to him. The Chantry controls the Circles and Cullen can rule the Circle in fear as the new Knight-Commander. The templars have authority over mages, there's no evidence otherwise.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Templars need to be authorized by the First Enchanter to move against a mage suspected of Blood Magic. At least on paper. Some Templars might not wait for that, but they would be in the wrong.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 19 janvier 2011 - 10:58 .

[LobselVith8]

Seagloom wrote...

You did? I disagree. The only alternative you named that *might* have merit are Dalish clans, and we know next to nothing about how they operate. We have no idea how many instances of possession they have, if any, and how they are dealt with. We know even less about the Rivaini and the townsfolk of Haven. For all we know Rivaini spirit possession is a drug induced hallucination.

Except the Dalish clans are patterned on the Dales and Arlathan, as Lanaya makes clear when she mentions how the leaders of the Dalish clans are typically descended from the leaders of the Dales and Arlathan, and she is an exception. It's the entire point of their existance - to reclaim the old ways and keep them alive for the time when they have a homeland of their own.

True, we know little about them, but considering DA is a relatively new franchise, you can make that argument about everything. We never knew there Seekers in the Chantry, after all.

Seagloom wrote...

The Warden's accomplishments would be largely meaningless after a few incidents of magical misuse and rampaging abominations took place. All it would take is a few families dying or a noble losing a loved one and making a huge fuss before everyone went right back to fearing mages. Look at our modern society and how quickly public perception of an organization changes after a few colossal screw ups. How much worse would it be if those screw ups were involved several deaths, or the loss of prominent nobles or their heirs? People are fickle.

And yet, the misuse of the templar's authority (like in the killing of the Magnificent D'Sims, or the attempted murder of the Warden-Commander by Rylock) mean nothing. That illustrates the problem with the Chantry and it's long term propaganda against mages.

[Addai]

I don't know that I'd call the mages slaves. It gets a bit more grey with the Tranquil, who are put to menial tasks and enchanting as a source of Chantry wealth. Once you pass your Harrowing as a mage, however, presumably you could sit on your rear and eat bon bons as long as you don't become an abomination? Except you'd have nags like Wynne trying to get you to teach apprentices.

[October Sixth]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Mages are slaves to the Chantry. Even the definition for slave fits the relationship between mages and the Chantry (as I explicitly wrote in a prior post). Looking at it again:
slave (slv)
n.
1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.
2. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence

The second seems to fit the relationship between the mages and the Chantry perfectly.

The second only fits as much as any other position of authority fits. A claim of "abject subservience" is far too vague to be of value in any sort of discussion about the morality of the situation. In addition, using that definition still does not explain why it is wrong.

They have no rights, and the Chantry has control over them. How is that not slavery? Even the definition of slavery fits the way that the Chantry controls mages.

We haven't seen the extent to which mages have or do not have rights within the Circle. They are restricted in certain specific ways, but where do we have evidence that they have no rights whatsoever?

Wynne's apprentice would disagree - they tried to murder him because he ran away from the Circle at fourteen. So would the Magnificent D'Sims, who was murdered because templars thought he was a mage who healed people. Yes, a fake elven mage killed because templars thought he was healing people. Even Cullen admits that some of the templars discuss killing mages with glee...

Since we're arguing the importance of the Circle, this is hardly relevant.

Viable alternatives already exist. They have existed, in fact. I've
named several of them. There are numerous examples of mages and
nonmages living together. It'd be less of an issue in Ferelden if the
Chantry didn't preach hatred and fear toward mages because of a
baseless claim about what the Tevinter mages allegedly did. Given how a
Warden can be celebrated as the Hero of Ferelden and be a mage, not to
mention be handed over the regins to the teyrnir of Amaranthine, this
seems to be the first steps towards changing and challenging people's
views on mages. As for the mages themselves, most people aren't arguing
against mages being properly instructed on the use of their abilities,
only against imprisoning mages for having magical ability.

Showing that there exist other countries where mages may or may not (not enough information) be in a better situation is not the same as explaining how they create the superior situation. I would like that explanation if you have it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Beerfish wrote...

Each side?  As I've said there are three sides.

Each of the three.

Though later, I did reduce it to two positions, as really there's just those who oppose subjugating mages, and those who support subjugating mages.

Until the argument that the mages need to be kept in pens to protect the non-mages is framed in a way that the mages would find it compelling, it's a waste of time.

If I were a non-mage, I'd support keeping the mages penned up.  If I were a mage, I would oppose keeping the mages penned up.

[LobselVith8]

Sir JK wrote...

Lobselvith8: I think the problem with calling the mages slaves according to that definition basically boils down to a unfortunate thing.

Who isn't?
The templars are raised to their part, takes their vows and then forced to serve. They may not choose where to serve, they may not choose where to go. Every moment they live they live in subservience to another.
Are they slaves?

You're comparing the Chantry forbidding the mages from having rights and taking them from their families to be under their absolute control with templars?

Sir JK wrote...

The people of the land have to work it. Spend practically every waking moment doing manual labour to pay the tithe to their liege-lord. Practically subservient to their lord.
Are they slaves?

Are they killed if they run away from home? Are they forbidden from raising a family? Are they hated and despised because of Chantry propaganda? Do they have no rights when it comes to inheriting land or living on their own? Your analogy blatantly ignores the lack of freedom and control mages have over their own lives, and their inability to change their lot in life without striking back at the Chantry for their freedom.

Sir JK wrote...

The nobles have their duties. They must care for their people, train their soldiers and serve their king and family. Subservient to their lord.
Are they slaves?

Considering Vaughan kidnapped elven women out of the alienage in broad daylight with the intent to rape them, let's say no.

Sir JK wrote...

The qunari are born to their role and may never leave it.
Are they slaves?

The Qunari mages are. They're treated like animals and get their tounges cut out if they practice magic without their handlers say so.

Sir JK wrote...

Mages do not have to work. If they do work it is of their own choosing. Unlike peasants.
Mages do not have to go to war. If they do it is of their own choosing. Unlike nobles.

These points might mean something if they tackled the issue of mages having absolutely no rights unless they became Grey Wardens. Peasants and nobles can change their lot in life, mages can't. Mages get killed if they run away and the First Enchanter doesn't vouch for them, like Aneirin. Templars killed the Magnificent D'Sims on the mere suspicion that he was a mage who was healing people, and it was completely off-base.

Sir JK wrote...

Mages are prisoners in a gilded cage. But slaves they are not. Or alternatively.. if they are slaves... so is almost everyone else.

The issue I have with your many examples is that the Chantry doesn't strip them of their rights - the mages have no rights. According to the definition of slavery, they're slaves.

[Sylvius the Mad]

LobselVith8 wrote...

...

I just want to say that I entuirely support your description of the mages as slaves.  At the very least they are prisoners, and being forced to choose between slavery or imprisonment doesn't make either better.

It's not that different from conscripted soldiers.  I think conscription is slavery, too.

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

The people of the land have to work it. Spend practically every waking moment doing manual labour to pay the tithe to their liege-lord. Practically subservient to their lord.
Are they slaves?

Are they killed if they run away from home? Are they forbidden from raising a family? Are they hated and despised because of Chantry propaganda? Do they have no rights when it comes to inheriting land or living on their own? Your analogy blatantly ignores the lack of freedom and control mages have over their own lives, and their inability to change their lot in life without striking back at the Chantry for their freedom.

The mages aren't killed for running away. They are killed for being Maleficar. If they run away, the Templars try and catch them and bring them back to the tower. If the appostate resists capture, the Templars probably just kill them.
The rest of the things you say does not make them slaves. Just outcasts.

[Malanek]

I don't think the exact terminology matters. They are what they are whatever you like to call it. They are oppressed. They are not allowed to go where they want. They all have a tracking beacon put on them. They may all be killed because of the actions of another. They suffer constant scrutiny and intimidation. They may be lobotomised (made tranquil) against their will. The conditions you have to live by are determined by a group of people prejudiced against you (the chantry). FFS, it's not a pleasant situation.

Modifié par Malanek999, 19 janvier 2011 - 11:17 .

[Newnation]

I honestly think the mages should be allowed to govern themselves without the Chantry. The problem with the Chantry being over them is that a lot of the people who blindly drink the kool aid and oppose magic and hate the mages as a result allow their paranoia and fear to make them sound like ignorant biggots. Some could argue that the oppression of the mages in the tower could lead to some mages turning to blood magic just to be free. I would use Uldread for an example but he seemed rotten to the core from the start.

[LobselVith8]

October Sixth wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Mages are slaves to the Chantry. Even the definition for slave fits the relationship between mages and the Chantry (as I explicitly wrote in a prior post). Looking at it again:
slave (slv)
n.
1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.
2. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence

The second seems to fit the relationship between the mages and the Chantry perfectly.

The second only fits as much as any other position of authority fits. A claim of "abject subservience" is far too vague to be of value in any sort of discussion about the morality of the situation. In addition, using that definition still does not explain why it is wrong.

Considering mages have no rights and the Chantry controls the Circles, I see no reason why the definition doesn't fit perfectly.

I didn't realize I actually needed to explain why slavery is wrong.

October Sixth wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

They have no rights, and the Chantry has control over them. How is that not slavery? Even the definition of slavery fits the way that the Chantry controls mages.

We haven't seen the extent to which mages have or do not have rights within the Circle. They are restricted in certain specific ways, but where do we have evidence that they have no rights whatsoever?

Jowan says they can't inherit a title, Gaider has said they can't raise their own children, Gaider has said that in some Circles they're not permitted to have relationships, First Enchanter Irving mentions that he can't do anything about Jowan because Knight-Commander Greagoir has already decided his fate, mages can be killed simply for being mages (like the Magnificent D'Sims was despite not actually being a mage), and a baseless accusation against a mage can get him killed - like Aneirin. The Circles are under the direct control of the Chantry, and at the Landsmeet it's mentioned that templars don't answer to the nobles - only to the Chantry.

October Sixth wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Wynne's apprentice would disagree - they tried to murder him because he ran away from the Circle at fourteen. So would the Magnificent D'Sims, who was murdered because templars thought he was a mage who healed people. Yes, a fake elven mage killed because templars thought he was healing people. Even Cullen admits that some of the templars discuss killing mages with glee...

Since we're arguing the importance of the Circle, this is hardly relevant.

Besides the fact that, instead of bringing him back, they tried to murder him? Or how templars can murder a person suspected of being a free mage?

October Sixth wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Viable alternatives already exist. They have existed, in fact. I've
named several of them. There are numerous examples of mages and
nonmages living together. It'd be less of an issue in Ferelden if the
Chantry didn't preach hatred and fear toward mages because of a
baseless claim about what the Tevinter mages allegedly did. Given how a
Warden can be celebrated as the Hero of Ferelden and be a mage, not to
mention be handed over the regins to the teyrnir of Amaranthine, this
seems to be the first steps towards changing and challenging people's
views on mages. As for the mages themselves, most people aren't arguing
against mages being properly instructed on the use of their abilities,
only against imprisoning mages for having magical ability.

Showing that there exist other countries where mages may or may not (not enough information) be in a better situation is not the same as explaining how they create the superior situation. I would like that explanation if you have it.

Not being under the control of an entity that preaches hatred and mistrust towards mages seems like a better alternative to me. The Dalish clans evidently have mages and non-mages living side by side, as do the people of Haven. The people of Rivain evidently revere their mages. Having a system that didn't place mages under the control of people who are taught to fear and hate them is the first step. Allowing them to have rights and gain a place in society would be the next. I'm not saying anything new here, others have already made this point loud and clear. Again, I'm not arguing against properly instructing mages on how to use their magical abilities, only that they shouldn't be imprisoned under the guard of armored and armed drug addicts.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 19 janvier 2011 - 11:23 .

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The mages aren't killed for running away. They are killed for being Maleficar. If they run away, the Templars try and catch them and bring them back to the tower. If the appostate resists capture, the Templars probably just kill them.

Like Aneirin, who evidently didn't practice blood magic but was still killed because the templars labelled him a maleficar.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The rest of the things you say does not make them slaves. Just outcasts.

Actually, it does make them slaves - as per the definition of slavery. As for the idea that they're nothing more than outcasts, I couldn't disagree more. We're not discussing the counter-culture here, we're discussing mages who have no rights and live under the thumb of the Chantry.

[Malanek]

Newnation wrote...

I honestly think the mages should be allowed to govern themselves without the Chantry. The problem with the Chantry being over them is that a lot of the people who blindly drink the kool aid and oppose magic and hate the mages as a result allow their paranoia and fear to make them sound like ignorant biggots. Some could argue that the oppression of the mages in the tower could lead to some mages turning to blood magic just to be free.

Exactly. Seems blatantly obvious to me.

[Nerevar-as]

Who is that Magnificent D'Sims?

[Reaverwind]

LobselVith8 wrote...

And yet, the misuse of the templar's authority (like in the killing of the Magnificent D'Sims, or the attempted murder of the Warden-Commander by Rylock) mean nothing. That illustrates the problem with the Chantry and it's long term propaganda against mages.

WHO is this D'Sims character? I've not heard of him in all my playthroughs of DA:O and Awakening. As far as Rylock was concerned - she was way out of line. I consider her as being little different than the cop who oversteps his bounds.

[LobselVith8]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Who is that Magnificent D'Sims?

He's referenced in Awakening. You're able to acquire a staff that belonged to him. Like Reaper's Vestments, you get some backstory on the previous owner. He was an elven "healer" who (pretended) to heal the sick, and was killed by the templars.

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The mages aren't killed for running away. They are killed for being Maleficar. If they run away, the Templars try and catch them and bring them back to the tower. If the appostate resists capture, the Templars probably just kill them.

Like Aneirin, who evidently didn't practice blood magic but was still killed because the templars labelled him a maleficar.

Or perhaps he resisted capture, in which case the Tempalrs are forced to kill him, by their duty. Who knows? The Templars who did it, and Aneirin, the first we never meet, and the second never mentions it, so we are back to square one.

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The rest of the things you say does not make them slaves. Just outcasts.

Actually, it does make them slaves - as per the definition of slavery. As for the idea that they're nothing more than outcasts, I couldn't disagree more. We're not discussing the counter-culture here, we're discussing mages who have no rights and live under the thumb of the Chantry.

No one has any rights in Thedas. There have been no convention and no signing of Human RIghts in Thedas, so that point is moot. And by that definition of Slaves (the one linked), everyone in Thedas are slaves, as all serve a master, through little to no choice of their own. They are closer to prisoners than slaves, and even then they are certainly priviliged prisoners.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

No one has any rights in Thedas. There have been no convention and no signing of Human RIghts in Thedas, so that point is moot.

That's only true if you think rights are a legal construct and nothing more.

Those who believe in Natural Rights would disagree.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Well, I don't believe in that. /shrug
But I do see your point. I just think that most of the pro-mages are being unreasonable in their demands that the Chantry and entire world of Thedas change their ways. I say, the mages should stop giving the world a reason to fear them. While nutcases like Uldred might be the product of suppression, the commoner isn't gonna care about what caused it, only that it happened, and he will fear mages even more.
I say, start with the smallest part.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 20 janvier 2011 - 12:40 .