1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Beerfish]

"And again you ignore the fact that not even the Chantry really believes
(at least not the high ranking ones) believes that the circle is really
necessary because of abominations.  This is right out of the Codex
(History of the Circle).  If DG wanted to say that the circle was needed
to control abominations and that there were more in the past, he was
given every opprotunity to say that....and he very carefully did not."

He also has said that he didn't consider the mages to be slaves and that point has been totally ignored by some in this discussion.

[EmperorSahlertz]

There may not have been more Abominations in total before the Circles. But there were more roaming the countryside. Now the Circles contain them, and keeps the defenseless commoners safe. The total amount of Abominations may be the same as back then, but at least now they happen (mostly) in a controlled enviroment.



Would also like to point out that 17 annullments in 700 years, is not a lot. Once you consider that it is 17 times, across at least 6 nations, and maker knows how many Circles.

[Sir JK]

LobselVith8 wrote...
The case in A Broken Circle happened because Uldred and the mages allied with him wanted to be free. That doesn't seem to be an indicator of anything but the Chantry conditioning mages to resort to demonology to fight back against the templars.

Might I point out that Uldred, before his possession decided to attack his fellow senior enchanters and that his fellow blood mages (the one that you ask that you spare her) on the second floor stood over a couple of pyring corpses.
Uldreds mages may have decided to rebel to overthrow the templars, but they intended to do so very violently and seemed prepared to kill anyone standing in their way.

Starting with other mages.

It hardly sounds like group of benevolent people fighting for the freedom of their kin. We know that Uldred was the primary Libertarian in the tower, at least according to the senior enchanter Torrin (self-proclaimed Aequitarians). It always sounds to me that he's as disgusted by Libertarians as he is by Loyalists.

I'm not saying all Libertarians are terrible people. I think it includes people that genuinely wants to free themselves and their fellows from percieved opression. But it probably contains some pretty vile people as well. The kind of mages that think the scrolls of Banastor have the right idea. The ones calling for the complete destruction of the Chantry. The ones that happily would kill anyone that gets in their way.
It is the sort of group that would attract extremists.
Unfortunantely... I think these are perhaps the more proactive and vocal part of the group.

Just like there are people who genuinely fight against opression out of the good of their hearts, so are there people who will twist and warp anything to further their agenda.

My point with this? The Chantry are not the only side that lies, exaggerates and opress. There are very angry men among the mages. Some among them will be the kind that lies about opression, exaggerates a slight, bears a grudge, intimidate/bully other mages into helping and plain goads templars into attacking other mages.
Why? Because they are as human as the templars are. Both groups will contain the best... and the absolute worst of humanity.

Any codex entry or discussion furthering a free mage agenda in the game is as biased as the Chantry view of things are. We should still take them into account. But remember it may be just as much propaganda as the other view.
After all: There are Aequtarians and Loyalists as well. Their views on the opression is as valid as the Libertarians are.

---

On a tangent. Could any of the pro-mage proponents in this thread help me find a piece of anti-mage Chantry teachings? I'll spell that out clearly though: Teaching. Not opinion. It must be something official. A chant. Something in scripture. Something they preach.
Something that in it's teachings spell out the anti-mage view.
And it must come from a official source. Meaning it must be in a codex entry, said by a priest/priestess/templar or similar. Not an assumption or coming from a second-hand source.
Thank you

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Beerfish wrote...

"And again you ignore the fact that not even the Chantry really believes
(at least not the high ranking ones) believes that the circle is really
necessary because of abominations.  This is right out of the Codex
(History of the Circle).  If DG wanted to say that the circle was needed
to control abominations and that there were more in the past, he was
given every opprotunity to say that....and he very carefully did not."

He also has said that he didn't consider the mages to be slaves and that point has been totally ignored by some in this discussion.
[/quote]

Nobody ignored it. It's just that some people are actually aware of the definition of slave, and have provided the definition to prove that the mages are indeed slaves to the Chantry. The actual definition of slave fits the relationship between the Chantry and the mages. I didn't make it up - I used the actual definition and provided it here in this thread. You don't like it? Take it up with the developers of the game because I can't change it.


[QUOTE]October Sixth wrote...

Blaming the Chantry/Circle/Templars for Connor's possession is really reaching.
I think Isolde, Jowan, and even Connor himself are much more at fault. Yes he's "only a child" but I like to think that even children should know better than to make Faustian Deals. [/QUOTE]
How is it reaching when it transpired as a direct result of the social conditions brought on by the Chantry? The fact that it never would have happened if the Chantry didn't preach intolerance towards mages makes it clear that blaming the Chantry isn't reaching in the slightest. Nobody is denying that there were other factors here (like Isolde, Jowan, ect.) but the Chantry also played a significant role in these events happening in the first place.

[QUOTE]October Sixth wrote...
Some mages. Some mages risk death rather than continue living there. [/QUOTE]

I never said that all mages do. I said the fact that mages are willing to risk death to be free is an indicator of how life there is. IanPolaris mentioned how Fiona, an Orlesian elf who was sexually abused and sent to one of Orlais' six Circles, didn't find life there any better.

[QUOTE]October Sixth wrote...

They weren't wrong about them being apostates... well, maybe Sims but he was just an idiot. Don't pretend to be something that's illegal and you're probably better off. [/quote]

No, they were wrong in all three cases. As for the comment about D'Sims, the incompetence of the templars really shines through if they can't even tell a non-mage from a mage, especially since he only pretended to heal people.
There is no proof Aneirin was an apostate, and the fact that he tells Wynne he'd consider going back to the Circle seems like a good indicator that he never was. All he does is heal the Warden and the companions - no blood magic or anything of the sort. Even Wynne didn't buy the excuse that he was practicing any forbidden magic.
As for Anders, he isn't a maleficar by any measure unless the Warden personally teaches him blood magic.

[QUOTE]October Sixth wrote...

They aren't free, but neither do they have no rights. You think this is a dichotomy. It isn't. [/QUOTE]

They aren't free because the Circles are controlled by the Chantry, as David Gaider has admitted when asked why the Magi boon doesn't happen. They're slaves to the Chantry. Even the literal definition of slave fits to describe the relationship between the mages and the Chantry. The mages are dressed in nice fabrics, but how is that any different than the lives of slaves in European history who were used as fashion accessories? The whole point of that (in our history) was to demonstrate the owner's wealth. The fact that there are nice fabrics and clothes in the Circle Tower doesn't diminish how the mages are still thralls of the Chantry, living under templar guard and their lives being controlled by the Chantry. As for the commerce done by the tranquil, the slaves of ancient Athens could operate a business no different than the tranquil who craft magical items for commerce.

[QUOTE]October Sixth wrote...

I'll call it confinement you call it imprisonment. Try not to get caught up in the semantic argument. [/QUOTE]

Actually, the VO for the Magi Origin called it a prison. You're welcome to argue that point with the developers of the game.

[QUOTE]October Sixth wrote...

No, but being confined is. Mages can leave the Circle Tower. [/quote]

That must explain why Anders kept running away... because he could obviously leave the Tower whenever he wanted. Can we stop pretending that the Circles are a resort hotel and actually acknowledge that they're prisons? Prisons, as termed by the Magi Origin V.O., written by the developers and creators of the game.

[QUOTE]October Sixth wrote...

You're simplifying a lot here. [/QUOTE]

IanPolaris providing evidence about Arlathan and the Dales is simplifying the issue? It's point out the precedence of mages and non-mages living together. As IanPolaris pointed out, the same was true for human society (where, as IanPolaris mentioned, mages had a ceremonial role in the Chantry) until the Circles were later established.

[QUOTE]October Sixth wrote...

Wow, you're just full of malice. It does not necessarily mean it's a lie. They could have come to the realization that mages were dangerous later on. Unless the Chant forbids the segregation of mages and normal people. Does it? [/QUOTE]

Except it didn't happen for that reason - as IanPolaris explained, it happened because the mages refused to do their job at the Chantry. And saying that the Chantry doesn't forbid it is a bit silly - does it forbid raping elven women? Because if it doesn't, then I guess Vaughan could claim that he could do it because the Chantry doesn't explicitly forbid it.

[QUOTE]October Sixth wrote...

No. It's a ridiculous assertion. Ridiculous. You either have a terrible preconceived notion of the Chantry or a terrible preconceived notion of humanity that you are projecting on to the Chantry. You must be incredibly jaded. [/QUOTE]

All I've seen is IanPolaris proving his point and you blatantly ignoring the fact and what can be inferred from that fact. Mages are turned tranquil if they are considered weak. If someone is willing to make more mages tranquil, there aren't any safeguards to prevent that because the apprentices have no say on the issue - just like Jowan couldn't defend himself against Greagoir, and Irving wasn't even aware of what evidence Greagoir allegedly had. The fact that a mage-hating Cullen can rule the Circle of Ferelden in fear is a good example of how badly things can go for the mages.

[QUOTE]October Sixth wrote...

One person's account is not damning evidence. It is not a fact that life in the Circle Tower is worse than prostitution [/QUOTE]

IanPolaris did point out how Fiona felt. She obviously disagrees.

[QUOTE]October Sixth wrote...

You're simplifying the transplanting of culture. [/QUOTE]

That would be like saying that the a pro-slavery nation shouldn't follow in the footsteps of Saint Dominique (which emancipated itself from slavery in a slave rebellion) because it's transplanting cultures. There's no reason Ferelden or any other Andrastian nation couldn't have mages and non-mages living side by side. Considering how Americans of African descent were treated in the United States, and the civil rights movement, it can clearly happen.

[QUOTE]October Sixth wrote...

Like I said, you're jaded. We have no evidence that the Chantry is this monstrous capitalist enterprise. As least give them the respect of saying that they are well meaning but misguided. Your comments are far too harsh. [/QUOTE]

They turn apprentices tranquil and use them to craft magical items for profit. That sounds pretty bad to me, and I don't see how giving people a lobotomy is merely misguided.

[QUOTE]October Sixth wrote...

Not if they really think they're doing it for their protection and the protection of others.
Just because Andraste didn't see the danger in mages doesn't mean that the current Chantry still believes that mages can peacefully co-exist in society with normal people. As I said, unless it's written in the Chant that mages and normal people must live together then the current Chantry is not lying. It just changed its mind. [/QUOTE]

Except IanPolaris already pointed out that's not why they did it historically. As IanPolaris said, Codex Entry: History of the Circle proves this. Given that there's no evidence provided that they changed their minds on the issue, why are you pretending otherwise?

[QUOTE]October Sixth wrote...

Oh, no doubt they can. But when people throw these examples around it's as if Ferelden could just adopt some other culture and everything would work out right. [/quote]

Dissolving the slavery of mages is worth the effort, though.

[QUOTE]October Sixth wrote...

Wow... what a poor opinion of the Chantry you have. Why do you think they kill innocent children and call them 'malificar' afterwards? [/QUOTE]

They did with Aneirin.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 20 janvier 2011 - 03:24 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
That's precisely how the Rites started - because mages were reacting to a templar murdering a mage. As for Uldred, he wanted mages to be freed from the Chantry - that was the reason he allied with other mages and why he resorted to demonology in his attack against Uldred and the other Senior Enchanters. I don't see how you can pretend otherwise.[/qutoe]

It's not really relevant how hte rites started.
As for hte rest...that sentance makes no sesne. Uldred rebelled agaisnt himself????

the reson Uldred rebeled? He was stupid and wanted more.


[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

So no. Chantry conditioning mages to resort to demonology? Bollocks. [/quote]

Only if you ignore the facts.[/quote]

Say, if a highly contagius and deadly desease started spreading trough the town, and the miniltary started a quarantene...and you and your faimily are in the middel of it.
Would you say the military is conditioning you to try and break out of hte quranatene by force?



[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Altouhg it's bound to happen sooner or later. No matter how hard you try to teach somebody something or how much you forbid, there will be black sheep. As long as poeple have wants and desires, mages wil lresort to demonology.
At least the Circle roots those individuals out. [/quote]

Like Greagoir did?[/quote]

Killing of all the abominations...which is what happens at the end of the quest...what would you cal lthat other than culling?
Also, wasn't Jowan detected?
And hte Annulment of a tower? That also coutns as removign al lthe black sheep..with collateral damage.



[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Also..gamplay reasons. The game has to give the palyer something to do, which is why he is so uber-awesome and everyone is impotent. The templars, the mages, the dalish, the dwarves - everyone feels incompetent once you think about it.
But taht's gameplay. [/quote]

The dwarves aren't incompetent. You fight alongside the Legion of the Dead at one point. The Dalish are busy tending to the wounded. The Warden fights alongside the Redcliffe milita against the undead. It seems pretty clear that the templars simply couldn't handle the abominations, while the Warden could.[/quote]

Teh same dwarves that loose more and more of hte Deep Roads each year?
The same Dwarves that coudlnt' re-take the thaigs without the Warden?

The same Dalish who's all groups sent never returned? Who's entire camp was decimated by an attack?

The same mages who were cut down in the tower? The same mages the Warden can kill?





[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Not to mention that the templars haven't failed. The abominations were contained in the tower, and reinforcemetns were on their way. [/quote]

There were no reinforcements, and the Warden was the one who dealt with the abominations.[/quote]

The abominations were contained, reinforcements were on their way. So
how can you say that the templars failed? their job is to keep the
abominations from leaving the tower. Did any leave?
Not as far as I recall.

Not to mention that this is a single incident. It can hardly be used to prove anything.




I'll tackle the rest of your ramblings tomorrow,  got no time for it today..altough from a glance ti's gonan be easy.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 20 janvier 2011 - 03:25 .

[Beerfish]

IanPolaris wrote...

Aldandil wrote...

This has been repeated more than once: That things have been a certain way in a certain place or culture doesn't mean they worked well. With no evidence (or even an indication) of how they worked in that place, there's no proof that they were perfectly happy.

I am not required to show this.  You are advocating a system where an entire class of human beings are locked away for being what they are on the grounds that they are too dangeorus to live in normal society.

That's a very extraordinary claim that you (and the chantry) are making.  You need to show me evidence that if you didn't do this that disaster would ensue, and you can't.  You especially can't since not even the chantry locked away mages for that reason.  (Look it up: Codex: History of the Circle....abominations had nothing to do with it...this was a power play by a Divine).

-Polaris

Eh?  The tower incident itself is the only proof one needs.

High level mage in the tower (Ulred) becomes corrupt.  In turn he forceably corrupts a whole pile of other mages.  The senior enchanter epically fails in his attempt to stop this from happening.  Abominations go on a rampage and kill a ton of Tempalrs, mages and others in the tower.

Clear proof that mages and especially high level mages that practice blood magic are incredibly dangerous.  Why Ulred did this?  Who cares.  Al it shows is what happens when a senior mage decides to go rogue because they are either ambitious or pissed off at something. 

The Wardens group alone comes across an abomination just minding their own business travelling from point a to point b on the map.

Another point for the free the mages group.  You have a heck of a lot of convincing to do within your own fraternity. 

Out of the five fraternities of enchanters only the Libertarians and to some extent the Lucrosians have the mind of total unencumbered freedom.  Just so you know you are not in any way shape or form talking on behalf of all mages.

[Beerfish]

"Nobody ignored it. It's just that some people are actually aware of the
definition of slave, and have provided the definition to prove that the
mages are indeed slaves to the Chantry. The actual definition of slave
fits the relationship between the Chantry and the mages. I didn't make
it up - I used the actual definition and provided it here in this
thread. You don't like it? Take it up with the developers of the game
because I can't change it."

Incredibly convenient to use a persons words as if they were rote when it is convenient for you in one post and to totally brush them aside when not convenient. 

[LobselVith8]

Beerfish wrote...

Eh?  The tower incident itself is the only proof one needs.

You mean, where mages fought to be free from their oppressors?

Beerfish wrote...

High level mage in the tower (Ulred) becomes corrupt.  In turn he forceably corrupts a whole pile of other mages.  The senior enchanter epically fails in his attempt to stop this from happening.  Abominations go on a rampage and kill a ton of Tempalrs, mages and others in the tower.

Uldred wanted mages to be freed from the Chantry. How is that corrupt? His stupidity was in turning to demonology.

Beerfish wrote...

Clear proof that mages and especially high level mages that practice blood magic are incredibly dangerous.  Why Ulred did this?  Who cares.  Al it shows is what happens when a senior mage decides to go rogue because they are either ambitious or pissed off at something. 

He wanted the mages to be free - that's why he made a deal with Loghain at Ostagar.

Beerfish wrote...

The Wardens group alone comes across an abomination just minding their own business travelling from point a to point b on the map.

No, the Warden is tasked with finding what happened to a mage who has disappeared by the Mages Collective.

Beerfish wrote...

Another point for the free the mages group.  You have a heck of a lot of convincing to do within your own fraternity.

Your point would make sense if the abomination was a member of the Mages Collective, and there's actually no evidence that the apprentice was any more than the other three apprentices we encounter on a seperate quest. In fact, the actual member of the Mages Collective was trying to stop the apprentice because he turned to dark arts and the Collective was smart enough to turn to a Grey Warden (the ones who stop the Blights and save the world) to handle the case of the missing mage.

Beerfish wrote... 

Out of the five fraternities of enchanters only the Libertarians and to some extent the Lucrosians have the mind of total unencumbered freedom.  Just so you know you are not in any way shape or form talking on behalf of all mages.

Actually, the Chantry controls the Circles. Mages have no rights - that's why they can't have relationships in some Circles, raise their children, inherit a title, and live in prisons. That's why none of them (except the Circle of Tevinter) are independent from the Chantry of Andraste.

[LobselVith8]

Beerfish wrote...

"Nobody ignored it. It's just that some people are actually aware of the
definition of slave, and have provided the definition to prove that the
mages are indeed slaves to the Chantry. The actual definition of slave
fits the relationship between the Chantry and the mages. I didn't make
it up - I used the actual definition and provided it here in this
thread. You don't like it? Take it up with the developers of the game
because I can't change it."

Incredibly convenient to use a persons words as if they were rote when it is convenient for you in one post and to totally brush them aside when not convenient. 

I love how you ignore that the actual definition of slave actually fits the mages relationship to the Chantry.

As for the mention of DG I made previously, he provided information regarding facts about the mages and the templars - not his interpretation of the Chantry.

[Aldandil]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

"And again you ignore the fact that not even the Chantry really believes
(at least not the high ranking ones) believes that the circle is really
necessary because of abominations.  This is right out of the Codex
(History of the Circle).  If DG wanted to say that the circle was needed
to control abominations and that there were more in the past, he was
given every opprotunity to say that....and he very carefully did not."

He also has said that he didn't consider the mages to be slaves and that point has been totally ignored by some in this discussion.

Nobody ignored it. It's just that some people are actually aware of the definition of slave, and have provided the definition to prove that the mages are indeed slaves to the Chantry. The actual definition of slave fits the relationship between the Chantry and the mages. I didn't make it up - I used the actual definition and provided it here in this thread. You don't like it? Take it up with the developers of the game because I can't change it.

Your definition of Slave is a metaphoric extension of it's prototypical meaning. Slave in it's prototypical meaning is a person that is considered property, that can be bought and sold, and that is forced to work for her/his "owner". In the modern world, there are hardly any such cases, but there are however many cases where people are forced to work against there will. In the modern world, we use the word "slave" to describe those people, considering that their situation is similar to that of the slaves who were bought and sold. The distinction between the two is unimportant, since there are no slaves in the prototypical sense of the word.

In Thedas, the prototypical slave exist. To use your definition would mean that everyone that is not a noble in most kingdoms around Thedas are slaves. That makes your definition rather useless and inaccurate.
To use your definition of slavery in real world history would make most europeans from the 18th century and earlier into slaves. They were forced to work, could not marry who they wanted and were forbidden to leave their land. Yet there were people who were slaves back then too. There was a difference.

Using a metaphorical meaning of a word does not work in this case. It becomes inaccurate and pointless. Furthermore, since you or I don't know the exact relationships between the mages and the templars, we would do well to accept the devs definition of the mages situation. After all, they know facts that we don't.

[Sir JK]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I love how you ignore that the actual definition of slave actually fits the mages relationship to the Chantry.

The reason some of us object so strongly to using the word slave is that while the vaguest and loosest defintion fits.
It also fits the elves, prisoners, serfs, daylabourers, conscripted soldiers (templars, normal soldiers, nobles), priests, monks, legion of the dead, craftsmen, sailors at sea and in some cases even the Grey Wardens.

In some ways mages have more freedoms than many others. They gain those specific freedoms because of the Chantry (things like always food on the table, warm beds, poltical immunity, free access to the greatest source of knowledge in the world). So if they "freed" themselves they'll suddenly... unless they do start abusing their powers to gain advantages over others...find that they'll have even less freedoms than they had before.

This time because of poverty. Because of noble warfare ("these mages served Lord SoandSo... kill them all" or "Lord SoandSo have mages in his service... assassinate them"). Because of plain fear of what they can do. Because of each others even.

[packardbell]

I'm guessing if we side with the renegade mages, and kick the templars out of Kirkwall.. they start an Exalted March. Which is stopped in it's tracts with some treaty probably.

[LobselVith8]

Sir JK wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
I love how you ignore that the actual definition of slave actually fits the mages relationship to the Chantry.

The reason some of us object so strongly to using the word slave is that while the vaguest and loosest defintion fits.
It also fits the elves, prisoners, serfs, daylabourers, conscripted soldiers (templars, normal soldiers, nobles), priests, monks, legion of the dead, craftsmen, sailors at sea and in some cases even the Grey Wardens.

The Chantry controls the mages - they're taken from their families and tossed into a prison in the name of religion. The Circles across Thedas are controlled by the Chantry - even the ruler of Ferelden can't emancipate the mages of Ferelden. As for your examples, are elves taken from their families and thrown into a prison for being elves? Are the soldiers tossed into a prison for being soldiers? The nobles tossed into a prison for being soldiers? Do any of these groups have all their rights stripped from them? I don't see how you can seriously provide these examples when they're nowhere close to how the Chantry treats the mages. The fact that templars can actually murder people suspected of being mages (like the Magnificent D'Sims was, who was a fake mage at that) illustrates the problem.

Sir JK wrote...

In some ways mages have more freedoms than many others. They gain those specific freedoms because of the Chantry (things like always food on the table, warm beds, poltical immunity, free access to the greatest source of knowledge in the world). So if they "freed" themselves they'll suddenly... unless they do start abusing their powers to gain advantages over others...find that they'll have even less freedoms than they had before.

Political immunity? From what? They're living in a prison. They can't raise children, can't inherit a title, are torn from their families, can be turned tranquil with no say in the matter, and can be killed if they're accused of being maleficar regardless of whether there's any solid evidence against them or not. Templars are the ones who have immunity from the nobles, because they only answer to the Chantry - as Alistair points out when we encounter an imprisoned templar in Arl Howe's dungeon.

As for your examples of their "freedoms" - Prisoners have meals, can exercise, read books, but it doesn't change the fact that they're in a prison. Historical slaves have been given fine garments because their masters wanted to show how wealthy they were.

As for abusing their powers to take advantage of others... you mean like the Magi Grey Warden? Who suddenly has the freedom to use magic outside of Chantry oversight, and ends up saving the world?

Sir JK wrote...

This time because of poverty. Because of noble warfare ("these mages served Lord SoandSo... kill them all" or "Lord SoandSo have mages in his service... assassinate them"). Because of plain fear of what they can do. Because of each others even.

People fear mages because the Chantry spreads hateful propaganda against them. It's pretty damn scary how some people in this thread have no problem with mages being so de-humanized all in the name of protecting people.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Say, if a highly contagius and deadly desease started spreading trough the town, and the miniltary started a quarantene...and you and your faimily are in the middel of it.
Would you say the military is conditioning you to try and break out of hte quranatene by force?

Considering the abominations happened because Uldred wanted the mages to be freed from Chantry control, and mages are basically slaves of the Chantry, it's a slightly different scenerio. Regarding the attack against the abominations, there are templars cowering in fear because of the abominations they encountered. This doesn't seem to be the kind of force that should be watching over mages at all. You're welcome to disagree, of course.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Killing of all the abominations...which is what happens at the end of the quest...what would you cal lthat other than culling?
Also, wasn't Jowan detected?
And hte Annulment of a tower? That also coutns as removign al lthe black sheep..with collateral damage.

Considering that it's done by a Grey Warden and not the actual templars? You're welcome to call it whatever you like - it doesn't change that a Warden is doing what the templars aren't capable of doing. For a Warden from the Circle of Ferelden, what would you call that?
Uldred wasn't detected. The blood mages weren't detected.
And the Annulement wouldn't have happened if mages weren't fighting to be freed from their oppressors.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Teh same dwarves that loose more and more of hte Deep Roads each year?
The same Dwarves that coudlnt' re-take the thaigs without the Warden?

The same Dalish who's all groups sent never returned? Who's entire camp was decimated by an attack?

The same mages who were cut down in the tower? The same mages the Warden can kill?

Regarding the dwarves, you're mistaken. They retake the thaigs with Bhelen as King, not because of the Warden.
You mean abominations, not mages. You don't like the story? Take it up with the writers of DA:O, because I didn't write it. Pretending it didn't happen that way because you're pro-Chantry doesn't change that it happened that way - the templars hid behind a large door and the Warden cleaned up their mess.
Regarding the Dalish, they're pretty much alive. Zathrian forbid anyone else from heading out because of the wounded. No, their camp isn't decimated unless the Warden sides with the Lady of the Forest and convinces her to destroy the Dalish elves.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
The abominations were contained, reinforcements were on their way. So
how can you say that the templars failed? their job is to keep the
abominations from leaving the tower. Did any leave?
Not as far as I recall.

Not to mention that this is a single incident. It can hardly be used to prove anything.

You're assuming reinforcements would come, but there's not a guarentee, especially since Loghain could have intercepted and prevented any (considering his deal with Uldred). That's why Greagoir notes that he should have received word from Denerim by now, but makes the assumption that it could be because of the civil war. When the Warden encounters Uldred, there are only three Senior Enchanters left alive - would the large door have been able to hold back Uldred and the abominations if the Warden didn't come in time? Irving clearly thought that Uldred and the abominations posed a risk to all of Ferelden.
As for this being one incident, it's an incident of the templars being unable to handle blood mages and abominations? Isn't that their job? Seems to me that they failed to handle either group and ran away behind a large door.

[Virginian]

Until the Mages stand up and demand freedom they don't deserve freedom. They are a weak willed simpering idiot slaves and that is what they will be until grow a backbone. The fact they let their kind be turned into the emotionless, soulless Tranquil is proof they have no business being anything but slaves.

[LobselVith8]

Aldandil wrote...

Your definition of Slave is a metaphoric extension of it's prototypical meaning.

This isn't a new interpretation of an old meaning, since the interpretation is correct - the mages are indeed slaves of the Chantry. Mages have no rights, the Chantry controls them. Has the tranquil make money for them, uses mages to fight against their enemies (like the Qunari), denies them from having any rights outside of being part of the Circles they exclusively control.

Aldandil wrote...

Slave in it's prototypical meaning is a person that is considered property, that can be bought and sold, and that is forced to work for her/his "owner".

Slaves were treated differently in different places. If we're trying to consider if mages would be the equivalent of slaves in modern Thedas, we only need to see that mages have no rights. The Chantry spreads fear and propaganda against mages, then corrals them into their prisons, and has exclusive rights over them. They have the first and final say over the mages and their fates. That seems to fit the notion that they're slaves of the Chantry.

Aldandil wrote...

In the modern world, there are hardly any such cases, but there are however many cases where people are forced to work against there will. In the modern world, we use the word "slave" to describe those people, considering that their situation is similar to that of the slaves who were bought and sold. The distinction between the two is unimportant, since there are no slaves in the prototypical sense of the word.

Slavery is still an issue in the modern world.

Aldandil wrote...

In Thedas, the prototypical slave exist. To use your definition would mean that everyone that is not a noble in most kingdoms around Thedas are slaves. That makes your definition rather useless and inaccurate.
To use your definition of slavery in real world history would make most europeans from the 18th century and earlier into slaves. They were forced to work, could not marry who they wanted and were forbidden to leave their land. Yet there were people who were slaves back then too. There was a difference.

Useless and inaccurate? Tossing words around like metaphoric extensiuon and prototypical doesn't change the lack of substance to your argument. You gloss over the dehumanizing way that mages are treated, how the only organization that has a say in their lives is the same organization that rips them from their families to toss them in a prison they exclusively control, and can lobomize them to serve as tranquil or use them as footsoldiers in their wars. As for the latter example you provided, those people weren't forced into a prison to serve one master exclusively, i.e. the Chantry.

Aldandil wrote...

Using a metaphorical meaning of a word does not work in this case. It becomes inaccurate and pointless. Furthermore, since you or I don't know the exact relationships between the mages and the templars, we would do well to accept the devs definition of the mages situation. After all, they know facts that we don't.

It's not inaccurate or pointless if the definition fits. Mages have no rights, and the Chantry has rights over all mages in Thedas except for Grey Warden mages. Overall, mages have no rights. Templars watch over them on orders from the Chantry because they're the military arm of the Chantry, who have the only say over mages across Thedas (with exception of Tevinter and possibly Rivain). I see no reason to deny the fact that mages are slaves of the Chantry.

[s0meguy6665]

Virginian wrote...

Until the Mages stand up and demand freedom they don't deserve freedom. They are a weak willed simpering idiot slaves and that is what they will be until grow a backbone. The fact they let their kind be turned into the emotionless, soulless Tranquil is proof they have no business being anything but slaves.

... but they don't anymore in DA2

[LobselVith8]

[quote]s0meguy6665 wrote...

[quote]Virginian wrote...

Until the Mages stand up and demand freedom they don't deserve freedom. They are a weak willed simpering idiot slaves and that is what they will be until grow a backbone. The fact they let their kind be turned into the emotionless, soulless Tranquil is proof they have no business being anything but slaves.[/quote]

... but they don't anymore in DA2

[/quote]

I hope that's an opportunity for Hawke to make a reality = freeing the Circles of the Free Marches.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

LobselVith8: The way you answered my previous post, the one about who was slave and who was not did point out that in Thedas the definition "someone who is in abject subservience to another" is not enough to define a slave. Since it's vague enough to include almost everyone alive. [/quote]

I think it fits, considering that the Chantry has the only say in the lives of the mages. You're free to support what the Chantry does, but it doesn't change the nature of their relationship. Mages aren't fighting to be free because life is so wonderful under Chantry oppression, after all.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

The may not leave the circle tower thing is something they have in common with every prisoner, soldier, slave and in practise just about any peasant in the world. [/quote]

Actually, peasants can leave, change their lot in life (like in the City Elf Origin). Soldiers typically sign up for service, but I would agree that some (like Alistair) end up having no say. That doesn't change that mages never have a say over their lives, unless they become Grey Wardens.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

A soldier/templar leaving his/her posting deserts and is subject to summary execution (unlike mages, where in theory the templars have to bring them back if they don't resist). Prisoners too may not leave on their own accord, not seldom condemned to labour as well. [/quote]

Except mages aren't soldiers. They didn't enlist to join an army - they're forcibly taken at a young age and tossed into a prison. It's even referred to as a prison in the V.O. of the Magi Origin. They're taken by the same organization that preaches intolerance against them and are used to fight their wars or craft magical items are being given a lobotomy.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Peasants may technically leave, but do so means starvation and possibly death so it's not really a choice. Look at the Blackmarsh, where the baroness was tolerated for so long because legally she was in the right (apart from the child snatching thing). Look at the uprising at Amaranthine, they were starving but because they were peasants they could not leave. [/quote]

No, they could leave, it simply wasn't economically feasible for them to do so. That's why there's a refugee camp in Kirkwall, according to WH. They're not legally denied the right to leave, so let's not compare them to mages in this regard.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

The Forbidden magic is blood magic and demonology. I don't think I need to explain why that one is forbidden, do I? [/quote]

That must explain why templars use a form of blood magic to hunt down runaway mages.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

They may not have children. Amusingly, this is something actual slaves are allowed. Sure, the children might be slaves too, but they're allowed them in most cases. David Gaider explained that the children are taken away because manipulating someone through their children is the oldest trick in the book. Presumably, this started because demons actually did make mages abominations through promises to save/protect their children. If a demon offered to spare your child from a lethal disease if you gave your soul... what mother would not do that? [/quote]

Mages aren't a 100% comparison for the real world, since mages don't exist in the real world. And considering that anyone can become possessed - including Ander's cat - mages aren't the only exclusive beings in Thedas capable of becoming possessed, either. If mages weren't enslaved to the Chantry, this wouldn't even be an issue. As IanPolaris has previously stated, mages and non-mages actually lived together before the formation of the Circles, which had nothing to do with protecting anyone from mages. Just read the codex.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

They may not inherit land or titles. You do know that inheriting land and titles is strictly the prerogative of landed nobility? And just the heirs? Our cousland for instance, would not have inherited any land or titleshim/herself. Nor would any of the peasants. Only the eldest child of the nobility inherits this. It's not a right in Thedas... it's a privilege.
As for why? Look at the Blackmarsh. [/quote]

You seem to be injecting your own assumptions as lore. There's actually no mention of only the eldest being permitted to inherit. If Fergus died, there's no evidence in the story that denied the right of the second child of Teyrn Cousland from inheriting the teyrnir of Highever.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

In comparison. All mages have the right to eat full meals. A right not everyone have. All mages have access to one of the finest learning institutions in the world for free. A right not everyone have. Mages are politically neutral. A right noone else have (this means the circle won't get purged everytime nobles fight). A mage have a choice wether to participate in any war. A right no noble or soldier have (to refuse their king is treason, which gets them... and probably their family executed). Mages do not have to work. A right (?) few others have. [/quote]

Prisoners have the right to eat meals, read books, exercise. So do mages. As for being neutral, you do realize that mages fought against the Qunari in the New Exalted Marches, right? And mages are under Chantry control, so it's not up to the ruler of any specific nation whether they're allowed to fight or not - that's why Duncan was requesting for more mages from Knight-Commander Greagoir rather than demanding for more mages.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

However. They are subject to abuse. Both tolerated and untolerated. This is undeniable. This does not mean they are slaves however. The free city elves have probably the worst lot in Andrastian Thedas. Abused, shunned and unable to leave the alienage safely. But they are free. Just like mages.
This is a world where freedom to go wherever you want is not guaranteed. Few have that. For some due to duty (templars, soldiers, grey wardens) for some because of circumstance (peasants) and for some just plain fate (slaves, mages). [/quote]

True, what makes them slaves is that they're taken by the Chantry and ultimately their lives are under Chantry control. The only exception are Grey Wardens, who have allied with the Chantry since prior Blights that threaten the world. As for the latter comments you made, you're addressing issues of poverty and comparing them to the inability mages have to change their lot in life because they're taken by the Chantry and ultimately have no say in the matter. They're two seperate issues.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

This is more or less just semantics. But the point of this post is that while mages have it undeniably bad, the rest of the world is not exactly a shiny paradise in comparison. I'm fairly convinced that if mages do win their complete freedom and sever all connections to the Chantry... they'll find that life did not turn out quite the way they wanted it to.

Life is hard. Extremely so. [/quote]

I'm not pretending it isn't bad for others in Thedas, I'm saying that mages are thralls of the Chantry. You're welcome to your opinion that subjegation is better than freedom, but I disagree.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]LookingGlass93 wrote...

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Peasants may technically leave, but do so means starvation and possibly death so it's not really a choice. Look at the Blackmarsh, where the baroness was tolerated for so long because legally she was in the right (apart from the child snatching thing). Look at the uprising at Amaranthine, they were starving but because they were peasants they could not leave.

They may not have children. Amusingly, this is something actual slaves are allowed. Sure, the children might be slaves too, but they're allowed them in most cases. David Gaider explained that the children are taken away because manipulating someone through their children is the oldest trick in the book. Presumably, this started because demons actually did make mages abominations through promises to save/protect their children. If a demon offered to spare your child from a lethal disease if you gave your soul... what mother would not do that?

They may not inherit land or titles. You do know that inheriting land and titles is strictly the prerogative of landed nobility? And just the heirs? Our cousland for instance, would not have inherited any land or titleshim/herself. Nor would any of the peasants. Only the eldest child of the nobility inherits this. It's not a right in Thedas... it's a privilege.

[/quote]

Firstly, while the freedom of people in Fereldan is constrained by economic circumstance, it is protected by law. The Politics of Fereldan Codex Entry  shows that freeholders have the ability to choose their lords of their own volition. As for why the Baroness was tolerated, it's because she saved her commoners from a dragon.

Secondly, the argument against them having children is an argument against them having any sort of human contact and friendship at all. One could even argue that in the absence of a family your friendships take on even greater importance. If you take Wynne into the fade you find her tormented at the idea of having failed her apprentices.

Thirdly, if you ask Dairren what he's heard about you (in the Cousland origin) he says that people think it more likely that you'll inherit than Fergus, meaning it's not always based on primogeniture. Also, even commoners can inherit property from their family, it's why Kaitlyn had her grandfathers' sword in Redcliffe.

Simply because their own work (enchantment) provides Circle mages with a good standard of living and a good education is no reason to deny them the basic rights of all other people.
[/quote]

Thank you!

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]Addai67 wrote...
When the Chantry supervises, it's not really blood magic.  It's blood-based magic.  Get the difference?

Neither do I.  lol[/quote]

There is a big difference. Plachyatries are used to track down mages. They do not syphon power from other people or control minds.
It is in essence a small vial of blood taken from a mage, to track that mage down if he/she escapes. [/quote]

So wouldn't that be a tool to find out if someone is actually a mage? Maybe it would've prevented D'Sims from getting killed by templars, given that he wasn't a real mage and all.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]Captain Crash wrote...

Everyone has the right to freedom.
No matter what your belief on the issue of mages being powerful or a
threat. Being subjugated only causes fear and anger which in turn
causes revolt.

Common theme in history which happens over and
over again. Take away someones right to live free and face the
consequences. No one ever learns.
[/quote]

Quarantene and bio-warfare..nukes and bombs. We should not limit those things. Viruses must be free to spread to all 4 corners of hte earth.

No one ever learns.... [/quote]

I love your bad analogies. I think it'd work better if this was a discussion about sparing the Messanger or the Architect in Awakening, if you want my honest opinion. Considering darkspawn spread disease and all... it's honestly a much better comparison. Look, you're very pro-Chantry. We all know that.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Except we know that the elves of
Arlathan, the Dales, and the Dalish clans have no templars watching over
them. Even the mages of Haven are in positions of authority (like
Father Eirik of the Haven Chantry, and possibly Kolgrim given his
ability to know the fate of the Urn of Sacred Ashes). There's no reason
they should be slaves to the Chantry.[/quote]

You again? That argument again?
The argument that was shot down numerous times in numerous other threads about mages and templars?

I am dissapoint. [/quote]

There is IanPolaris' mention of how mages and non-mages lived together until the incident at the Chantry, and how the Circles were formed as a result of that - not because the Chantry wanted to protect people from mages.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

So you do disagree with Word of God?
Retcon or not, DG said what he did just a few days ago. The freshest information on the subject. [/quote]

If the definition of slave fits the relationship between the Chantry and the mages, I can't dispute it. I can't change the English language or actual definition of words just because of the word of one person.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

They don't have ANY rights? Seems to me like they don't have some rights, but hey. Not all people have all rights anyway. Can't the government take away someones right to freedom? Can't hte government take away someon right to raise children? It sure can. [/quote]

They have the right to breathe, if that's what you mean. And no mage has a right to raise their children because they're taken by the Chantry - whether to put in an orphanage or murdered, who can say?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

He rules the Circle of Ferelden in fear as the new Knight-Commander; otherwise, if the Magi boon is requested by the Warden-Commander and the Circle was culled, he becomes a wandering mad-man, killing mages. In both scenerios, it seems evident that Cullen isn't all there.[/quote]

Strictness is not an indication of madness. So no, it's not evident. [/quote]

Ruling the Circle in fear isn't being strict.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Again the same tired, failed argument. Again and again. Like a broken record....
When will you finally realise that we know far too little of the Dalish to use them as an example (and if you want an example ..how about Zathrien and his curse?) [/quote]

I feel the same way every time you wax poetic about the Chantry.

We can use IanPolaris' example of mages and non-mages living together before the incident at the Chantry, and how the Circles weren't created to protect anyone, if that's what you'd prefer.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It's NOT slavery. Again, Word of God. Check a few pages back, a direct quote by DG made 2 days ago.
And no, the chantry doesn't preach hatered of mages.
Mistrust? It's natural given what mages can do. Mages would be feared and mistrusted without the Chantry. It's just basic human behavior. [/quote]

It is slavery - feel free to read the definition. And Word of God didn't do much to keep the Architect looking the same way he did in the book, or to stop him from having only one hand.

Mages aren't feared and mistrusted among the Dalish or in Haven despite the lack of the Andrastian Chantry and the lack of templars, so no...

[Sir JK]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

The Chantry controls the mages - they're taken from their families and tossed into a prison in the name of religion. The Circles across Thedas are controlled by the Chantry - even the ruler of Ferelden can't emancipate the mages of Ferelden. [/quote]

But mages dictate circle policy. The Chantry have no direct control over what the mages does. Yes, they can tranquil individual members. Yes, they can hunt down maleficar. Yes, they can bring in apostates. Yes, if they lose the tower they can anull it.
But they cannot tell a mage to learn healing. They cannot order them to go to war.

[quote]As for your examples, are elves taken from their families and thrown into a prison for being elves?[/quote]
Yes, the city elves were taken from their families for being elves in the Alienage part of the main quest.
I would not rule out them being tossed into jail just because they are elves.
But they're still less free than the mage. A mage will never have to give up their bodies for food for instance. Care to guess how often the elves have to?

[quote]Are the soldiers tossed into a prison for being soldiers?[/quote]
If they refuse to go where they are ordered, yes. In fact... they get killed for it.

[quote]The nobles tossed into a prison for being noble?[/quote]
Frequently. Nobles love to toss their rivals into actual dungeons. Not the rather luxurious towers.

[quote]Do any of these groups have all their rights stripped from them?[/quote]
Which rights are we talking about?
No soldier, noble or templar can refuse to do their duty. They don't have the right of choice there.
No peasant or elf can be guaranteed the right to eat.
No commoner can be guaranteed the right to not to be killed because of noble's warfare.
No priest may raise a family.

[quote]I don't see how you can seriously provide these examples when they're nowhere close to how the Chantry treats the mages.[/quote]
That is my point Lobsel. All those fall under the defintion of slavery as you put it forward. All social positions in Thedas are abjectely subservient to another
So either they are all slaves and mages will always be. Or mages are not.

[quote]The fact that templars can actually murder people suspected of being mages (like the Magnificent D'Sims was, who was a fake mage at that) illustrates the problem.[/quote]

Yes. It does. Noone denies that. We object to using the word slave. It is not the correct term to describe their social status. Slave does not mean: person in the bottom of society. Mages are indeed given the short stikc in life. It is not fair. It is horrid. But they are  not slaves. Not a life I would like to have, for sure.

But within their narrow confines... how to live is their choice. What to do is their choice. Noone owns them.

[quote]
Political immunity? From what?[/quote]
From the fate Fergus' son and wife suffered. From the fate Mehgren suffered. From the fate Trian suffered. From the fate Eamon suffered. Nathaniel. Cailan.
Killed because they simply were in the way. Killed because they were related to someone important. Killed because they were next in line of a title.
The bloody "game" of power.
That kind of political immunity.

[quote]As for your examples of their "freedoms" - Prisoners have meals, can exercise, read books, but it doesn't change the fact that they're in a prison.[/quote]
Yes. But many peasants and city elves will face starvation. Often. Noone maintains their right to eat. Mages get three solid meals a day.
Mages get to excercise... the only excercise peasants and elves get is back-breaking manual labour.
Mages get to read. Most elves and peasants can't.
And if they run/leave the alienage... they might not even be extended the right to live.

[quote]Historical slaves have been given fine garments because their masters wanted to show how wealthy they were.[/quote]
That and slaves were a serious investment that often got taken in as "family" members. Seriously... history is full of examples that were much worse than slavery. Even in Rome, most slaves had it better than the poor.

[quote]As for abusing their powers to take advantage of others... you mean like the Magi Grey Warden? Who suddenly has the freedom to use magic outside of Chantry oversight, and ends up saving the world?[/quote]
No. People like the Baroness. She was a mage who abused her powers.... unless there's something you'd like to tell us about your warden

[quote]
People fear mages because the Chantry spreads hateful propaganda against them. It's pretty damn scary how some people in this thread have no problem with mages being so de-humanized all in the name of protecting people.[/quote]
I think the problem is that pro-mages and pro-chantry accept different things as true. How much lies are there in mage description of their suffering? How much lies in Chantry view? How common are possessions? How dangerous are abominations? How good a life does mages have compared to everyone else?
All we have here are interpretations and opinion. I think it is pretty clear that you and I for instance interpret the world differently. I see mages as a lot more dangerous than you do.


Not that I want the mages to be dehumanized.

Modifié par Sir JK, 20 janvier 2011 - 04:58 .

[Sir JK]

Heavens. I missed this. My apologies LookingGlass.

LookingGlass93 wrote...
Firstly, while the freedom of people in Fereldan is constrained by economic circumstance, it is protected by law. The Politics of Fereldan Codex Entry  shows that freeholders have the ability to choose their lords of their own volition. As for why the Baroness was tolerated, it's because she saved her commoners from a dragon.

Secondly, the argument against them having children is an argument against them having any sort of human contact and friendship at all. One could even argue that in the absence of a family your friendships take on even greater importance. If you take Wynne into the fade you find her tormented at the idea of having failed her apprentices.

Thirdly, if you ask Dairren what he's heard about you (in the Cousland origin) he says that people think it more likely that you'll inherit than Fergus, meaning it's not always based on primogeniture. Also, even commoners can inherit property from their family, it's why Kaitlyn had her grandfathers' sword in Redcliffe.

Simply because their own work (enchantment) provides Circle mages with a good standard of living and a good education is no reason to deny them the basic rights of all other people.

It''s tricky really. Freeholder means different things in different parts of the world. In germany and here in Scandinavia... Freeholder (friherre, freiherr) is a noble title. I don't know what it means in Ferelden but I thought it was noble.
And yes... they tolerated the baroness both because she saved them from a drgaon and because she was a noble.

There's quite a deal of difference between friendship and motherhood though. Parents can do anything for their children, even things they could be shamed of or killed for. Saving their children by making a deal with a demon is exactly the sort of thing that could be expected.
But yes, everyone can despair. Demons use that. But unless you argue all mages should die there's not really a way around it.

As for inheritance. Did not know that. Thank you. And when I said inheritance I meant title and land... since that seemed to be the topic we discussed.

But as you say. One should not deny them basic rights. But then... what basics rights are denied them (assuming they follow the rules)?
They have the right to live
They have the right to eat
They have the right to voice political opinion (well... I suspect Cullen would clamp down on that I admit)
They have the right to sleep
They have the right of a "home" (up to interpretation... if they can see the tower as a home then it is valid)
They have the right to work with something they like
They have the right to study.

They may not raise a family and they may not go wherever they wish at their leisure without permission. Granted, those two rights are denied them. But they are not the only ones denied those two.

[Steve236]

As one Scottish badass(ruined by Hollywood) would say.."FREEEEEEEEEEEDOM!"

[Addai]

Virginian wrote...

Until the Mages stand up and demand freedom they don't deserve freedom. They are a weak willed simpering idiot slaves and that is what they will be until grow a backbone. The fact they let their kind be turned into the emotionless, soulless Tranquil is proof they have no business being anything but slaves.

Morrigan, is that you?

They did try that in Broken Circle.  Didn't work out so well.  It's a bit difficult when the Chantry has them from childhood on and you get a lot of Keilis and Wynnes out of it.  Lyrium addiction is also a factor.  We don't hear about it for mages so much as templars, but there has to be a reason why the senior enchanters are so dotty.

Modifié par Addai67, 20 janvier 2011 - 05:23 .

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

But mages dictate circle policy. The Chantry have no direct control over what the mages does. Yes, they can tranquil individual members. Yes, they can hunt down maleficar. Yes, they can bring in apostates. Yes, if they lose the tower they can anull it.
But they cannot tell a mage to learn healing. They cannot order them to go to war. [/quote]

The Chantry controls the Circles, that's why the Chantry says no to the royal boon asked by a Magi Warden, according to DG.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Yes, the city elves were taken from their families for being elves in the Alienage part of the main quest.
I would not rule out them being tossed into jail just because they are elves.
But they're still less free than the mage. A mage will never have to give up their bodies for food for instance. Care to guess how often the elves have to? [/quote]

And yet a sexually abused Fiona (an elven mage, at that) didn't seem to think that the Circle was any better than her previous life...

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote] LobselVith8 wrote...

Are the soldiers tossed into a prison for being soldiers?[/quote]

If they refuse to go where they are ordered, yes. In fact... they get killed for it. [/quote]

But not for being soldiers.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

The nobles tossed into a prison for being noble?[/quote]

Frequently. Nobles love to toss their rivals into actual dungeons. Not the rather luxurious towers. [/quote]

They're not automatically tossed into prison for being nobles, though, so I fail to see how the comparison even matches the mages, who are always thrown into Chantry controlled prisons.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8...

Do any of these groups have all their rights stripped from them?[/quote]

Which rights are we talking about?
No soldier, noble or templar can refuse to do their duty. They don't have the right of choice there.
No peasant or elf can be guaranteed the right to eat.
No commoner can be guaranteed the right to not to be killed because of noble's warfare.
No priest may raise a family. [/quote]

A soldier typically joins the army. A noble can refuse to accept his inheritance and leave. A peasant can leave for a better life elsewhere. A commoner can try to find opportunity elsewhere. A priest can choose to become a priest. How do any of those comparisons even match mages, who don't choose to be mages and are dehumanized by the same Chantry that imprisons them for having magical ability?

[quote]Sir JK wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

I don't see how you can seriously provide these examples when they're nowhere close to how the Chantry treats the mages.[/quote]

That is my point Lobsel. All those fall under the defintion of slavery as you put it forward. All social positions in Thedas are abjectely subservient to another
So either they are all slaves and mages will always be. Or mages are not. [/quote]

But those people have a choice. Mages don't.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

The fact that templars can actually murder people suspected of being mages (like the Magnificent D'Sims was, who was a fake mage at that) illustrates the problem.[/quote]

Yes. It does. Noone denies that. We object to using the word slave. It is not the correct term to describe their social status. Slave does not mean: person in the bottom of society. Mages are indeed given the short stick in life. It is not fair. It is horrid. But they are  not slaves. Not a life I would like to have, for sure.

But within their narrow confines... how to live is their choice. What to do is their choice. Noone owns them. [/quote]

I think it's a fair description of the relationship between the Chantry and the mages. Mages are denied rights and forced to live in a prison where they can be given a lobotomy, with no say in the matter, or they can fight wars for the same Chantry that dehumanizes them.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

From the fate Fergus' son and wife suffered. From the fate Mehgren suffered. From the fate Trian suffered. From the fate Eamon suffered. Nathaniel. Cailan. [/quote]

In other words, by having no opportunities, they don't risk losing anything. How nice.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Killed because they simply were in the way. Killed because they were related to someone important. Killed because they were next in line of a title.
The bloody "game" of power.
That kind of political immunity. [/quote]

That must explain why there are mages who would risk their lives just to be free.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Yes. But many peasants and city elves will face starvation. Often. Noone maintains their right to eat. Mages get three solid meals a day.
Mages get to excercise... the only excercise peasants and elves get is back-breaking manual labour.
Mages get to read. Most elves and peasants can't.
And if they run/leave the alienage... they might not even be extended the right to live. [/quote]

Mages are imprisoned for being mages, and the examples you provided illustrate people who aren't imprisoned merely for being who they are. There is a difference. That's the reason why there are mages who would risk their very lives for the slim chance to be free, despite having nothing but the clothes on their backs.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

That and slaves were a serious investment that often got taken in as "family" members. Seriously... history is full of examples that were much worse than slavery. Even in Rome, most slaves had it better than the poor. [/quote]

Yet there are people who risk everything for the chance to be free, regardless of what they're going to lose in the process. Freedom means more than currency or security for many people. People are willing to risk their lives merely for the opportunity to be free. Just because the mages have some comforts in their prison, doesn't change the fact that Uldred's rebellion would never have happened if mages didn't want to be free from the Chantry, it doesn't change how Anders kept running away, and it doesn't change how a victim of rape like Fiona didn't think the Circle was any better than her previous life.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

No. People like the Baroness. She was a mage who abused her powers.... unless there's something you'd like to tell us about your warden  [/quote]

He stopped the Blight, defeated the Archdemon, killed the Mother, defeated the Harvester, and reunited with a lost love in the Dragonbone Wastes.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

I think the problem is that pro-mages and pro-chantry accept different things as true. How much lies are there in mage description of their suffering? How much lies in Chantry view? How common are possessions? How dangerous are abominations? How good a life does mages have compared to everyone else?
All we have here are interpretations and opinion. I think it is pretty clear that you and I for instance interpret the world differently. I see mages as a lot more dangerous than you do. [/quote]

Considering that the Circles were established because Divine Ambrosia II wanted to declare an Exalted March on her own cathedral, because the mages barricaded themselves in, doesn't seem like a genuine reason to keep mages and non-mages segregated.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

There are alternatives to Tevinter: Arlathan, the Dales, Rivain, the town of Haven, and the Dalish clans. All of them had mages without Chantry or templar supervision, and the world didn't end. The fact that Haven may have been around for almost 900 years without being destroyed by abominations indicates that they are able to handle the threats.[/quote]

I'm going to ignore all mention of Dales, Rivian or Haven fomr reasons or not knowing enough about them. I list them under "pure speculation and not facts". [/quote]

I didn't realize the mage Father Eirik presiding over the Haven Chantry was a speculation. Or that Haven mages fighting alongside non-mages was a speculation, either. Or how mages seem to lead the Dalish clans given the magical talents of Zathrian and Lanaya.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I will adress the "world didn't end" bit. No, it didn't. Nobody said it would. A flood doesn't end the world. a earthquake doesn't end the world. A horrible desease doesn't end the world.
They do cause massive devastation and loss of life...like abominations. [/quote]

Or Exalted Marches. Just ask the Dalish.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Disasters generally don't cause a kigdom to crumble (unless there's really a LOT of them in a very short time span). Yet everyone would like to prevent them. [/quote]

Like the Blight, where mages have helped stop the darkspawn from overrunning the world.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Saying that the fall of the Dales, giving elves the option between being homeless or living in a ghetto, and forbidding their religion gives people plenty of reason to see the Chantry of Andraste as the bad guys. It's up to interpretation, certainly, but it's their right - as is your right to see the Chantry as the good guys and think that nothing's wrong with how they treat the mages.

According to the Dalish, templars were sent in after they kicked out their missionaries. Orlais claimed that it was because of the attack against Red Crossing, but it's impossible to say if the attack was in retaliation for a prior attack made by the Orlesians. Scholars have argued it was due to territorial disputes.[/quote]

It's irrelevant.
You keep bringing in - again and again - unconfirmed things and speculations in these discussions as fact. Even after your theory has been debunked or your facts revealed as speculations.

So please, don't do it. [/quote]

It's not unconfirmed speculation - it's in the codex in the Dalish Origin. According to the Dalish, that's what happened. You're welcome to believe the Orlesian version of events, of course.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

This...AGAIN?

I swear, I'm putting you on igore if I see those places mentioend again... [/quote]

Now you had to go ahead and tempt me to mention the elven kingdoms...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Can you prove that they didnt' have abominations appear and just managed to handle it? For a vilalge that's been there 900 years with noone leaving, there's not that many of htem there... gee, I wonder why?
Maybe an abominations keep culling their numbers every once an a while..
Maybe they were jsut lucky..or maybe the only abominations that ppeared where wake ones (lucky again).

The point is - we don't know. So you cannot use that as evidence. [/quote]

They don't like outsiders... so that's likely a reason not many people are there. That changes in the Epilogue if the Warden sides with Kolgrim, where they start to accept outsiders as new converts.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Again, you know nothing of those societies so it cannot be used as an argument. STOP IT ALREADY. [/quote]

There is IanPolaris' mention of mages and non-mages living together prior to the establishment of the Circles. According to the codex History of the Circle:


"It is a truth universally acknowledged that nothing is more successful at inspiring a person to mischief as being told not to do something. Unfortunately, the Chantry of the Divine Age had some trouble with obvious truths. Although it did not outlaw magic-quite the contrary, as the Chantry relied upon magic to kindle the eternal flame which burns in every brazier in every chantry-it relegated mages to lighting candles and lamps. Perhaps occasional dusting of rafters and eaves.

I will give my readers a moment to contemplate how well such a role satisfied the mages of the time.

It surprised absolutely no one when the mages of Val Royeaux, in protest, snuffed the sacred flames of the cathedral and barricaded themselves inside the choir loft. No one, that is, but Divine Ambrosia II, who was outraged and attempted to order an Exalted March upon her own cathedral. Even her most devout Templars discouraged that idea. For 21 days, the fires remained unlit while negotiations were conducted, legend tells us, by shouting back and forth from the loft.

The mages went cheerily into exile in a remote fortress outside of the capital, where they would be kept under the watchful eye of the Templars and a council of their own elder magi. Outside of normal society, and outside of the Chantry, the mages would form their own closed society, the Circle, separated for the first time in human history.
From Of Fires, Circles, and Templars: A History of Magic in the Chantry, written by Sister Petrine, Chantry scholar."
In other words, the Circles weren't created as a means of protection (according to the codex written by a member of the Chantry no less), so the templars are lying when they say otherwise.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

No, it makes perfect sense. You too completley miss the point.

I bolded and underscored the relevent part for you. If you cannot really grasp this comparison, then there no point in discussing with you, as the basics of logic and reason are beyond your reach. [/quote]

So your bad analogy means that I lack logic and reason? I don't twist reality to suit my vision of the Chantry like you do.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Can you say...OWNED!!!! [/quote]

And yet the definition of slavery still fits the relationship between the Chantry and the mages. I can't do anything about the English language or the meaning of words.

As for Word of God, let's ask the Architect how well Word of God worked out...

[Virginian]

s0meguy6665 wrote...
... but they don't anymore in DA2

I haven't seen anything, so unless you can provide a source, I'm gonna ignore you on this subject.

Addai67 wrote...
Morrigan, is that you?

No this is Mordrid.

Addai67 wrote...
They did try that in Broken Circle.  Didn't work out so well.

So one bad attempt, big whoop. Got to break a few eggs.

Addai67 wrote...
It's a bit difficult when the Chantry has them from childhood on and you get a lot of Keilis and Wynnes out of it.

They are traitors to their own kind. Off with their hands, eyes, & tongues.

Addai67 wrote...
Lyrium addiction is also a factor.

Set up the Betty Ford clinic.

Addai67 wrote...
We don't hear about it for mages so much as templars

Templars willing turned themselves into slaves of Lyrium and those who control it, thus they deserve their fate.

Addai67 wrote...
but there has to be a reason why the senior enchanters are so dotty.

Every Senior Enchanter I have seen has been a complete whackjob they have no value. Whatever their excuse or reason is, they need to be put of their and everyone elses mysery.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Yes, the chantry goes around saving mages for pesants with pitchforks because they hate them..


Lord knows people don't form into angry mobs when agitated and take the law into their hands in every coutnry in the world. Mages are dangerous. This is not merely propaganda. People don't like danger.
It is as simple as that.
[/quote]

Everyone is dangerous, that's why there's law and order - to keep people safe. You don't imprison people and deny them basic human rights merely because they may prove dangerous.

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

The comparison I made was with mental illness, which clearly is not a disease and is dealt with differently. That mages might blow up is clearly a reason, not an excuse. They don't do it for grins and giggles.

The US government didn't think slavery was an issue for the first hundred years either. Things change. In this case, it's quite possible that Templars found it easier and safer to control mages in Circles. It's quite possible that they oppress out of laziness. It can still be in (almost) everybody's best interest.

Also, thanks to Lotion for digging up the DG quote. I don't like the "put up, shut up" argument, so I'm happy I didn't have to do either. [/quote]

Thanks to IanPolaris for disproving Lotion's arguments and Lotion's misunderstanding of some of DG's quotes.

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

True, there's a level to mental illnesses. There's no level to being a mage, either you are or you aren't. My full analogy can be found at page 10 in this thread.

I'm not saying that the Circle is the optimal solution. See my post above. I'm saying that it is better to have strict control than no control. The Circle is better than no Circle. Let's view this as a continuum and make another thread if we want to discuss what level of control, or what shape that control should be. A circle tower with green drapes might be an improvement over a circle tower without green drapes. My point is that current solution is preferable to total freedom. We could argue compromises between the two, if you like, but that's less polarizing and less fun. [/quote]

In other words, enslaving mages and allowing them no basic human rights is better than allowing them to be properly trained and given human rights? I have to respectfully disagree. Uldred's rebellion never would have happened if the Chantry didn't enslave mages to a life sentence in their prisons.

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

We could also do close readings and deconstructions of David Gaider's posts, but remember that it's neither a poem nor a text of law. I think it's a fair interpretation of the text to say that since he states that Abominations happened and had to be dealt with, the world was more dangerous and that magic is dangerous, Abominations were a part of making the world more dangerous. [/quote]

And yet, the Circles were never established to protect mages from ordinary people, but because mages had barricaded themselves in in the cathedral of Val Royeaux, and the insane Divine Ambrosia II wanted to declare an Exalted March on her own church.

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

[quote]packardbell wrote...

Obviously the restrictions placed on a mage in captivity forces them to use blood magic, if they were given more freedoms and treated like a person rather than a threat to be contained at all costs.. then maybe you wouldn't get such resistance.[/quote]

True, that is why Blood Magic wasn't practiced when mages ruled the better part of the continent. [/quote]

You're claiming that the Chantry's enslavement of mages and their propaganda of hatred and fear doesn't condition mages to resort to blood magic and to make deals with demons? Because the Rites happened as a result of a templar murdering a mage, and Uldred's rebellion transpired because mages wanted to be free from their oppressors.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Wrong again.
You don't bother to read properly (you might want to abc ktrack and find hte actual question asked to DG and read teh answer again).

He specificly said the countryside was more dangerous before, with abominations roaming free.

Can you say ULTRA-PWNED? [/quote]

Well, murdering men, women, and children, as well as giving them a lobotomy and enslaving them to the Circles, does tend to lessen the chance of mages turning into abominations.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Earth to Polaris, Earth to Polaris:
Stick to reality of the setting please.
No, the situation is not the same. It cannot be the same. No sane person would ever reason it's the same

A noble in power is not equal to a mage. In any way, shape or form.

Also, restriocting of freedom is sometimes warranted and necessary. the needs of hte many outweigh the needs of the few. Regardless how unjust it may sound, it is hte reality of not only TheDas, but hte Real World too. [/quote]

We can ask the elves of the alienage who they're more scared of - a mage, or a noble like Vaughan.

As for the comment about mages, I don't see how you're serious about that. Restricting freedom? You mean enslaving mages. Let's call it what it is.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Again, lack of information on those societies makes them poor examples to use. Actually, it makes them INVALID as examples. Youdon't know how mages are treated tehre. You THINK you do, but there's noa actual hard facts. So untill some facts come our way, those societies are irrelevant to the discussion.
This is something I've ben trying to explain to LobselVith8 for an eternity, and now apperently to you too.

Suffice to say that I will ignore any further attempts at using those societeis as evidence of anything.
Because they are not. [/quote]

Invalid because they disprove your assumption that the Chantry is the most wonderful, best organization that ever was and that those mean mages deserve to be enslaved?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

For the rest of your "arguments", they are not even worth answering, since all you do is trying to circuvent or diminish what DG sez. It's sad to see someone so entrentched in an oppinion, that he's rather argue aganst the creators and basic reason before giving up. [/quote]

Except there's nothing invalid about IanPolaris' arguments. He's citing the codex, the storyline, two different memebrs of the Dalish clan using magic, and pointing out DG's own words. You're dismissing IanPolaris' comments because they differ from your own.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]packardbell wrote...

Obviously the restrictions placed on a mage in captivity forces them to use blood magic, if they were given more freedoms and treated like a person rather than a threat to be contained at all costs.. then maybe you wouldn't get such resistance.[/quote]

You'd still get resistance. It would be a bit less, but you'd still get it. There will allways be resistance.

Given that, there's really no reason for the Chantry to give em more freedom. Tehy have plenty.
Since they're gonna have periodic uprisings anyway, they might as well leave it as it is, to cull the bigegst malcontents. [/quote]

If by plenty of freedom you mean absolutely none, then I absolutely agree.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

Blood magic  has always been practiced by all magic using cultures.  It was Tevinter that abused it but let's not make the mistake of saying that bloodmagic is inhernetly evil.  Only chantry idiots like Kelli and Wynne believe that.  It IS dangerous, should NOT be used by just any mage, and should be tightly controlled (because of mind control if for no other reason), but it's no more 'evil' than a .45 pistol IRL.

-Polaris[/quote]

You can't honestly belive that? [/quote]

Why not? It makes sense. Power is dangerous when misused. That applies to the power of the nobility as much as the power of a person wielding a weapon.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Not all things are equall. Not all forms of power are equally tempting or prone to abuse.

That's why blood magic is labeled evil. Because it's pwoer corrupts so easily. If anything, I'd compare it to the One Ring from LOTR (with the corrupting influence being indirect).
Tehre is nothing more intoxicating and tempting then the power to control minds. Farting nukes is insignificant compared to it. [/quote]

That must be why templars use blood magic themselves.