1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Sir JK]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
No, it wasn't because Aenirin resisted - they claimed he was maleficar when Wynne explains what happened to him (which even Chantry apologist Wynne took to be a total crock since she invites him back to the Circle), while Irving said that there was no proof that Anders did anything more than run away (and I think Greagoir played a role in Irving having as much say as he does to accomplish that).[/quote]
Actually all the templars did was tell Wynne they impaled Anaeirin and left him to die (not unlikely to teach her to be a better mentor for her students... in a twisted inexplicable way). It is at no point mention what Anaeirin did. Remember... just trying to run can even in the modern world qualify as "resisting". If Anaeirin desperately tried to run and get away... that might have given the apostate hunters all the "excuse" they needed to kill him.
And indeed, the fact there was no proof that Anders did more than run away was sort of my point. A strong first enchanter and a lenient Knight-Commander does thus mean the safety measures in place works.

And before we can judge Gregoir as unusually lenient I'd say we need to see more circles.

Also, Wynne might not be the most fervent opponent of the Chantry... but she's not an apologist either. An apologist would describe what happened to Anaeirin as justified and say that it was right of the Chantry to take her son. She does neither. In fact the moral of the story about Aneirin seems to me to be that it was unfair to him (and her fault). She's not at all excusing the actions (which is the base of the word apologist) of the chantry there. So that's why I don't think of her as an apologist. Now Keili on the other hand... .

[quote]Another case would be whether templars and the Chantry have any right to imprison mages in the first place. Personally, I don't think they do.[/quote]
Now you're avoiding my questions though. It is fair and all to think that they have no right. But if they are doing it and are attacked and kill the mage in "self-defence" were they unjustified in killing him/her?

It's like in the mage investigation side quest in Amaranthine. You are asked by a single templar to investigate 5 suspected apostates. Investigate. The moment you try to talk to the mages however they just attack. Yes, the mages might be terrified of the circle and the templars. But it is also they who make the first hostile action.... against a non-templar even. Before they cast their spells against the warden it was not even clear they were mages or on the run.

Who is to say that is not common? That many mages on the run attacks templars on sight? Perhaps you feel they are justified in that, but if they do... is that the templars kill them that strange?

[quote]He wasn't a real mage, though. He was a charlatan who pretended to heal people. No suspicion of blood magic or being an abomination, but the horrible crime of healing the sick! D'Sims wasn't a saint, he was a fraudulent elven scammer who pretended he was healing people, and got his head cut off. The problem is that when he was killed, the templars thought he was an illegal mage who was healing people.[/quote]
Indeed. A very tragic event (it would have been tragic even if he was a mage). My point was... we don't know the details of his capture. If he tried to knife the templars in the process then his death is more understandable. If he came along willingly then it's less so.

Then there's the thing. Sure, he pretended to heal the sick. But what could he have done besides that in secret? Even healers and doctors can be horrible criminals (stealing organs,even hearts, from patients anyone?) after all. I think that's the reasoning for going after him.

[quote]He openly admits to the mage protagonist that he would change Jowan's fate if he could. How is that unwilling? He clearly gets into disputes with Greagoir (like the first time the mage meets Duncan and Irving is arguing with Greagoir over the King's request for more mages at Ostagar). He'll even argue against Cullen about the mages being dangerous at the end of A Broken Circle and even thank the Grey Warden from the Circle asking for the Circle to be given its independence.[/quote]
Thing is though: "There's nothing I can do, he broke the rules" is one of the oldest excuses in history. It is right up there with "I only did what I was ordered". Hiding behind rules and incidentally... if you leave the latter part out it can seem like it is out of your hands (even if it isn't). There has been plenty of examples of people who used it to hide that they were indeed unwilling.

Tell me... what would you have thought of Irving if he had said that Jowan brought his fate onto himself?

But yes, he does get into an argument over Ostagar aid with Gregoir and argues against Cullen. That says nothing about how much authority he has though.

[quote]You clearly think it does, while I think it doesn't. You see it as a safety mechanism, and I see it as a prison.[/quote]
Now, my friend, you have misinterpreted me. I don't think it works. I am just saying that there are safety mechanisms in place and that mages do have rights (poorly enforced rights). Few rights, but some rights nonetheless. 

As for safety mechanism vs. prison. To me it's both. But that is another argument.

[quote]And a real life serial killer killed more than double that number (as was pointed out the first time you mentioned it) so I fail to see why mages should be segregated when everyone (including animals and trees) can be dangerous and powerful when they are possessed.[/quote]
It was 58. Not double the number. But why? Ultimately it boils down to one thing: Because they can be segregated. You cannot employ the same measure on everyone. The system can't even be attempted. But mages? Mages are a small easily isolated group. That makes them isolatable.

Not that it makes it any more right. I was just playing the devil's advocate and explained why mages and few (or none) others were.

[quote]Or imprisoning mages and denying them any real say over their lives will instead cause people to fight to be emancipated from their oppressors, like it did with Shartan and the Tevinter Imperium, and like it does in rl (especially given the protests going on in Cairo right now).[/quote]
Indeed. Such is the way of the world.

[quote]Or we could have a repeat of the Uldred incident, where bad things happen precisely because mages are prisoners (or some would argue slaves) of the Chantry.[/quote]
Indeed. There's a potential disaster no matter which way you go.

Or for that fact that if you keep mages gathered in one spot for that purpose. Then any potential abomination can kill innocent mages.

There are no right answers. Only the ones you choose/chose and their consequences.

[quote]Mages have power, and it's precisely that power that has been used to save the nations of Thedas from the darkspawn and the Qunari armies.[/quote]
Yep. And it is because they have that power both people with power and people without power fears them.

[quote]If that were true, mages wouldn't be under the heel of the Chantry and its templars.[/quote]
Are we talking about the same thing? This answer makes no sense. Blood mages can be stopped, but they are very difficult to stop. That's why it isn't tolerated.
What has that do with you answer?

[quote]Is it worth practically enslaving innocent people to a system that is often inhumane and unjust when you know they're always going to fight for their freedom?[/quote]
I believe that is the key question. That and it's sister: How many innocent lives is the freedom of mages worth?

As always with these kinds of questions... there are no correct answers. Only the ones taken and their consequences.

[quote]Both scenerios lead to people dying. I doubt they care when both situations end the same way.[/quote]
Now you oversimplify the issue. In one case the Chantry believes it can stop deaths among the larger group tyrannizing the smaller. They believe this to be better than having to stand there in front of people who lost siblings, husbands, wives, parents or children and say: I'm sorry, if this mage had not been allowed to roam this would never have happened.

They might be wrong of course. But there is no way for them to impartially judge this (or for that matter... if they can, will they accept that they have spent 900 years doing something horrible to no use? It's a tough pill to swallow).

[quote]Isn't that a reason to have mages on your side, to deal with such a threat, instead of dehumanized and imprisoned?[/quote]
If you believe that is the more effective way to deal with it. Yes, of course.

But if you do honestly believe restraining them is the only effective way of doing it. What then? And what do you when the mages refuse to comply?

[quote]One can (and IanPolaris has) argued that Connor happened as a result of the social conditions brought forth by the Chantry's anti-mage stance, the Mages Collective handles the abomination by recruiting the Grey Warden, and IanPolaris also argued that a town of villagers were able to take on the Baroness. Nobody is denying that abominations exist or existed, but I see no proof that the Chantry's ill treatment of mages is warranted.[/quote]

And I argue that Connor did what he did because his father was poisoned. This was a result of the poltical climate and Loghain's plans. Not of the Chantry. Jowan was a pawn, he was a person they could recruit and get close to Eamon without raising suspicion. It could just as well have been a new knight, a maid, a servant, a librarian, a messenger, a cook. It just so happened that Isolde wanted a rogue mage to train her son.
If the Chantry had allowed mages to keep their families, claims and stay at home... he still would have been there when his father was poisoned. He still would have been as young and untrained. Perhaps he'd have another better mage as a tutor, but that does not mean the situation would not have happened.
Connor made a deal with a demon because he loved his father... no mage policy in the world could have changed that. Remember... Isolde had tried cleansing him with magic already.

As for the Baroness. Yes. They took her down. But at what cost? How many lived in that village? Fifty? A hundred? Two hundred? More? They all died. None of them survived the fade. The codex entries say that the village just vanished. Noone survived to tell what had happened.

But you are right. There is no proof the Chantry's policy is warranted. They believe it is. Many mages believe it isn't. Which is the correct answer? Neither. There is only the choice that was chosen and it's consequence. Which led us to today. This will lead to another question. And again it will be no correct answer. Only the one they will choose... and it's consequence.

Modifié par Sir JK, 30 janvier 2011 - 12:28 .

[efrgfhnm_]

Jesus christ Sir JK's post is long

Also: Mages go free!

[moilami]

"I serve the flaming fist!"



Anyone noticed the connection with Viconia in Baldur's Gate and Morrigan? Viconia was a cleric though and inheritly evil. This chantry seems to have some eternal flame of hatred and templars are their flaming fist. Now every mage go back to tower do cooking or die! And if you feel bad about it just talk to Wynne.

[moilami]

Sir JK wrote...

But you are right. There is no proof the Chantry's policy is warranted. They believe it is. Many mages believe it isn't. Which is the correct answer? Neither. There is only the choice that was chosen and it's consequence. Which led us to today. This will lead to another question. And again it will be no correct answer. Only the one they will choose... and it's consequence.

The correct answer is put you to the damned tower if you say mages should be put to the damned tower. And whatever mages do to get freedom and to become treated equally in the society is a concequence of chantry's policies to inprison and slay mages.


Edit: This in case there is no "right or wrong" as you say, which is totally ridiculous and just says that you could as well be slain at sight then. There is no right or wrong, as you say. We can't know will you kill somebody some day. But we can kill you to make sure you don't kill anyone, and it is not wrong because there is no right or wrong.


Edit: Somebody by the way make a mod where Wynne is a miniboss in the damned tower with giant genlock emissary skin and buff her HP at least x7.

Modifié par moilami, 30 janvier 2011 - 01:28 .

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Actually all the templars did was tell Wynne they impaled Anaeirin and left him to die (not unlikely to teach her to be a better mentor for her students... in a twisted inexplicable way). It is at no point mention what Anaeirin did. Remember... just trying to run can even in the modern world qualify as "resisting". If Anaeirin desperately tried to run and get away... that might have given the apostate hunters all the "excuse" they needed to kill him.
And indeed, the fact there was no proof that Anders did more than run away was sort of my point. A strong first enchanter and a lenient Knight-Commander does thus mean the safety measures in place works. [/quote]

Actually, Wynne reveals that he was labelled maleficar when you ask her why they didn't simply bring him back, which is why the templars went to kill him. It isn't an issue of running away, it's an issue of a claim of him being maleficar that even the Chantry apologist (who has no problem killing the Warden for being a blood mage in the missing scene that was disabled because it bugged the Landsmeet) doesn't believe in.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

And before we can judge Gregoir as unusually lenient I'd say we need to see more circles. [/quote]

If you read the codex about Morrigan as an Orlesian Warden, it says that the templars put a bounty on her for being a suspected blood mage, so it's clear that templars have no issue murdering people who they merely suspect of being mages. I have no doubt that Anders being brought back to the Circle alive is entirely because Greagoir permits this, especially when we see what happened to Aenirin.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Also, Wynne might not be the most fervent opponent of the Chantry... but she's not an apologist either. An apologist would describe what happened to Anaeirin as justified and say that it was right of the Chantry to take her son. She does neither. In fact the moral of the story about Aneirin seems to me to be that it was unfair to him (and her fault). She's not at all excusing the actions (which is the base of the word apologist) of the chantry there. So that's why I don't think of her as an apologist. Now Keili on the other hand... . [/quote]

She asked Aenirin to go back to the same Circle that nearly got him killed when he was fourteen years old. I don't see how she isn't an apologist...

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Now you're avoiding my questions though. It is fair and all to think that they have no right. But if they are doing it and are attacked and kill the mage in "self-defence" were they unjustified in killing him/her? [/quote]

Except Aenirin was declared maleficar from the get go. It's not the same issue. You brought up a similiar topic some time back when you suggested a storyline where the player should have the option of helping a mage escape from the templars, and a templar gets killed by the mage escaping (one who didn't want to kill the mage). This seems to be a repeat of that analogy. However, my problem is, what gave templars and the Chantry the right to play God with the lives of mages? It's a fair argument to make. Do templars or the Chantry have a right to control the lives of other human beings? They play God with the lives of the mages and we get the line that it's for the greater good, and every time any person brings up their lack of freedom, we get the usual "abominations are dangerous, "magic is dangerous," regardless of the fact that mages are being oppressed to the point where they will run away (and risk death) or start rebellions to emancipate themselves from the Chantry.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

It's like in the mage investigation side quest in Amaranthine. You are asked by a single templar to investigate 5 suspected apostates. Investigate. The moment you try to talk to the mages however they just attack. Yes, the mages might be terrified of the circle and the templars. But it is also they who make the first hostile action.... against a non-templar even. Before they cast their spells against the warden it was not even clear they were mages or on the run. [/quote]

I don't do the Chantry Board quests in Awakening. It's not like I don't help the blind templar in the Alienage or deal with the blood mages so close to the Alienage and I have no issue helping the defenseless in Origins, but I'm really not interested in helping the templars murder mages or kill the Dalish in Awakening. The illegal mages immediately attack the person hunting them down for the Chantry because they don't want to die. They're simply bad quests IMHO. Why don't I have the option of reaching out to help the illegal mages? Why am I forced to a linear style of story-telling? It eliminates immersion for me when this happens. I honestly hope we don't have more of this in DA2. I already had problems with the blood mage den we encounter in DA:O giving us no reason to kill them besides being illegal mages (who have ancient elven statues as decorations).

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Who is to say that is not common? That many mages on the run attacks templars on sight? Perhaps you feel they are justified in that, but if they do... is that the templars kill them that strange? [/quote]

Like the situation with Morrigan and an Orlesian Warden in Witch Hunt, when the Chantry lacks evidence but still puts a bounty on someone's head due to their suspicions alone, then I take issue with it.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Indeed. A very tragic event (it would have been tragic even if he was a mage). My point was... we don't know the details of his capture. If he tried to knife the templars in the process then his death is more understandable. If he came along willingly then it's less so. [/quote]

It seems no different than the Chantry and Morrigan in Witch Hunt.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Then there's the thing. Sure, he pretended to heal the sick. But what could he have done besides that in secret? Even healers and doctors can be horrible criminals (stealing organs,even hearts, from patients anyone?) after all. I think that's the reasoning for going after him. [/quote]

Like there is with Morrigan in Witch Hunt? They allow rumors alone to dictate someone's life - let's murder her because she is rumored to be an illegal mage.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Thing is though: "There's nothing I can do, he broke the rules" is one of the oldest excuses in history. It is right up there with "I only did what I was ordered". Hiding behind rules and incidentally... if you leave the latter part out it can seem like it is out of your hands (even if it isn't). There has been plenty of examples of people who used it to hide that they were indeed unwilling.

Tell me... what would you have thought of Irving if he had said that Jowan brought his fate onto himself? [/quote]

I would have lost respect for him, considering he never saw the evidence in question. I always stand by the decision to help Jowan, even to Wynne. And why are we dealing in hypothetical "what ifs" when Irving openly admits that he could do nothing? Because it would paint the Chantry in a negative light that Irving really has no say over the matter?

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

But yes, he does get into an argument over Ostagar aid with Gregoir and argues against Cullen. That says nothing about how much authority he has though.  [/quote]

They don't get it because Greagoir shoots it down. That speaks volumes for how little authority Irving really has.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Now, my friend, you have misinterpreted me. I don't think it works. I am just saying that there are safety mechanisms in place and that mages do have rights (poorly enforced rights). Few rights, but some rights nonetheless. 

As for safety mechanism vs. prison. To me it's both. But that is another argument. [/quote]

They're prisoners of the Chantry. It's either "obey or die." And if they had rights, why can't they contest the Rite of Tranquility? Why can they apparently be killed or made tranquil on suspicion alone of being a blood mage? I'm looking at D'Sims and Morrigan here when I mention this - as well as the prior case with Aenirin. They're in a prison that has little to do with safety and everything to do with control.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

It was 58. Not double the number. But why? Ultimately it boils down to one thing: Because they can be segregated. You cannot employ the same measure on everyone. The system can't even be attempted. But mages? Mages are a small easily isolated group. That makes them isolatable.

Not that it makes it any more right. I was just playing the devil's advocate and explained why mages and few (or none) others were. [/quote]

The person mentioned over 200 at one point,  but I suppose that's beside the point. I don't think the system is right or effective. That people can be killed merely on suspicion alone is something I find monstorous.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Indeed. There's a potential disaster no matter which way you go.

Or for that fact that if you keep mages gathered in one spot for that purpose. Then any potential abomination can kill innocent mages.

There are no right answers. Only the ones you choose/chose and their consequences. [/quote]

Maybe that will be presented in the sequel; maybe DA2 will afford Hawke the opportunity to free the mages of the Circles of the Free Marches.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Are we talking about the same thing? This answer makes no sense. Blood mages can be stopped, but they are very difficult to stop. That's why it isn't tolerated.
What has that do with you answer? [/quote]

I was talking about the fact that the Chantry controls the Circles, and therefore the mages. Templars can kill people on suspicion or have bounties on people suspected of being mages. I find them to be more of a threat than blood mages or abominations when they have no regulation and can commit any action in the name of religion.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

I believe that is the key question. That and it's sister: How many innocent lives is the freedom of mages worth? [/quote]

I have yet to see anything to prove that any lives are being saved by imprisoning mages to an inhumane system that can kill them on suspicion and heresay alone.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Now you oversimplify the issue. In one case the Chantry believes it can stop deaths among the larger group tyrannizing the smaller. They believe this to be better than having to stand there in front of people who lost siblings, husbands, wives, parents or children and say: I'm sorry, if this mage had not been allowed to roam this would never have happened. [/quote]

I'm certain the family members of people who died on suspicion alone of being illegal mages at the hands of the templars feel the same way.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

They might be wrong of course. But there is no way for them to impartially judge this (or for that matter... if they can, will they accept that they have spent 900 years doing something horrible to no use? It's a tough pill to swallow). [/quote]

I personally view their actions as wrong. Maybe Hawke will have the opportunity to do the same and actually do something about it. The "most important person in Thedas" would have meaning if Hawke is allowed to have agency and either side with the mages or the Chantry, and actually have a say in such an issue.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

If you believe that is the more effective way to deal with it. Yes, of course.

But if you do honestly believe restraining them is the only effective way of doing it. What then? And what do you when the mages refuse to comply? [/quote]

Law and order is the answer, not "imprison everyone, deny them rights, deny them the right to a relationship in some Circles, and kill them or give them a lobotomy on suspicion and heresay alone."

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

And I argue that Connor did what he did because his father was poisoned. This was a result of the poltical climate and Loghain's plans. Not of the Chantry. Jowan was a pawn, he was a person they could recruit and get close to Eamon without raising suspicion. It could just as well have been a new knight, a maid, a servant, a librarian, a messenger, a cook. It just so happened that Isolde wanted a rogue mage to train her son.
If the Chantry had allowed mages to keep their families, claims and stay at home... he still would have been there when his father was poisoned. He still would have been as young and untrained. Perhaps he'd have another better mage as a tutor, but that does not mean the situation would not have happened.
Connor made a deal with a demon because he loved his father... no mage policy in the world could have changed that. Remember... Isolde had tried cleansing him with magic already. [/quote]

Except the social conditions that lead to this event transpiring happened precisely because of the anti-mage policies brought forth by the Chantry, so they do bare responsibility for what happened.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

As for the Baroness. Yes. They took her down. But at what cost? How many lived in that village? Fifty? A hundred? Two hundred? More? They all died. None of them survived the fade. The codex entries say that the village just vanished. Noone survived to tell what had happened. [/quote]

Would there have even been such a cost if mages were avaliable to assist in taking her down instead of imprisoned?

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

But you are right. There is no proof the Chantry's policy is warranted. They believe it is. Many mages believe it isn't. Which is the correct answer? Neither. There is only the choice that was chosen and it's consequence. Which led us to today. This will lead to another question. And again it will be no correct answer. Only the one they will choose... and it's consequence.
[/quote]

It's always an issue of choice. Hopefully, DA2 will provide us such a choice when we're Hawke.

[Sir JK]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
Actually, Wynne reveals that he was labelled maleficar when you ask her why they didn't simply bring him back, which is why the templars went to kill him. It isn't an issue of running away, it's an issue of a claim of him being maleficar that even the Chantry apologist (who has no problem killing the Warden for being a blood mage in the missing scene that was disabled because it bugged the Landsmeet) doesn't believe in.[/quote]
Fair enough then.

[quote]If you read the codex about Morrigan as an Orlesian Warden, it says that the templars put a bounty on her for being a suspected blood mage, so it's clear that templars have no issue murdering people who they merely suspect of being mages. I have no doubt that Anders being brought back to the Circle alive is entirely because Greagoir permits this, especially when we see what happened to Aenirin.[/quote]
Sounds plausible.

[quote]She asked Aenirin to go back to the same Circle that nearly got him killed when he was fourteen years old. I don't see how she isn't an apologist...[/quote]
She isn't explaining how justified the Templars are in "killing" Anaeirin. She leaves the decision of his return to him (rather than the templars). She readily admits faults of the policy towards mages. Apologists tend to go out of their way and even produce really far fetched explanation and excuses for actions.
If she was truly an apologist... then she'd have believed their claims that he was a maleficar, wouldn't they?

[quote]Except Aenirin was declared maleficar from the get go. It's not the same issue. You brought up a similiar topic some time back when you suggested a storyline where the player should have the option of helping a mage escape from the templars, and a templar gets killed by the mage escaping (one who didn't want to kill the mage). This seems to be a repeat of that analogy. However, my problem is, what gave templars and the Chantry the right to play God with the lives of mages? It's a fair argument to make. Do templars or the Chantry have a right to control the lives of other human beings? They play God with the lives of the mages and we get the line that it's for the greater good, and every time any person brings up their lack of freedom, we get the usual "abominations are dangerous, "magic is dangerous," regardless of the fact that mages are being oppressed to the point where they will run away (and risk death) or start rebellions to emancipate themselves from the Chantry.[/quote]
Indeed. It's a fair, and I'd go so far as to say important argument to make. I mean, I agree with you on several levels. There is a problem in how the policy is executed. A huge problem. Several in fact. But just getting rid of it, is both problematic and have a very important question attached to it: "What will that lead to?"
[quote]I don't do the Chantry Board quests in Awakening. It's not like I don't help the blind templar in the Alienage or deal with the blood mages so close to the Alienage and I have no issue helping the defenseless in Origins, but I'm really not interested in helping the templars murder mages or kill the Dalish in Awakening. The illegal mages immediately attack the person hunting them down for the Chantry because they don't want to die. They're simply bad quests IMHO. Why don't I have the option of reaching out to help the illegal mages? Why am I forced to a linear style of story-telling? It eliminates immersion for me when this happens. I honestly hope we don't have more of this in DA2. I already had problems with the blood mage den we encounter in DA:O giving us no reason to kill them besides being illegal mages (who have ancient elven statues as decorations).[/quote]
Hey you know. I thought that too at first. Why can't I help these mages? Why can't I talk to them and judge for myself?

Then... maybe they attack just because you try to talk to them? They sounded really nervous after all.
A little more leeway in that quest had been nice. It's really a pity that it was wasted on a simple chanter's board round up. It had lots of potential.

Also... I figured the elven statues was just reused art. Not that it specifically was elven statues.
[quote]Like the situation with Morrigan and an Orlesian Warden in Witch Hunt, when the Chantry lacks evidence but still puts a bounty on someone's head due to their suspicions alone, then I take issue with it.[/quote]

Which is reaosnable (that you take issues with it that is).

[quote]It seems no different than the Chantry and Morrigan in Witch Hunt.[/quote]
Perhaps. The problem with second-hand sources tend to be lack of details.

[quote]Like there is with Morrigan in Witch Hunt? They allow rumors alone to dictate someone's life - let's murder her because she is rumored to be an illegal mage.[/quote]
Though... how do you prove someone is a illegal mage? Unless you catch them redhanded or they admit it. How can you deal with them before someone suffers?

[quote]I would have lost respect for him, considering he never saw the evidence in question.[/quote]
Exactly.
[quote]I always stand by the decision to help Jowan, even to Wynne. And why are we dealing in hypothetical "what ifs" when Irving openly admits that he could do nothing? Because it would paint the Chantry in a negative light that Irving really has no say over the matter?[/quote]
I'm the devil's advocate. I was just pointing out that he is not specifically saying he was overruled. He is saying that there is nothing he can do. Which can mean several things. Sometimes what people say really hang on the meaning of the words themselves.
You might be right that he wanted to stop it but couldn't. But he might also have hidden behind the rules.

[quote]They don't get it because Greagoir shoots it down. That speaks volumes for how little authority Irving really has.[/quote]
I think I have gotten the impression that he has more authority than you have. For all Gregoir's bluster, I get the impression that Irving is essentially saying that it is not Gregoir's place to decide that. Which of course annoys Gregoir to no end (but those two seem like the kind of friends that love a good argument and to annoy one another)
Feel free to disagree though.

[quote]They're prisoners of the Chantry. It's either "obey or die." And if they had rights, why can't they contest the Rite of Tranquility? Why can they apparently be killed or made tranquil on suspicion alone of being a blood mage? I'm looking at D'Sims and Morrigan here when I mention this - as well as the prior case with Aenirin. They're in a prison that has little to do with safety and everything to do with control.[/quote]
Hence few rights. That would be cases in which they are lacking. But they are for instance guaranteed food. Which is a right. Studies. Which also is a right. To express their thoughts. Which also is a right. Uldred was a very vocal libertarian... yet he was still a senior enchanter. If they had no rights. He would not have that kind of authority, would he?

[quote]The person mentioned over 200 at one point,  but I suppose that's beside the point. I don't think the system is right or effective. That people can be killed merely on suspicion alone is something I find monstorous.[/quote]
Agreed.

[quote]Maybe that will be presented in the sequel; maybe DA2 will afford Hawke the opportunity to free the mages of the Circles of the Free Marches.[/quote]
Kirkwall's circle at most I think. The free marches is big and not united. But even so, I expect it to continue the story, but not conclude it.

[quote]I was talking about the fact that the Chantry controls the Circles, and therefore the mages. Templars can kill people on suspicion or have bounties on people suspected of being mages. I find them to be more of a threat than blood mages or abominations when they have no regulation and can commit any action in the name of religion.[/quote]
Ah. And again... we have no evidence of no regulation. The only situation where would have seen it is Rylock... but she was killed (by us).
Magnificent D'sims, Anaeirin and such are all cases where the story is told by a second hand source and that eventual punishment would not be part of those stories.

[quote]I have yet to see anything to prove that any lives are being saved by imprisoning mages to an inhumane system that can kill them on suspicion and heresay alone.[/quote]
Indeed. The problem is. What if you let the mages go... and were wrong? Once done it cannot be undone.

[quote]I'm certain the family members of people who died on suspicion alone of being illegal mages at the hands of the templars feel the same way.[/quote]
Quite so.

[quote]I personally view their actions as wrong. Maybe Hawke will have the opportunity to do the same and actually do something about it. The "most important person in Thedas" would have meaning if Hawke is allowed to have agency and either side with the mages or the Chantry, and actually have a say in such an issue.[/quote]
Carver's "...your bloody templars..." to Hawke does have an interesting implication in this direction I think.

[quote]Law and order is the answer, not "imprison everyone, deny them rights, deny them the right to a relationship in some Circles, and kill them or give them a lobotomy on suspicion and heresay alone."[/quote]
Yep. And then the follow up questions:
Pro-active or reactive?
What do you do with people who refuse to follow it?
What do you do with people who attack the enforcerers?
What do you do with mages who are so weak-willed they are a danger to everyone, especially themselves?
What do you do, despite your best efforts, when some mages rise up against it?
and how do you prove anything?

[quote]Except the social conditions that lead to this event transpiring happened precisely because of the anti-mage policies brought forth by the Chantry, so they do bare responsibility for what happened.[/quote]
But it was Loghain that had Eamon poisoned. Not the Chantry.

Isolde did not want to send Connor away. But if mages could go wherever they wished, were treated amiably and could keep their titles.. She still would not have sent him away, would she (because under those circumstances she would not have to)? Connor had still been there when Eamon got poisoned. The demon still would have made the offer. And all things being equal... he still would not have been able to resist (because he had not been trained longer than six months. I'd think there's a bit more to learning to resist than: "Don't listens to demons by the way").
The only way the Chantry could be put to blame is by not being hospitable enough for Isolde to send Connor away.

[quote]Would there have even been such a cost if mages were avaliable to assist in taking her down instead of imprisoned?[/quote]
Let me make a counterquestion: Would it in a circle?

[quote]It's always an issue of choice. Hopefully, DA2 will provide us such a choice when we're Hawke.[/quote]
and hopefully there will be negative consequences to react to regardless which choice is chosen.

[quote]Moilami wrote...
Edit: This in
case there is no "right or wrong" as you say, which is totally
ridiculous and just says that you could as well be slain at sight then.
There is no right or wrong, as you say. We can't know will you kill
somebody some day. But we can kill you to make sure you don't kill
anyone, and it is not wrong because there is no right or wrong. [/quote]
I see I expressed myself poorly. My apologies.
At the moment of choosing, there is no correct and incorrect option. Just the one you chose and it's consequences.

That may very well be morally wrong. But that changes nothing. It is still the one you chose that matters, not that other options were morally right. That can never be undone. You can never go back and repair the damage done. Just go on and choose again next time.

And as arcanum put it so beautifully: "Humans seldom live long enough to see the consequences of their actions"

[moilami]

Sir JK wrote...


Indeed. It's a fair, and I'd go so far as to say important argument to make. I mean, I agree with you on several levels. There is a problem in how the policy is executed. A huge problem. Several in fact. But just getting rid of it, is both problematic and have a very important question attached to it: "What will that lead to?"

Why you don't ever think where slaying and inprisonment of mages can lead to? You only picture the worst of mages and suppose that is what is going to happen while imagining slaying and inprisoning of mages would only end good? Why is that? Explain both why slaying mages end good and freeing mages end bad.

[JrayM16]

It's like the war of walloftexts in here.

[moilami]

Sir JK wrote...

Moilami wrote...
Edit: This in
case there is no "right or wrong" as you say, which is totally
ridiculous and just says that you could as well be slain at sight then.
There is no right or wrong, as you say. We can't know will you kill
somebody some day. But we can kill you to make sure you don't kill
anyone, and it is not wrong because there is no right or wrong.

I see I expressed myself poorly. My apologies.
At the moment of choosing, there is no correct and incorrect option. Just the one you chose and it's consequences.

That may very well be morally wrong. But that changes nothing. It is still the one you chose that matters, not that other options were morally right. That can never be undone. You can never go back and repair the damage done. Just go on and choose again next time.

And as arcanum put it so beautifully: "Humans seldom live long enough to see the consequences of their actions"

So you say that just because something is morally wrong it can be done because there is no correct and incorrect option. Just concequences. In other words you still keep saying that is alright if my rogue stabs you several times very hard in your arse, leave you to bleed for one day, and then stabs you again untill you die. Fine.

Modifié par moilami, 30 janvier 2011 - 05:07 .

[moilami]

JrayM16 wrote...

It's like the war of walloftexts in here.

It is good someone bothers to fight with trash mobs.

[jmadsen]

there are some long posts in this tread

[Sir JK]

moilami wrote...
So you say that just because something is morally wrong it can be done because there is no correct and incorrect option. Just concequences. In other words you still keep saying that is alright if my rogue stabs you several times very hard in your arse, leave you to bleed for one day, and then stabs you again untill you die. Fine.

No, I am saying that no matter what you chose or choose it was or is what you chose or choose. No matter what you do that situation will never come again.

Wether it was the morally wrong choice at the time do not matter now... because it is what was chosen and all that is now is a result of that. That the mages would rise up against the restrictions was inevtiable. Had the chantry chosen something else then another situation would be inevitable.

Just like freeing the mages will have a consequence. That consequence is what the Chantry fears.

Why you don't ever think where slaying and inprisonment of mages can
lead to? You only picture the worst of mages and suppose that is what is
going to happen while imagining slaying and inprisoning of mages would
only end good? Why is that? Explain both why slaying mages end good and
freeing mages end bad.

I suppose my point is: It isn't easy. You can't just take a decision at this scale it know how it will turn out.

Maybe the Chantry is wrong. Maybe the circles does not help at all. But what if they are right? If they try to give mages more freedom they can never undo that decision... and if that leads to absolute disaster then they can never take it back.

Basically. It boils down to a single question:
How many innocent lives is the freedom of mages worth?

The answer the chantry gives is none. So that's why they don't want to risk it. And in the process they spill lives in their desperation to protect lives (if it's sounds completely illogical it's because it is).

So, Moilami. I suppose my point is not that the Chantry does good. But that neither they, nor the mages, nor us know what the future will bring and that they are absolutely convinced that if they let the mages go... people will die.
Tell me... if you are absolutely convinced people will die if you let someone go. Would you?

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

She isn't explaining how justified the Templars are in "killing" Anaeirin. She leaves the decision of his return to him (rather than the templars). She readily admits faults of the policy towards mages. Apologists tend to go out of their way and even produce really far fetched explanation and excuses for actions.
If she was truly an apologist... then she'd have believed their claims that he was a maleficar, wouldn't they? [/quote]

I never claimed she justified their attempts to kill Aenirin, but she clearly didn't care about how unhappy he was when he was in the Circle (or what the templars tried to do) when she made the offer. I'm not claiming that she's as far gone as Keili, but she's very pro-Chantry (to the point where she'll try to murder the Warden since Morrigan is an apostate and dared to have an opinion). Wynne's offering Aenirin to return to a life of subjegation when he finally has his freedom from the Circle, so I fail to see how she isn't excusing the failings of the Circle when she invites him back to the place that nearly got him murdered in the first place.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Indeed. It's a fair, and I'd go so far as to say important argument to make. I mean, I agree with you on several levels. There is a problem in how the policy is executed. A huge problem. Several in fact. But just getting rid of it, is both problematic and have a very important question attached to it: "What will that lead to?" [/quote]

You mean a slow progression, like Bhelen offering the casteless more freedoms rather than outright eliminating the caste system? The problem I see with that is that mages have been subjegated for hundreds of years, and they want to be emancipated from the Chantry now. I think it's likely to be a central issue of DA2 (at least I hope so given the Templar vs. Mage footage that we've seen) and the emancipation of mages is a goal that I would fully support. Will there be issues? Of course, but I think accomplishing the freedom of mages will be worth the cost it takes to get there.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Hey you know. I thought that too at first. Why can't I help these mages? Why can't I talk to them and judge for myself?

Then... maybe they attack just because you try to talk to them? They sounded really nervous after all.
A little more leeway in that quest had been nice. It's really a pity that it was wasted on a simple chanter's board round up. It had lots of potential. [/quote]

It seemed like the devs didn't spend too much time on the quests. That seemed to be a problem in other aspects of the story as well. I really wished that the Magi boon had been acknowledged in Awakening (even being turned down as Gaider admitted) so that we would know and could respond to what the Chantry denied the mages of Ferelden, rather than having to find out in a messageboard.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Also... I figured the elven statues was just reused art. Not that it specifically was elven statues. [/quote]

Unfortunately. I guess we have to fan fic a reason why the Warden is bothering to deal with a den of blood mages in Denerim, even if the Warden happens to be a blood mage.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Perhaps. The problem with second-hand sources tend to be lack of details. [/quote]

Except the bounty on Morrigan's head because the Chantry suspects her of being a blood mage doesn't require any detailed explanation - they have no proof, only rumors, but proceed to want her dead anyway. That's a real problem with the Chantry and the templars - their ability to kill people on suspicion alone.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Though... how do you prove someone is a illegal mage? Unless you catch them redhanded or they admit it. How can you deal with them before someone suffers? [/quote]

It's a simple issue of their ability to do magic - which makes it clear that Morrigan was a mage when she's fighting in Denerim. However, being at the side of the Hero of Ferelden, there's no reason to assume that she hasn't been recruited by the Warden, and technically outside Chantry control (like all Grey Warden mages are). I assume that's what happens if the Hero of Ferelden - de facto Arl of Amaranthine - still lives (sans Orlesian Warden) and tells the Chantry to go f**k themselves if Morrigan was a friend or more.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

I'm the devil's advocate. I was just pointing out that he is not specifically saying he was overruled. He is saying that there is nothing he can do. Which can mean several things. Sometimes what people say really hang on the meaning of the words themselves.
You might be right that he wanted to stop it but couldn't. But he might also have hidden behind the rules. [/quote]

He admits that if it were up to him, things would be different, but it's clearly not. Irving can't do anything about Jowan. Even Knight-Commander Greagoir orders Jowan's execution without consulting the First Enchanter. Clearly, the templars are in charge, and the Circles are only "technically" (as in, not in this universe) independent.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

I think I have gotten the impression that he has more authority than you have. For all Gregoir's bluster, I get the impression that Irving is essentially saying that it is not Gregoir's place to decide that. Which of course annoys Gregoir to no end (but those two seem like the kind of friends that love a good argument and to annoy one another)
Feel free to disagree though. [/quote]

Irving is clearly saying that, but it doesn't mean that Irving has any power to make it happen. The Circles are under Chantry control. Who signed the Rite on Jowan? Greagoir. Who denied the additional mages to Ostagar? It was Greagoir.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Hence few rights. That would be cases in which they are lacking. But they are for instance guaranteed food. Which is a right. Studies. Which also is a right. To express their thoughts. Which also is a right. Uldred was a very vocal libertarian... yet he was still a senior enchanter. If they had no rights. He would not have that kind of authority, would he? [/quote]

Because none of them have any power whatsoever. All the power lies with the Knight-Commander. As much as Uldred can want independence, it'll never happen without a revolution and bloodshed. The pretense that all of the Circles are independent is a lie, and pointing out that they can eat ignores that the Chantry, as much as they hate mages, do need them - against the darkspawn, against the Qunari, and to craft magical so they can generate money.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Kirkwall's circle at most I think. The free marches is big and not united. But even so, I expect it to continue the story, but not conclude it. [/quote]

I make the assumption that if the devs are claiming that Hawke is the most important person in Thedas, it might be because he unites the Free Marches (all the city-states) under his (or her) banner. Therefore, I'd imagine that Hawke would be able to emancipate the mages of the Circles across the Free Marches.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Ah. And again... we have no evidence of no regulation. The only situation where would have seen it is Rylock... but she was killed (by us).
Magnificent D'sims, Anaeirin and such are all cases where the story is told by a second hand source and that eventual punishment would not be part of those stories. [/quote]

Except we have the situation with Morrigan in Witch Hunt, where an Orlesian Warden knows that she has a bounty on her head because the Chantry suspects she's a blood mage. That's all it takes for someone to die - a mere suspicion.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Indeed. The problem is. What if you let the mages go... and were wrong? Once done it cannot be undone. [/quote]

Mages deserve to be free, IMHO. They don't deserve to be enslaved to the Chantry system. I don't see the decision to free them as wrong - and if faced with a decision between the mages and the Chantry or Kirkwall's Order of Templars, I'll choose the mages.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Carver's "...your bloody templars..." to Hawke does have an interesting implication in this direction I think. [/quote]

Really? I've never seen or heard the clip. As much as I want the mages to be free, I would like there to be a choice for "Hawke" to decide. It makes little sense to force us into an Awakening Chantry Board situation where we have no choice but to do the assignment tasked with no alternative presented.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Yep. And then the follow up questions:
Pro-active or reactive?
What do you do with people who refuse to follow it?
What do you do with people who attack the enforcerers?
What do you do with mages who are so weak-willed they are a danger to everyone, especially themselves?
What do you do, despite your best efforts, when some mages rise up against it?
and how do you prove anything? [/quote]

Mages want to be free, and the meeting in Cumberland seems likely to spur that on. Since it happens within the time table to DA2 (as it takes place when Lothering is being attacked) then it's possible Hawke may be able to persuade the other Circles to free themselves. Maybe Wynne will make the same arguments you have in favor of keeping themselves under the heel of the Chantry. Do they continue to remain under the control of an order that cares nothing for their lives? Do they continue to allow others of their kind get murdered based on heresay and speculation alone? What happens when a Knight-Commander crosses the line and there's nothing that can be done about it? Do mages continue hoping that things will change, or actually do something to bring about that change for the benefit of mages across Thedas?

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

But it was Loghain that had Eamon poisoned. Not the Chantry.

Isolde did not want to send Connor away. But if mages could go wherever they wished, were treated amiably and could keep their titles.. She still would not have sent him away, would she (because under those circumstances she would not have to)? Connor had still been there when Eamon got poisoned. The demon still would have made the offer. And all things being equal... he still would not have been able to resist (because he had not been trained longer than six months. I'd think there's a bit more to learning to resist than: "Don't listens to demons by the way").
The only way the Chantry could be put to blame is by not being hospitable enough for Isolde to send Connor away. [/quote]

If she didn't have to send him away and there was proper tutors, then the situation wouldn't have arisen because Connor would have been getting proper training and Isolde wouldn't have thought that her son being a mage was the worst thing in the world. Connor would have realize who this "bad lady" was without needing the Warden to explain that it was a demon.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Let me make a counterquestion: Would it in a circle? [/quote]

A Circle where mages are imprisoned for being who they are would have been of no benefit to the villagers of the Blackmarsh. Free mages could have helped save lives, but instead there was no one available to assist any of them against the Baroness.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

and hopefully there will be negative consequences to react to regardless which choice is chosen. [/quote]

I think that whatever fallout follows the emancipation of mages (if it's an option for Hawke), it'll be worth the price it took to get there. Roughly 900 years of subjegation is enough.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]Moilami wrote...

Edit: This in case there is no "right or wrong" as you say, which is totally ridiculous and just says that you could as well be slain at sight then. There is no right or wrong, as you say. We can't know will you kill somebody some day. But we can kill you to make sure you don't kill anyone, and it is not wrong because there is no right or wrong. [/quote]

I see I expressed myself poorly. My apologies. At the moment of choosing, there is no correct and incorrect option. Just the one you chose and it's consequences.

That may very well be morally wrong. But that changes nothing. It is still the one you chose that matters, not that other options were morally right. That can never be undone. You can never go back and repair the damage done. Just go on and choose again next time.

And as arcanum put it so beautifully: "Humans seldom live long enough to see the consequences of their actions" [/quote]

That's very much what the choice between sparing and destroying the Anvil, and sparing or killing the Architect represent. The golems brought a hundred years of peace and can save Orzammar from being destroyed like the other ten Great Thaigs have been, but is it worth the cost? And while the Architect and his Disciples bring some peace to the Deep Roads, is it worth risking the possbility that even intelligent darkspawn will want to abduct women from the surface to create new broodmothers, or a possible war between intelligent darkspawn and surfacers? Tough decisions that not everyone agrees with, and require the protagonist to make the best decision they think possible.

[moilami]

Sir JK wrote...

moilami wrote...
So you say that just because something is morally wrong it can be done because there is no correct and incorrect option. Just concequences. In other words you still keep saying that is alright if my rogue stabs you several times very hard in your arse, leave you to bleed for one day, and then stabs you again untill you die. Fine.

No, I am saying that no matter what you chose or choose it was or is what you chose or choose. No matter what you do that situation will never come again.

Now there is two tables. In one table is put two apples and in other one is put one apple. You are told to pick an apple from one table for you and for your friend. Is there no correct choise and incorrect choise?

I know perfectly well you are among those chantry apologists who say "We don't have to care of freedom. We only chose to destroy one ethical group of people in the name of greater good. The rest of your posting is just that.

Sir JK wrote...
Wether it was the morally wrong choice at the time do not matter now... because it is what was chosen and all that is now is a result of that. That the mages would rise up against the restrictions was inevtiable. Had the chantry chosen something else then another situation would be inevitable.

Just like freeing the mages will have a consequence. That consequence is what the Chantry fears.

moilami wrote...
Why you don't ever think where slaying and inprisonment of mages can
lead to? You only picture the worst of mages and suppose that is what is
going to happen while imagining slaying and inprisoning of mages would
only end good? Why is that? Explain both why slaying mages end good and
freeing mages end bad.

I suppose my point is: It isn't easy. You can't just take a decision at this scale it know how it will turn out.

Maybe the Chantry is wrong. Maybe the circles does not help at all. But what if they are right? If they try to give mages more freedom they can never undo that decision... and if that leads to absolute disaster then they can never take it back.

Basically. It boils down to a single question:
How many innocent lives is the freedom of mages worth?

The answer the chantry gives is none. So that's why they don't want to risk it. And in the process they spill lives in their desperation to protect lives (if it's sounds completely illogical it's because it is).

So, Moilami. I suppose my point is not that the Chantry does good. But that neither they, nor the mages, nor us know what the future will bring and that they are absolutely convinced that if they let the mages go... people will die.
Tell me... if you are absolutely convinced people will die if you let someone go. Would you?

I tell you naughty girl is naughty and should be spanked xD Which I would do to you if you were a woman.

The chantry problem I have roughly identified a long time ago. You don't need to tell me what I know already, though it is appreciated you try to give insight to me.

Freedom is not a crime. So mages should not be blamed of what they are. I have made my choise a long time ago, and that is to fight for freedom and cry later - and as in all battles, you can't avoid the tears but you can chose to fight for freedom and justice.


Edit: Thanks anyway of your posting, you have been particularly funny to read as some sort of pro chantry speaker trying to turn my char against mages. Now I just hope I would get the damn game and start the real adventure. Can't wait to see the drama they have created. Will be pissed soon! And will lol when I see chantry/mage issue is just a side quest xD No matter, it will be the main quest for my char. I refuse to play the game as BioWare has intended

Modifié par moilami, 30 janvier 2011 - 09:06 .

[Sir JK]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
I never claimed she justified their attempts to kill Aenirin, but she clearly didn't care about how unhappy he was when he was in the Circle (or what the templars tried to do) when she made the offer. I'm not claiming that she's as far gone as Keili, but she's very pro-Chantry (to the point where she'll try to murder the Warden since Morrigan is an apostate and dared to have an opinion). Wynne's offering Aenirin to return to a life of subjegation when he finally has his freedom from the Circle, so I fail to see how she isn't excusing the failings of the Circle when she invites him back to the place that nearly got him murdered in the first place.[/quote]
Oh. She's absolutely pro-chantry and she seems to genuinely believe it tries to do good. She does recognice it for it's failures and flaws though. Hence why I don't think she's an apologist. She's just an old woman, who despite everything, had a good life living in the circle.

[quote]You mean a slow progression, like Bhelen offering the casteless more freedoms rather than outright eliminating the caste system? The problem I see with that is that mages have been subjegated for hundreds of years, and they want to be emancipated from the Chantry now. I think it's likely to be a central issue of DA2 (at least I hope so given the Templar vs. Mage footage that we've seen) and the emancipation of mages is a goal that I would fully support. Will there be issues? Of course, but I think accomplishing the freedom of mages will be worth the cost it takes to get there.[/quote]
Let us hope that cost is not higher than you expect it to be then

[quote]It seemed like the devs didn't spend too much time on the quests. That seemed to be a problem in other aspects of the story as well. I really wished that the Magi boon had been acknowledged in Awakening (even being turned down as Gaider admitted) so that we would know and could respond to what the Chantry denied the mages of Ferelden, rather than having to find out in a messageboard.[/quote]
I think awakening would have been too soon to acknowledge the magi boon. Most likely that's about when news of it would have reached Val Royeux and the Divine would have started to write... and edit... her letter back.
But yes. That quest could have used more of a story-line.

[quote]Unfortunately. I guess we have to fan fic a reason why the Warden is bothering to deal with a den of blood mages in Denerim, even if the Warden happens to be a blood mage.[/quote]
Well.. I think the answer is obvious. The same reason we help Ser Otto or Orta; The warden is a hero. You don't think all that blood on their altars is chicken blood, do you .

[quote]Except the bounty on Morrigan's head because the Chantry suspects her of being a blood mage doesn't require any detailed explanation - they have no proof, only rumors, but proceed to want her dead anyway. That's a real problem with the Chantry and the templars - their ability to kill people on suspicion alone.[/quote]
Indeed. It is a problem.
[quote]It's a simple issue of their ability to do magic - which makes it clear that Morrigan was a mage when she's fighting in Denerim. However, being at the side of the Hero of Ferelden, there's no reason to assume that she hasn't been recruited by the Warden, and technically outside Chantry control (like all Grey Warden mages are). I assume that's what happens if the Hero of Ferelden - de facto Arl of Amaranthine - still lives (sans Orlesian Warden) and tells the Chantry to go f**k themselves if Morrigan was a friend or more.[/quote]
I haven't actually played Witchunt so I think I'll refrain from speculating.
[quote]He admits that if it were up to him, things would be different, but it's clearly not. Irving can't do anything about Jowan. Even Knight-Commander Greagoir orders Jowan's execution without consulting the First Enchanter. Clearly, the templars are in charge, and the Circles are only "technically" (as in, not in this universe) independent.[/quote]
That's it though. What is he refering to when he says if it was up to him. The rules or the Templars or both? That's what I mean. He is not actually saying it is because of Gregoir/Chantry he cannot act. Just that he can't.
And indeed, Gregoir orders Jowan's execution once he is caught redhanded. Though, I believe all codices say that knight commanders have that jurisdiction as head of circle security. Remember... this is after having broken into the phylactery chamber itself. If Jowan truly was a wicked blood mage (which we know he wasn't, but did Gregoir? ) their ability to track him would be limited.
[quote]Irving is clearly saying that, but it doesn't mean that Irving has any power to make it happen. The Circles are under Chantry control. Who signed the Rite on Jowan? Greagoir. Who denied the additional mages to Ostagar? It was Greagoir.[/quote]
Gregoir also says they'll finish that later. Which usually mean the issue is not resolved. I'm not saying that the Circle has absolute authority in all matters. Just that I doubt that the Chantry does as well. I have no doubts the Chantry wields massive influence (especially in "security" matters, which probably include a fair few cases we'd not call security). But I am of the impression that the circles have a deal greater independence that it can seem (partly because the codices says so.

[quote]Because none of them have any power whatsoever. All the power lies with the Knight-Commander. As much as Uldred can want independence, it'll never happen without a revolution and bloodshed. The pretense that all of the Circles are independent is a lie, and pointing out that they can eat ignores that the Chantry, as much as they hate mages, do need them - against the darkspawn, against the Qunari, and to craft magical so they can generate money.[/quote]
A question though. If Knight-Commander wields absolute authority over the circle. Why is it that it is a Knight-Commander that says to another that the real decision-making lie with the first and senior enchanters? (Hierarchy of the Circle codex entry)

Why is he "lying"... to his own replacement? Seems a bit counterproductive... or is it a rebellious pro-mage Knight-Commander?

It seems a bit... farfetched to me.
[quote]I make the assumption that if the devs are claiming that Hawke is the most important person in Thedas, it might be because he unites the Free Marches (all the city-states) under his (or her) banner. Therefore, I'd imagine that Hawke would be able to emancipate the mages of the Circles across the Free Marches.[/quote]
The most important person in the world can still operate locally. Some people's importance only came to light after their death as well.

For instance, if Hawke frees the Kirkwall circle. That could Set things into motion that leads to all other towers to sever connections. Despite that he did not lead them.

But personally I think there's something else to Hawke's story. The mage one will no doubt be continued. I just don't think it is the main one.
[quote]Except we have the situation with Morrigan in Witch Hunt, where an Orlesian Warden knows that she has a bounty on her head because the Chantry suspects she's a blood mage. That's all it takes for someone to die - a mere suspicion.[/quote]
Then... what is sufficient to make them suspect blood magic? Before we debase them perhaps we ought to search for an answer to that. It is not entirely clear what she did between she left you and witchhunt happened. Is it?

[quote]Mages deserve to be free, IMHO. They don't deserve to be enslaved to the Chantry system. I don't see the decision to free them as wrong - and if faced with a decision between the mages and the Chantry or Kirkwall's Order of Templars, I'll choose the mages.[/quote]
And that will be the choice you choose. And the consequences will come after. Whatever they may be. But that cannot be undone. If you see that the circles were safer... then you can never take the mages back into them.

Whatever you choose there. It is irreversible. For better or for worse
[quote]Really? I've never seen or heard the clip. As much as I want the mages to be free, I would like there to be a choice for "Hawke" to decide. It makes little sense to force us into an Awakening Chantry Board situation where we have no choice but to do the assignment tasked with no alternative presented.[/quote]
I agree. As this topic proves, there is plenty of material for a very interesting story and dilemma.

[quote]Mages want to be free, and the meeting in Cumberland seems likely to spur that on. Since it happens within the time table to DA2 (as it takes place when Lothering is being attacked) then it's possible Hawke may be able to persuade the other Circles to free themselves. Maybe Wynne will make the same arguments you have in favor of keeping themselves under the heel of the Chantry. Do they continue to remain under the control of an order that cares nothing for their lives? Do they continue to allow others of their kind get murdered based on heresay and speculation alone? What happens when a Knight-Commander crosses the line and there's nothing that can be done about it? Do mages continue hoping that things will change, or actually do something to bring about that change for the benefit of mages across Thedas?[/quote]
Also interesting questions.

[quote]
If she didn't have to send him away and there was proper tutors, then the situation wouldn't have arisen because Connor would have been getting proper training and Isolde wouldn't have thought that her son being a mage was the worst thing in the world. Connor would have realize who this "bad lady" was without needing the Warden to explain that it was a demon.[/quote]
Would he? All thing being equal... it was only six months of training. At most.
Remember... the circles don't let their apprentices face mages until after a completed apprenticehood. Years of training... and even then the outcome is very uncertain. Connor is what... 11? 12? Heavens... I remember how naive I was back then. Young, naive and barely trained... I don't like those odds against a desire demon. The kind that is offering whatever you wish... probably complete with visions of success, promises and even demonstrations.

[quote]A Circle where mages are imprisoned for being who they are would have been of no benefit to the villagers of the Blackmarsh. Free mages could have helped save lives, but instead there was no one available to assist any of them against the Baroness.[/quote]
Ah. You missed my question. What if the Baroness had been in the circle? Would it had been possible to stop her with less casualties then?

[quote]I think that whatever fallout follows the emancipation of mages (if it's an option for Hawke), it'll be worth the price it took to get there. Roughly 900 years of subjegation is enough.[/quote]
And if it 900 years of subjegation of everyone else by the mages?

[quote]That's very much what the choice between sparing and destroying the Anvil, and sparing or killing the Architect represent. The golems brought a hundred years of peace and can save Orzammar from being destroyed like the other ten Great Thaigs have been, but is it worth the cost? And while the Architect and his Disciples bring some peace to the Deep Roads, is it worth risking the possbility that even intelligent darkspawn will want to abduct women from the surface to create new broodmothers, or a possible war between intelligent darkspawn and surfacers? Tough decisions that not everyone agrees with, and require the protagonist to make the best decision they think possible.[/quote]
Indeed. It is also exactly the sort of decisions that built the modern circles. Piece by piece, decision by decision. Measure by measure. Action and reaction. One day at a time. For a very long time (much, much more than 900 years). By both mages and Chantry.

And never was the choice easy.

[Big Blue Car]

"Never has so much been said about so little, and actually read by so few,"

- Winston Churchill, after reading this thread.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Well.. I think the answer is obvious. The same reason we help Ser Otto or Orta; The warden is a hero. You don't think all that blood on their altars is chicken blood, do you . [/quote]

That's why I kill them, of course. Poor chickens...

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

I haven't actually played Witchunt so I think I'll refrain from speculating. [/quote]

Here is the Orlesian Warden note from Witch Hunt:




Basically, they believe Morrigan to be a blood mage, and without any evidence, are offering a reward for her demise.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

That's it though. What is he refering to when he says if it was up to him. The rules or the Templars or both? That's what I mean. He is not actually saying it is because of Gregoir/Chantry he cannot act. Just that he can't.
And indeed, Gregoir orders Jowan's execution once he is caught redhanded. Though, I believe all codices say that knight commanders have that jurisdiction as head of circle security. Remember... this is after having broken into the phylactery chamber itself. If Jowan truly was a wicked blood mage (which we know he wasn't, but did Gregoir? ) their ability to track him would be limited. [/quote]

Except Irving said it in reference to Jowan's Rite and how things would be different if it were up to him, when the mage protagonist asks him if it's true, and even when he makes the offer to get Lily caught in the act because he can't change Jowan's fate, he notes that it's all an issue of survival. That doesn't speak to me of simply choosing not to do anything. In fact, his comment is the same quote that's used in the codex entry for his character.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Gregoir also says they'll finish that later. Which usually mean the issue is not resolved. I'm not saying that the Circle has absolute authority in all matters. Just that I doubt that the Chantry does as well. I have no doubts the Chantry wields massive influence (especially in "security" matters, which probably include a fair few cases we'd not call security). But I am of the impression that the circles have a deal greater independence that it can seem (partly because the codices says so. [/quote]

The Chantry controls the Circles - that's why they can outright the Magi boon for the Circle of Ferelden, which Irving is happy about during the ceremony (although it's bugged - I understand that the devs are looking into the bugged epilogues for the Magi boon and the elven Bann epilogues). I see no reason to even suspect that the Circles are in possession of any degree of independence from the Chantry. Even Morrigan scoffed when Alistair made the comment that the Circles are "technically independent" but didn't deny Morrigan's criticism of that statement.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

A question though. If Knight-Commander wields absolute authority over the circle. Why is it that it is a Knight-Commander that says to another that the real decision-making lie with the first and senior enchanters? (Hierarchy of the Circle codex entry) [/quote]

Knight-Commander Serain seems like a nice person from the letter he writes to his successor, but they're under Chantry control. It's like saying that just because prisoners can read, write, and form gangs in prison that they're free to some degree, when it doesn't change the fact that they're living in a prison system and all of them have to obey the rules.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...


Why is he "lying"... to his own replacement? Seems a bit counterproductive... or is it a rebellious pro-mage Knight-Commander?

It seems a bit... farfetched to me. [/quote]

The same reason that Greagoir comments that Irving makes the decisions regarding the Circle when A Broken Circle comes to a conclusion, when we can tell from his denial of the additional troops to Ostagar and how he decided Jowan's fate that it's far from the truth.

Seems farfetched to me to say that people forced to live in a prison are really the ones in charge.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

The most important person in the world can still operate locally. Some people's importance only came to light after their death as well. [/quote]

It would be pretty boring if Hawke became important only after his death. I'm looking to make some lasting and significant changes in the present tense - an apostate Hawke coming to power, liberating the mages of the Circle of Kirkwall, and removing all the members of the Order of Templars from the city-state. That's my plan, anyway.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

For instance, if Hawke frees the Kirkwall circle. That could Set things into motion that leads to all other towers to sever connections. Despite that he did not lead them.

But personally I think there's something else to Hawke's story. The mage one will no doubt be continued. I just don't think it is the main one. [/quote]

Certainly hope there's more to the story, but I'd like to be a motivating agent for change and actually have the capacity to make decisions over the nation (a Ferelden version of Augustus Caesar), not simply an errand boy doing favors for everyone who has no will of his own.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Then... what is sufficient to make them suspect blood magic? Before we debase them perhaps we ought to search for an answer to that. It is not entirely clear what she did between she left you and witchhunt happened. Is it? [/quote]

Suspicion alone isn't sufficient reason to murder anyone.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

And that will be the choice you choose. And the consequences will come after. Whatever they may be. But that cannot be undone. If you see that the circles were safer... then you can never take the mages back into them.

Whatever you choose there. It is irreversible. For better or for worse [/quote]

True, but I'd prefer freedom over subjegation.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Would he? All thing being equal... it was only six months of training. At most.
Remember... the circles don't let their apprentices face mages until after a completed apprenticehood. Years of training... and even then the outcome is very uncertain. Connor is what... 11? 12? Heavens... I remember how naive I was back then. Young, naive and barely trained... I don't like those odds against a desire demon. The kind that is offering whatever you wish... probably complete with visions of success, promises and even demonstrations. [/quote]

Which he could have been warned against if his mother wasn't raised in an enviornment to see mages as evil people. I don't deny Loghain's hand in getting Eamon poisoned, but I also find the Chantry guilty for their role in demonizing mages.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Ah. You missed my question. What if the Baroness had been in the circle? Would it had been possible to stop her with less casualties then? [/quote]

It's impossible to say. Is the Baroness a product of one of the Circles of Orlais? Were her talents hidden from the Chantry by her family? Difficult to say. I wish we knew more about her.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

And if it 900 years of subjegation of everyone else by the mages?  [/quote]

I don't think being afraid of what the oppressed will do is sufficient reason not to follow through with their liberation.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Indeed. It is also exactly the sort of decisions that built the modern circles. Piece by piece, decision by decision. Measure by measure. Action and reaction. One day at a time. For a very long time (much, much more than 900 years). By both mages and Chantry.

And never was the choice easy.
[/quote]

Centuries of oppression by the Chantry and mages trying to avoid mass executions. If the opportunity arises to grasp freedom for the Circles of Kirkwall (or all of the Free Marches), it's a choice worth going through - no matter the cost.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 30 janvier 2011 - 11:09 .

[moilami]

Big Blue Car wrote...

"Never has so much been said about so little, and actually read by so few,"
- Winston Churchill, after reading this thread.

This has been by far the most entertaining thread related to gaming I have ever read. This thread is pure win 5 stars.


Edit: Everything here will be prelude for my char who never have a chance to have these discussions in-game.

Modifié par moilami, 30 janvier 2011 - 11:20 .

[Kakistos_]

"Some are saying, however, that this needs to change. They remind the world that mages are not controlled by templars everywhere in Thedas: not among the Rivaini witches, the Dalish keepers or the Tevinter magisters… and those societies are, arguably, no worse off."

I would argue that the societies mentioned are better off due to the residency of free mages. Consider the Tevinter Imperium. It survived the onslaught of the first Blight, an Exalted March and continues to weather recurring assaults from the Quinari and the Chantry. The powerful mage lords that reside in Tevinter are no doubt partly responsible.

[Sir JK]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
Here is the Orlesian Warden note from Witch Hunt:




Basically, they believe Morrigan to be a blood mage, and without any evidence, are offering a reward for her demise.[/quote[
Uhm... it does not actually say that it is not supported by evidence. It says they believe she's a blood mage, nothing at all says they don't have good reasons to do so.

[quote]Except Irving said it in reference to Jowan's Rite and how things would be different if it were up to him, when the mage protagonist asks him if it's true, and even when he makes the offer to get Lily caught in the act because he can't change Jowan's fate, he notes that it's all an issue of survival. That doesn't speak to me of simply choosing not to do anything. In fact, his comment is the same quote that's used in the codex entry for his character.[/quote]
I know. I have just heard "if it was up to me" used to excuse behaviour were someone did not want to intervene. In this case the phrase could as well mean: if I could have prevented Jowan from taking up blood magic. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree though.

[quote]The Chantry controls the Circles - that's why they can outright the Magi boon for the Circle of Ferelden, which Irving is happy about during the ceremony (although it's bugged - I understand that the devs are looking into the bugged epilogues for the Magi boon and the elven Bann epilogues). I see no reason to even suspect that the Circles are in possession of any degree of independence from the Chantry. Even Morrigan scoffed when Alistair made the comment that the Circles are "technically independent" but didn't deny Morrigan's criticism of that statement.[/quote]
The reason I protest is that we have a number of references to it in the codex in clear wording. Technically independent is perhaps the key phrase, independent in all but the really big decisions and a few other?

[quote]Knight-Commander Serain seems like a nice person from the letter he writes to his successor, but they're under Chantry control. It's like saying that just because prisoners can read, write, and form gangs in prison that they're free to some degree, when it doesn't change the fact that they're living in a prison system and all of them have to obey the rules.[/quote]
See my answer below

[quote]The same reason that Greagoir comments that Irving makes the decisions regarding the Circle when A Broken Circle comes to a conclusion, when we can tell from his denial of the additional troops to Ostagar and how he decided Jowan's fate that it's far from the truth.

Seems farfetched to me to say that people forced to live in a prison are really the ones in charge.[/quote]
It's not a black and white though. They could have independence in many matters but not all. We just happen to encounter one or two of those situations where they don't. Perhaps Gregoir can stop them from leaving, but not order them to leave (hence why Irving is the one who must make the decision to help against the Archdemon but Gregoir overrules him in the number of mages to Ostagar)?

[quote]It would be pretty boring if Hawke became important only after his death. I'm looking to make some lasting and significant changes in the present tense - an apostate Hawke coming to power, liberating the mages of the Circle of Kirkwall, and removing all the members of the Order of Templars from the city-state. That's my plan, anyway.[/quote]
Good luck

[quote]Certainly hope there's more to the story, but I'd like to be a motivating agent for change and actually have the capacity to make decisions over the nation (a Ferelden version of Augustus Caesar), not simply an errand boy doing favors for everyone who has no will of his own.[/quote]
Indeed.

[quote]Suspicion alone isn't sufficient reason to murder anyone.[/quote]
No. But what if what is needed to be suspected in the first place is very damning? Something that makes blood magic very probable?
I'm not saying it is right, just that what if they generally do have really good reasons for it? They probably don't I admit.

[quote]True, but I'd prefer freedom over subjegation.[/quote]
Whoever said freedom is the consequence?

[quote]Which he could have been warned against if his mother wasn't raised in an enviornment to see mages as evil people. I don't deny Loghain's hand in getting Eamon poisoned, but I also find the Chantry guilty for their role in demonizing mages.[/quote]
And what would warning about them have achieved (also, since most dangers of magic dogma discusses demons and blood magic you'd think they had ample warning)? It is not enough to know of the dangers. You must be able to resists... or for that matter realise you're dealing with a demon.

Let's take our own Harrowing as an example. Who is the real test there, Mouse, Lazy Bear, Valour or Rage? Rage and Lazy Bear are the demons you're warned about, Mouse is the really dangerous one. If the other spirits even know he's a demon, they keep it to themselves.

[quote]It's impossible to say. Is the Baroness a product of one of the Circles of Orlais? Were her talents hidden from the Chantry by her family? Difficult to say. I wish we knew more about her.[/quote]
Indeed.

[quote]I don't think being afraid of what the oppressed will do is sufficient reason not to follow through with their liberation.[/quote]
No, but is the cause some others might be more hesitant with allowing it.

[quote]Centuries of oppression by the Chantry and mages trying to avoid mass executions. If the opportunity arises to grasp freedom for the Circles of Kirkwall (or all of the Free Marches), it's a choice worth going through - no matter the cost.[/quote]
We'll see.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Big Blue Car wrote...

No when a religious group massively persecutes and imprisons people because of the way they were born regardless of how innocent they are that group of people are evil dicks, and everyone who doesn't oppose that group for the sake of human dignity, much less live as a member of it, is also a terrible human.

Bull****.


Some poeple keep harping that the revolution is necessary. Well, akeeping mages inteh tower is also necessary. TI's a ****ty job, but smebody's got to do it.



*****
One thought occured to me..

SOCIAL FOOTPRINT
Why aren't we seeing one in the Dalish? Or Haven?

- We spent a total of 1 hour in haven and have no real infor on it.

- The devs might have just missed adding it or didn't pay attention to it.

- Cultural bias may have influnece there. For an example, let's say that any time a dalish/rivain mage turns into an abomination, the other inhabitants consider it divine punishment for their sins. As such if is beyond their ability to influence, and even more important, they belive it won't happen if they don' anger the gods.
As such, they feel safe even tough they aren't. This is a good example of how one can have abominations disasters, and still have no anti-mage sentiments.


LESS ABOMINATIONS

While many have stated (wihout any logical proof) that other systems have less abomination incidents than the Chantry one, no one has bothered to ask (assuming it was true) - why?
If the Dalish are so resilient against posseseion, why is that? What is their secret?

What if they sacrifce  their firstborns in a blood magic ritual to that cause? Or something even more devious. Would anyone argue that this is a better and more moral system?

Point is, we know so little that it's impossible to say.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
No they don't.  The Templars permit them to do all this, but it's all at the sufference of the Templars.  Mages have no rights by any stretch of the imagination since one order from the Grand Cleric and the Templars can legally kill all the mages in the tower.  Ergo, mages have no rights...only privledges that the Chantry chooses to grant.

As opposed to one order from the king? Or leader of any other gorup powerfull enough to take on the tower?

Mages have rights. Quite a few of them.
David himselfsaid he wouldn't call them slaves.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
No, it wasn't because Aenirin resisted - they claimed he was maleficar when Wynne explains what happened to him (which even Chantry apologist Wynne took to be a total crock since she invites him back to the Circle), while Irving said that there was no proof that Anders did anything more than run away (and I think Greagoir played a role in Irving having as much say as he does to accomplish that).[/quote]

Proof that Aenirin didn't resist would be nice....



[quote]
Another case would be whether templars and the Chantry have any right to imprison mages in the first place. Personally, I don't think they do.[/quote]

I don't think the police has any right to imprison me if I rob a bank.



[quote]
He wasn't a real mage, though. He was a charlatan who pretended to heal people. No suspicion of blood magic or being an abomination, but the horrible crime of healing the sick! D'Sims wasn't a saint, he was a fraudulent elven scammer who pretended he was healing people, and got his head cut off. The problem is that when he was killed, the templars thought he was an illegal mage who was healing people.[/quote]

Doesn't matter if he wasn't a real mage. If a man attacks you, wiht a knife or a fireball, you will strike back.



[quote]
And a real life serial killer killed more than double that number (as was pointed out the first time you mentioned it) so I fail to see why mages should be segregated when everyone (including animals and trees) can be dangerous and powerful when they are possessed.[quote]

An abomination with a mind of a serial killer could kill a LOT more.
A serial killer hides and picks his targets, trying to avoid beging detected. He kills in secreat. That is the "power" of a serial killer.
An abomination usually doesn't give a damn about staying hidden.

Mages are segregated because the mages are FAR more dangerous and FAR more likely to become possesed.
Risk/befetif/safety...the ratios are not equal.




[quote]
Or we could have a repeat of the Uldred incident, where bad things happen precisely because mages are prisoners (or some would argue slaves) of the Chantry.[/quote]

It was contained in the tower, so not really that bad.
Now if Uldred tore the wail in the middle of a crowded marketplace.....possesion and carnage galore.

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
No they don't.  The Templars permit them to do all this, but it's all at the sufference of the Templars.  Mages have no rights by any stretch of the imagination since one order from the Grand Cleric and the Templars can legally kill all the mages in the tower.  Ergo, mages have no rights...only privledges that the Chantry chooses to grant.

As opposed to one order from the king? Or leader of any other gorup powerfull enough to take on the tower?

Mages have rights. Quite a few of them.
David himselfsaid he wouldn't call them slaves.

Just because DG wouldn't call mages slaves (although I do think that term fits the Tranquil very well) doesn't mean mages have rights.  Prisoners don't have rights...merely priveledges the state choses to grant them that can be taken away at any time ()including their very life in many cases).

The same applies here.  Mages don't even have the right to live or defend themselves.....unless the Chantry says they can...and that's not a right at all in that case.  If a mage doesn't even have the right to defend him or herself, then mages indeed have no legal rights.  Even DG aknowledged that the circle tower was a prison after all.

-Polaris

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
No they don't.  The Templars permit them to do all this, but it's all at the sufference of the Templars.  Mages have no rights by any stretch of the imagination since one order from the Grand Cleric and the Templars can legally kill all the mages in the tower.  Ergo, mages have no rights...only privledges that the Chantry chooses to grant.

As opposed to one order from the king? Or leader of any other gorup powerfull enough to take on the tower?

Mages have rights. Quite a few of them.
David himselfsaid he wouldn't call them slaves.

Just because DG wouldn't call mages slaves (although I do think that term fits the Tranquil very well) doesn't mean mages have rights.  Prisoners don't have rights...merely priveledges the state choses to grant them that can be taken away at any time ()including their very life in many cases).

The same applies here.  Mages don't even have the right to live or defend themselves.....unless the Chantry says they can...and that's not a right at all in that case.  If a mage doesn't even have the right to defend him or herself, then mages indeed have no legal rights.  Even DG aknowledged that the circle tower was a prison after all.

-Polaris

Err...being in a prison does not a slave make.

Depending on the country, prisoners *can* have basic human rights. They are fed, clothed, housed, given necessities (mages have access to a full library, workshops and are allowed to practise their craft), aren't allowed to be abused (even if it happens at times) etc. Prisoners can have a pretty cushy lifestyle to the point they *don't want to leave*.

Prisoner /= slave. And yes, some of them like it.