1927 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

David Gaider wrote...

The mages aren't slaves.

Some people might refer to them as such-- Anders, for one, though I don't know if he's the sort of supporting argument you want to use-- but I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that not being free and being a slave are different things.

They are definitely not free. In Kirkwall, they are tantamount to prisoners. According to the law of the Circle of Magi, they have a certain amount of rights if very limited personal freedom. How much those laws are respected will vary from tower to tower. Either way, however, they are not owned by the Chantry, nor are they forced into servitude (meaning they are not forced to perform work or any other service on the Chantry's behalf).

If someone wishes to see the Chantry as heartless oppressors, by all means-- there are many ways to interpret the situation, and that's intentional. If someone tries to argue that there are absolutes involved, or that anything we've written suggests there are, they're quite simply deluded-- not to put too fine a point on it.

:Please explain to me, very carefully, how a tranquil mage isn't a slave.  I'm listening, ....but with prejudice since everything I know about slavery matches what is done to these lobomized mages (often illegally and aganst their will).  There is at least one reference to using such as sex-surrogates.

How is that not slavery?  If the Templars don't have to respect mage's rights then how can you honestly say that mages have any rghts?  We see very clearly that there is no viable and respectalbe force that makes Templars respect any mage's so-called rights.

So frankly, I find this response rather pathethic at best.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Also DG, locking up people for what they are with no trial and no recourse rather than what they have done is EVIL. That is pretty absolute at least in western society and that is pretty absolute and pretty much unversal no matter how much you want to deny it.

You can go ahead and call me deluded all you like, but it doesn't make me wrong.

-Polaris

[Camenae]

I mean I guess it would depend on your definition of "slavery." If it's simply "having to perform labor that one wouldn't otherwise consent to" then my boyfriend telling me to wash the dishes or make him a sandwich would be enslaving me?

[Statulos]

If we consider that Thedas is in a social stage similar to XIV century in Western Europe; how free is people?

I mean, we´re talking about a feudal world. Yes, mages are not free, but I am sure neither are peasants.

Slavery is defined as a person legaly owning another person who simply has no rights. I don´t think that´s the case of mages.

Modifié par Statulos, 03 avril 2011 - 05:57 .

[LobselVith8]

David Gaider wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Hawke, for another, can use the terms servitude and slavery to describe the Chantry controlled Circle.

Fair enough. And that means what, precisely, other than that Hawke-- who has never been part of the Circle-- has an opinion?

Son of Malcolm Hawke, but fair enough. So every codex and character that refers to servitude, servant, or slavery in relation to the Chantry controlled Circles is wrong? I don't see why characters and codex entries use the term if it's not supposed to be applicable.

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
Please explain to me, very carefully, how a tranquil mage isn't a slave.  I'm listening, ....but with prejudice since everything I know about slavery matches what is done to these lobomized mages (often illegally and aganst their will).  There is at least one reference to using such as sex-surrogates.

How is that not slavery?  If the Templars don't have to respect mage's rights then how can you honestly say that mages have any rghts?  We see very clearly that there is no viable and respectalbe force that makes Templars respect any mage's so-called rights.

So frankly, I find this response rather pathethic at best.

Pathetic?

Ooookay. I'll just simply suggest you look up a definition of slave and make an attempt not to mix it up with righteous indignation and imagined facts any more than you already are... and leave you to it.

LobselVith8 wrote...
Son of Malcolm Hawke, but fair enough. So
every codex and character that refers to servitude, servant, or slavery
in relation to the Chantry controlled Circles is wrong? I don't see why
characters and codex entries use the term if it's not supposed to be
applicable.

They're not wrong. They're opinions. Almost every codex entry is written as a point of view-- you can't start picking and choosing which ones are absolute facts when it suits you, that's all I'm saying.

Some people (nobody on this thread, clearly) are going to equate imprisonment and loss of freedom with slavery. As wrong as someone might think the oppression of mages is, it's not really slavery.

Modifié par David Gaider, 03 avril 2011 - 06:01 .

[IanPolaris]

ddv.rsa wrote...

Templars illegally abusing their authority and the rite of tranquility doesn't make the circle slavery. Under normal circumstances they would be severely punished for it.

As for the tranquil, they aren't exactly forced to work in a plantation for hours on end while being whipped. Yes, they work, but why shouldn't they be engaged in some sort of productive enterprise? Most people are compelled to work for a living. And it's not like anyone is cashing-in off them.The money they earn is used to support the circle. The first enchanter even sets the prices!

The act of stripping a person's emotions takes away their capacity for freewill (because it takes away the ability to use emotions to come up with their own desires).  That makes it slavery and of the most brutal sort.

-Polaris

[Camenae]

Statulos wrote...

If we consider that Thedas is in a social stage similar to XIV century in Western Europe; how free is people?

I mean, we´re talking about a feudal world. Yes, mages are not free, but I am sure neither are peasants.

Exactly.  Thank you.  Giving the mages modern-day America "freedoms" would be giving them FAR MORE freedoms than the average person in Thedas/medieval Europe had. 

I'm for some mage EQUALITY.  NOT freedom the way people seem to mean it.

What rights do you think those miners that Hubert was "hiring" had?  You think they kept going back to the Bone Pit mines even though there were DRAGONS there, because of their work ethic??

[BuddyBurkman]

IanPolaris wrote...

ddv.rsa wrote...

Templars illegally abusing their authority and the rite of tranquility doesn't make the circle slavery. Under normal circumstances they would be severely punished for it.

As for the tranquil, they aren't exactly forced to work in a plantation for hours on end while being whipped. Yes, they work, but why shouldn't they be engaged in some sort of productive enterprise? Most people are compelled to work for a living. And it's not like anyone is cashing-in off them.The money they earn is used to support the circle. The first enchanter even sets the prices!

The act of stripping a person's emotions takes away their capacity for freewill (because it takes away the ability to use emotions to come up with their own desires).  That makes it slavery and of the most brutal sort.

-Polaris

What if they volunteered beforehand?

[IanPolaris]

David Gaider wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Please explain to me, very carefully, how a tranquil mage isn't a slave.  I'm listening, ....but with prejudice since everything I know about slavery matches what is done to these lobomized mages (often illegally and aganst their will).  There is at least one reference to using such as sex-surrogates.

How is that not slavery?  If the Templars don't have to respect mage's rights then how can you honestly say that mages have any rghts?  We see very clearly that there is no viable and respectalbe force that makes Templars respect any mage's so-called rights.

So frankly, I find this response rather pathethic at best.

Pathetic?

Ooookay. I'll just simply suggest you look up a definition of slave and make an attempt not to mix it up with righteous indignation and imagined facts any more than you already are... and leave you to it.

I have.  Have you?  A tranquil mage has his freewill deliberately stripped (often against his will) and then forced to work to gain his masters money.

Seems like slavery to me.  The act of stripping emotions is just like putting a ball and chain on the person but is more effective since it removes the emotions required to rebel.  We even see this explicitly when one tranquil is briefly (by Anders) detranquiled and asks for death over being a continued puppet of the Templars (i.e. A SLAVE).

That's not righteous indigation.  That's calling your system for what it is at least for Tranquil mages.  For non-tranquil mages, I'll agree it's not slavery....but that's not saying very much.

-Polaris

[ddv.rsa]

Mr. Gaider, since you're reading this thread, could you comment on whether or not Meredith was within her rights to invoke the rite of annulment?

[Vormaerin]

Koyasha wrote...


It does apply, however.  In DA2 the bartender comments on it, stating that the Circle of Magi was given their autonomy.  If there was never any reference to that we could infer that it either never went through or the Chantry successfully blocked it from happening, but since it's referred to as something that has happened, it seems pretty clear it was taken into account.

His comments (and the other poster's reference to King Alistair) are modified based on the events you import.  It applies if you made certain decisions or used one of the defaults that include those decisions.  It does not apply in every case.  In my game, no one met King Alistair because he was a drunk I found in the tavern until Teagan convinced him to go be a drunk in Fereldan instead.

[LobselVith8]

Statulos wrote...

If we consider that Thedas is in a social stage similar to XIV century in Western Europe; how free is people?

I mean, we´re talking about a feudal world. Yes, mages are not free, but I am sure neither are peasants.

Slavery is defined as a person legaly owning another person who simply has no rights. I don´t think that´s the case of mages.

I believe Ian is addressing that Karl, for instance, begs to die instead of living life as a "templar puppet" and that another tranquil directly says that only Knight-Captain Cullen can "command" her. There's also the sub-section of slavery that lists:

n
one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence

If the tranquil have no agency, then how are they free?

[Statulos]

Camenae wrote...

Statulos wrote...

If we consider that Thedas is in a social stage similar to XIV century in Western Europe; how free is people?

I mean, we´re talking about a feudal world. Yes, mages are not free, but I am sure neither are peasants.

Exactly.  Thank you.  Giving the mages modern-day America "freedoms" would be giving them FAR MORE freedoms than the average person in Thedas/medieval Europe had. 

I'm for some mage EQUALITY.  NOT freedom the way people seem to mean it.

What rights do you think those miners that Hubert was "hiring" had?  You think they kept going back to the Bone Pit mines even though there were DRAGONS there, because of their work ethic??

There is also an extra layer in here. We´re talking about a feudal society. That means individuals are NOT equal. Depending on your state (or stament) different laws and rights apply. And mages perfectly qualify as a statement.

Unfair? By today´s standards, yes. But I think Thedas has no Rouseau or Voltaire that started this new thing that Max Weber defines as "****** aequalis".

[IanPolaris]

BuddyBurkman wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

ddv.rsa wrote...

Templars illegally abusing their authority and the rite of tranquility doesn't make the circle slavery. Under normal circumstances they would be severely punished for it.

As for the tranquil, they aren't exactly forced to work in a plantation for hours on end while being whipped. Yes, they work, but why shouldn't they be engaged in some sort of productive enterprise? Most people are compelled to work for a living. And it's not like anyone is cashing-in off them.The money they earn is used to support the circle. The first enchanter even sets the prices!

The act of stripping a person's emotions takes away their capacity for freewill (because it takes away the ability to use emotions to come up with their own desires).  That makes it slavery and of the most brutal sort.

-Polaris

What if they volunteered beforehand?

I don't have a problem with that.  If a mage, deliberately and knowling volunteered to be tranquil understanding what that means (Orwain in DAO is the best example), then no I would not consider that slavery.  However, many (I daresay most) tranquil especially in Kirkwell aren't made tranquil voluntarily and in those cases, I'm sorry DG, but I am going to call thems as I sees them.  Involunary tranquile are slaves.  Ser Alrik even gloats that any tranquil will always do exactly what they are told.  Sounds like slavery to me.

-Polaris

[Vormaerin]

IanPolaris wrote...


That's not righteous indigation.  That's calling your system for what it is at least for Tranquil mages.  For non-tranquil mages, I'll agree it's not slavery....but that's not saying very much.

-Polaris

Well, see, now you are suddenly talking about Tranquil mages.  The vast majority of mages are not Tranquil.  Its also a last resort (except in evil Kirkwall).  So... what's your point?

[LobselVith8]

David Gaider wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Son of Malcolm Hawke, but fair enough. So every codex and character that refers to servitude, servant, or slavery
in relation to the Chantry controlled Circles is wrong? I don't see why characters and codex entries use the term if it's not supposed to be applicable.

They're not wrong. They're opinions. Almost every codex entry is written as a point of view-- you can't start picking and choosing which ones are absolute facts when it suits you, that's all I'm saying.

Some people (nobody on this thread, clearly) are going to equate imprisonment and loss of freedom with slavery. As wrong as someone might think the oppression of mages is, it's not really slavery.

I don't believe people on the thread equate loss of freedom with slavery. People are equating it with slavery because some codex entries reference mages preferring freedom over being a servant of the Chantry or being forced into servitude, not merely because of the lack of freedom. There's also the issue of tranquility, where we have Anders former lover Karl begging not to remain a "templar puppet" and there's a conversation where a tranquil mage openly says that only Cullen can command her.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 03 avril 2011 - 06:07 .

[IanPolaris]

Vormaerin wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...


That's not righteous indigation.  That's calling your system for what it is at least for Tranquil mages.  For non-tranquil mages, I'll agree it's not slavery....but that's not saying very much.

-Polaris

Well, see, now you are suddenly talking about Tranquil mages.  The vast majority of mages are not Tranquil.  Its also a last resort (except in evil Kirkwall).  So... what's your point?

If the Kirkwell mages can get away using tranquility left and right, then what's to stop the other Templars in other circles?  The goodness of the Knight Commander's heart?  This is a large part of the reason why the circles all rebelled once they saw it was not a hopeless thing to do.

-Polaris

[ddv.rsa]

Vormaerin wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...


That's not righteous indigation.  That's calling your system for what it is at least for Tranquil mages.  For non-tranquil mages, I'll agree it's not slavery....but that's not saying very much.

-Polaris

Well, see, now you are suddenly talking about Tranquil mages.  The vast majority of mages are not Tranquil.  Its also a last resort (except in evil Kirkwall).  So... what's your point?

That's something that is easy to lose sight of: the situation in Kirkwall is the exception, not the norm.

[IanPolaris]

ddv.rsa wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...


That's not righteous indigation.  That's calling your system for what it is at least for Tranquil mages.  For non-tranquil mages, I'll agree it's not slavery....but that's not saying very much.

-Polaris

Well, see, now you are suddenly talking about Tranquil mages.  The vast majority of mages are not Tranquil.  Its also a last resort (except in evil Kirkwall).  So... what's your point?

That's something that is easy to lose sight of: the situation in Kirkwall is the exception, not the norm.

Yet.  If KC Meridith can get away with it than any KC can get away with it which is sort of the point.  Rights that only exist at the sufferance of a KC aren't really rghts.  Upshot?  Mages may as well rebel since they have literally nothing to lose.

-Polaris

[Vormaerin]

IanPolaris wrote...

If the Kirkwell mages can get away using tranquility left and right, then what's to stop the other Templars in other circles?  The goodness of the Knight Commander's heart?  This is a large part of the reason why the circles all rebelled once they saw it was not a hopeless thing to do.

-Polaris

What's to keep a policeman from breaking into your house right now, beating you up, and taking your stuff because he feels like it?  The goodness of his heart?

Its illegal to make harrowed mages Tranquil.  Its illegal to do a lot of the other things done in Kirkwall and not, as far as we know, done anywhere else.   This is the core point of the argument.  NO ONE thinks the situation in Kirkwall is legitimate.  Its clearly illegal, unethical, and evil.   Its also NOT the way the Circle system is supposed to operate.   Even many of the Templars say so.

But ANDERS DOESN"T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.   Nothing in his solution does anything to address the problem that Meredith, Cullen, and other unfit templars are in charge.   He plays straight into their hands.   They now have the proof that they were right all along thanks to him.   

[LobselVith8]

Vormaerin wrote...

What's to keep a policeman from breaking into your house right now, beating you up, and taking your stuff because he feels like it?  The goodness of his heart?

Its illegal to make harrowed mages Tranquil.  Its illegal to do a lot of the other things done in Kirkwall and not, as far as we know, done anywhere else.   This is the core point of the argument.  NO ONE thinks the situation in Kirkwall is legitimate.  Its clearly illegal, unethical, and evil.   Its also NOT the way the Circle system is supposed to operate.   Even many of the Templars say so.

But ANDERS DOESN"T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.   Nothing in his solution does anything to address the problem that Meredith, Cullen, and other unfit templars are in charge.   He plays straight into their hands.   They now have the proof that they were right all along thanks to him.  

Proof doesn't matter, because the Circles saw that "the mighty templars could be defied" and broke free from Chantry and templar control. The Circles of Ferelden and Kirkwall were likely polar opposites, but given that the remaining Circles have all rebelled from Chantry and templar control, I don't think it's much of a leap that the mages weren't satisified with the situation of living under their oppressors.

[Darth Krytie]

For the benefit of all, slaves are: owned by someone, have no freedom of action, and are not allowed to own any property of their own.

However, Tranquil mages do seem to fall under a secondary definition of slave: Being under the total domination of another. I do not see how they can say no at that point or choose their own actions counter to that of what the Templars desire. Unless I'm missing a crucial point of what being a Tranquil is.

[David Gaider]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I don't believe people on the thread equate loss of freedom with slavery. People are equating it with slavery because some codex entries reference mages preferring freedom over being a servant of the Chantry or being forced into servitude, not merely because of the lack of freedom. There's also the issue of tranquility, where we have Anders former lover Karl begging not to remain a "templar puppet" and there's a conversation where a tranquil mage openly says that only Cullen can command her.

Indeed, I would agree the Tranquil are the templars at their morally murky best.

I would say, however, that the situation of the Tranquil is not the situation of all mages. All mages are not Tranquil. There are many things that one could object to about the Circle -- the Rite of Tranquility being one of them-- and one could even be outraged about these things, but to say that all mages are slaves would be incorrect. Not unless one considers prisoners to be slaves.

As for that codex entry, I don't imagine he was referring to literal servitude. The Tranquil are put to work-- as a matter of convenience, because they have no other option (I wouldn't call it 'volunteering", per se) -- but mages are not. They don't perform a service for the Chantry except when called into war, and that's for a First Enchanter to decide. They are the advocates of the mages under their charge, an ombudsman if you will.

Does the system work? There are many reasons to say not at all-- and also many reasons to say that there's no good alternative. I only meant to clarify that there is no absolute, at least insofar as we ever intended to express... but some people evidently know our world better than we do. So there you go.

[IanPolaris]

Vormaerin wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

If the Kirkwell mages can get away using tranquility left and right, then what's to stop the other Templars in other circles?  The goodness of the Knight Commander's heart?  This is a large part of the reason why the circles all rebelled once they saw it was not a hopeless thing to do.

-Polaris

What's to keep a policeman from breaking into your house right now, beating you up, and taking your stuff because he feels like it?  The goodness of his heart?

Its illegal to make harrowed mages Tranquil.  Its illegal to do a lot of the other things done in Kirkwall and not, as far as we know, done anywhere else.   This is the core point of the argument.  NO ONE thinks the situation in Kirkwall is legitimate.  Its clearly illegal, unethical, and evil.   Its also NOT the way the Circle system is supposed to operate.   Even many of the Templars say so.

But ANDERS DOESN"T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.   Nothing in his solution does anything to address the problem that Meredith, Cullen, and other unfit templars are in charge.   He plays straight into their hands.   They now have the proof that they were right all along thanks to him.   

I will explain this to you as simply as possible.  Yes a policeman could indee abuse his authority like you suggest.

Once.

Then I go to IA/Police and get the officer canned.  If that doesn't work, then I can appeal to any number of oversight authorities including both civil and criminal courts, and the policeman will rue the day he was born.  Admittedly it's easier to take avantage of such options if one has money (which I happen to) than when one doesn't (and it's why many living in the ghettos live in fear of the police....because they know the police really can do what they like and they don't have the resources to make the cop pay for that...but that's another topic).

What oversight do the Templars have?  Basically zero if the complete ineffectualness of both the Grand Cleric and the mythical Order of Seekers is any indication. 

Good job overseeing the Templars btw Seekers.  Finding out that Meridith was a fruitcake from a Dwarf years later and only AFTER you've lost both the circles and templars is just a bit late doncha think?

-Polaris