1927 réponses à ce sujet

[Oneiropolos]

Ah, David Gaider. You make me fall more and more in love with you. In a strictly fangirly platonic way. (I don't think that makes sense. I'm ignoring the nonsensicalness of it. Also. Typing nonsensicalness is fun.)

If we go by the definition of slave as one who is under the domination of another person...or better yet, the one that says "One who works very hard" then damn. Most of us have been slaves at one time in our lives. But I really don't think ACTUAL slaves in history would appreciate us claiming so because a few definitions says so. I hate the mages are slaves argument. It might have been what Ser Alrek was aiming for, but I do not think most templars view it that way. We just unfortunately STILL have very little understanding of tranquil mages and how they're compensated... we just know Kirkwall is really screwed up in their mage circle. Like stated earlier, if Fereldan is an example of a very liberal circle and Kirkwall is an example of the worst.. well, that means we've seen two extremes and still don't REALLY know the story. I'm not justifying what occurs to the mages, but I feel like words like "Slave" are trigger words because of history, PARTICULARLY in the United States, and they're meant to evoke strong emotions immediately. So people are too eager to jump on the bandwagon to use them in their arguments, and again, the history major in me hates it. Horrific things can happen, people can be oppressed, and this behavior is NOT excused... demanding that they be viewed as 'slaves' seems to be at it's core an emotional argument. I find it sad that people feel they need to use that word in order for the concept of injustice to be conveyed.

I personally WOULD love to know if Meredith was in her rights in the given situation for the rite of anullment too. As purely a "Oh, that's good to know" thing. I don't pretend to think she was sane at the moment, but I could see some argument being put forth that some sort of martial law concerning the circle gets declared if the Grand Cleric in the area is killed. It could be that this is a VERY limited span of time, and that another Grand Cleric would be sent post haste. In most situations, it'd be kinda obvious if a Grand Cleric is killed and then the Knight Commander kills all the mages just because. But in this situation, a mage WAS the one who killed the Grand Cleric and it gave Meredith the golden opportunity to be insane, so if there was some sort of precedent in place for it, it'd make sense to me. But I'd also buy "Nope, technically, she legally couldn't. She just did anyway and the other Templars were too in shock over seeing the Grand Cleric and chantry explode not to go along with it."

[Mnemnosyne]

Well there's two parts of wondering whether tranquil are slaves for me. For one, being stripped of emotions does not necessarily remove one's decision-making ability. On the other hand, past evidence has shown that tranquil mages seem to have...questionable ability to make decisions, at best. They do seem to make choices though, it's not as though they stand around golem-like until they are commanded. Even if it's a highly questionable choice, Owain, for instance, attempted to escape, encountered the barrier, and decided to return to the place that was familiar to him.

If a tranquil mage is capable of making their own decisions and is free to leave the Circle or Chantry if they so choose, then it's not technically slavery. It may be reprehensible for a whole host of reasons, but they're not slaves because they can still leave.

However, if tranquil mages are incapable of making decisions for themselves, then I'm not sure how they could be handled in which they wouldn't be essentially slaves. It's made pretty clear that the tranquil supply most of the money for the Circles, those who have been made tranquil against their will - even through the normal procedures of making mages tranquil who haven't been harrowed and are considered to be a danger - are basically forced to work for the Circles. If the capacity to choose otherwise has been stripped from them, then it is just as much enforced servitude as if they were able to choose but denied that choice.

[IanPolaris]

David Gaider wrote...
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.

Tranquil are forced to work with all possibility of freewill (and thus objection) taken away?  By it's very defination, how is that not slavery?  It seems to be slavery to me (and I m not the only one).  I am just using words and their correct definitions is all.  I am not saying that all mages are slaves (but they are definately unjustly held prisoners), but involtunary tranquil certainly are.  {I say involtunary because a volunartary tranquile made a freewill decision that was meanful before becoming tranquil...see Orwain}

Words have meanings.

-Polaris

[Vormaerin]

That's how its supposed to work. And usually it does. Just like it usually works in the Circles. But you know as well as I do that there are plenty of cases where it didn't work for long stretches of time in particular places. Just like in Kirkwall.

[Darth Krytie]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

TBH, I thought Anders used the term slave hyperbolically. I never got the sense he saw them as literal slaves of the Chantry.

Calling them slaves, no. Calling them opressed, yes.

Modifié par Darth Krytie, 03 avril 2011 - 06:27 .

[LobselVith8]

David Gaider wrote...

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.  

Aren't the mages venturing into an alternative to Chantry control with the continential revolution of the Circles of Magi?

[IanPolaris]

Ser Alrik answers that question, and it's an answer that stems from 18th century ethical philosophy. By taking away a person's emotons, you deny them the ability to make morally meaningfl decisions. That makes them lose freewill. Sure tranquil can made decisions but only in the context of a purely objective context (which is why tranquil have such tremendoes abilities of concentration). Orwain during the circle assault was a classic example. Tower is under attack....go to safety? Can't get to safety? Go back to work.

Ser Alrik brags that tranquil mages do exactly what they are told and there is no evidence in the lore or in the game that says he's wrong about that. Ergo, they are slaves.

-Polaris

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
Tranquil are forced to work with all possibility of freewill (and thus objection) taken away?  By it's very defination, how is that not slavery?  It seems to be slavery to me (and I m not the only one).  I am just using words and their correct definitions is all.  I am not saying that all mages are slaves (but they are definately unjustly held prisoners), but involtunary tranquil certainly are.  {I say involtunary because a volunartary tranquile made a freewill decision that was meanful before becoming tranquil...see Orwain}

Words have meanings.

The Tranquil are not forced to do anything. They are free to leave the Circle, as they are no longer mages. They remain because they have no other life, and the world beyond the Circle would hardly be welcoming to someone like them-- and would probably not distinguish between "mage" and "ex-mage" anyhow. They can serve in a useful capacity in the Circle and live comfortably, so they do so.

The fact they were made that way by the Circle-- yes, that makes the definition of "forced" rather murky. But they are no longer prisoners, even if the mages themselves are.

If you're not saying that all mages are slaves, that's good-- because it did seem like you were using the argument interchangeably.

LobselVith8 wrote...
Aren't the mages venturing into an
alternative to Chantry control with the continential revolution of the
Circles of Magi?

"Continental revolution"? You might be getting ahead of yourself, there.

As for an alternative, sure-- the alternative is anarchy and warfare. Everyone involved knows that's the alternative. If there's something else on the table, we certainly haven't broached the subject just yet.

Modifié par David Gaider, 03 avril 2011 - 06:34 .

[Statulos]

Oneiropolos wrote...
If we go by the definition of slave as one who is under the domination of another person...or better yet, the one that says "One who works very hard" then damn. Most of us have been slaves at one time in our lives. But I really don't think ACTUAL slaves in history would appreciate us claiming so because a few definitions says so.

The closest referent to Thedas is Western Europe in the Middle Ages (personaly I´d say XIV century, but that´s just me), so logic dictates that slavery actually works in a similar way.

To our knowledge, the only place where slavery is legal is Tevinter. Considering Tevinter as a Fallen Rome/Eastern Empire, the definition of slavery is very clear: the legal right to own (and yes, own, slaves are a possession, just like a hammer or a cow) a person under a set of circumstances (debts, birth, war spoils...).

The slave simply has no rights, as a hammer or cattle has no rights. The master is free to do with the slave as he/she pleases, including rights over the life and death of the slave.

This is clearly not the case of mages. Templars cannot simply kill them just because they want to nor mistreat them because they had a bad day. Do templars do that? It´s possible and also ilegal because mages have rights. And just because of that the consederation of slaves is simply not true.

[Vormaerin]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Aren't the mages venturing into an alternative to Chantry control with the continential revolution of the Circles of Magi?

Yes and the question is not  "Are they now free?"  but "Who will have authority over them instead?"    Someone will.  They may have more rights than they do in the Circle, but they will still be subject to higher authority from somewhere.  Unless they are that higher authority like in Tevinter.

[IanPolaris]

Darth Krytie wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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.

TBH, I thought Anders used the term slave hyperbolically. I never got the sense he saw them as literal slaves of the Chantry.

Calling them slaves, no. Calling them opressed, yes.

I will agree that mages are not slaves but oppressed (which is not much better).  I stand by calling tranquil slaves and slaves of the worst sort.

-Polaris

[Never]

No.

[LobselVith8]

Vormaerin wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Aren't the mages venturing into an alternative to Chantry control with the continential revolution of the Circles of Magi?

Yes and the question is not  "Are they now free?"  but "Who will have authority over them instead?"    Someone will.  They may have more rights than they do in the Circle, but they will still be subject to higher authority from somewhere.  Unless they are that higher authority like in Tevinter.

Living under authority and living under oppression are two different things. If the mages broke free from Chantry and templar control, they could maintain their sovereignty.

[IanPolaris]

David Gaider wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Tranquil are forced to work with all possibility of freewill (and thus objection) taken away?  By it's very defination, how is that not slavery?  It seems to be slavery to me (and I m not the only one).  I am just using words and their correct definitions is all.  I am not saying that all mages are slaves (but they are definately unjustly held prisoners), but involtunary tranquil certainly are.  {I say involtunary because a volunartary tranquile made a freewill decision that was meanful before becoming tranquil...see Orwain}

Words have meanings.

The Tranquil are not forced to do anything. They are free to leave the Circle, as they are no longer mages. They remain because they have no other life, and the world beyond the Circle would hardly be welcoming to someone like them-- and would probably not distinguish between "mage" and "ex-mage" anyhow. They can serve in a useful capacity in the Circle and live comfortably, so they do so.

The fact they were made that way by the Circle-- yes, that makes the definition of "forced" rather murky. But they are no longer prisoners, even if the mages themselves are.

If you're not saying that all mages are slaves, that's good-- because it did seem like you were using the argument interchangeably.

I'm sorry but that doesn't fly.  You can not remove a person's emotions and therefor their desire to be free (or even potential desire to be free) and then say that they are free not to obey.  Tranquil must obey unless told explicitly by higher authority not to because the emotional context that permits freewill is removed.  Calling tranquil free is a bitter joke.  They are as free to disobey as your IPod....and that makes them slaves.

-Polaris

[ddv.rsa]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Aren't the mages venturing into an alternative to Chantry control with the continential revolution of the Circles of Magi?

Yes and the question is not  "Are they now free?"  but "Who will have authority over them instead?"    Someone will.  They may have more rights than they do in the Circle, but they will still be subject to higher authority from somewhere.  Unless they are that higher authority like in Tevinter.

Living under authority and living under oppression are two different things. If the mages broke free from Chantry and templar control, they could maintain their sovereignty.

You mean remain confined to their towers, but under their own control? 

[elusivemelody]

Modifié par Elusive Melody, 03 avril 2011 - 06:44 .

[Oneiropolos]

Statulos wrote...

Oneiropolos wrote...
If we go by the definition of slave as one who is under the domination of another person...or better yet, the one that says "One who works very hard" then damn. Most of us have been slaves at one time in our lives. But I really don't think ACTUAL slaves in history would appreciate us claiming so because a few definitions says so.

The closest referent to Thedas is Western Europe in the Middle Ages (personaly I´d say XIV century, but that´s just me), so logic dictates that slavery actually works in a similar way.

To our knowledge, the only place where slavery is legal is Tevinter. Considering Tevinter as a Fallen Rome/Eastern Empire, the definition of slavery is very clear: the legal right to own (and yes, own, slaves are a possession, just like a hammer or a cow) a person under a set of circumstances (debts, birth, war spoils...).

The slave simply has no rights, as a hammer or cattle has no rights. The master is free to do with the slave as he/she pleases, including rights over the life and death of the slave.

This is clearly not the case of mages. Templars cannot simply kill them just because they want to nor mistreat them because they had a bad day. Do templars do that? It´s possible and also ilegal because mages have rights. And just because of that the consederation of slaves is simply not true.

I would say your estimation of the century to be about spot on. Thedas MIGHT be a tad more advanced in some sections... it's hard to say. And I completely agree with what you say on the rest.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

IanPolaris wrote...

I'm sorry but that doesn't fly.  You can not remove a person's emotions and therefor their desire to be free (or even potential desire to be free) and then say that they are free not to obey.  Tranquil must obey unless told explicitly by higher authority not to because the emotional context that permits freewill is removed.  Calling tranquil free is a bitter joke.  They are as free to disobey as your IPod....and that makes them slaves.

-Polaris

How the hell you equate removing magic powers and the capacity for emotion to removing free will is beyond me.

But you've been arguing about this since long before DA2. <_< I'm amazed you've finally conceded mages aren't slaves.

Gold star to Gaider.

[LobselVith8]

David Gaider wrote...

"Continental revolution"? You might be getting ahead of yourself, there.

As for an alternative, sure-- the alternative is anarchy and warfare. Everyone involved knows that's the alternative. If there's something else on the table, we certainly haven't broached the subject just yet.

I got the impression that a lot was going on at the conclusion of DA2. Varric indicated the Chantry lost control of the Circles, the templars stopped taking orders, and I got the impression he said that the Seekers were hunting the mages when he was speaking to Cassandra (although I suppose he could have meant the templars). It seems like there's a revolution going on at the end of DA2.

Would sovereignty for the Circles of Magi be out of the question? Would it necessarily have to be Chantry control or anarchy?

[IanPolaris]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Aren't the mages venturing into an alternative to Chantry control with the continential revolution of the Circles of Magi?

Yes and the question is not  "Are they now free?"  but "Who will have authority over them instead?"    Someone will.  They may have more rights than they do in the Circle, but they will still be subject to higher authority from somewhere.  Unless they are that higher authority like in Tevinter.

Living under authority and living under oppression are two different things. If the mages broke free from Chantry and templar control, they could maintain their sovereignty.

Indeed, I have never been in favor of "let the mages out and don't bother regulating magic at all" argument.  I think that magic can be dangerous and untrained mages can be particularly dangerous.  I have never said otherwise.

Howeve, mages can be given a voice in that oversight without the entire world becoming "Evil Tevinter, the Sequel" which honestly seems like a Chantry boogyman anyway.  Ultimately (and unfortunately only after a lot of blood is spilled, I see the senior organization of the circles and the templars merge into a unified magic-hunter/mage-regulation order (quite possibly answering to the crowned heads of state) whose responsibility is to responsibly educate all mages in the proper use of magic and crack down hard on those that don't.  Heck keep the towers and make them even stricter, but for hardened magical criminals (and there will aways be a few of these).

-Polaris

[Statulos]

Oneiropolos wrote...

Statulos wrote...

Oneiropolos wrote...
If
we go by the definition of slave as one who is under the domination of
another person...or better yet, the one that says "One who works very
hard" then damn. Most of us have been slaves at one time in our lives.
But I really don't think ACTUAL slaves in history would appreciate us
claiming so because a few definitions says so.

The closest
referent to Thedas is Western Europe in the Middle Ages (personaly I´d
say XIV century, but that´s just me), so logic dictates that slavery
actually works in a similar way.

To our knowledge, the only place
where slavery is legal is Tevinter. Considering Tevinter as a Fallen
Rome/Eastern Empire, the definition of slavery is very clear: the legal
right to own (and yes, own, slaves are a possession, just like a hammer
or a cow) a person under a set of circumstances (debts, birth, war
spoils...).

The slave simply has no rights, as a hammer or cattle
has no rights. The master is free to do with the slave as he/she
pleases, including rights over the life and death of the slave.

This
is clearly not the case of mages. Templars cannot simply kill them just
because they want to nor mistreat them because they had a bad day. Do
templars do that? It´s possible and also ilegal because mages have
rights. And just because of that the consederation of slaves is simply
not true.

I would say your estimation of the
century to be about spot on. Thedas MIGHT be a tad more advanced in some
sections... it's hard to say. And I completely agree with what you say
on the rest.

My guess on the XIV is because:

-Blight: The Black Death.
-Gunpoweder-like tech (qunari and dwarfs).
-Lots of gothic style arround, some of them extremely decorated.
-Ship technology.
-100 years war (Orlais-Ferelden).
-Chantry being questioned repeatedly even with major uprisings (Wycliff, Jacquerie, Lolards...).

Modifié par Statulos, 03 avril 2011 - 06:43 .

[IanPolaris]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I'm sorry but that doesn't fly.  You can not remove a person's emotions and therefor their desire to be free (or even potential desire to be free) and then say that they are free not to obey.  Tranquil must obey unless told explicitly by higher authority not to because the emotional context that permits freewill is removed.  Calling tranquil free is a bitter joke.  They are as free to disobey as your IPod....and that makes them slaves.

-Polaris

How the hell you equate removing magic powers and the capacity for emotion to removing free will is beyond me.

But you've been arguing about this since long before DA2. <_< I'm amazed you've finally conceded mages aren't slaves.

Gold star to Gaider.

It's our emotions that define how and why we makes our choices.  Without emotions we have no more freewill than a programmed computer.  I have always said this and the game play and lore seems to bear me out on this.

BTW, Lob as made the argument that all mages are slaves.  I have not.  I restrict the slavery argument to tranquil.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

ddv.rsa wrote...

You mean remain confined to their towers, but under their own control? 

I was thinking along the terms of the Magi boon, where the ruler of Ferelden said that the mages have earned the right to govern themselves, and would be given the Tower, except for the remaining twelve Circles (since both the Circle at Starkhaven and Kirkwall appear to be lost).

[Vormaerin]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Living under authority and living under oppression are two different things. If the mages broke free from Chantry and templar control, they could maintain their sovereignty.

But don't know what the new rules regime will be like.   I doubt it will be "go whereever you want, do whatever you like".   It might be more tolerable to be ordered around by Danarius than it is by Greagoire, but that's not automatically the case.

[ddv.rsa]

LobselVith8 wrote...

ddv.rsa wrote...

You mean remain confined to their towers, but under their own control? 

I was thinking along the terms of the Magi boon, where the ruler of Ferelden said that the mages have earned the right to govern themselves, and would be given the Tower, except for the remaining twelve Circles (since both the Circle at Starkhaven and Kirkwall appear to be lost).

But would governing themselves be enough for the mages at this point? Now that it's come to open war, I can see them being satisfied with nothing less than the same rights anyone else has.