56 réponses à ce sujet

[CulturalGeekGirl]

In another thread, Collider and I started a conversation about mages and templars that turned into a discussion about authoritarianism and revolution.

The Chantry-Templar-Circle system is definitely authoritarian. Mages are definitely being subjected to imprisonment. Mages are also definitely more dangerous than your average person. Blood mages in particular are incredibly dangerous.

The subject of debate is this: does the mages' status as people with special abilities make it impossible to regard their internment in a similar fashion to how one would regard the internment of a minority group who do not have special abilities?

In my mind, forced internent by an authoritarian organization is bad even if the people being imprisoned have special abilities that would make them more dangerous than the average person. I view the Chantry's forced internment of mages just as negatively as I'd view the forced internment of any group.... that is to say, extremely negatively.

So, should we view people who are complicit in this particular authoritarian institution as partially culpable for the organization's actions? Is there really anything to be culpable for? Do we also need to consider the system of apartheid involving the elves?

So this is the thread for that, to hopefully keep other threads from getting derailed by the likes of us.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 octobre 2011 - 02:42 .

[Collider]

Here's a repost.

@CGG: So did you mean your examples only in a Dragon Age context, then? Or just a general context? Either way, those examples don't take into account magic. That's why it's very different. A reasonable opinion on Anders takes into account magic - because it's a fundamental importance.
It changes "authoritarian government imprisoning innocents" to "authoritarian government imprisoning potentially extremely dangerous innocents."

There are abuses against the mages, such as rape or unnecessarily violent beatings, but that is not the goal of the circle system. It is rather the actions of individual corrupt templars. It is not required, and not overall encouraged.

And to clarify, I don't consider mages or templars/chantry to be necessarily innocent or guilty. It really depends on the individual. I generally support the mages in almost all respects in the game (Anders being a possible exception).
You have examples like Thrask who tried to help the mages, yet he remained a templar. Carver is another example, in that he'll assist Hawke against Meredith's unjust ruling of annulment. Carver and Thrask aren't templars because they want to throw innocent people in prison. They're templars because they believe mages to be dangerous and want to protect people from those dangers. It's an unfounded belief, either. Mages are more powerful than the common man, factually.

So the chantry/templars aren't taking innocent people away because they're jerks and they hate innocent people. They're doing it - beyond the bigotry/religious aspect - for the practical use of putting away potentially very dangerous people in a place where the rest of the world (and themselves) would be safer from them.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

They're still imprisoning "innocent" people, though... if you insist on categorizing people as either "innocent" or "not innocent."

How "extremely dangerous" a mage is is a subject of debate. Dalish mages don't seem to be very dangerous at all, because they're treated with respect and not backed into a corner fleeing for their lives all the time.

Do I concede that mages are dangerous? I do. Do I think that with great power comes great responsibility? I do. Do I think there needs to be a monitoring system for mages that involves non-mages to keep the system honest and open? I do.

I don't believe that forced internment of innocent people is ever an OK thing to do, even if those people have special abilities that might make them dangerous.

If you start demanding that people with gifts must be hampered, imprisoned, or punished because otherwise it wouldn't be fair... well then you start to get into Harrison Bergeron territory. (Still a literary reference, not a real world one! It still counts!)

Anyway, the way I see it is this: If you consider the Templars to be largely blameless as an organization, if you consider this to be one of those situations where a few bad apples have given the rest of a group a bad name, then you are implicitly saying that, under some circumstaces, forced internment of an entire people is entirely acceptable, as long as you have reason to believe those people may be dangerous in the future.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 octobre 2011 - 02:58 .

[Collider]

I don't insist, actually. Notice I said that the templars/mages are "not necessarily" innocent or guilty.
My main objection to your original argument was that I disagreed that someone who found Elthina and the templars in the chantry to be innocent also supports or condones authoritarian government, as you have implied many times.

Mages are not really precisely limited by their own conscious and deliberate skill. Mages can be possessed, and abominations are often if not typically more powerful than the mage was previously. Dalish mages may have live in a culture where they are generally less dangerous, but they're still dangerous abominations if possessed nonetheless.

I may sympathize or defend someone, but that doesn't mean I agree with their beliefs.
For example: I may not believe in a person's religion, but I would still defend their right to believe and preach if they so desire.
I don't agree with the chantry, templars, circle at all, but I don't think thinking them to be innocent means you're totally down with oppressive governments. It's very easy just to see the chantry/templar supporters as just ignorant rather than malicious.

Modifié par Collider, 09 octobre 2011 - 02:59 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

This is why I keep asking for a definition of what you consider to be an "innocent."

If your definition of "innocent" includes Elthina, who was responsible for appointing Meredith to her position and whose duties include being in charge of her... then I don't know who you consider to be an innocent.

This is why I kind of dislike the idea of dividing people into guilty or innocent. But if someone insists on repeatedly using the word innocent, I'd like to hear how they define it, and see some examples of who they would consider to fit into the innocent category and who they would consider to fit into the not-innocent category and why.

[Collider]

I would define innocent as someone who has not done something (within a reasonable time span) worthy of punishment, or harsh punishment (such as violence, imprisonment, or death).

And what is your definition of innocent?

[Nashiktal]

Just because a Mage is fine around people doesn't mean he's not dangerous, the threat of demons are ever present my friend.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Collider wrote...

I would define innocent as someone who has not done something (within a reasonable time span) worthy of punishment, or harsh punishment (such as violence, imprisonment, or death).

And what is your definition of innocent?

My question for that would be what things you think are worthy of punishment.

My definition of innocent would be someone who has not acted to harm, enslave, or deny the fundamental rights of another sentient being.

My problem is that, rather than putting people into strict "innocent" "not innocent" boxes, I tend to define people on a sliding scale, where 1 is completely innocent and 10 is history's greatest monster.

For me, these variable ratings get shifted in an authoritarian government. Let me give you some examples: 

Example A: participatory government that is not currently doing any widespread internment and has no significant racial inequality or apartheid. I'd put most normal citizens of this society at a 1 by default. I'd put anyone who was a member of an organization that explicitly advocated for segregation as a 4. Someone who actually committed a hate crime would be a 7 or so.

Example B: a government where only members of certain groups determined by race or gender are allowed to participate in government, where there is significant racial segregation and apartheid. I'd put citizens working to end the apartheid peacefully as a 1. People who are fighting to end the apartheid using violence, I'd put at a 3. I'd put people benefiting from and passively supporting the system of apartheid at a 4. I'd put people actively in positions of power in the apartheid government at a 6-7. I'd put the leaders responsible for carrying out the apartheid at an 8 or 9, depending on the harshness with which they did those things.

Example C: a straight out dictatorship carrying out genocide against a minority. In this case I'd put people involved in peaceful opposition at a 1, people involved in violent opposition at a 1.5, ordinary people acting subversively when they can but not risking their necks at a 2, and citizens who ignore the atrocities at a 5. Anyone involved with the government directly in any way I'd put at a 7, and the leaders of the government go all the way up to 10.

Now, I provided those three examples because I consider the situation in Kirkwall to be somewhere between B and C.  That means that on the innocent to guilty scale, I'd put Elthina squarely as a 7-8, and the templars around that area as well.

Basically, I believe that actively participating in an organization that is responsible for slavery, internment, segregation, or apartheid (and I don't consider the Chantry responsible for slavery, I'm just including it in my list) makes one less innocent. How deeply one is involved in such an organization increases ones culpability.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 octobre 2011 - 03:40 .

[Wulfram]

You're ignoring the abomination issue. Mages aren't only dangerous because they have more power than the average person, they are also prone to turning into insane and violent monsters.

The Templar system obviously goes too far, and is in fact is self defeating, but some restrictions on freedom can be justified in the face of a clear danger.

Holding the leadership of the chantry accountable is reasonable enough, though not necessarily useful to the cause - particularly if they enjoy a high degree of popularity. Extending that to the lay sister who washes, cleans and cooks food for orphans would be going to far.

As for "Elven apartheid", the Alienages don't seem to be a matter of deliberate Chantry policy, while remaining seperate from humanity is fundamental to Dalish beliefs and way of life.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Wulfram wrote...

As for "Elven apartheid", the Alienages don't seem to be a matter of deliberate Chantry policy, while remaining seperate from humanity is fundamental to Dalish beliefs and way of life.

According to the codex, the alienages were explicitly established as part of the terms of surrender. All elves were required to live in them and required to forsake their religion. This surrender was at the end of an exalted march, a war in which the Chantry is, by definition, the primary actor.

So the Chantry did, indeed, establish the system of apartheid. What maintains it now is mosly habit, sure, but it was unquestionably created by the Chantry. Unless you're trying to establish that particular segment of the codex as one of the questionable ones, but it didn't seem particularly suspect to me.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 octobre 2011 - 03:46 .

[Wulfram]

The Chantry required that following the Exalted March the Elves be given somewhere to live, and that in return they would abandon their faith.

That's not the same as requiring that these converted elves live seperately. In fact, it's made clear that elves aren't required to live in the Alienage, but choose to because it's safer and they prefer to be among their own kind.

By all appearances individual Dalish at least have nowadays no difficulty living in Kirkwall nowadays, despite the tattoos which proclaim their allegiance to the Elvish gods.

[Nashiktal]

@Nyoma more like "you're accused of having a bOMB strapped to your back that may or may not explode. It has the potential to wipe out a city, but we don't know when or even if it will ever be armed."

It's not a simple issue.

[Jacknife78]

In order to put the concept of the Circle into a context more in line with our world, replace the idea of mages with military. More specifically, replace mages with combat veterans. Some of these people may have received specialize weapons and explosive training that potentially make them more dangerous than ordinary citizens. Then you add in the chance that issues with PTSD could be seen as by some as a source of instability. Based on those items, would it be right, after they leave service, to segregate them from society and strip them of their rights (such as to own firearms, to vote, etc.)

[MG800]

Nashiktal wrote...

@Nyoma more like "you're accused of having a bOMB strapped to your back that may or may not explode. It has the potential to wipe out a city, but we don't know when or even if it will ever be armed."

It's not a simple issue.

 "Wipe out a whole city" is a bit excessive. A village maybe.
And you may have this bomb or you may not. There's a potential for a bomb - nothing more.

Modifié par MG800, 09 octobre 2011 - 04:50 .

[Sinuphro]

Nyoka wrote...

Mages should be taken to the circle when they have proved they can't live among people, not before. Depriving people of liberty for crimes they might or might not commit is illogical. You do that to people for several reasons: as a punishment; to protect other people; to train the criminal so s/he can live with others. If a mage hasn't done anything wrong, there's no reason to take her.

Blood magic is a special case. If as it would seem the one and only outcome of blood magic is mayhem and abominations, then its practice should be heavily regulated or banned. Mages can choose not to use bloog magic, right?

the only reason lots of mages turn to blood magic is because its the 1 magic that templars cannot survive. if templars were no hunting down all mages there would be fewer mages that turn to blood magic. And what's wrong with magic?? The grey wardens...had blood mages in their ranks and the blood mages didnt go killing the other grey wardens; the dalish had mages in their clans and there was not a problem until keeper marethari f ed up. The dalish of old all had magic and they even lived as immortals. it's the destructive humans who used magic mainly for destruction

[Carmen_Willow]

@CGG

It may surprise you to know that I neither support the Circle concept nor the Alienages and I work for mage freedom in all my games. To me an innocent is one who does not initiate the use of force for fraud against another person or group. Taking children from their parents and interring them in a closed environment is wrong. Judging someone by the points on their ears is wrong. Mages should be offered training and help with their powers, but they should not be imprisoned, and I would work for this goal, and if the next game is about the civil war, I will fight for this goal.

[Gervaise]

One of the things that most annoys me about the Chantry/Templars treatment of mages is that it ignores the teaching of their own Chant of Light. It describes it as a gift of the Maker, not a curse.Sebastian, someone whom Elthina described as one of their most devout followers, actually says to Bethany that he has yet to see an example of the Maker's fallibility and she certainly isn't it. But she is a mage, so he is acknowledging that the Maker made her the way she is and there is nothing wrong with it. Meredith admitted to my Hawke that Bethany is an exemplary mage and so is a counter to her bad experience with her sister - both grew up outside the Circle, sheltered by their families. The difference it would seem is that Meredith's sister grew up among non mages so had no form of guidance, whereas Bethany had the guidance of Malcolm Hawke. Clearly it is the environment the mage grows up in, coupled with proper teaching, that helps young mages keep from harm and temptation. However, that said, Merrill grew up under the guidance of a caring older mage, and yet turned to blood magic as a quick fix to her problem with the mirror. Nevertheless it would be interesting to know just how many young mages end up being executed through failing their harrowing or being made tranquil - there did seem alot of tranquil standing around in the Circle Tower in Ferelden.

To some extent Anders had a point when he said the senior Circle mages were complicit in maintaining the system. I have never been entirely clear from the codexes but it would seem that initially mages had more freedom in the community but were forbidden from practising any but the simplest magic. The mages objected to this and an agreement was reached whereby they would be segregated from society but would thus be freer to practise their magic within the confines of their Circle. The Templars were there to oversee matters did not get out of hand and track down any refugees from the system. However, there was an air of co-operation evident in Ferelden and the First enchanter did have a degree of autonomy within the system. Whilst we ran into the odd Templar who was trying to get illicit lyrium, even if you didn't agree with the system, the Templars came across as genuinely trying to do a difficult job in as humane as way as possible.

In Origins it seemed to me that the Templars were as much imprisoned by the system as the mages because it was implied that they sacrificed family life and lived within the Circle with the mages, plus the enforced lyrium addiction. DA2 changed all that because it seemed that Templars could marry, continue to live with their families, visit brothels and whilst the latter might be frowned upon, there seemed very little restrictions on them living a "normal" life. By contrast, the mages' lot seemed a lot worse. There were far more examples of mages being forcibly dragged away from their families, abused by the people responsible for their protection and generally being treated as prisoners with no right of complaint. There was none of the two way respect we saw in Ferelden, except with individual Templars. So which was the fairer depiction of the Chantry/Circle/Templar arrangement? If it generally was more like Kirkwall than Ferelden, why did it take so long for mages to rebel?

So far as the Chantry is concerned, there are numerous instances of them not upholding the virtues contained in the Chant. I feel the problem is its close links with the ruling aristocracy in Orlais. The sort of abuses the mages endure in Kirkwall, are as far as I can tell commonplace in Orlais as endured by the peasant class. You don't have to be locked behind closed doors to be a prisoner. The alienage elves are prisoners of an unjust system thoughout Thedas - even in Ferelden they do not enjoy the same sort of protection a common peasant would expect. The Chantry outraged that Loghain got in the way of a Templar doing his duty but said not a thing about him selling alienage elves into slavery in Tevinter.

The reason mages have a better time of it in Tevinter is because they are the ruling elite. However, is it just Chantry propaganda, or do young mages there also get taken away from their families and confined in Circles under the training of senior mages? One wonders what the wastage is there of mages who don't make the grade? And did the harrowing actually originate in Tevinter as a way of weeding out the weaker willed youngsters? Was the Rite of Tranquility originally a punishment they devised for dissenters?
What about the Qunari? Their treatment of mages is even worse than the Gallows.

I am all for mage freedom but I think just tearing down one system without knowing what you are going to replace it with is a recipe for disaster and it is the whole social system that needs overhaul, not just one part.

[Xilizhra]

So which was the fairer depiction of the Chantry/Circle/Templar arrangement? If it generally was more like Kirkwall than Ferelden, why did it take so long for mages to rebel?

The power discrepancy and the fact that no one really thought it would succeed. Also, Kinloch Hold is rather physically isolated, which could explain why the templars seem more imprisoned there as well (though it doesn't help that much, if the conversation we can hear about a pair of templars casually discussing an upcoming Rite of Tranquility is anything to go by).

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Wulfram wrote...

The Chantry required that following the Exalted March the Elves be given somewhere to live, and that in return they would abandon their faith.

That's not the same as requiring that these converted elves live seperately. In fact, it's made clear that elves aren't required to live in the Alienage, but choose to because it's safer and they prefer to be among their own kind.

By all appearances individual Dalish at least have nowadays no difficulty living in Kirkwall nowadays, despite the tattoos which proclaim their allegiance to the Elvish gods.

As far as I can determine, they did indeed "require" these elves to live seperatedly. I'm not sure how establishing ghettoes where elves are required to live isn't "demanding they live seperately." 

And you're basically saying human rights violations are totally ok if you've just won a war where you destroyed another people's country and way of life, because of course allowing them humane living conditions after that would be impossible. The Chantry created a system of apartheid that exists to this day. Yes, living seperately WAS part of the agreemend at the time. The Chantry built alienages in the poorest parts of their cities and demanded that the elves live there and only there in those ghettoes... that is pretty clearly apartheid.  Yes, some elves manage to live outside the system... that's true in most cases of apartheid.

You're saying is "they declared members of another religion to be enemies of the state, invaded and destroyed their country, and then forced them to live in dirty cramped camps... but that doesn't count as apartheid. As long as you win a war you can do anything you want with the survivors and it isn't a violation of human rights as long as you don't kill them." 

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 octobre 2011 - 08:55 .

[Wulfram]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

As far as I can determine, they did indeed "require" these elves to live seperatedly

Where do you determine that from?  I can't see it in either of the codexes that seem relevant [1][2]

For the avoidance of doubt, I'd consider the Chantry's actions at the end of Exalted March of the Dales as genocidal and (obviously) inexcusable. 

They're also 700 years ago, and I don't see any evidence that the current actions of the Chantry are the cause of the elves problems.  Though one would have thought they'd realise that the alienages aren't a great advertisement of the virtues of converting.

Modifié par Wulfram, 09 octobre 2011 - 10:05 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I can't find the citations for it... it may be from dialogue exclusive to Mahariel or Tabris. I'll have to replay those origins again, but since I can't find the cite I'll dial my certainty back a few notches. I still think it's pretty obvious what happened with the elves, but since I don't have literal word for word descriptions of it...

But now you're saying that confiscating a people's lands and forcing them to live in ghettoes is absolutely not responsible for their poor living conditions today? Really? We don't know if or for how long the ghettoization was enforced, either through curfews or through locking elves in at night, as Kirkwall does.

There's also some debate as to whether elves are even allowed to hold positions in the chantry, or any other major institution. We haven't seen any evidence that they can.

If a people get conquered, their land stolen, and are then forced to live in designated areas and given only the poorest most menial jobs... knowing that if they attempt to move to other neighborhoods there's a high chance of being attacked for their race... then yeah, it is still the fault of the entity that destroyed their country, spread propaganda about them, and relegated them to those slums.

There is pretty much no historical example of a group who just naturally recovered after their country was destroyed and their rights stripped, without deliberate action on the part of a larger community to give them the tools to allow them to rebuild. As long as the Chantry takes no deliberate action to restore the elves to full and equal members of society... including fixing the revisionist history they committed by expugating any record of Shartan from the canticles of light... then it is, indeed, their fault that the elves live in poor conditions.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 octobre 2011 - 10:34 .

[Nashiktal]

Nyoka wrote...

"Blood magic is a special case. If as it would seem the one and only outcome of blood magic is mayhem and abominations, then its practice should be heavily regulated or banned. Mages can choose not to use bloog magic, right?"

I said that in my first message. Nashiktal, you are equating magic with a bomb. Unlike magic, a bomb has exclusively destructive results, so it's not a good analogy. For example, you can use magic to heal people, too. You can't heal people with a bomb. I said blood magic is a special case because in DA2 blood magic always seemed to result in a bad outcome for everyone. Other kinds of magic look more neutral; they can be used to do good or evil, like a scalpel or an internet connection.

If we were discussing bombs, I'd be in favor of a ban. I don't think people should be allowed to have bombs at home.

I still don't know what the charges would be in the case of magic. In my opinion this is an instance of legislating fear. You are in charge, so you can shape public opinion. You tell people to be afraid of mages, you tell everyone that magic is like a bomb and give huge coverage to that abomination that showed up in another village some time ago; then, when all the neighborhood goes to the local clinic carrying pitchforks and torches to slaughter some oblivious mage that was just there fixing a sprained ankle, you intervene and announce that violence isn't necessary because you have created a shiny legal system that will guarantee peace and security for everyone—including those walking bombs that threaten our way of life. There, you managed to introduce an oppresive system for an entire group of people and yet you are seen by the people as compassionate.

And you missed the point of my post. I am not talking about mages being dangerous because they have magic, I am talking about mages who may be possesed by a demon and then having their combined powers kill people. It can happen, and even if the mage is not possesed they ALWAYS attract demons. Demons can cause problems. No mage is safe, unless you are playing as one (where it doesnt count because the player is always invincible to that sort of thing) demons can trick, control, and they will do everything they can to possess a mage. They don't even need to be summoned.

Letting mages run around unregulated is just dangerous. Elves can afford it because they can live in isolation. If their keepers turns into an abomination, they have the luxury of hunting it down through a forest or some other such empty place. An abomination in a habited area is completely different. The demon can cause some very devastating damage.

When I say a bomb, I don't mean some mustached villain running around cackling, I am talking about some poor lad tending to a field with a bomb in his stomach. He personally can't detonate it, but there is always someone with a stick poking at it, and if he relents even for a moment it will explode.

Gaider himself even says that mages are dangerous, and to not compare todays standards of freedom and equality to thedas.