@Ieldra2: Neither of those events were battles.
Of Dreams and Nightmares - A Mage Manifesto
Débuté par
Ieldra
, juin 22 2013 01:38
Retour en haut
#377
Posté 25 juin 2013 - 08:36
IceHawk-181
-
- Members
- 240 messages
The extensive historiographic studies I have reviewed in the process of developing mastery over Early American History, Civil War History, and Western Philosophy leads me to quite simply point out that there is a fundamental difference between a system of government and slavery.
First and foremost, the academic definition of slavery does not require direct personal ownership of one individual over that of another. While the most resonant form of slavery most American students will recognize, Chattel Slavery, operated on that principle, it is not the only form thereof.
(As you will notice Gaider argues Mages are not slaves because they are not owned as slave labor, he is operating with a rather narrow definition of slavery that stops being relevant at some point after your second Survey History Course..)
Slavery merely requires the subsuming of individual agency under the absolute authority of another force of agency, whether that be an individual or institutional power. The core component of slavery is the fundamental authority over life and death, literal and absolute domination of agency.
Now, Gaider attempted to argue that there is a fundamental difference between "not being free and being a slave." While technically true the system defined by the Chantry does not actually qualify.
The Chantry & the Templars hold absolute authority over the individual Mages. Their willingness to allow a degree of freedom within the system in no way invalidates their authority to forcibly imprison or put to death any Mage based on rules they themselves establish.
On the topic of ownership.
Insofar as the canon is concerned the Chantry has a de facto right (and possibly a de jure one as well, we do not know how or in what manner the Chantry's extraterritorial status was granted in Ferelden for instance) to physically appropriate any Mage, place them wherever they so chose, and subject them to violence.
The process relieves each Mage of the fundamental Freeholder rights that sets Ferelden apart from the other nations of Thedas and subjects them to a coercive force against their will, yet another violation of Freeholder rights.
The process of being installed in a Circle of Magi is fundamentally the disinvestment of the core Freeholder rights and the coercive removal of individual agency.
On the topic of servitude.
The Mages are forced to work; the Chantry and the Templars require every Mage to undergo a forced education in Magical abilities that ends in their subjection to The Harrowing. If a Mage refuses this education, they are made Tranquil. If the Mage fails The Harrowing, they are executed as an abomination.
Whether or not you find the system of education a moral necessity or not, it is still a forced system of labor of which the Mages' only recourse is capital punishment.
Do the Mages have a degree of individual agency within the Circle?
Absolutely. They can live their lives as they see fit so long as they confine themselves to the areas they are authorized to exist in, retain only relationships that are sanctified by the Chantry, and do not fail to pursue their education.
However, the Chantry denies Mages the agency to choose whether or not they are to go to a Circle, whether or not they want to educate themselves in Magic, whether or not they are allowed to maintain family ties, and whether or not they are to be subjected to capital punishment.
Furthermore, the Rite of Annulment authorizes a Templar Knight Commander to execute innocent Mages in the case of a general uprising in a Circle, thereby demonstrating that an individual Mage need not actually violate any Chantry rules in order to be subject to Capital Punishment.
The Chantry's authority over a Mage is absolute.
The fundamental difference between a Mage and your average Ferelden citizen is Freeholder status.
For those of you who do not know the canon Ferelden Freeholders maintain what we would consider basic freedoms. They have the freedom of movement, freedom of choosing their religion, and can actually leave the domain of their local Bann and relocate their families at a whim. There is nothing holding them in place.
If they remain within the domains of a Bann they necessarily acquiesce to the responsibilities of a citizen including paying taxes. In exchange they receive protection from the Bann and his military forces.
Freeholders retain basic individual agency; they choose when and where to enter into the compact of civilizaiton.
Mages are denied said agency.
The Circles of Magi are not examples of Agricultural Chattel Slavery but they are a form of slavery.
Attempting to think of a real historical example is difficult; they seem most akin to the slave populations of early Colonial South Carolina. Similarly, the early Lowcountry slaves were forcibly removed from their homes and installed on plantations, forced into a specialized form of servitude, and yet were given a high degree of individual freedom within the system.
Then again, the Slave Populations of the Early Carolinas were considerably more free than the Mages. They were by and large allowed to maintain families, continue the practice of their cultural forms, operate a known black market that Masters often took part in, and even fought side by side their Masters in the defense of their homes.
Masters could actually be held accountable for unwarranted abuse of their slaves and the slaves retained the ability to earn money when they were not working for their masters and actually purchase themselves and their families.
Not to put too fine a point on it (though I already have) the definitions of slavery bandied about by Gaider or a few of the posters here are essentially those one would find in a 12th grade or Survey Course Textbook.
Try cracking open a real piece of history, a monograph about Russian Serfdom, or Wood's excellent Black Majority about South Carolina's early Slave society, and actually enlighten yourselves.
There are various forms of slavery however the one overriding commonality is the forcible and violent revocation of individual agency.
Mages are forcibly and violently divested of agency and are not in command of their own lives.
That is a slave.
First and foremost, the academic definition of slavery does not require direct personal ownership of one individual over that of another. While the most resonant form of slavery most American students will recognize, Chattel Slavery, operated on that principle, it is not the only form thereof.
(As you will notice Gaider argues Mages are not slaves because they are not owned as slave labor, he is operating with a rather narrow definition of slavery that stops being relevant at some point after your second Survey History Course..)
Slavery merely requires the subsuming of individual agency under the absolute authority of another force of agency, whether that be an individual or institutional power. The core component of slavery is the fundamental authority over life and death, literal and absolute domination of agency.
Now, Gaider attempted to argue that there is a fundamental difference between "not being free and being a slave." While technically true the system defined by the Chantry does not actually qualify.
The Chantry & the Templars hold absolute authority over the individual Mages. Their willingness to allow a degree of freedom within the system in no way invalidates their authority to forcibly imprison or put to death any Mage based on rules they themselves establish.
On the topic of ownership.
Insofar as the canon is concerned the Chantry has a de facto right (and possibly a de jure one as well, we do not know how or in what manner the Chantry's extraterritorial status was granted in Ferelden for instance) to physically appropriate any Mage, place them wherever they so chose, and subject them to violence.
The process relieves each Mage of the fundamental Freeholder rights that sets Ferelden apart from the other nations of Thedas and subjects them to a coercive force against their will, yet another violation of Freeholder rights.
The process of being installed in a Circle of Magi is fundamentally the disinvestment of the core Freeholder rights and the coercive removal of individual agency.
On the topic of servitude.
The Mages are forced to work; the Chantry and the Templars require every Mage to undergo a forced education in Magical abilities that ends in their subjection to The Harrowing. If a Mage refuses this education, they are made Tranquil. If the Mage fails The Harrowing, they are executed as an abomination.
Whether or not you find the system of education a moral necessity or not, it is still a forced system of labor of which the Mages' only recourse is capital punishment.
Do the Mages have a degree of individual agency within the Circle?
Absolutely. They can live their lives as they see fit so long as they confine themselves to the areas they are authorized to exist in, retain only relationships that are sanctified by the Chantry, and do not fail to pursue their education.
However, the Chantry denies Mages the agency to choose whether or not they are to go to a Circle, whether or not they want to educate themselves in Magic, whether or not they are allowed to maintain family ties, and whether or not they are to be subjected to capital punishment.
Furthermore, the Rite of Annulment authorizes a Templar Knight Commander to execute innocent Mages in the case of a general uprising in a Circle, thereby demonstrating that an individual Mage need not actually violate any Chantry rules in order to be subject to Capital Punishment.
The Chantry's authority over a Mage is absolute.
The fundamental difference between a Mage and your average Ferelden citizen is Freeholder status.
For those of you who do not know the canon Ferelden Freeholders maintain what we would consider basic freedoms. They have the freedom of movement, freedom of choosing their religion, and can actually leave the domain of their local Bann and relocate their families at a whim. There is nothing holding them in place.
If they remain within the domains of a Bann they necessarily acquiesce to the responsibilities of a citizen including paying taxes. In exchange they receive protection from the Bann and his military forces.
Freeholders retain basic individual agency; they choose when and where to enter into the compact of civilizaiton.
Mages are denied said agency.
The Circles of Magi are not examples of Agricultural Chattel Slavery but they are a form of slavery.
Attempting to think of a real historical example is difficult; they seem most akin to the slave populations of early Colonial South Carolina. Similarly, the early Lowcountry slaves were forcibly removed from their homes and installed on plantations, forced into a specialized form of servitude, and yet were given a high degree of individual freedom within the system.
Then again, the Slave Populations of the Early Carolinas were considerably more free than the Mages. They were by and large allowed to maintain families, continue the practice of their cultural forms, operate a known black market that Masters often took part in, and even fought side by side their Masters in the defense of their homes.
Masters could actually be held accountable for unwarranted abuse of their slaves and the slaves retained the ability to earn money when they were not working for their masters and actually purchase themselves and their families.
Not to put too fine a point on it (though I already have) the definitions of slavery bandied about by Gaider or a few of the posters here are essentially those one would find in a 12th grade or Survey Course Textbook.
Try cracking open a real piece of history, a monograph about Russian Serfdom, or Wood's excellent Black Majority about South Carolina's early Slave society, and actually enlighten yourselves.
There are various forms of slavery however the one overriding commonality is the forcible and violent revocation of individual agency.
Mages are forcibly and violently divested of agency and are not in command of their own lives.
That is a slave.
Modifié par IceHawk-181, 25 juin 2013 - 08:40 .
#378
Posté 25 juin 2013 - 08:40
Ieldra
-
- Members
- 25 188 messages
Uh...I got my historical associations wrong and didn't fact-check. Doesn't happen often. Well anyway, they were the result of escalation, there was no premeditation or order to kill everyone. As opposed to the Annulment when it happens.Medhia Nox wrote...
@Ieldra2: Neither of those events were battles.
#379
Posté 25 juin 2013 - 08:50
Ieldra
-
- Members
- 25 188 messages
@Icehawk:
I mostly agree with your assessment but I think you should consider that education might be an objective necessity for a mage because it is in their own survival interest. There doesn't exist a reasonable point of view from which it is not necessary because it enables a mage to control their power and it cannot be reasonably in a mages' interest not to be able to control their power. I would also say that the freedom to reject this education is not one any community could reasonably accept for a mage who wants to live as a part of it.
I mostly agree with your assessment but I think you should consider that education might be an objective necessity for a mage because it is in their own survival interest. There doesn't exist a reasonable point of view from which it is not necessary because it enables a mage to control their power and it cannot be reasonably in a mages' interest not to be able to control their power. I would also say that the freedom to reject this education is not one any community could reasonably accept for a mage who wants to live as a part of it.
#380
Posté 25 juin 2013 - 08:56
Medhia Nox
-
- Members
- 5 066 messages
@IceHawke -181: Feeling the poor economic decision making of your chosen discipline are we?
Being BSN's most relevant historian - you're aware that the terminology used by historians is open to interpretation? Even if an historian would assert that only an historian can properly interpret it, but that's endemic to academia. One must assert authority of the chosen topic to achieve self-validation.
That you're spending your time arguing about something you couldn't POSSIBLY have enough information about - and acting as if you can unquestionably use your academic authority to do so - suggests certain things about you sir.
Being BSN's most relevant historian - you're aware that the terminology used by historians is open to interpretation? Even if an historian would assert that only an historian can properly interpret it, but that's endemic to academia. One must assert authority of the chosen topic to achieve self-validation.
That you're spending your time arguing about something you couldn't POSSIBLY have enough information about - and acting as if you can unquestionably use your academic authority to do so - suggests certain things about you sir.
#381
Posté 25 juin 2013 - 09:01
IceHawk-181
-
- Members
- 240 messages
Objective Necessity is the wrong phrase; I would refer to mandatory education for Mages a subject of the Commonweal however, and fully endorse it as secular law. However, considering that the Mages are in fact Fereldens it would require a legal decision of the Landsmeet to make such a thing proper.
The problem is the fictional conceit; we have no way for a Mage to relinquish their abilities beyond death and tranquility. Therefore, education of Mages becomes a matter of security and can legitimately be legislated.
However, it has to be handled with respect to individual agency and human dignity.
The problem is the fictional conceit; we have no way for a Mage to relinquish their abilities beyond death and tranquility. Therefore, education of Mages becomes a matter of security and can legitimately be legislated.
However, it has to be handled with respect to individual agency and human dignity.
#382
Posté 25 juin 2013 - 09:15
IceHawk-181
-
- Members
- 240 messages
Considering that I am enjoying a fully funded academic career and the freedom of not having to teach this particular Summer Semester, no. Not at all in fact.Medhia Nox wrote...
@IceHawke -181: Feeling the poor economic decision making of your chosen discipline are we?
Yes and no.Medhia Nox wrote...
Being BSN's most relevant historian - you're aware that the terminology used by historians is open to interpretation?
The profession is a collection of individuals after all; however there are broad agreements about specific topics. Slavery is one of the most developed fields in American history and one could spend an entire lifetime trying to master the historiography.
However, basic concepts such as Agency form a cornerstone of the modern academic profession.
The arguments really come down to degrees of freedom, though outside of nationalist apologists it is difficult to find a historian willing to classify Serfdom, for instance, as a form of "lesser freedom" as opposed to institutional domination and enslavement of a populace.
You do not need to be a historian to understand and interpret something. What you need is a degree of knowledge of the historiography of the subject and the willingness to engage in constructive debate.Medhia Nox wrote...
Even if an historian would assert that only an historian can properly interpret it, but that's endemic to academia. One must assert authority of the chosen topic to achieve self-validation.
At a certain point however literal ignorance of a subject does impede the ability to discuss it.
I would daresay you are unqualified to engage in a debate with me over whether or not the political system of 18th Century Virginia amounted to a patron-clientage system analogous to that of the Whig Ministry in England for instance.
The slavery question is similar, though it can be approached from a number of different angles.
If you are referring to the Mage/Templar debate, the canon is the canon. There is little to master.Medhia Nox wrote...
That you're spending your time arguing about something you couldn't POSSIBLY have enough information about - and acting as if you can unquestionably use your academic authority to do so - suggests certain things about you sir.
Personally, I enjoy pointless debates about the minute details in the IPs I enjoy. It is a nice reprieve from my normal routine and it gives me the opportunity to polish my rhetorical style.
And every once in a while you get some rather in depth discussions. Which is great.
Insofar as "using my academic authority," well, yes. I have a tendency to be rather blunt at times when correcting "young adults," when they are playing within my area of specialty.
Modifié par IceHawk-181, 25 juin 2013 - 09:17 .
#383
Posté 25 juin 2013 - 09:28
Bleachrude
-
- Members
- 3 154 messages
I'm honestly shocked that people think mages are slaves because their rights are restricted.
Remember in DA:O where in Redcliffe, one could argue that mages are not subject to the same laws as regular citizens (Jowan is judged by the circle and not Eamon) yet in DA:A, one can have another noble executed just on circumstantial evidence.
Jowan, at the least, had to be caught in the act by both the first enchanter and the Knight Commander. That's a fair bit more rights that even a lowly apprentice has compared to a noble of the land (yeah, knight are the lowest level of nobles, butt hey STILL are of the noble class)
Here's a question. What _IS_ the punishment for mages that have passed their harrowing for various offences? Tranquility is NOT an option (again, Kirkwall is considered an aberration as to how it is used).
Aeonar seems to be only used for accused blood mages since apostates are taken to a circle and escaping from the circle doesn't result in Anders being sent there....
I'm just wondering what exactly is the punishment for a non blood mage involved in wrong-doing
Remember in DA:O where in Redcliffe, one could argue that mages are not subject to the same laws as regular citizens (Jowan is judged by the circle and not Eamon) yet in DA:A, one can have another noble executed just on circumstantial evidence.
Jowan, at the least, had to be caught in the act by both the first enchanter and the Knight Commander. That's a fair bit more rights that even a lowly apprentice has compared to a noble of the land (yeah, knight are the lowest level of nobles, butt hey STILL are of the noble class)
Here's a question. What _IS_ the punishment for mages that have passed their harrowing for various offences? Tranquility is NOT an option (again, Kirkwall is considered an aberration as to how it is used).
Aeonar seems to be only used for accused blood mages since apostates are taken to a circle and escaping from the circle doesn't result in Anders being sent there....
I'm just wondering what exactly is the punishment for a non blood mage involved in wrong-doing
#384
Posté 25 juin 2013 - 09:37
Ieldra
-
- Members
- 25 188 messages
There's knowing invocation of certain terms for an in-world political effect. The terms are, nonetheless, correct within a non-academic context where concepts usually aren't circumscribed that precisely. Also, by IceHawk's explanation it appears that the term "slavery" is indeed used as I used it even within an academic context. Still, I probably wouldn't use it in a scholarly document.CronoDragoon wrote...
Ieldra2 wrote...
Also, there is a reason why I've written the OP as a manifesto told from a character's POV. It is a political manifesto, not a scholarly dissertation, and in such a document you don't pro-actively mention any merit the other side might have. I can imagine several variations of a dedicated "magic police force" Eorlin Amell might agree with if he were in the position to decide, but he certainly won't suggest them pro-actively. As I see it, while such a "magic police force" might be necessary, the templar order as an organization, if not every individual templar, is burned for the role.
To what extent does your character believe what he/she is saying? I'm interested in whether or not there's a knowing invocation of certain terms to get a rise out of listeners.
Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 juin 2013 - 09:39 .
#385
Posté 25 juin 2013 - 09:46
Ieldra
-
- Members
- 25 188 messages
Actually, it is supported. How would a spirit enable Wynne to live longer than she would otherwise if it didn't inhabit her body? It's true that being a spirit healer does not require the spirit to inhabit the healer's body, but that's a separate issue. Also, she's occasionally referred to as an an abomination.Medhia Nox wrote...
When does Wynne become possessed?
Both Codexes on Spirit Healers and the conversation with Wynne both assert that she is not possessed (despite being worried about being an abomination).
The Spirit of Faith that stops her from dying - does not inhabit her body - that assertion is not supported in either game.
It's just misinformation used to support mage unaccountability.
Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 juin 2013 - 09:52 .
#386
Posté 25 juin 2013 - 09:49
Xilizhra
-
- Members
- 30 873 messages
Actually, just Uldred snitching on him for his soul to be destroyed.Jowan, at the least, had to be caught in the act by both the first enchanter and the Knight Commander. That's a fair bit more rights that even a lowly apprentice has compared to a noble of the land (yeah, knight are the lowest level of nobles, butt hey STILL are of the noble class)
#387
Posté 25 juin 2013 - 09:56
Ieldra
-
- Members
- 25 188 messages
In one of the DA comics, a Circle mage is killed for having a child with another mage... I'm not sure if that was exactly lawful, but it was apparently what the mage expected to happen in case she was discovered. This, together with the "On the Loose" quest in DA2, was what made me make my accusation of forced celibacy.Bleachrude wrote...
Here's a question. What _IS_ the punishment for mages that have passed their harrowing for various offences? Tranquility is NOT an option (again, Kirkwall is considered an aberration as to how it is used).
Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 juin 2013 - 10:00 .
#388
Guest_Morocco Mole_*
Posté 25 juin 2013 - 09:58
Guest_Morocco Mole_*
Guest_Morocco Mole_*
-
- Guests
Wynne is an abomination. Her spirit is just a bit more benign than most. Though still dangerous.
#389
Guest_Morocco Mole_*
Posté 25 juin 2013 - 10:10
Guest_Morocco Mole_*
Guest_Morocco Mole_*
-
- Guests
Aeonar seems to be only used for accused blood mages since apostates are taken to a circle and escaping from the circle doesn't result in Anders being sent there....
Hell, Anders got caught seven times and was dragged back unharmed every time until it looked like he actually murdered two templars.
#390
Posté 25 juin 2013 - 10:52
IceHawk-181
-
- Members
- 240 messages
Anders was little more than a chronic run-away; he started the pattern when he was a young boy and to the best of our knowledge never actually dabbled in forbidden magic or gave Irving cause to consider him a threat.
Basically, Anders was impulsive and young.
Though that does not mean Anders suffered no punishments for the runaways, I do not recall any convos or codex entries detailing that.
Aeonar seems to be restricted to serious infractions in cases in which accused malefficarum and apostates are kept under lock and key.
Which raises the question, why was Jowan to be made Tranquil outright instead of sent to Aeonar for isolation and observation?
Basically, Anders was impulsive and young.
Though that does not mean Anders suffered no punishments for the runaways, I do not recall any convos or codex entries detailing that.
Aeonar seems to be restricted to serious infractions in cases in which accused malefficarum and apostates are kept under lock and key.
Which raises the question, why was Jowan to be made Tranquil outright instead of sent to Aeonar for isolation and observation?
#391
Posté 25 juin 2013 - 11:12
LobselVith8
-
- Members
- 16 993 messages
Morocco Mole wrote...
Aeonar seems to be only used for accused blood mages since apostates are taken to a circle and escaping from the circle doesn't result in Anders being sent there....
Hell, Anders got caught seven times and was dragged back unharmed every time until it looked like he actually murdered two templars.
While the templars tried to kill the child Aneirin when he ran away years ago. Not every runaway mage is as lucky as Anders was to have Irving argue on his behalf, and to have a Knight-Commander like Greagoir willing to listen to the First Enchanter about the matter.
#392
Posté 25 juin 2013 - 11:57
In Exile
-
- Members
- 28 738 messages
IceHawk-181 wrote...
Objective Necessity is the wrong phrase; I would refer to mandatory education for Mages a subject of the Commonweal however, and fully endorse it as secular law. However, considering that the Mages are in fact Fereldens it would require a legal decision of the Landsmeet to make such a thing proper.
Why do you say that? We know that the Chantry is entitled to effectively ship mages around and not all mages in a Circle are from the region. The mage Warden is an excellent example - as an Amell, he or she was born in Kirkwall.
Given that we don't know the precise juridical relationship between the Chantry and whatever nation state it maintains a Circle in, we have no basis to say that mages are "Ferelden" legally speaking. They certainly aren't subject to Crown authority while in the Circle.
There's also no ground to believe that the Landsmeet is a Parliament.
#393
Posté 26 juin 2013 - 12:06
IceHawk-181
-
- Members
- 240 messages
According to the Prima Official Guide the Landsmeet is in fact Ferelden's legislative body to the point that is has the authority to override the Throne on matters of law.
The Mage Warden's family hails from Kirkwall, whether or not the Mage Warden him/herself was Ferelden or a Free Marcher is unknown.
However, Fereldens with Magical abilities born to Freeholders are Fereldens and therefore subject to Freeholder rights and Ferelden law.
We need details on how the Chantry operates legally.
The Mage Warden's family hails from Kirkwall, whether or not the Mage Warden him/herself was Ferelden or a Free Marcher is unknown.
However, Fereldens with Magical abilities born to Freeholders are Fereldens and therefore subject to Freeholder rights and Ferelden law.
We need details on how the Chantry operates legally.
#394
Posté 26 juin 2013 - 12:31
dragonflight288
-
- Members
- 8 852 messages
Morocco Mole wrote...
Aeonar seems to be only used for accused blood mages since apostates are taken to a circle and escaping from the circle doesn't result in Anders being sent there....
Hell, Anders got caught seven times and was dragged back unharmed every time until it looked like he actually murdered two templars.
And we don't know if he was the murderer or they died fighting darkspawn. It's most certainly suspicious, but that leads to the next event that happened.
Ser Rylon ignored the King/Queen of Ferelden as well as the Grey Warden's right of conscription, and illegally tried to take Anders again later, and her reasons for doing so were, that her duties as a templar superceded the word of the King or the Wardens.
Meaning she was saying she had divine right and secular authority shouldn't get in the way.
Then we have Aneiren, the elven mage who was run through and left for dead at the age of 14. After meeting him personally among the Dalish, I highly doubt he was a maleficar as claimed. It's entirely possible the templars sent after him were the zealous kind and simply wanted to kill a mage, they may have been racists and tried to kill him because he was an elf, or maybe Aneiren was close to the Dalish and the Hunters and Keeper attacked the Templars for encroaching on their camp, and they blamed Aneiren for it. We don't know the details, but we do know that he was run through, left for dead, and that he was not a maleficar.
#395
Posté 26 juin 2013 - 01:05
BlueMagitek
-
- Members
- 3 583 messages
Aneiren is also hiding in a forest full of werewolves. Elf hating werewolves. The other mage who does that is most certainly a maleficar. >_______________>
IceHawk, I believe that mage progeny do not keep their family title. This is partially due to, I imagine, political power also attracting demons (would Connor have attracted a Desire demon if he had been a poor alienage elf?).
IceHawk, I believe that mage progeny do not keep their family title. This is partially due to, I imagine, political power also attracting demons (would Connor have attracted a Desire demon if he had been a poor alienage elf?).
#396
Posté 26 juin 2013 - 01:26
IceHawk-181
-
- Members
- 240 messages
Did some looking around; the Amell Mage Warden is the child of Revka Amell, Leandra's cousin. The Mage retained the family name (clearly) however she should technically be a citizen of Kirkwall, not Ferelden.
Which actually causes more problems.
The Chantry operates with extraterritorial authority that allows it to seize citizens of one nation and imprison them in Circles located within the sovereign territories of other nations.
At best guess that requires the Chantry to have minimally established legal ties with each government that allows them to assume sovereign authority over Mages.
Essentially, it would mean each state renounces the citizenship of every Mage, recognizes a legal authority of the Chantry over an entire race of individuals, grants some level of right for pursuit and extradition, and cedes a portion of land within the physical boundaries of the state as sovereign Chantry property.
Which causes am amazing number of diplomatic issues when one considers the relationship between the Divine, the Orlesian Empire, and the Ferelden Empire.
Which actually causes more problems.
The Chantry operates with extraterritorial authority that allows it to seize citizens of one nation and imprison them in Circles located within the sovereign territories of other nations.
At best guess that requires the Chantry to have minimally established legal ties with each government that allows them to assume sovereign authority over Mages.
Essentially, it would mean each state renounces the citizenship of every Mage, recognizes a legal authority of the Chantry over an entire race of individuals, grants some level of right for pursuit and extradition, and cedes a portion of land within the physical boundaries of the state as sovereign Chantry property.
Which causes am amazing number of diplomatic issues when one considers the relationship between the Divine, the Orlesian Empire, and the Ferelden Empire.
#397
Posté 26 juin 2013 - 01:30
BlueMagitek
-
- Members
- 3 583 messages
It seems to work out okay, given that the Circles fought for Ferelden against Orlais. ~_^
#398
Posté 26 juin 2013 - 01:42
IceHawk-181
-
- Members
- 240 messages
And if the Divine was a partisan who sided with the nobles seeking to conquer Ferelden, what then?
Would the Ferelden Chantries refuse the wishes of the Divine and cause a second schism? Would the Templar's refuse the Divine's orders?
Fun for everyone!
Would the Ferelden Chantries refuse the wishes of the Divine and cause a second schism? Would the Templar's refuse the Divine's orders?
Fun for everyone!
#399
Posté 26 juin 2013 - 01:51
BlueMagitek
-
- Members
- 3 583 messages
It seems that the Circle can choose to go to war with whomever they wish, so the Circle probably would have helped anyway?
And if the Divine was a partisan, well, tough luck. =D
And if the Divine was a partisan, well, tough luck. =D
#400
Posté 26 juin 2013 - 04:57
Ieldra
-
- Members
- 25 188 messages
DAA established that the Chantry's authority supersedes secular authority in matters of magic. That, however, means nothing more that they can try and invoke that authority, not that they always must. In Ferelden, they chose not to interfere.
