[quote]Joy Divison wrote...
[quote]dragonflight288 wrote...
[quote]Joy Divison wrote...
No it's not. Just because you think the practice is reprehensible does not make it slavery.[/quote]
Definition from World English Dictionary: Slavery
—
n 1. the state or condition a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune
2. the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work
3. the condition of being subject to some influence or habit
4. work done in harsh conditions for low pay
Pay close attention to number 1. That is the very characteristic of the Circle. Mages are denied the right to live where they choose, they need special permission to get married, and they arent allowed to keep any of their children. Their rights are dictated by another faction. This falls into the definition of slavery according to the dictionary. [/quote]
Did you just use a dictionary (!) to explain something as complex and dynamic as slavery?!? There's a reason why even an elementary school teacher would not do such a thing. By boiling slavery down to vague and elastic conditions that are so easily satisfied - look at number 4 - suddenly just about everything can be interpreted as slavery. The English working class of the 19th century? Slavery. Serfs in medieval Europe? Slavery. Convicted criminals in state
penitentiaries? Slaves. Conscripted soldiers? Slaves. The summer I worked for a contractor? Slavery. Nice, now the concept is meaningless and we just made a mockery of a complicated and disgusting historical condition.[/quote]
With everyone going on about whether the circle was or wasn't slavery, it dissolved into a "I'm right and you're wrong" "No, I'm right and you're wrong" statements, that I felt it was only logical to go to another, definitive source on what slavery itself is, and then use that to show ehethr or not the Circle fell into that category.
And yes, many things can be called slavery if you go with number 4. But I didn't, I went with number 1, which fits the Circle's description to a tee.
If you seek to disprove me on this part, focus on number 1, which I did. I simply put all the definitions in there so nothing can truly be taken out of context.
[quote][quote]dragonflight288 wrote...
[quote]Joy Divison wrote...
Actually I think the dwarves control the lyrium trade, not the Chantry.[/quote]
The dwarves control the supply, the Chantry trades with them exclusively, and chooses to whom should have how much of it, according to the demand.[/quote]
If the dwarves control the supply and as you later admit they sell to smugglers and thus not "exclusively" to the Chantry, how does this invalidate my point that the Chantry does not hold a chokehold over the resource?[/quote]
It doesn't. It simply shows that the Chantry does not have a lyrium shortage, and if templars or Circles want any lyrium, they have to get it through the Chantry, or pay exorbitant prices from smugglers. And smugglers are doggedly undependable.
[quote][quote]dragonflight288 wrote...[quote]Joy Divison wrote...
Or one might say burden. It doesn't get lyrium for free, training and maintaining elite soldiers is expensive, and what political power it maintains is beholden to catering to the whims of Orlesian nobles.[/quote]
Not completely true. The tranquil at Ostagar says that the Circle's don't get by on charity, and the tranquil codex says that it's the tranquil who handle the enchantment and shopkeeping services outside of a Circle, and that is how the Circle gets its income...from which the Chantry partakes, in addition to the tithes.[/quote]
What's not completely true? Does the Chantry get its lyrium for free? Is training and maintaining elite soldiers cheap? Does the Chantry's and Orlais's politics not have a history of intertwining? If the Chantry doesn't get by on charity and needs to sell enchantments, does this not mean the Chantry have real bills that have to be paid? That was my only contention, because the person I responded too failed to neglect this vital calcuation in how much power the Chantry realistically can wield.[/quote]
What isn't completely true is that the Circle isn't really a burden on Chantry resources, beyond stationing templars there. Rather the opposite. The Chantry offers enchantment services, its tranquil go out and run stores. These bring the Circle's their wealth, from which the Chantry partakes of the rewards.
The Chantry don't handle enchantments, either in making the runes or in the actual enchanting process, nor do they sell the enchanted items made. That's strictly in the purview of the tranquil and the Circle.
[quote][quote]dragonflight288 wrote...
I don't know how expensive lyrium is, but it fetches a pretty penny for smugglers, but the dwarves do keep the vast majority of it for themselves, so there is plenty of it. The laws of supply and demand in economics is what controls prices. With only one source, the dwarves can charge whatever they want for lyrium since they are the only source. But the Chantry also are the only ones really buying outside of smugglers, so they in turn can control who gets it and how much, or how much it's worth to the various circles.
But the only reason I contend with this is because there is nothing in the game that even suggests that the Chantry has any problems getting lyrium, or even close to having a shortage of it.[/quote]
And here we have the admission of smugglers. You are going to have to explain the relevance of the rest. I never claimed lyrium was a scarce resource, the Chantry had difficulty acquiring it, or the role in played in the power the Chantry possesses. I contested the claim that the Chantry had a "chokehold" over the resource and the implcation that the Chantry got it on the cheap. No, I suspect the Chantry can pretty much get what they want, but they've got to pay the dwarves a pretty penny for it...which is why the Traquil sell enchantments and why the Chantry can;t get by on just charity.[/quote]
There was never a denial of smugglers.
And my point was that nothing in the game, comics or novels even suggest that the Chantry is short on the money to buy the lyrium, and the Chantry doesn't fund the Circle, beyond giving its templars most of the lyrium they purchase, and the circles what remains. The Circle's fund the Circle's, and the Chantry partakes of the profit.
Unless there's evidence that proves this wrong.
[quote][quote]dragonflight288 wrote...[quote]Joy Divison wrote...
Because the Chantry coffers are not as overflowing as you think they are.[/quote]
At least to the point that at least one Revered Mother refuses to give any blessings unless a tithe is offered.
[/quote]
Again, how does this contradict my point? If the Revered Mother refuses to blass until tithed...then tithes must be very important to the Chantry...which would suggest that the coffers are not overflowing...[/quote]
It was more a sarcastic comment that suggests that the Revered Mother of Lothering was trying to extort money from the Warden. If you refuse to pay, or even lack the funds to pay, she will not give you a blessing.
And there is next to no food in Lothering, barely any supplies to help refugees. It's not exactly a situation that speaks of the greater chantry as a whole, just a localized area with a revered mother who extorts money from people.
[quote][quote]dragonflight288 wrote...[quote]Joy Divison wrote...
They don't *want* to [use mages in wars], even when the literal end of the world is potentially at hand. This is clearly laid out in DA:O by Gregoir and the old hag at the war council meeting with Loghain. [/quote]
The Grand Cleric? "We will NOT
trust any lives to your spells,
mage! Save them for the darkspawn." All Uldred was trying to do was offer an alternative to the tower and the beacon, she shut him up before he could even finish his sentence.
That had nothing to do with danger of magic. It was all about him being a mage and she didn't want to hear it, well, that's how I interpreted based on how much emphasis she put on the word 'mage.'[/quote]
I must be really tired because once again I don't see how this contradicts my point. Ok, it has nothing to do with the danger of magic, it has to do with him being a mage. How does this invalidate my claim that the Chantry does not want to use mages? In fact the word is right there - mage - not magic.[/quote]
I wasn't trying to contradict your point, merely support it by providing the dialogue.
Although, I could probably have written that out a bit better. Sorry for the miscommunication.
[quote][quote]dragonflight288 wrote...
And Gregoire's complaints weren't on how mages are dangerous, but were, word for word "We have already commited enough of our own!" He thought they sent plenty, if you can call only seven mages, plenty.[/quote]
Exactly...but I didn't mention the issue was that mages were dangerous. You have got to be confusing me with another poster. All I said was that the Chantry was very hesistant to use mages in war. Which you two elaborations of Gregoir and the old hag at Loghain's war council support. So why are you debating me on this point?[/quote]
*shrug* I've been in a lot debates today, and I'm probably simply misreading your posts. Sorry.
[quote]
[quote]dragonflight288 wrote...[quote]Joy Divison wrote...[quote]Another poster wrote... Why force them to go through the Harrowing when they're going to spend the rest of their lives in a prison
anyway?1111[/quote]
Because an adomination in said "prison" is exceedingly dangerous. See Broken Circle quest in DA:O.[/quote]
While that's true, they are deliberately setting up mages to fail and become abominations, since the details of the Harrowing are kept secret. [/quote]
If it's true, then my point is valid. You are going to have to explain the whole "deliberately setting up mages to fail." They are brought to the Circle and trained by other Mages (in conjuction with the Templars) specifically so they
don't fail. The methods may not be what you deem are the best and the practice of keeping it secret is something that is clearly debatedly (but likewise has its merits), but that is not "deliberately setting up mages to fail." If they are trying to get the Mages to fail, they are doing a lousy job considering how many of them suceed and how much I keep hearing it is easy for a mage to fall to temptation.
[/quote][/quote]
That setting mages up to fail is mostly from Bethany entering the Circle. The moment they took her in she was put through the Harrowing without delay.
Add in that the codex also says that "only the most gifted mages" take the Harrowing because of the amount of lyrium it requires, so more often than not, mages would be either killed or forced into Tranquility.
It's said time and again in the game that many in the templars and the Chantry, and yes Irving says this as well in the Mage Origin, just played it again about half an hour ago, would prefer if they would tranquilize all mages in the Circle's, and they would call it a kindness.
Retour en haut
