Stop! Your thought process to get a tangible definition for slavery is a good one, your mistake was reaching for the dictionary to do so. Dictionaries are good for defining words, lousy for complex and mutable concepts.
And definition number 1 is still bad because things like European medieval serfdom and modern penitentaries, still fit better than the Circle. Does the Chantry have "ABSOLUTE power" over mages and "controls their life, liberty, and fortune"? No, no, and far from it. In DA, Mages are free to form political associations, hold positions of real power within the Circle itself (that works in CONJUNCTION with the Chantry, which does NOT have absolute power over it), are free to gain permission to leave and attend conferences with other mages to further their knowledge or position, and other activies - to say nothing of receiving a free education, a roof, and the ability to maintain their cultural identity - that slaves, as understood in a historical context, would never have.
Here is a test for if something is comparable to slavery. Ask if a typical African in the 1600s would exchange their experience of abduction, transit across the Middle Passage, loss of cultural identity, chattel bondage to a master who had REAL absolute domionion over them, who had to endure REAL work harvesting sugarcane, and had the whip as opposed to Irving's tough love for that of Ines the Botonist from Awakenings. Find me some examples of slaves from the antebellum US South who found the time and the means to be a famous botonists or some other career predicated on education, could leave the cotton fields to pursue said careers, attended conferences held by other slaves to better their plight/expand knowledge, and other activities that mages can do and then I won't argue the point that Mages=Slavery.
As for the rest, we have no evidence either way regarding the Chantry's finances. All we can do is speculate and guess. My orginal response was to a poster who *only* pointed out Chantry's income and neglected to consider expenditure. That's it. If someone wants to engage in such conjecture about how much political, military, or economic power the Chantry holds, that's fine, but that person needs to account for both sources of power *and* expenditure/commitments/operating costs. Nothing you or anyone else has written has changed that, but people who dislike the Chantry still tend to focus on income and conveniently neglect expenditure.
dragonflight288 wrote...
JoyDivision wrote...
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.
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.
Don't you mean the Circle set BETHANY up for failure? That's debatable. It was rather obvious she was exceptionally well trained, so much so that she almost immediately became an instructor/mentor.
The Codex does *not* say "only the most gifted mages" take the Harrowing, the Dragon Age Wiki does. If what the Wiki says is true, where is the in-game evidence? You encounter many more mages than Tranquils. It's been years since I played DA, but I do *not* recall encoutnering in game evidence that many of the mage apprentices are killed or never heard from again. IIRC, Jowen expresses mostly curiosity regarding your passing the Harrowing, not astonishment.
Irving does not equal Mages. Also, I don't remembering him saying that. I do remember him saying: "Every mage must go through this trial by fire. As we succeeded, so shall you," a statement that hardly implies foreboding. He also says: "And Chantry and templars are models of magnanimity? They would make us all Tranquil if they could, and call it a kindness. They fancy themselves our guardians, sitting smugly on their righteousness," a statement that doesn't sound like he would endorse a "Traquil solution."
Modifié par Joy Divison, 23 octobre 2013 - 04:04 .
Retour en haut
