The Mages are not slaves of the Chantry. David Gaider himself has put this notion down a couple years ago.
But without hyperbole the mage defenders have nothing!
![]()
The Mages are not slaves of the Chantry. David Gaider himself has put this notion down a couple years ago.
But without hyperbole the mage defenders have nothing!
![]()
Can you link the post? I would be interested to see it, because it looks an awful lot like slavery to me.
A Circle is like an amalgamation of a prison and a school.
The Chantry doesn't "own" the mages nor does it force them into servitude, so they are not slaves.
But without hyperbole the mage defenders have nothing!
They still have universal excuse for every disaster mages cause "it is all templars fault" ![]()
Can you link the post? I would be interested to see it, because it looks an awful lot like slavery to me.
http://forum.bioware...spoilers/page-8
Clearly I've stumbled into some long running dispute that I'm not up to speed on the minutiae of. I simply look at the control the Chantry has over every aspect of mages lives and how it deals with any dissent against that control and that's how it looks to me. If there is another interpretation, I'm open to hearing it.But without hyperbole the mage defenders have nothing!
There is no scope for mages to negotiate with the Chantry; a slave does not negotiate with his master, he obeys or he dies. If the slave wants freedom, his only choice is to rise up and slay his master. The only way the mages can ever be anything but the Chantry's slaves is to fight.
A perspective that I'm certain many who agree with the Libertarians would have in Thedas, and even an Aequitarian like Irving talks about the mages being freed in the post-Magi Boon ceremony: "I must thank you, however, for freeing the Circle from our shackles. That was most unexpected, indeed! You could have asked for anything."
A perspective that I'm certain many who agree with the Libertarians would have in Thedas, and even an Aequitarian like Irving talks about the mages being freed in the post-Magi Boon ceremony: "I must thank you, however, for freeing the Circle from our shackles. That was most unexpected, indeed! You could have asked for anything."
He was talking about restrictions and it wasn't literal and it shouldn't be taken this way for obvious reasons circles aren't slavery end of the story...
A perspective that I'm certain many who agree with the Libertarians would have in Thedas, and even an Aequitarian like Irving talks about the mages being freed in the post-Magi Boon ceremony: "I must thank you, however, for freeing the Circle from our shackles. That was most unexpected, indeed! You could have asked for anything."
Prisoners are in shackles, too. I think mages identify themselves more with this than slaves.
Most Prisoners though...Bleh, this is a tired argument.
He was talking about restrictions and it wasn't literal and it shouldn't be taken this way for obvious reasons circles aren't slavery end of the story...
That's up to speculative interpretation of his words. However, the fact remains that some people in Thedas do view the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery, and some in-game authors use language that refers to the mages as being "servants of the Chantry" or living "in servitude to the Chantry". Even a historical figure like Aldenon outright condemns the institution as slavery:
“A civilization cannot be civil if it condones the slavery of another. And that is what this Circle is! But by accident of birth, those mages would be free to live, love, and die as they choose. The Circles will break - if it be one year, a decade, a century, or beyond. Tyrants always fall, and the downtrodden always strive for freedom!”
This view can also be expressed by Anders and pro-mage Champion, so I certainly think Darkly Tranquil has a point in addressing how some people in Thedas might view the Chantry controlled Circles.
Gaider's point seems to primarily be one of definitions. The mages might not be "owned" in the way slaves are, but they are still held by the Chantry against their will for their entire lives and almost all aspects of their lives controlled by the Templars, with the threat of death hanging over them should they resist their confinement. They might not be slaves in the strictest sense of the word, but they are little better than prisoners at best.
A perspective that I'm certain many who agree with the Libertarians would have in Thedas, and even an Aequitarian like Irving talks about the mages being freed in the post-Magi Boon ceremony: "I must thank you, however, for freeing the Circle from our shackles. That was most unexpected, indeed! You could have asked for anything."
The Circles were meant to be refuges. Places where mages could practice magic without risk of being lynched by a superstitious mob. And where they can be watched in case one of them goes all demony and such. Over time, the Tevinter Circles took power back and ended up treating non-mages as just batteries for their blood magic. While the White Chantry treated the mages with more fear and suspicion.
Both took things too far.
But now that the whole mage question thing has come up, I doubt we'll get more talk about Andraste in.
Clearly I've stumbled into some long running dispute that I'm not up to speed on the minutiae of. I simply look at the control the Chantry has over every aspect of mages lives and how it deals with any dissent against that control and that's how it looks to me. If there is another interpretation, I'm open to hearing it.
That's up to speculative interpretation of his words. However, the fact remains that some people in Thedas do see the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery, and some in-game authors use language that refers to the mages as being "servants of the Chantry" or living "in servitude to the Chantry". Even a historical figure like Aldenon outright condemns the institution as slavery:
And given the creator of the lore outright dismisses that, it really doesn't matter what the creation of said figure thinks on the matter.
WOG trumps in universe lore as we have all come to know.
Gaider's point seems to primarily be one of definitions. The mages might not be "owned" in the way slaves are, but they are still held by the Chantry against their will for their entire lives and almost all aspects of their lives controlled by the Templars, with the threat of death hanging over them should they resist their confinement. They might not be slaves in the strictest sense of the word
They don't fit the frigging definition, they aren't forced to work, they aren't treated as property and beyond that? They aren't sold as chattel between buyers and sellers.
They are more akin to folks who are imprisoned then anything else.
Which if you look is much more accurate description, Prisoners have their lives controlled by prison officials, they can die if they attempt to escape, etc, etc.
That's up to speculative interpretation of his words. However, the fact remains that some people in Thedas do view the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery, and some in-game authors use language that refers to the mages as being "servants of the Chantry" or living "in servitude to the Chantry". Even a historical figure like Aldenon outright condemns the institution as slavery:
“A civilization cannot be civil if it condones the slavery of another. And that is what this Circle is! But by accident of birth, those mages would be free to live, love, and die as they choose. The Circles will break - if it be one year, a decade, a century, or beyond. Tyrants always fall, and the downtrodden always strive for freedom!”
This view can also be expressed by Anders and pro-mage Champion, so I certainly think Darkly Tranquil has a point in addressing how some people in Thedas might view the Chantry controlled Circles.
Circles aren't slavery it is used as desperate argument by pro-mages in-universe as well like in our world rly even DG said that simple it seems that pro-mages don't have arguments so they try play on peoples emotions using word "slavery" toward mages.Mages are prisoners at worst and they are prisoners thave have highest life standard outside perhaps some nobles.
The Circles were meant to be refuges. Places where mages could practice magic without risk of being lynched by a superstitious mob. And where they can be watched in case one of them goes all demony and such. Over time, the Tevinter Circles took power back and ended up treating non-mages as just batteries for their blood magic. While the White Chantry treated the mages with more fear and suspicion.
Both took things too far.
But now that the whole mage question thing has come up, I doubt we'll get more talk about Andraste in.
I was simply pointing out that Darkly Tranquil had a point to bring up the perspectives held by some people in the world of Thedas, since some men and women do view the Chantry controlled Circles that way. As for the moral debate about the Circles themselves, I'm sure many people would disagree on what's right and wrong if this thread continued to address the matter.
However, since Darkly Tranquil has already stated an interest in dropping the discussion, perhaps we can all return to discussing the 'Herald' topic.
Clearly I've stumbled into some long running dispute that I'm not up to speed on the minutiae of. I simply look at the control the Chantry has over every aspect of mages lives and how it deals with any dissent against that control and that's how it looks to me. If there is another interpretation, I'm open to hearing it.
The Mages are not slaves to the chantry, as much as it looks like i will agree. The Circle of Magi as was said above is Both Place of Learning, Store of Knowledge for the world, and prison to defend the lands of Thedas from That which lies beyond, Namely Demons. The Quickest Surest way for a demon to enter the realm of Thedas from the Fade, is to take over a Mages Body and wear it like a suit becoming Abomination. The only way to breach the Fade while awake, is through magic, so Inherently all major Magical Catastrophes are caused by magic, and as such theres alot of Prejudices amongst Mages.
Mages cannot exhist outside the Circle of Magi because if they inadvertently summon a demon and it takes them over, theres no one there to put down the Abomination. Not every Circle of Magi is Like Kirkwall a good majority of them are more similar to Fereldan's Tower of Magi, but After Hawke "Escapades" everything went down hill due to Anders acting of his own Accord and Murdering the Revered Mother.
In Asunder the Mages, Templars and Seekers split from the Chantry after the Navarran Accord is revoked, leaving the Faith Without a Standing Army to enforce its Laws and its Peace. as such the Mages, longer under governance of the Chantry and Templars, Lack Templars able to cancel out the magic of the Abominations, The Templars higher ups must probably see this as all of them Becoming Malefiecarum which is not the case. the chance for them to make peace, and come to an New Accord... Pretty much went out the Window with the destruction of the Temple of Sacred Ashes.
- Sums it up pretty nice
Clearly I've stumbled into some long running dispute that I'm not up to speed on the minutiae of. I simply look at the control the Chantry has over every aspect of mages lives and how it deals with any dissent against that control and that's how it looks to me. If there is another interpretation, I'm open to hearing it.
Quarantine Centers. They are set up for the safety of both the ill and the general public, and are run under extremely draconian rules because the cost of containment failure is potentially catastrophic.
*Looks in thread*
...

Quarantine Centers. They are set up for the safety of both the ill and the general public, and are run under extremely draconian rules because the cost of containment failure is potentially catastrophic.
You are comparing the ability to do magic to having a virulent plague.
You are comparing the ability to do magic to having a virulent plague.
Yes he is.
I don't see the problem....
Yes he is.
I don't see the problem....
Because he's saying that the very act of being born forefits thier rights?
And not only that, they ahve no way of earning them back, they were born, now it's time to lock them up forever.
Because he's saying that the very act of being born forefits thier rights?
And not only that, they ahve no way of earning them back, they were born, now it's time to lock them up forever.
Exactly!
You seem to get the gist of it.