1363 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

You know what irked me about Fiona? I have my Inquisitor side with the mages. So Fiona is slumming around the library all the time. Morrigan is at Skyhold and tells me how the Hero of Ferelden is looking for a cure for the Calling. Ummm, hello? You've got somebody that cured their own Calling right there in Skyhold! Come on Morrigan, pick Fiona's brain for crying out loud.

Leliana cited Fiona and Avernus in my playthru concerning potential cures for the Calling.

 

Of course, Fiona was dead at the time 

[Ashagar]

Which is another thing, she had the support of the divine which she should have used to her advantage instead she threw it away... she seems to have a habit of throwing away support, first the divine and then the rulers of ferelden, still don't hate her just think she is incompetent.

[thesuperdarkone2]

Leliana cited Fiona and Avernus in my playthru concerning potential cures for the Calling.

 

Of course, Fiona was dead at the time 

Imagine if it turned out the cure to the Calling required Fiona being alive.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

What you just described is the North American experience with slavery and indentured servitude, not the global or objective definitions. 'Slavery' as a concept is broader than either, but doesn't require permanence or hereditary nature.

The Tevinter definition of indenture seems to be the same as the North American one, judging by the other comments. As for the permanence of slavery, it can technically be revoked at any time, but that's entirely at the discretion of the master. This also seems to be the case in Tevinter given that freeing his family was enough for Fenris to go through a permanent procedure in order to get his family freed. So I was oversimplifying, but unless the master in question is a particularly nice guy (as slavemasters go) I wouldn't bet on the distinction being that major.

[In Exile]

The Tevinter definition of indenture seems to be the same as the North American one, judging by the other comments. As for the permanence of slavery, it can technically be revoked at any time, but that's entirely at the discretion of the master. This also seems to be the case in Tevinter given that freeing his family was enough for Fenris to go through a permanent procedure in order to get his family freed. So I was oversimplifying, but unless the master in question is a particularly nice guy (as slavemasters go) I wouldn't bet on the distinction being that major.

 

I though the distinction Dean was drawing had more to do with the use of the term "slavery" and the notion that (1) the fact that it's temporary and (2) the fact that it doesn't extends to descendants doesn't mean that it isn't slavery. 

[o Ventus]

If they can't, then they are militarily inept and this is another indicator that they shouldn't have been so reckless as to pick a military confrontation they weren't prepared or equipped to fight.

 

So a group who is distinctly non-military and is by all accounts a group of scholars more than anything, might be a bit bad at performing military actions considering their lack of training and experience?

 

You don't f**kin' say.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I though the distinction Dean was drawing had more to do with the use of the term "slavery" and the notion that (1) the fact that it's temporary and (2) the fact that it doesn't extends to descendants doesn't mean that it isn't slavery. 

That argument would make more sense, but I still don't agree with it; just about any source I've seen that actually covers impermanent forced labor makes the distinction between that and slavery, even if it notes that the indenture turned into slavery later.

[Brockololly]

Leliana cited Fiona and Avernus in my playthru concerning potential cures for the Calling.

 

Of course, Fiona was dead at the time 

 

Yeah, Morrigan says the exact same thing if your Warden romanced her regarding Fiona and Avernus and the Calling. Which just made it more frustrating since Fiona is in the same damn building but Morrigan is acting like she's not even in the same place. Come on.

[KaiserShep]

Imagine if it turned out the cure to the Calling required Fiona being alive.

 

I'd get a good laugh out of that myself.

[In Exile]

That argument would make more sense, but I still don't agree with it; just about any source I've seen that actually covers impermanent forced labor makes the distinction between that and slavery, even if it notes that the indenture turned into slavery later.

 

I can't speak to sources, but I don't see the moral distinction between forced labour and slavery; in fact, to me forced labour is slavery. The surrounding context - whether it's permanent, whether you extend it to descendants - are just things that make a horrid, immoral thing worse. Kind of how "intentional killing" is murder, but doing it with a preamble of hours of torture is just ... worse murder. 

[CamlTowPetttingZoo]

Wait, Fiona is,

Spoiler

Alistair's mother

?

[In Exile]

Wait, Fiona is,

Spoiler

Alistair's mother

?

 

Yes. 

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I can't speak to sources, but I don't see the moral distinction between forced labour and slavery; in fact, to me forced labour is slavery. The surrounding context - whether it's permanent, whether you extend it to descendants - are just things that make a horrid, immoral thing worse. Kind of how "intentional killing" is murder, but doing it with a preamble of hours of torture is just ... worse murder. 

I didn't argue that indentured servitude isn't immoral. What I argued was that according to any definition I've heard, it's not slavery. My point isn't one of morality, it's one of semantics.

[In Exile]

I didn't argue that indentured servitude isn't immoral. What I argued was that according to any definition I've heard, it's not slavery. My point isn't one of morality, it's one of semantics.

 

Let me try again. The idea behind, say, distinguishing between murder and manslaughter has to do with moral culpability. Intentional killing > accidental killing. That's the distinction. Murder itself has lots of sub-categories, first vs. second degree, etc. These are also all different from each other vis-a-vis moral culpability, but they're not different in kind. 

 

We have have a general category of "slavery" while having lots of internal distinctions of blame depending on how long you own someone and what you can do in virtue of owning them. But, IMO, slavery is the description for the legal notion of owning persons. That it's temporary or not, and that you can voluntarily sign up for it, is besides the point. All of that, to me, is the difference between first vs. second degree murder, not murder vs. manslaughter. 

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Let me try again. The idea behind, say, distinguishing between murder and manslaughter has to do with moral culpability. Intentional killing > accidental killing. That's the distinction. Murder itself has lots of sub-categories, first vs. second degree, etc. These are also all different from each other vis-a-vis moral culpability, but they're not different in kind. 

 

We have have a general category of "slavery" while having lots of internal distinctions of blame depending on how long you own someone and what you can do in virtue of owning them. But, IMO, slavery is the description for the legal notion of owning persons. That it's temporary or not, and that you can voluntarily sign up for it, is besides the point. All of that, to me, is the difference between first vs. second degree murder, not murder vs. manslaughter. 

You don't legally own the person in indentured servitude. What you legally own is the right to demand work (possibly hard labor) from the person for a set amount of time, as opposed to with slavery where the person is legally yours unless and until you decide otherwise. That's not a major distinction, especially considering some of the loopholes that could be used to get extra time and the fact that at least one person was enslaved for trying to run out on his indenture despite there being some reason to believe it expired. But it is a distinction. That's not a matter of my opinion, but of what I understand the accepted definitions of legal concepts to be.

[Uccio]

You make it sound like the same can't happen to you in Tevinter.
 

 

So because there is a change of that happening (and it can happen anywhere in Thedas), mages should just accept their life long raping and abuse because it comes with the unfounded incarceration?

[Don Lionheart]

Lets be real here. Tevinter is not intrested in the southern mages. Alexious was intrested in the inquisitor and nothing else.

 

 

We know that. There's no particular reason Fiona would.

People in the real world can't be expected to assume that they're dealing with moustache twirling villains. The offer presented to Fiona wasn't as ridiculously bad as people in this thread want to represent it. Though accepting it was still a dumb move.

 

The latter point here is a good answer to the first, but I do have something to add.  I believe that Tevinter itself would actually be interested in southern mages.  The way I see it, the they've been at war with the Qunari...forever, which means they could always use more people to increase its population.  And as I pointed out in my last post, Tevinter is not completely evil.  I can't stress that point enough.  They do lots of evil things, yes, without a doubt, but their whole society alone is not evil.  Considering the rest of Thedas binds mages (literally, in terms of the Qunari), the Imperium just reverses roles, where the non-mages are the ones greatly oppressed [though for complete disclosure, it must be pointed out that a significant portion of the mages in the Imperium are opperssed as well, but in a different way, and that way is much more akin to the Roman Empire and its people (which Tevinter is based off of), which I'm not going to get into details of here], and mages have control.

 

Technically it was Lambert who started the war by interrupting a meeting sanctioned by the Divine without the Divine's authority (despite the Divine agreeing to his demands prior to the meeting). All she did in said meeting was call for a vote on independence (which was within her right) - a vote which almost certainly would have been defeated anyway due to the Libertarians' failure to enlist Wynne's support. When Lambert was directly opposing the Divine, Justinia threw her support behind the mages of the White Spire in order to prevent the Seeker/Templar coup. Fiona then called for a second vote for independence, and considering the alternative would have been death or tranquillity for most of the mages, their support for independence was justified IMO (even though I do not support full independence for the circles).

 

This is almost a completely true statement, and I'm glad someone brought it up, because it had not been mentioned previously.  However, you made a small error in that it's actually the a second and third vote for independence.  Prior to the meeting in the White Spire, which Lambert interrupted, there was a vote a year earlier, where Wynne was and voted against, resulting in the vote failing, and leading to the disbanding of the College of Enchanters until that meeting.

 

Yeah, Morrigan says the exact same thing if your Warden romanced her regarding Fiona and Avernus and the Calling. Which just made it more frustrating since Fiona is in the same damn building but Morrigan is acting like she's not even in the same place. Come on.

 

Good point, which is part of the problem I have with Fiona's lack of involvement once you finish In Hushed Whispers.  I said before I wish they had made more use of her other than a couple comments when the story moved along.  Although Fiona doesn't know exactly what removed the taint from her, because there was a lot of crazy stuff that went on in The Calling that would be impossible to reproduce exactly, especially if you killed The Architect (like I did in the Keep, though I didn't do it in my playthrough because I didn't know what The Architect's plan actually, having not read The Calling until after).  The best you could get out of Fiona was a description of what happened, and they could try and replicate the brooches used I suppose, but it would be challenging.  Not to mention I believe the Wardens studied her to figure out what happened but couldn't, though I may be wrong about that.  I know they tried to put her through the Joining again.

[In Exile]

You don't legally own the person in indentured servitude. What you legally own is the right to demand work (possibly hard labor) from the person for a set amount of time, as opposed to with slavery where the person is legally yours unless and until you decide otherwise. That's not a major distinction, especially considering some of the loopholes that could be used to get extra time and the fact that at least one person was enslaved for trying to run out on his indenture despite there being some reason to believe it expired. But it is a distinction. That's not a matter of my opinion, but of what I understand the accepted definitions of legal concepts to be.

 

At least from what I've been able to read that's not entirely true. Owners had the ability to physically discipline their indentured servants (IDs) even to extreme extents. This is a distinction without a difference, i.e., a highly technical distinction, which reduces this to not being a legal difference at all. What exactly does it mean to "own" a person? 

[SnakeCode]

Wait, Fiona is,

Spoiler

Alistair's mother

?

No wonder Alistair had such an aversion to leading the party in Origins. If he was anything like mother, everybody would be dead or in chains before leaving Lothering.

[Ranadiel Marius]

Imagine if it turned out the cure to the Calling required Fiona being alive.

I would demand a mod that allowed me to go back to Haven....so I could dance over her corpse. No real reason. Nice attempt at trying to come up with a bullshit reason why she should continue living despite the fact that she thinks the idiot ball is candy.

So a group who is distinctly non-military and is by all accounts a group of scholars more than anything, might be a bit bad at performing military actions considering their lack of training and experience?

You don't f**kin' say.

A shame these great scholars failed to realize that fact.

[Bigdoser]

Don't get the hate either we pretty much had to save all the major factions and leaders since they had egg on their faces without even realizing it. 

[SnakeCode]

So a group who is distinctly non-military and is by all accounts a group of scholars more than anything, might be a bit bad at performing military actions considering their lack of training and experience?

 

You don't f**kin' say.

Probably a bad idea to start a war then wasn't it?

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

At least from what I've been able to read that's not entirely true. Owners had the ability to physically discipline their indentured servants (IDs) even to extreme extents. This is a distinction without a difference, i.e., a highly technical distinction, which reduces this to not being a legal difference at all. What exactly does it mean to "own" a person? 

The fact that it's just a technical difference doesn't mean it doesn't have legal substance. Libel and slander are basically the same thing: the difference is one is in print and the other is spoken. But just because they're really similar doesn't mean the word for one can be used to describe the other.

[Ryzaki]

You make it sound like the same can't happen to you in Tevinter.
 

 

To be fair in Tevinter the threat of Tranquility would be unnecessary. It would just happen and you'd just have to deal with it.