1363 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Who said anything about rule? Being alive and eventually having a chance at making a life for yourself is better than what they were facing if the templars won the war.

Except that one of these groups actually believes mages are people.

I was quoting Dorian. Again, you're focusing inordinately on phrasing. The point is that in Tevinter not all mages have status, respect or even basic standing as what we would recgonize as persons. Just look at how slaves weren't viewed as people IRL.

The enslaved mages were not people and they took it on total and absolute faith they were ever going to be free.

[In Exile]

Thats the problem. We do not know the actual terms, therefore we can only go by the definition given in the game. Which was indenture service. Given the situation Fiona still had a strong negotiation position. There was no obligation of her to sign a agreement which would result in slavery by name or terms. Remember that it was Tevinter whom showed up to give the offer. Also none of the mages present were not under any obligation to abide into anything resembling slavery. Fiona had only nominal negotiation rights. It is all about the negotiations.

No. You're wrong. The contract would absolutely be enforced by specific performance. That in itself is enough to make it analogous to slavery. Beyond that we know there is no choice as to occupation (you said not all of our people would be military!). And if it is like IRL indentured servitude then using physical violence to discipline is permitted.

So we have a contract that you cannot escape from and cannot choose under, where you have surrendered sovereignty over your person.

That's slavery. Or the conditions aren't indentured servitude by definition.

[In Exile]

Circle mages have no basic rights, not even the right to exist, if someone in the Chantry decides they're a blood mage or a danger or whatever reason someone can produce or fabricate. NPCs comment on the fact that Divine Justinia believed that mages were people... as if this is a remarkable thing. Cullen's dialogue also talks about how he didn't view mages as people.

But you know what, I've had enough of these discussions to know that those who believe in the benevolence of the Chantry will not accept even basic facts of the universe, and simply insist that mages had it pretty good.

If I were a human mage, I'd have already been packing my bags for Tevinter the minute the Circle door blew open. Elves don't have anywhere to go, of course, which is probably why Fiona accepted Ferelden's offer, and I agree that she should have worked harder to stay in Ferelden's good graces. However she apparently concluded that Ferelden wasn't willing or capable of protecting them after the Conclave was destroyed.

Circle mages have as much of a fiction or rights as indentured servants in Tevinter. That's the point. That's what makes the choice so idiotic. You have a choice between a fiction of right and the promise of your abusive master you'll be treated better. There's no difference beyond your subjective belief without Tevinter is better in absence of oxygen.

[MisterJB]

Circle mages have no basic rights, not even the right to exist, if someone in the Chantry decides they're a blood mage or a danger or whatever reason someone can produce or fabricate.

Untrue on two instances.

One: The idea mages have no basic rigths is false. They have a right to be safe as much as everyone else but, if you wish for something specific, there is the right of free association, which I named in my previous post, or the right to not be made Tranquil after the Harrowing.

Do you recall how we passed judgement in DAA and DAI? Were there lawyers or juries?

No, the Castellan simply said what he or she believed had happened, the accused would tell us what he or she claims to have happened and then we would say what is going to happen. We could hang people stealing two sacks of flour to feed their starving families.

That is the standard of law within Thedas, not something exclusive to mages. At least they have a representative in the First Enchanter. Outside, if you're not a noble, you're powerless.

 

 

NPCs comment on the fact that Divine Justinia believed that mages were people... as if this is a remarkable thing. 

Yes, people HATE mages. They always have, they always will.

None of that changes the list I presented beforehand and in there, I detailed the treatment mages receive and none of it is inhuman.

 

Cullen's dialogue also talks about how he didn't view mages as people.

No, what he said is that mages are not like people without magic.

That does not deny their humanity; it simply means they are different from Cullen and non-mage Hawke which they are.

 

If I were a human mage, I'd have already been packing my bags for Tevinter the minute the Circle door blew open. 

Kind of proving everyone else right, no?

[TobiTobsen]

Circle mages have no basic rights, not even the right to exist, if someone in the Chantry decides they're a blood mage or a danger or whatever reason someone can produce or fabricate. NPCs comment on the fact that Divine Justinia believed that mages were people... as if this is a remarkable thing. Cullen's dialogue also talks about how he didn't view mages as people.

 

But you know what, I've had enough of these discussions to know that those who believe in the benevolence of the Chantry will not accept even basic facts of the universe, and simply insist that mages had it pretty good.

 

What about the fact that every mage related decision in a circle needs the OK from both the Knight Commander and the First Enchanter? Irving had to agree with Greagoir to make Jowan tranquil. Meredith couldn't search the rooms of the mages without Orsino's okay.

[Addai]

Circle mages have as much of a fiction or rights as indentured servants in Tevinter. That's the point. That's what makes the choice so idiotic. You have a choice between a fiction of right and the promise of your abusive master you'll be treated better. There's no difference beyond your subjective belief without Tevinter is better in absence of oxygen.

Since Fiona believed they were facing certain death or at best Tranquility, and since you agree that all other things are equal, I don't see what the issue is.

What about the fact that every mage related decision in a circle needs the OK from both the Knight Commander and the First Enchanter? Irving had to agree with Greagoir to make Jowan tranquil. Meredith couldn't search the rooms of the mages without Orsino's okay.

I'm sorry, I'm not that impressed by the fact that they occasionally sought a rubber stamp from one Stockholm Syndrome member of the class before they did whatever they were going to do anyway.
 
I'm done discussing it, though, because this is a pit that has no bottom.

[In Exile]

Also, as to all this talk of slavery, I don't think Fiona was ever fighting for "mages should have rights." I don't think natural rights is really even something that's on her radar in a legal sense. At best, it's just there in a base, instinctual sense. I think she was fighting for "mages should police mages" and/or "mages should separate from the Chantry" because she thinks that's the only way mages will have control over their own fates. Technically, her deal with Tevinter still delivers this. I think she is willing to accept Tevinter oversight simply because they are mages and not mundanes.

Mundanes having some say in the governance of mages is *precisely* the underlying tension in all this for the last thousand years because traditionally, the mages of ancient Tevinter dominated everybody.

This is the crux of the whole matter: whether or not mage policing should be left up 100% to mages or not.

This is an interesting take. I hadn't thought about it in that way. But that seems to be shortsighted. You're not changing things - you're just swapping abusers.

Still you're right it wouldn't be hypocritical.

[In Exile]

Since Fiona believed they were facing certain death or at best Tranquility, and since you agree that all other things are equal, I don't see what the issue is.

The issue is that they're facing exactly this situation again, and she chooses exactly this outcome. The only difference is that some how it's better if Tevinter abuses them. But that makes it idiotic.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I'm sorry, I'm not that impressed by the fact that they occasionally sought a rubber stamp from one Stockholm Syndrome member of the class before they did whatever they were going to do anyway.

That is distinctly not the impression I got watching Gregoir and Irving work. Especially during Broken Circle, when Gregoir calls off an Annulment because Irving assures him the need has been obviated. (Though this relationship of mutual respect is implied to be the exception I suppose.)

[MisterJB]

Ah, we've got to the point where any mage cooperating and coexisting with Templars is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

Clearly there is a bottom to this because have reached it.

[Addai]

The issue is that they're facing exactly this situation again, and she chooses exactly this outcome. The only difference is that some how it's better if Tevinter abuses them. But that makes it idiotic.

The situation they're facing is certain death or at best Tranquility.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

The situation they're facing is certain death or at best Tranquility.

And so they decide to accept indentured servitude that could very well become permanent in order to escape it where they were not willing to accept the Circles to avoid it previously. Ignoring the very real question of how Alexius was supposed to protect them from the Templars where Teagan and Alistair/Anora/both were perceived incapable of it, you can legitimately accuse her of hypocrisy.

[Addai]

And so they decide to accept indentured servitude that could very well become permanent in order to escape it where they were not willing to accept the Circles to avoid it previously. Ignoring the very real question of how Alexius was supposed to protect them from the Templars where Teagan and Alistair/Anora/both were perceived incapable of it, you can legitimately accuse her of hypocrisy.

No, because you're assuming that the Circles would be at best status quo ante. That's unrealistic. All that they could realistically expect from a templar victory after the Conclave was destroyed is that the entire lot of them would be killed or made Tranquil. So yes, I'd take a shot at freedom and dignity over that.

[TobiTobsen]

I'm sorry, I'm not that impressed by the fact that they occasionally sought a rubber stamp from one Stockholm Syndrome member of the class before they did whatever they were going to do anyway.

 

Meredith, the poster child for everything that people see as wrong with the Templar order and Knight Commander of one of the, if not THE, most opressiv circles in Thedas, cannot search the mage quarters simply because Orsino says so. Yet somehow this whole balancing system of Knight Commander and First Enchanter is a farce?

 

I'm sorry, but I don't see your conclusion.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

No, because you're assuming that the Circles would be at best status quo ante. That's unrealistic. All that they could realistically expect from a templar victory after the Conclave was destroyed is that the entire lot of them would be killed or made Tranquil. So yes, I'd take a shot at freedom and dignity over that.

No, I'm assuming the opposite of that. I am assuming that any captured mage would probably be killed or Tranquil'd. The point I was making was that they knew that going into the Rebellion that that was the cost of failure, and rebelled anyway. Then they signed away their freedom to someone else for ten years (at best, since I don't know how they'd go about enforcing that clause) in exchange for avoiding that risk. Barring the Red Templar plot that gives Alexius's comrade control of the force they're afraid of I don't think Alexius had as much power to protect them as Teagan and Alistair did, but we'll ignore that since I'm not arguing pragmatism at the moment: I'm arguing principles, and Fiona violated the ones that (as I understood it) were supposed to be her whole motivation.

[Addai]

No, I'm assuming the opposite of that. I am assuming that any captured mage would probably be killed or Tranquil'd. The point I was making was that they knew that going into the Rebellion that that was the cost of failure, and rebelled anyway. Then they signed away their freedom to someone else for ten years (at best, since I don't know how they'd go about enforcing that clause) in exchange for avoiding that risk. I don't think Alexius had as much power to protect them as Teagan and Alistair did, but we'll ignore that since I'm not arguing pragmatism at the moment: I'm arguing principles, and Fiona violated the ones that (as I understood it) were supposed to be her whole motivation.

Well now this goes back to what ifs and second guessing. They didn't vote to rebel- they voted for mage autonomy in the Circles, in an environment of increasing templar abuses which had simply become intolerable. Or at least they tried to, since Seeker Lambert attacked based on Fiona calling for a vote. "Why didn't you just accept it" is very easy to say when it's not you who could be turned into a vegetable at any moment. And naturally they thought they had a chance of winning.

[Iakus]

Also, as to all this talk of slavery, I don't think Fiona was ever fighting for "mages should have rights."  I don't think natural rights is really even something that's on her radar in a legal sense.  At best, it's just there in a base, instinctual sense. I think she was fighting for "mages should police mages" and/or "mages should separate from the Chantry" because she thinks that's the only way mages will have control over their own fates.  Technically, her deal with Tevinter still delivers this.  I think she is willing to accept Tevinter oversight simply because they are mages and not mundanes.

 

Mundanes having some say in the governance of mages is *precisely* the underlying tension in all this for the last thousand years because traditionally, the mages of ancient Tevinter dominated everybody.   

 

This is the crux of the whole matter: whether or not mage policing should be left up 100% to mages or not. 

Funny thing, though, freed slaves, even mage slaves, in Tevinter don't get to be Soporoti or Laetan, they're Liberati, a sub-class for freedman.

 

Those mages would not be allowed anything higher than the lowest ranks in the Tevinter Circles.  They could own property, but otherwise have limited rights, and no representation in the government.  They would still be the lowest of the low.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Funny thing, though, freed slaves, even mage slaves, in Tevinter don't get to be Soporoti or Laetan, they're Liberati, a sub-class for freedman.

 

Those mages would not be allowed anything higher than the lowest ranks in the Tevinter Circles.  They could own property, but otherwise have limited rights, and no representation in the government.  They would still be the lowest of the low.

Indentured servitude and slavery aren't the same legal concept in cultures that practice them, though. So this might not be the case here.

 

Edit: I am of course assuming Alexius doesn't Darth Vader the deal here.

[Uccio]

No. You're wrong. The contract would absolutely be enforced by specific performance. That in itself is enough to make it analogous to slavery. Beyond that we know there is no choice as to occupation (you said not all of our people would be military!). And if it is like IRL indentured servitude then using physical violence to discipline is permitted.

So we have a contract that you cannot escape from and cannot choose under, where you have surrendered sovereignty over your person.

That's slavery. Or the conditions aren't indentured servitude by definition.

 

No, you are wrong. For example, you can sign up in the french foreign legion. Specific time during which you are obliged to do what is pointed to you. Officers can use physical violence against recruits (or could, at one time). Running away will result incarceration as you are tried as deserter (or was at some point). Doesn´t mean it is slavery though. Same with this, strict contract yes. But not slavery.

What Fiona said about not everyone being in the military is easily avoided. Make a contract clause which specifically states that those unfit for military will have something else to do. You are still assuming that free mages do not have anything to say about the contract, that is not the case. Before signing make sure nothing points to slavery. Tevinter loves bureaucracy. 

[Former_Fiend]

My personal problem with Fiona is that her backstory is so blatantly manufactured to create sympathy for her and to excuse her caustic behavior; Rape-As-Backstory does not a good character make. Especially since it only happened so that all of her emotional scars could be healed by Maric's Magic Penis™. Her relationship with Maric was also painfully forced; the two had no chemistry or common ground. Instead they just argued and yelled at each other. It was just poor, lazy writing all around, and I expect better from Gaider.