unlikely since we "couldn't tear orlais' system down" slavery in tevinter isn't all bad (bad but understandable )
No, slavery is and always will be bad.
We were able to effect it though. Like for example if you get Celene and Briala back together the new Orlais is said to do things like drop The Game and treat elves a lot better, getting rid of or at least making less of two of Orlais' biggest issues.
from a modern perspective yes but it works in tevinter while it has involuntary it also has voluntary so it eves out sides there are many variations to "slavery"No, slavery is and always will be bad.
We were able to effect it though. Like for example if you get Celene and Briala back together the new Orlais is said to do things like drop The Game and treat elves a lot better, getting rid of or at least making less of two of Orlais' biggest issues.
from a modern perspective yes but it works in tevinter while it has involuntary it also has voluntary so it eves out sides there are many variations to "slavery"
And the epilogues are too versatile to be taken seriously
As long as there is even one involuntary slave, it is bad. Plain and simple.
The only things said about Orlais in the epilogue if you reunite Celene and Briala are...No, slavery is and always will be bad.
We were able to effect it though. Like for example if you get Celene and Briala back together the new Orlais is said to do things like drop The Game and treat elves a lot better, getting rid of or at least making less of two of Orlais' biggest issues.
"Consider the mighty Empire of Orlais, where Empress Celene remains on her golden throne."
"Where once war raged, there is now a shaky peace. Orlais is resurgent, the empress a patron of arts and culture."
"Many attribute this recovery to her lady love, though others wonder how long their reunion will truly last."
"Consider the mighty Empire of Orlais, where Empress Celene remains on her golden throne."
"The empire's ties to the Inquisition remain strong, both sides benefiting from the ongoing relationship."
"Some resent this, calling Celene the Inquisitor's puppet - though they do not do so openly."
"Orlais prospers, and soon forgets that it could very easily have been otherwise."
not really the fact you claim as such is rather simple mindedAs long as there is even one involuntary slave, it is bad. Plain and simple.
not really the fact you claim as such is rather simple minded
So involuntary slavery is good? Did you really just say that?
now now you inferred that not I all I'm saying is "involuntary and voluntary "in Thedas is subjective as is good/evil argue sementics and relitism all you wish but dealing absolutes makes for a poor stanceSo involuntary slavery is good? Did you really just say that?
now now you inferred that not I all I'm saying is "involuntary and voluntary "in Thedas is subjective as is good/evil argue sementics and relitism all you wish but dealing absolutes makes for a poor stance
There is nothing subjectively good or bad about involuntary slavery. It is objectively bad.
Please, explain how it can be seen in a positive light for the victims.
What's next? Is rape not objectively bad too?
And she was right about Fiona.Not really, all that shows is that Vivienne's extremely snide to her political opponents, which we already knew?
As for that second point, wouldn't that prove that they didn't join willingly then, having been coerced through threats or torture, enslavement or death?
straight to the R word yes? Shock and awe responses don't amuse me please keep it with boundsThere is nothing subjectively good or bad about involuntary slavery. It is objectively bad.
Please, explain how it can be seen in a positive light for the victims.
What's next? Is rape not objectively bad too?
straight to the R word yes? Shock and awe responses don't amuse me please keep it with bounds
And your missing my point which is that "IN THEDAS " OUR moral compasses we have don't apply as much. A voluntary slave can one day quit and say "involuntary I was kidnapped " but if a tevinter would pick up a urchin and sell them they might have a better life. The pendulum swings both ways
It is within bounds. You said something that is objectively bad is not, so I was curious if you thought the same of another objectively bad thing.
No, I get your point. Your point is you think involuntary slavery can be positive. I just can't disagree with you more.
Some of the backstory behind the Mage-Templar conflict were kind of wonky. The reason the conclave was called at all was because the Templars didn't get the easy victory they expected and the Mage-Templar War ground to a stalemate with no end in sight. But the reason that Fiona agreed to serve Alexius was because the mages were explicitly losing the war with the templars despite being gifted with Ferelden's most impregnable fortress. And the Templars were winning the war despite the fact that the Lord Seeker pulled them back to Therinfall Redbout to do nothing.
I find both subjects "objectively bad" (your words )and vile practices respectively I just don't add my bias to themIt is within bounds. You said something that is objectively bad is not, so I was curious if you thought the same of another objectively bad thing.
No, I get your point. Your point is you think involuntary slavery can be positive. I just can't disagree with you more.
There is nothing subjectively good or bad about involuntary slavery. It is objectively bad.
Please, explain how it can be seen in a positive light for the victims.
What's next? Is rape not objectively bad too?
It isn't about the victims. In the subjectivity of involuntary slavery, you could argue it is good for a nation, because it provides plentiful cheap labor. That some people have to submit to slavery is a little price to pay, for overall advancement for an entire nation in that case.
Not that I condone slavery, but that is the arguement usually made.
I think they were winning, but it was harder than the templars expected.Some of the backstory behind the Mage-Templar conflict were kind of wonky. The reason the conclave was called at all was because the Templars didn't get the easy victory they expected and the Mage-Templar War ground to a stalemate with no end in sight. But the reason that Fiona agreed to serve Alexius was because the mages were explicitly losing the war with the templars despite being gifted with Ferelden's most impregnable fortress. And the Templars were winning the war despite the fact that the Lord Seeker pulled them back to Therinfall Redbout to do nothing.
re: slavery.
You cannot trust man to always do right by others. So, sure, while some masters are reasonable, that alone is not reason enough for slavery to be legal IMO. There is no reason why the same thing cannot exist in a more equitable way. By all means, if you are wealthy, keep servants in your household -- nothing wrong with that.
Keeping slaves, though, is another thing entirely. No man should be allowed to own another as property.
Now, I am not entirely opposed to slavery. I think there are some valid uses for it, just not for socio-economic ones.
Exactly, the Mages gain nothing by attacking Haven, which would only further harm the already poor image that people have of them?
Launching an assault against the people who just saved Thedas from being swallowed up by a giant hole in the sky, is such a daft move, who would ever willingly agree to it, unless they were being manipulated or controlled in some way?
The mages were always manipulated- in large part because Fiona is an idiot and a very poor leader. I don't think anyone denies this- most arguments simply quibble over whether Fiona being manipulated into making consistently bad decisions is considered the damning sin or a valid excuse.
Even if they feared the Inquisition having a Templar army at their disposal, that army currently consists of recruits, a couple squaddies and a scant few officers, who managed to escape most of the order being wiped out at Therinfal or turned into monsters?
Furthermore, Templars are either disbanded, conscripted or joined as allies of the Inquisition, so at least two of those three basically neutralised them as a threat to the mages for the time being, while the other has them being reigned in by the Inquisition?
So far, taking care of the Breach, closing Rifts and fighting demons is all the Inquistion cares about, not the Mage Rebellion. Given that Rifts are everywhere and demons are far bigger threat than the Mages, the Inquisition has far more work to do than deal with them and realistically, that gives the Mages a lot of time to weigh their options and figure out what to do next?
Launching a suicidal attack only weakens their cause, what would be the point?
The point is that Fiona and the mages have been notoriously shortsighted and unable to think things through to the logical conclusion in the past, so it's really not that surprising or different from the daft things they've done before. This is, after all, the woman who nearly got her own independence movement stillborn and locked away in the place of their declaration because she didn't have a better plan than 'hope the Divine does something she doesn't have to.'
By the time the Breach is sealed, Corypheus's cultists have effective control of the information and options of a mage polity that is notoriously culpable to being led by the nose with dissent bullied into going around. Leading the mage collective into a rebellion it consistently refused by making it believe it's back was to the wall and that it had no choice was Fiona's own strategy, after all. After that, the mages who didn't flee never seemed to actually assert themselves much in definace of 'their' leaders: they went along with the Tranquil massacre as dozens (hundreds?) of their fellow Circle refugees were systematically slaughtered, those that weren't eager supporters of the Tevinter deal sullenly went along with it, and when the castle coup was carried out we see and hear mages talk about how bad it was and how someone should do something about it... but never hear of any significant mass resistance or dissent to an option that, as soon as they occupied the keep rather than flee, was practically a death sentance on them.
Drinking the Corypheus coolaid? Duped into even more outrageous and unfounded fears than the ones that they sold themselves into slavery for? Really bad planning worthy of a Darwin award?
Not that out of character, honestly.
It always amazes me at the hoops people will go through to excuse Fiona's idiotic behavior. She was already willing to sell out Ferelden, to Tevinter of all places, for a Templar attack that was never going to happen; was already willing to sell out her own, to Tevinter of all people; and she was already willing to join the army to fight Southern Thedas if the magisters need her be, but the one thing she'd never do is fight the Inquisition that has allied with the Templars.
It always amazes me at the hoops people will go through to excuse Fiona's idiotic behavior. She was already willing to sell out Ferelden, to Tevinter of all places, for a Templar attack that was never going to happen; was already willing to sell out her own, to Tevinter of all people; and she was already willing to join the army to fight Southern Thedas if the magisters need her be, but the one thing she'd never do is fight the Inquisition that have allied with the Templars.
Hey now, that would be crossing the player and that would be a special sort of stupid-evil.
Murderers, genocidal war criminals, and comedic sociopaths make for the best of friends, but challenging the inherent righteousness of the PC? That's just wrong.
And she was right about Fiona.
But you've failed to explain how she's senile or suffering from dementia?
It always amazes me at the hoops people will go through to excuse Fiona's idiotic behavior. She was already willing to sell out Ferelden, to Tevinter of all places, for a Templar attack that was never going to happen; was already willing to sell out her own, to Tevinter of all people; and she was already willing to join the army to fight Southern Thedas if the magisters need her be, but the one thing she'd never do is fight the Inquisition that has allied with the Templars.
Just because you're the nominal leader of a group, doesn't mean that you always make the decisions? The entire rebellion voted on leaving the Circles and we're told that she had those in the rebellion whispering of an alliance with Tevinter, which Fiona's dislike of the entire thing makes it seem like it's still a democracy that's forced her hand in this situation?
Frankly, I think people are too quick to jump on the hate bandwagon, because simply going #ThanksFiona makes it far easier when you can have her as the scapegoat for the entire rebellion, rather than it being a clusterfrack all around? Not only do we have various parties getting involved such as Alexius and Arl Wulff, but also the use of time travel to further complicate matters?
Are we sure that Fiona was the only one to make the decision to ally with Tevinter? Did she not put that up for a vote? A vote, we should realize, that could have been hijacked by secret Venatori agents posing as southern mages?
All the mages in Redcliffe seem to place the blame/credit for the decision specifically on Fiona. "I can't believe the Grand Enchanter would do this!" is usually the response when they are asked for their perspective on the subject.
Retour en haut