119 réponses à ce sujet

[AtreiyaN7]

Passive agressive for sure but you must clarify what you mean by "criticize" and "less relaxed Circle policies."

As it is, this arguments the notions perpretated by some that Circle towers are slave pen and that violent rebellion is justified.

No, it doesn't contradict/counter the argument that violent rebellion was justified because of abusive and oppressive behavior by the Templars. SOME mages who are lucky enough to live in a non-barbaric Circle get a chance to use their magic for profitable artistic enterprises (especially if they're well-connected Lucrosians). S-O-M-E does not mean all, and you can hardly use this letter to extrapolate that all mages have nice, cushy lives.

This story is an exception, rather than the rule. Stories like Cole's (and I mean the original Cole) about physical abuse and maltreatment are probably more common, and I'm fairly certain that there were letters in the game making it clear that some Templars did act like monsters.

Not all Templars are monsters, but not all mages live a sweet life like you're trying to claim. Also, I think the author was pointing out that the non-mellow, whingy Templar who has his panties in a bunch over mages using their magic for artistic enterprises and making money at it needs to chill out because they're not just doing something frivolous. Instead of using their powers solely for destruction - something that presumably doesn't take that much skill or control - they're doing things that require a great deal of skill and control that either result in works of great beauty or enrich people's lives.

[EmperorSahlertz]

This story is an exception, rather than the rule. Stories like Cole's (and I mean the original Cole) about physical abuse and maltreatment are probably more common, and I'm fairly certain that there were letters in the game making it clear that some Templars did act like monsters.

Based on what evidence? And you wanting it to be so, is not evidence..

[Lady Artifice]

Passive agressive for sure but you must clarify what you mean by "criticize" and "less relaxed Circle policies."

 

As it is, this arguments the notions perpretated by some that Circle towers are slave pen and that violent rebellion is justified.
 

 

It doesn't though. What most typifies slavery is the absence of autonomy, not the absence of comforts. There can be a variety of conditions involved while a situation might still qualify as slavery. 

 

Slavery in the early U.S. often allowed slaves to do what you're talking about. Perform for themselves, have celebrations, provide entertainment, and sometimes even keep the cash. Yet they were still enslaved. A house slave experienced a much more comfortable environment than those in the field, yet their situation would still be defined as slavery. Arguing that those enslaved people were less slaves because they were occasionally allowed a party would be in rather poor taste, no? 

 

I would personally not use a word like slavery in regard to the circle system very freely, because it doesn't always remove enough autonomy to qualify. What you're doing, however, is taking an example of a relatively relaxed practice (allowing Mages more creative freedom, and the occasional entertainment) and using it to argue against those who care quite a lot more about mages being rounded up and removed from their homes and families and imprisoned in the first place. 

 

Vivienne pointed out that every mage has a different experience in the circle, and every circle has a different system. Ambiguous regulations are easy to abuse, and if the Mages--particularly the first enchanter--aren't constantly and firmly advocating the rights of the mages in their care, these grand privileges disappear and can easily be replaced by more severe conditions. 

[MisterJB]

No, it doesn't contradict/counter the argument that violent rebellion was justified because of abusive and oppressive behavior by the Templars. SOME mages who are lucky enough to live in a non-barbaric Circle get a chance to use their magic for profitable artistic enterprises (especially if they're well-connected Lucrosians). S-O-M-E does not mean all, and you can hardly use this letter to extrapolate that all mages have nice, cushy lives.

This story is an exception, rather than the rule. Stories like Cole's (and I mean the original Cole) about physical abuse and maltreatment are probably more common, and I'm fairly certain that there were letters in the game making it clear that some Templars did act like monsters.

Not all Templars are monsters, but not all mages live a sweet life like you're trying to claim. Also, I think the author was pointing out that the non-mellow, whingy Templar who has his panties in a bunch over mages using their magic for artistic enterprises and making money at it needs to chill out because they're not just doing something frivolous. Instead of using their powers solely for destruction - something that presumably doesn't take that much skill or control - they're doing things that require a great deal of skill and control that either result in works of great beauty or enrich people's lives.

You claim abuses are more common but present no argument supporting it. It is merely what you think is probably more likely to occur.

However, the simple fact that Circle exist are evidence they are making money for what they earn is what sustains them.

 

In fact, even Kirkwall's Circle, which we can agree was the worst to be stuck in, had mages and Tranquils regularly selling wares with one even remarking how Orsino had been increasing prices.

 

In fact, we could analyze all the Circles we have seen or heard from.

There's Ferelden which was a good Circle where the KC and FE were even long time friends.

 

There's Kirkwall which was bad, especially when Meredith was corrupted by Red Lyrium but still seemingly preferable to being in Darktown, never mind Lowtown.

 

There's Starkhaven's which we know little about but do know that, according to Alain, it's different from Kirkwall's because there, Templars beat mages and nobody said a thing. Meaning, in Starkhaven, either Templars didn't beat mages or, if they did, they could expect sanctions.

 

There's those in Orlais were mages were allowed the run of the tower, could visit the city they were housed in periodically and there were even dozens of troupes specialized in bringing spectacles to the towers. This before Anders, of course.

 

There's Nevarra's where we know little of the Circles but do know that the Mortalitasi are very influential and wealthy.

 

And there's Rivain's which could hardly be considered a Circle at all.

 

So, out of all of that, the only one that could be considered to be ghastly, and even then, it's Kirkwall's which was a rather special case, both because the Templars ran the city, the Veil had more holes in it than Swiss cheese and the Knight Commander had her mind corrupted by the Blight.

Can abuses happen in any Circle? Sure, just like the guards can abuse townspeople anywhere too. For the most part, the Circle clearly provide a quality of life above that of the average Thedosian. Food, shelted, money, education, accomodations, etc.

 

So, the question becomes, should we endanger the lives of people who already lead harder existence than mages because of some abuses? Mages already have so many advantages and we would add more?
 

[Lady Artifice]

Based on what evidence? And you wanting it to be so, is not evidence..

 

Among other things established in lore, like Kirkwall and the White Spire (Cole's story and the story of the imprisoned girl he killed in the beginning of the book that the Templars were mocking and threatening), this letter has implications. Golan Drader is trying to convince his grandson Colm to chill his "pious outrage," despite the fact that his feelings are implied to reflect that of his superiors. 

 

This is not the standard because there is no standard. Some circles might encourage Templars to overlook frivolities and indulgences, and others might allow them to trounce all over the mages. There's enough for us to complain about in the fact that plenty of circles don't allow mages to have sex as they please without sneaking off for brief interludes in dark corners. The fact that those same mages might get to watch a play now and then doesn't necessarily make up for that. 

[MisterJB]

 (Cole's story and the story of the imprisoned girl he killed in the beginning of the book that the Templars were mocking and threatening),

The same girl who locked her parents in their home and then set it on fire.

[Lady Artifice]

 

So, the question becomes, should we endanger the lives of people who already lead harder existence than mages because of some abuses? Mages already have so many advantages and we would add more?
 

 

It hardly needs to be one extreme or the other. 

[Lady Artifice]

 

The same girl who locked her parents in their home and then set it on fire.

 

 

Seriously? You're claiming that existence of mages that abuse their power somehow validates abuses in the system? 

[MisterJB]

It doesn't though. What most typifies slavery is the absence of autonomy, not the absence of comforts. There can be a variety of conditions involved while a situation might still qualify as slavery. 

 

Slavery in the early U.S. often allowed slaves to do what you're talking about. Perform for themselves, have celebrations, provide entertainment, and sometimes even keep the cash. Yet they were still enslaved. A house slave experienced a much more comfortable environment than those in the field, yet their situation would still be defined as slavery. Arguing that those enslaved people were less slaves because they were occasionally allowed a party would be in rather poor taste, no?

But the autonomy of any and people is something automatically limited by virtue of citizenship and can be removed by norms of society either due to own's actions or even for motives that were completely out of own's hands. Prisons and Quarantines, respectively.

 

 

Therefore, one should look at how much autonomy the mages maintain, how much rights they do have (and absence of personal rigths tipify slavery even more than absence of autonomy for we have no law that can completely remove a person's rights) as well at the danger they represent.

Mages have rights, this is a fact. They may not always be respected but nobles and guards may not always respect that of peasants. If mages are slaves, so is everyone.

Likewise, mages mages can own property, wealth and choose how to spend it. Then, they are not even forced to work at all. What type of slavery gives you all that and yet requires you to do nothing but study?

 

 

What you're doing, however, is taking an example of a relatively relaxed practice (allowing Mages more creative freedom, and the occasional entertainment) and using it to argue against those who care quite a lot more about mages being rounded up and removed from their homes and families and imprisoned in the first place. 

 

Which is valid for it demonstrates opportunities and enjoyments most people do not have acess to while accomplishing the goal of saving lives.
Therefore, painting the rebellion not as one of the opressed fighting opressors but one of an higher class fighting for even further privileges while uncaring of everyone else's suffering.

 

 

Vivienne pointed out that every mage has a different experience in the circle, and every circle has a different system. Ambiguous regulations are easy to abuse, and if the Mages--particularly the first enchanter--aren't constantly and firmly advocating the rights of the mages in their care, these grand privileges disappear and can easily be replaced by more severe conditions. 

 

Which is the staple of life. Fight for what you want, or someone else will exert power over you. It's not different from anyone and anywhere else in the world.

At least they have an advocate and leverage.

 

 

Seriously? You're claiming that existence of mages that abuse their power somehow validates abuses in the system? 

Not if the ones being abused are innocents.

 

But am I supposed to feel sorry because Templars are angry at a person who burned her parents alive and then laughed about it?

 

It hardly needs to be one extreme or the other. 

It's not an extreme possibility, it's a fact.

What mages want is for restrictions to be lifted. But the fewer restrictions there is upon something, the more dangerous that something is.

Therefore, mages who already have more than most normal people, want even more. And to get more, they are willing to increase the danger upon everyone else.

 

 

 

 

[The Baconer]

Note that this was written almost 20 years before the Kirkwall uprising, which saw new restrictions and policies being established in its wake, all based off of erroneous assumptions of what actually caused the uprising.

[Lady Artifice]

But the autonomy of any and people is something automatically limited by virtue of citizenship and can be removed by norms of society either due to own's actions or even for motives that were completely out of own's hands. Prisons and Quarantines, respectively.

 

 

Therefore, one should look at how much autonomy the mages maintain, how much rights they do have (and absence of personal rigths tipify slavery even more than absence of autonomy for we have no law that can completely remove a person's rights) as well at the danger they represent.

Mages have rights, this is a fact. They may not always be respected but nobles and guards may not always respect that of peasants. If mages are slaves, so is everyone.

Likewise, mages mages can own property, wealth and choose how to spend it. Then, they are not even forced to work at all. What type of slavery gives you all that and yet requires you to do nothing but study?

 

The part of my post that you cut out was that I don't apply the term slavery to the circle system. This argument is debating a point that I didn't make. 

 

The point I did make was that certain comforts and potential entertainment do not, in themselves, turn slavery into not slavery. 

 

Citing the rights that the the mages are supposed to have (as you do here) is a reasonable argument against calling it slavery. Pointing out that they occasionally get the chance to put on plays or make artwork (as in your OP) does not. 

 

 

 

Not if the ones being abused are innocents.

 

 

But am I supposed to feel sorry because Templars are angry at a person who burned her parents alive and then laughed about it?

 

Your personal feelings about her are immaterial, in the same way that my personal feelings about a murderer in prison are immaterial. Any system of imprisonment requires codes of conduct in place, if that system isn't to devolve into something devoid of any standards. 

[AtreiyaN7]

 

The same girl who locked her parents in their home and then set it on fire.

 

 

Which is an exception, not the rule - just like your letter only proves that there are exceptions to every rule. Or are you trying to imply that this is what happens with all mages and that they're all homicidal maniacs? My mage Inquisitor would beg to differ after saving the world.

 

Based on what evidence? And you wanting it to be so, is not evidence..

 

Things called codex entries are evidence, unless you want to claim that every story indicating that SOME Templars are guilty of abusing their powers is untrue. Abuses have happened, and it's fact. Cole's story is just one extreme example (unless you'd also like to claim that everything in Asunder is a lie). As for the issue of Kirkwall, it's pretty clear that despite the OP's claims otherwise, Meredith's increasingly oppressive behavior sure as heck contributed to the giant cluster--- that Kirkwall turned into.

 

Yeah, they did have some trade, sure - until Meredith turned into a flaming paranoiac nut high on red lyrium that is. At any rate, I'm just going to point out that I'm not in here behaving like an irrational hardliner saying that ONLY <x> is true while conveniently ignoring evidence that says otherwise. I often point out that there are good and bad people on both sides - exactly like I did in my earlier post. That's why I said the words "Not all Templars are monsters" - but hey, go ahead and ignore me being evenhanded about it.

 

I do believe that mages who live lives of luxury are far less common than mages who suffer abuse or chafe at unfairly being controlled and caged their whole lives. The OP is trying to claim that the letter is proof that ALL mages have these happy little lives where all they do is make money hand over fist, but you do realize that Lucrosians aren't one of the largest fraternities, right? And that not all mages come from noble families, right? Maybe you should read the wiki - http://dragonage.wik..._of_Enchanters:

 

• Lucrosians prioritize the accumulation of wealth, with the gaining of political influence a close second. They are few in number.

 

Why don't we all read that again, especially the part that says "THEY ARE FEW IN NUMBER." Or is that not true either? You have some people - ones who are well connected in some cases - that have pretty nice lives as mages, but it doesn't apply to every mage and every Circle.

[MisterJB]

Which is an exception, not the rule - just like your letter only proves that there are exceptions to every rule. Or are you trying to imply that this is what happens with all mages and that they're all homicidal maniacs? My mage Inquisitor would beg to differ after saving the world.

When did I claim it wasn't?
The argument was whether her status as a unrepentant murderer means she deserves to be punched around a bit. Not whether all mages are unrepentant murderers.

 

 

s for the issue of Kirkwall, it's pretty clear that despite the OP's claims otherwise, Meredith's increasingly oppressive behavior sure as heck contributed to the giant cluster--- that Kirkwall turned into.

 

I pointed out twice how her mind was corrupted.

 

 

I do believe that mages who live lives of luxury are far less common than mages who suffer abuse or chafe at unfairly being controlled and caged their whole lives. The OP is trying to claim that the letter is proof that ALL mages have these happy little lives where all they do is make money hand over fist, but you do realize that Lucrosians aren't one of the largest fraternities, right? And that not all mages come from noble families, right? Maybe you should read the wiki - http://dragonage.wik..._of_Enchanters:

 

• Lucrosians prioritize the accumulation of wealth, with the gaining of political influence a close second. They are few in number.

 

Why don't we all read that again, especially the part that says "THEY ARE FEW IN NUMBER." Or is that not true either? You have some people - ones who are well connected in some cases - that have pretty nice lives as mages, but it doesn't apply to every mage and every Circle.

Are you aware that the White Spire was housed in Emperor Drakon's former palace?

Any mage living there is living in luxury.

 

And what exactly is preventing them from just joining the Lucrosians were they the only ones living in comfort other than their own feelings? If they are few in numbers, that is hardly the Templar's fault.

And it's a good thing they are few in number. These idiot Libertarians don't realize accumulating money means freedom.

[The Baconer]

I pointed out twice how her mind was corrupted.

 

She was dirty before she even touched the red stuff.

[MisterJB]

She was dirty before she even touched the red stuff.

 

Harsh in her treatment of mages but she was in charge of one of the worst places to be a mage in Thedas.

 

More worrisome was how she controlled the Viscount.
 

[The Baconer]

Harsh in her treatment of mages but she was in charge of one of the worst places to be a mage in Thedas.

 

More worrisome was how she controlled the Viscount.

 

She had no control over the Templars under her command, she broke Circle policies throughout the years of Act 1 and 2, on top of her hold upon the Viscount. She was as dirty as they come.

[Lady Artifice]

Are you aware that the White Spire was housed in Emperor Drakon's former palace?

Any mage living there is living in luxury.

 

That is not automatically case. There are the odd one or two starving to death in the dungeon like Cole, since it's implied that he wasn't the first cover up, and there are still the apprentices living in shared quarters. All that the White Spire being Emperor Drakon's former palace means that Emperor Drakon lived in luxury there. As a mage tower, it's just a large building. It might be a large and pretty building, granted, but that does not insure that everyone lives in luxury inside of it, anymore than the servants who lived inside of it during Drakon's reign necessarily lived in luxury. 

[AtreiyaN7]

When did I claim it wasn't?
The argument was whether her status as a unrepentant murderer means she deserves to be punched around a bit. Not whether all mages are unrepentant murderers.

 

 

I pointed out twice how her mind was corrupted.

____________________________________

 

Are you aware that the White Spire was housed in Emperor Drakon's former palace?

Any mage living there is living in luxury.

____________________________________

 

And what exactly is preventing them from just joining the Lucrosians were they the only ones living in comfort other than their own feelings? If they are few in numbers, that is hardly the Templar's fault.

And it's a good thing they are few in number. These idiot Libertarians don't realize accumulating money means freedom.

 

1. Your original posting of the letter discussing the cushy lives of some mages certainly didn't seem to be much more than an attempt to imply that all mages lived life high on the hog and that there was absolutely no justification for the rebellion because all Circles are like that - just like your statement about that girl killing her parents seemed to be a similar attempt to express the idea that all mages are monsters.
2. So what? Living in Drakon's former palace doesn't mean that life there was great for everyone, certainly not for the prisoners. Your statement that every mage who lives there lives in luxury is proven false by Cole and the other prisoners kept in its dungeons. Speaking of which, it's both funny and sad that Cole was locked up and forgotten about (ultimately resulting in his death) all because of a stupid clerical error by a newbie templar. Cole had a pretty crap life before that with his father's abuse, etc., but that was piling an injustice on top of all the injustices that he had already suffered. The icing on the cake was how the templars subsequently tried to cover up their mistake and erase all traces of his existence. That was a clear abuse of power in which they actively tried to hide something that would have made them look bad.
3. Lucrosians are a small subset of mages who believe that wealth is the key to power. It doesn't mean that the other fraternities who outnumber them are stupid - they just have different goals and aspirations. Personally, I don't find it stupid to want your personal freedom instead of being caged your whole life. Also, having all the money in the world doesn't mean a mage can buy his or her freedom. All it means is that a rich Lucrosian might buy some privileges and creature comforts that make their cage a lot more comfortable than a non-Lucrosian mage's cage, and that is not true freedom, not by a long shot (no matter how you might want to delude yourself into believing that under the former Chantry system mages could power broker their way to "freedom." *rolleyes*).

[MisterJB]

 

1. Your original posting of the letter discussing the cushy lives of some mages certainly didn't seem to be much more than an attempt to imply that all mages lived life high on the hog and that there was absolutely no justification for the rebellion because all Circles are like that - just like your statement about that girl killing her parents seemed to be a similar attempt to express the idea that all mages are monsters.

 

 

One has literally nothing to do with the other.

Mages, as a norm, live confortable lives because the Circles are wealthy.
Not all mages are monsters.

 

See, no relation whatsoever.

 

 

 

1. So what? Living in Drakon's former palace doesn't mean that life there was great for everyone, certainly not for the prisoners. Your statement that every mage who lives there lives in luxury is proven false by Cole and the other prisoners kept in its dungeons. Speaking of which, it's both funny and sad that Cole was locked up and forgotten about (ultimately resulting in his death) all because of a stupid clerical error by a newbie templar. Cole had a pretty crap life before that with his father's abuse, etc., but that was piling an injustice on top of all the injustices that he had already suffered. The icing on the cake was how the templars subsequently tried to cover up their mistake and erase all traces of his existence. That was a clear abuse of power in which they actively tried to hide something that would have made them look bad.

 

It means they are living in a palace. While other people live in two bedroom houses if they're lucky but not nolibity.

I would think that is self explanatory.

 

 

 

 

1. Lucrosians are a small subset of mages who believe that wealth is the key to power. It doesn't mean that the other fraternities who outnumber them are stupid - they just have different goals and aspirations. Personally, I don't find it stupid to want your personal freedom instead of being caged your whole life. Also, having all the money in the world doesn't mean a mage can buy his or her freedom. All it means is that a rich Lucrosian might buy some privileges and creature comforts that make their cage a lot more comfortable than a non-Lucrosian mage's cage, and that is not true freedom, not by a long shot (no matter how you might want to delude yourself into believing that under the former Chantry system mages could power broker their way to "freedom." *rolleyes*).

 

Wealth means power which means influence which means freedom.

It could as simple as bribing Templars or as ambitious as funding the Emperor's military campaigns. Bottom line, there is a reason there is a codex entry about a nobleman's daugther who could go wherever she pleased so long as she took two Templars with her.

 

I'm just glad most mages seem to not realize Lucrosians are the most dangerous fraternity.
 

 

 

 

 

 

[Boost32]

There is a note from a Mage from Andersfel where she express shock at the treatment of the mages at Kirkwall (pg 173), why should I believe the mistreatment of mages are more common than the Circle that function accordingly?

[EmperorSahlertz]

Among other things established in lore, like Kirkwall and the White Spire (Cole's story and the story of the imprisoned girl he killed in the beginning of the book that the Templars were mocking and threatening), this letter has implications. Golan Drader is trying to convince his grandson Colm to chill his "pious outrage," despite the fact that his feelings are implied to reflect that of his superiors. 

 

This is not the standard because there is no standard. Some circles might encourage Templars to overlook frivolities and indulgences, and others might allow them to trounce all over the mages. There's enough for us to complain about in the fact that plenty of circles don't allow mages to have sex as they please without sneaking off for brief interludes in dark corners. The fact that those same mages might get to watch a play now and then doesn't necessarily make up for that. 

You understand that they were in prison, yes? And that prison in general in Thedas, is not a nice place to be. Hell, it can hardly even be called prison yet, more like "dungeon", in which you MAY be lucky the guard deigns to feed you.

 

But sure, the mages have the EXACT same conditions in their "prisons" as everyone else, let us burn down the world in rebellion... Bcfause OBVIOUSLY the mages should have it better than everybody else.

[Archdemon_Urthemiel]

Why do people forget he circles really were becomin prisons by the time asunder occurred

[Lady Artifice]

You understand that they were in prison, yes? And that prison in general in Thedas, is not a nice place to be. Hell, it can hardly even be called prison yet, more like "dungeon", in which you MAY be lucky the guard deigns to feed you.

 

I do, indeed.

 

 

 

But sure, the mages have the EXACT same conditions in their "prisons" as everyone else, let us burn down the world in rebellion... Bcfause OBVIOUSLY the mages should have it better than everybody else.

 

 

I would rather not. I have never, in fact, suggested that the rebellion was a positive occurrence. Nor does my criticism of the chantry's circle system automatically suggest that I think the best reaction to it is to burn anything down, let alone the world. That is the sort of extremist fanaticism that led to the war in the first place. 

[Lady Artifice]

 

It means they are living in a palace. While other people live in two bedroom houses if they're lucky but not nolibity.

I would think that is self explanatory.

 

 

It makes it clear that you equate a large building with luxury, even if the people inside might be living in shared quarters with bunk beds and a personal chest for their possessions. 

 

A palace is only automatically a den of luxury for an occupying ruler. 

[EmperorSahlertz]

Which is an exception, not the rule - just like your letter only proves that there are exceptions to every rule. Or are you trying to imply that this is what happens with all mages and that they're all homicidal maniacs? My mage Inquisitor would beg to differ after saving the world.

 

 

Things called codex entries are evidence, unless you want to claim that every story indicating that SOME Templars are guilty of abusing their powers is untrue. Abuses have happened, and it's fact. Cole's story is just one extreme example (unless you'd also like to claim that everything in Asunder is a lie). As for the issue of Kirkwall, it's pretty clear that despite the OP's claims otherwise, Meredith's increasingly oppressive behavior sure as heck contributed to the giant cluster--- that Kirkwall turned into.

 

Yeah, they did have some trade, sure - until Meredith turned into a flaming paranoiac nut high on red lyrium that is. At any rate, I'm just going to point out that I'm not in here behaving like an irrational hardliner saying that ONLY <x> is true while conveniently ignoring evidence that says otherwise. I often point out that there are good and bad people on both sides - exactly like I did in my earlier post. That's why I said the words "Not all Templars are monsters" - but hey, go ahead and ignore me being evenhanded about it.

 

I do believe that mages who live lives of luxury are far less common than mages who suffer abuse or chafe at unfairly being controlled and caged their whole lives. The OP is trying to claim that the letter is proof that ALL mages have these happy little lives where all they do is make money hand over fist, but you do realize that Lucrosians aren't one of the largest fraternities, right? And that not all mages come from noble families, right? Maybe you should read the wiki - http://dragonage.wik..._of_Enchanters:

 

• Lucrosians prioritize the accumulation of wealth, with the gaining of political influence a close second. They are few in number.

 

Why don't we all read that again, especially the part that says "THEY ARE FEW IN NUMBER." Or is that not true either? You have some people - ones who are well connected in some cases - that have pretty nice lives as mages, but it doesn't apply to every mage and every Circle.

Hardly any codex entry actually witness the vaunted "brutality" and "inequality" that so many Circle Resolutionists on this forum imagine...

 

Sure, there were(/are) a few Templars who were abusing(/are abusing) their power. but that alone is not reason to revolt.

 

And in case you didn't notice the WoT letter, does NOT speak only of the Lucrosians. It speaks about how the Circles around the world gets visited by travelling circuses and theaters, and how they freely entertain themselves with their magic.