1869 odpowiedzi w tym temacie

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Funny. I'd describe 99% of the content of your posts as trolling or spamming.

Because I disagree with your views on the Chantry?

No, because you're spamming. Go over the last 5 pages and just read your own posts out loud.
You keep using the exact same sentance 50 times in a rown.

Given that you're doing it again, I'm simply going to ignore the useless spam posts that are already debunked.

Regarding D'Sims, if he used a knife instead of magic, wouldn't that have been an indication that perhaps he wasn't a mage, especially one who was only healing people?

Perhaps. But if someone goas after you with a knife, you really won't stop to think about it - you''ll be busy killing him so he doesn't kill you.




I'll leave you with this:

David Gaider wrote...

Alodar wrote...

If a group
of people existed in todays supposedly educated society that had these
abilites, those modern mages would be controlled/locked up/persecuted
without thought.

There is no question it is 100% reasonable for ordinary folks to want mages locked up or killed.

Indeed.
The reason the "templars are bad" view is so prevalent is because most
of us live in cushy western societies where anything that smells like
oppression is Very Bad, and the only determining factor in how one
should treat mages is how fair that treatment is. Of course, we don't
have to live with the idea that Poor Oppressed Joe living next door to
us might be secretly controlling our mind to make us like him-- or one
day turn into a monster and kill our entire family-- but that doesn't
need to stop us from being idealistic in our fantasy worlds, now, does
it? ../../../images/forum/emoticons/wink.png

DG pretty much confirms that locking mages up has little to do with any "propaganda" and that is is indeed reasonable.

Użytkownik Lotion Soronnar edytował ten post 04 luty 2011 - 08:17

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Alodar wrote...

If a group
of people existed in todays supposedly educated society that had these
abilites, those modern mages would be controlled/locked up/persecuted
without thought.

There is no question it is 100% reasonable for ordinary folks to want mages locked up or killed.

Indeed.
The reason the "templars are bad" view is so prevalent is because most
of us live in cushy western societies where anything that smells like
oppression is Very Bad, and the only determining factor in how one
should treat mages is how fair that treatment is. Of course, we don't
have to live with the idea that Poor Oppressed Joe living next door to
us might be secretly controlling our mind to make us like him-- or one
day turn into a monster and kill our entire family-- but that doesn't
need to stop us from being idealistic in our fantasy worlds, now, does
it? ../../../images/forum/emoticons/wink.png

DG pretty much confirms that locking mages up has little to do with any "propaganda" and that is is indeed reasonable.

Actually that is not what DG says.  You again leap to conclusions (and quite frankly this is one of the more obnoxious DG quotes I've read....i.e. if you don't like the Chantry, you must be a post-modernist sissy...DG you can do better than that....but I digress).

At no time does he actualy say or claim that the Circle Tower system is any better, nor does he provide any proof or evidence.  He also is very carefully not using his "WoG" voice but voicing the "commonly held wisdom" of the commoners of Thedas which as with most common wisdom, isn't common and is frequently wrong.

He doesn't even claim that the tower system actually and verifiably is any safer than non-tower societies.  Rather he talks about perceptions and common person fears which is a whole different animal.

I've learned early on here, that you have to parse DG's quotes in almost microscopic detail because he frequently says a lot less than he first appears to.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Funny. I'd describe 99% of the content of your posts as trolling or spamming.

Because I disagree with your views on the Chantry?

No, because you're spamming. Go over the last 5 pages and just read your own posts out loud.
You keep using the exact same sentance 50 times in a rown.

Given that you're doing it again, I'm simply going to ignore the useless spam posts that are already debunked.

You haven't debunked anything. You're the same guy who wants to ignore that the Rite of Conscription was used on Alistair because you dislike that the Chantry has to concede to the Grey Wardens, and you're the same person who fan fic'd abominations into handing out quests in the Mages Collective. All you've done here is get proven wrong by Ian time and again.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Regarding D'Sims, if he used a knife instead of magic, wouldn't that have been an indication that perhaps he wasn't a mage, especially one who was only healing people?

Perhaps. But if someone goas after you with a knife, you really won't stop to think about it - you''ll be busy killing him so he doesn't kill you.

I didn't realize a little knife could pierce through templar armor, but since you are fanwanking a reason why the templars killed an innocent man, maybe you could explain why they would think that an alleged mage who was reported to have been healing people would be dangerous?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I'll leave you with this:

David Gaider wrote...

Alodar wrote...

If a group of people existed in todays supposedly educated society that had these abilites, those modern mages would be controlled/locked up/persecuted without thought.

There is no question it is 100% reasonable for ordinary folks to want mages locked up or killed.

Indeed.
The reason the "templars are bad" view is so prevalent is because most of us live in cushy western societies where anything that smells like oppression is Very Bad, and the only determining factor in how one should treat mages is how fair that treatment is. Of course, we don't have to live with the idea that Poor Oppressed Joe living next door to us might be secretly controlling our mind to make us like him-- or one day turn into a monster and kill our entire family-- but that doesn't need to stop us from being idealistic in our fantasy worlds, now, does
it?

DG pretty much confirms that locking mages up has little to do with any "propaganda" and that is is indeed reasonable.

Actually, there are some of us who personally or who have families who understand very well what oppression is, Lotion. Some of us understand what oppression is, and have no issue pointing it out, even in a fictional setting like DA. The debate over imprisoning innocent people in a system that treats them as sub-human and provides no basic rights to them is what this thread is focused on. You've continually failed to provide any proof that the Chantry imprisonment of mages is effective. Even your DG quote focuses only on something that doesn't apply to those of us who aren't white and who understand that the world is more than just North America.

"History of the Circle" codex reveals why mages are segregated - and it has nothing to do with protecting people from mages.

[Elsariel]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I'll leave you with this:

David Gaider wrote...

Indeed.
The reason the "templars are bad" view is so prevalent is because most
of us live in cushy western societies where anything that smells like
oppression is Very Bad, and the only determining factor in how one
should treat mages is how fair that treatment is. Of course, we don't
have to live with the idea that Poor Oppressed Joe living next door to
us might be secretly controlling our mind to make us like him-- or one
day turn into a monster and kill our entire family-- but that doesn't
need to stop us from being idealistic in our fantasy worlds, now, does
it? ../../../images/forum/emoticons/wink.png

DG pretty much confirms that locking mages up has little to do with any "propaganda" and that is is indeed reasonable.

I read that quote to be that DG acknowledges why non-mages would fear mages.  Not that what the Chantry is doing to mages is reasonable or just.  Clearly there needs to be caution regarding mages, however, the way things are being handled right now is obviously not right seeing as mages are being treated as sub-human.

Mages need the power to police themselves and they need freedom just like any other citizen of Fereldan.   Were that the case, I think the Uldred situation would have turned out quite differently.   Regular mages who feel like they have the freedom to live as they choose would likely NOT align themselves with a power-mad mage. 

I think there needs to be a system of checks and balances where the mages are concerned.   Certainly, mages have the potential to be dangerous.  I think there is a place for the Templars.  Their ability to neutralize mages are extremely handy.  I also think there is a place for the Circle.  A single place where mages learn to control and use their magic is incredibly important.  I just don't think the Chantry should be allowed to have complete dominion over mages and their lives.   Having the potential to do harm to others is not the same as doing harm to others. 

[moilami]

Elsariel wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I'll leave you with this:

David Gaider wrote...

Indeed.
The reason the "templars are bad" view is so prevalent is because most
of us live in cushy western societies where anything that smells like
oppression is Very Bad, and the only determining factor in how one
should treat mages is how fair that treatment is. Of course, we don't
have to live with the idea that Poor Oppressed Joe living next door to
us might be secretly controlling our mind to make us like him-- or one
day turn into a monster and kill our entire family-- but that doesn't
need to stop us from being idealistic in our fantasy worlds, now, does
it? ../../../images/forum/emoticons/wink.png

DG pretty much confirms that locking mages up has little to do with any "propaganda" and that is is indeed reasonable.

I read that quote to be that DG acknowledges why non-mages would fear mages.  Not that what the Chantry is doing to mages is reasonable or just.  Clearly there needs to be caution regarding mages, however, the way things are being handled right now is obviously not right seeing as mages are being treated as sub-human.

Mages need the power to police themselves and they need freedom just like any other citizen of Fereldan.   Were that the case, I think the Uldred situation would have turned out quite differently.   Regular mages who feel like they have the freedom to live as they choose would likely NOT align themselves with a power-mad mage. 

I think there needs to be a system of checks and balances where the mages are concerned.   Certainly, mages have the potential to be dangerous.  I think there is a place for the Templars.  Their ability to neutralize mages are extremely handy.  I also think there is a place for the Circle.  A single place where mages learn to control and use their magic is incredibly important.  I just don't think the Chantry should be allowed to have complete dominion over mages and their lives.   Having the potential to do harm to others is not the same as doing harm to others. 

That mind controlling is make-believe stuff. I think in DA2 we will see more what it does. From DA I have found one codex saying blood mages were able to watch what dreams people see (lol /care) and maybe mind control people. From actual game I saw nothing like that. I wait very curiously to see what new make-believe stuff there is in DA2, how it contradicts stuff, how it can be useful for the society, how it can be countered, and how of it can be shielded.

I expect to see some cutscene where a group of mages MC something and then cause helluva havoc. But I don't expect to see any explanations how it was actually possible, thus making it hard to say what would be the actual threat of it and how it could be countered or how of it could be shielded. So it will be like this: "looool now mages MC stuff GL" -> every mage is out there just trying to mind control You -> No mage want to raise people from death who died in accidents or in brawls or do anything good -> every mage is just incarnation of pure evil. Basic propaganda stuff.

I wait very eagerly to see it and point out the "creative shortcuts" in making it.


Edit: And especially I wait to see an answer how mages doesn't already dominate the world and how they ever were able to lose anything if MC is such a world ending threat.

Użytkownik moilami edytował ten post 04 luty 2011 - 07:08

[Elsariel]

moilami wrote...

That mind controlling is make-believe stuff. I think in DA2 we will see more what it does. From DA I have found one codex saying blood mages were able to watch what dreams people see (lol /care) and maybe mind control people. From actual game I saw nothing like that. I wait very curiously to see what new make-believe stuff there is in DA2, how it contradicts stuff, how it can be useful for the society, how it can be countered, and how of it can be shielded.

Well, I seem to recall in the Mage Origin that Greagoir was concerned whether Jowan had Lilly "in his thrall".  Meaning, was he mind-controlling her.  And she spoke out saying that she was not being influenced by him.  So, it seems that there is some real fear that blood mages can control people.  Also, as part of the Blood Mage specialization, the final skill is "Blood Control" which allows the caster to mind control the enemy if the enemy fails the mental resistance check.

[moilami]

Elsariel wrote...

moilami wrote...

That mind controlling is make-believe stuff. I think in DA2 we will see more what it does. From DA I have found one codex saying blood mages were able to watch what dreams people see (lol /care) and maybe mind control people. From actual game I saw nothing like that. I wait very curiously to see what new make-believe stuff there is in DA2, how it contradicts stuff, how it can be useful for the society, how it can be countered, and how of it can be shielded.

Well, I seem to recall in the Mage Origin that Greagoir was concerned whether Jowan had Lilly "in his thrall".  Meaning, was he mind-controlling her.  And she spoke out saying that she was not being influenced by him.  So, it seems that there is some real fear that blood mages can control people.  Also, as part of the Blood Mage specialization, the final skill is "Blood Control" which allows the caster to mind control the enemy if the enemy fails the mental resistance check.

Had to check what you are talking about since I haven't ever seen that spell, but it happens to be in Wiki. Maybe it comes in Awakening? I can't check it in-game now. I really don't understand this because I don't remember ever using that spell, and it wont make sense.

Edit: Ok anyway I accept there is such spell. So what? Mages would not do any nasty CCing because the target would supposedly remember what he did while being MCed and that he did it involuntary. He would know who to blame if he see a mage around. And being blamed of MCing would be bad because it would certainly be a crime like any other assault towards other people. Naturally casting spells in public would also be a crime, and mages would have very big interest to deal with badly behaving collegues, so any sane mage would not want to even try it.

Użytkownik moilami edytował ten post 04 luty 2011 - 08:53

[Raven_26]

moilami wrote...

Elsariel wrote...

moilami wrote...

That mind controlling is make-believe stuff. I think in DA2 we will see more what it does. From DA I have found one codex saying blood mages were able to watch what dreams people see (lol /care) and maybe mind control people. From actual game I saw nothing like that. I wait very curiously to see what new make-believe stuff there is in DA2, how it contradicts stuff, how it can be useful for the society, how it can be countered, and how of it can be shielded.

Well, I seem to recall in the Mage Origin that Greagoir was concerned whether Jowan had Lilly "in his thrall".  Meaning, was he mind-controlling her.  And she spoke out saying that she was not being influenced by him.  So, it seems that there is some real fear that blood mages can control people.  Also, as part of the Blood Mage specialization, the final skill is "Blood Control" which allows the caster to mind control the enemy if the enemy fails the mental resistance check.

Had to check what you are talking about since I haven't ever seen that spell, but it happens to be in Wiki. Maybe it comes in Awakening? I can't check it in-game now. I really don't understand this because I don't remember ever using that spell, and it wont make sense.

Edit: Ok anyway I accept there is such spell. So what? Mages would not do any nasty CCing because the target would supposedly remember what he did while being MCed and that he did it involuntary. He would know who to blame if he see a mage around. And being blamed of MCing would be bad because it would certainly be a crime like any other assault towards other people. Naturally casting spells in public would also be a crime, and mages would have very big interest to deal with badly behaving collegues, so any sane mage would not want to even try it.

The mind control spell, is only connected to blood magic. Duncan also
tells the Mage pc of his accouter, with a blood mage, ( at a distance)
that that taken control of templars hunting him, the blood mage still
died. The Blood magic spell that lets you control people is called
"Blood Control" -  The blood mage forcibly controls the target’s blood,
making the target an ally of the caster unless it passes a mental resistance check. If the target resists, it still takes great damage from the manipulation of its blood. Creatures without blood are immune.



But not all mages use blood magic.

[Elsariel]

moilami wrote...

Edit: Ok anyway I accept there is such spell. So what? Mages would not do any nasty CCing because the target would supposedly remember what he did while being MCed and that he did it involuntary. He would know who to blame if he see a mage around. And being blamed of MCing would be bad because it would certainly be a crime like any other assault towards other people. Naturally casting spells in public would also be a crime, and mages would have very big interest to deal with badly behaving collegues, so any sane mage would not want to even try it.

Oh, I'm not of the opinion that mages should be locked up.  In fact, I'm in the opposite camp.  I just thought I'd point out that mind control was, indeed, something blood mages could do. 

[Elsariel]

Raven_26 wrote...

moilami wrote...

Elsariel wrote...

moilami wrote...

That mind controlling is make-believe stuff. I think in DA2 we will see more what it does. From DA I have found one codex saying blood mages were able to watch what dreams people see (lol /care) and maybe mind control people. From actual game I saw nothing like that. I wait very curiously to see what new make-believe stuff there is in DA2, how it contradicts stuff, how it can be useful for the society, how it can be countered, and how of it can be shielded.

Well, I seem to recall in the Mage Origin that Greagoir was concerned whether Jowan had Lilly "in his thrall".  Meaning, was he mind-controlling her.  And she spoke out saying that she was not being influenced by him.  So, it seems that there is some real fear that blood mages can control people.  Also, as part of the Blood Mage specialization, the final skill is "Blood Control" which allows the caster to mind control the enemy if the enemy fails the mental resistance check.

Had to check what you are talking about since I haven't ever seen that spell, but it happens to be in Wiki. Maybe it comes in Awakening? I can't check it in-game now. I really don't understand this because I don't remember ever using that spell, and it wont make sense.

Edit: Ok anyway I accept there is such spell. So what? Mages would not do any nasty CCing because the target would supposedly remember what he did while being MCed and that he did it involuntary. He would know who to blame if he see a mage around. And being blamed of MCing would be bad because it would certainly be a crime like any other assault towards other people. Naturally casting spells in public would also be a crime, and mages would have very big interest to deal with badly behaving collegues, so any sane mage would not want to even try it.

The mind control spell, is only connected to blood magic. Duncan also
tells the Mage pc of his accouter, with a blood mage, ( at a distance)
that that taken control of templars hunting him, the blood mage still
died. The Blood magic spell that lets you control people is called
"Blood Control" -  The blood mage forcibly controls the target’s blood,
making the target an ally of the caster unless it passes a mental resistance check. If the target resists, it still takes great damage from the manipulation of its blood. Creatures without blood are immune.

 Isn't that what I said?

But not all mages use blood magic.

I don't think anyone is asserting that all mages use blood magic.

[Raven_26]

Elsariel wrote...

Raven_26 wrote...

moilami wrote...

Elsariel wrote...

moilami wrote...

That mind controlling is make-believe stuff. I think in DA2 we will see more what it does. From DA I have found one codex saying blood mages were able to watch what dreams people see (lol /care) and maybe mind control people. From actual game I saw nothing like that. I wait very curiously to see what new make-believe stuff there is in DA2, how it contradicts stuff, how it can be useful for the society, how it can be countered, and how of it can be shielded.

Well, I seem to recall in the Mage Origin that Greagoir was concerned whether Jowan had Lilly "in his thrall".  Meaning, was he mind-controlling her.  And she spoke out saying that she was not being influenced by him.  So, it seems that there is some real fear that blood mages can control people.  Also, as part of the Blood Mage specialization, the final skill is "Blood Control" which allows the caster to mind control the enemy if the enemy fails the mental resistance check.

Had to check what you are talking about since I haven't ever seen that spell, but it happens to be in Wiki. Maybe it comes in Awakening? I can't check it in-game now. I really don't understand this because I don't remember ever using that spell, and it wont make sense.

Edit: Ok anyway I accept there is such spell. So what? Mages would not do any nasty CCing because the target would supposedly remember what he did while being MCed and that he did it involuntary. He would know who to blame if he see a mage around. And being blamed of MCing would be bad because it would certainly be a crime like any other assault towards other people. Naturally casting spells in public would also be a crime, and mages would have very big interest to deal with badly behaving collegues, so any sane mage would not want to even try it.

The mind control spell, is only connected to blood magic. Duncan also
tells the Mage pc of his accouter, with a blood mage, ( at a distance)
that that taken control of templars hunting him, the blood mage still
died. The Blood magic spell that lets you control people is called
"Blood Control" -  The blood mage forcibly controls the target’s blood,
making the target an ally of the caster unless it passes a mental resistance check. If the target resists, it still takes great damage from the manipulation of its blood. Creatures without blood are immune.

 Isn't that what I said?

But not all mages use blood magic.

I don't think anyone is asserting that all mages use blood magic.

Sorry that isn't what I ment and I know you said that, just telling moilami where he could find the spell if he wanted.

Sorry for confusion, english isn't my main language.

[Morroian]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

DG pretty much confirms that locking mages up has little to do with any "propaganda" and that is is indeed reasonable.

Actually that is not what DG says.  You again leap to conclusions (and quite frankly this is one of the more obnoxious DG quotes I've read....i.e. if you don't like the Chantry, you must be a post-modernist sissy...DG you can do better than that....but I digress).

At no time does he actualy say or claim that the Circle Tower system is any better, nor does he provide any proof or evidence.  He also is very carefully not using his "WoG" voice but voicing the "commonly held wisdom" of the commoners of Thedas which as with most common wisdom, isn't common and is frequently wrong.

He doesn't even claim that the tower system actually and verifiably is any safer than non-tower societies.  Rather he talks about perceptions and common person fears which is a whole different animal.

I've learned early on here, that you have to parse DG's quotes in almost microscopic detail because he frequently says a lot less than he first appears to.

In actual fact the implication of the writing in the series is that the consequences of mage oppression are bad. It directly led to Uldred and his rebellion and it appears that its directly leading to mages breaking away from the chantry in Cumberland and the resultant conflict. Cause and effect.

[jaikss]

LobselVith8 wrote...

 maybe you could explain why they would think that an
alleged mage who was reported to have been healing people would be dangerous?

I would suspect because the said man might turn into an abomination and slaughter  the ones he was a moment ago healing...Along with dozens of other would be victims who might be nearby.

[LobselVith8]

jaikss wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

maybe you could explain why they would think that an alleged mage who was reported to have been healing people would be dangerous?

I would suspect because the said man might turn into an abomination and slaughter  the ones he was a moment ago healing...Along with dozens of other would be victims who might be nearby.

So instead of doing anything to verify that this man was indeed healing people, and therefore so dangerous that he needed to get his head cut off, they murdered him based on their suspicions alone?

[jaikss]

LobselVith8 wrote...

jaikss wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

maybe you could explain why they would think that an alleged mage who was reported to have been healing people would be dangerous?

I would suspect because the said man might turn into an abomination and slaughter  the ones he was a moment ago healing...Along with dozens of other would be victims who might be nearby.

So instead of doing anything to verify that this man was indeed healing people, and therefore so dangerous that he needed to get his head cut off, they murdered him based on their suspicions alone?

Verify that he was using magic you mean?How exactly does one verify whether or not someone is a mage ?

I vaguely recall reading about the d'sims ingame and Im quite certain it mentioned nothing about the templars murdering him by the way.

Użytkownik jaikss edytował ten post 06 luty 2011 - 12:35

[LobselVith8]

jaikss wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

So instead of doing anything to verify that this man was indeed healing people, and therefore so dangerous that he needed to get his head cut off, they murdered him based on their suspicions alone?

Verify that he was using magic you mean?How exactly does one verify whether or not someone is a mage ?

Here's a wild guess: they do magic!

jaikss wrote...

I vaguely recall reading about the d'sims ingame and Im quite certain it mentioned nothing about the templars murdering him by the way.

Instead of playing the guessing game, let's take a look:

"The Magnificent D'Sims was an elven "healer" who "cured" hayseeds of nonexistent ailments. Even though it was all a scam, the templars declared him apostate and took off his head."

Looks like the templars did murder him... for pretending to heal people...

[jaikss]

LobselVith8 wrote...

jaikss wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

So instead of doing anything to verify that this man was indeed healing people, and therefore so dangerous that he needed to get his head cut off, they murdered him based on their suspicions alone?

Verify that he was using magic you mean?How exactly does one verify whether or not someone is a mage ?

Here's a wild guess: they do magic!

jaikss wrote...

I vaguely recall reading about the d'sims ingame and Im quite certain it mentioned nothing about the templars murdering him by the way.

Instead of playing the guessing game, let's take a look:

"The Magnificent D'Sims was an elven "healer" who "cured" hayseeds of nonexistent ailments. Even though it was all a scam, the templars declared him apostate and took off his head."

Looks like the templars did murder him... for pretending to heal people...

Uh uh,because im sure every apostate is oh so eager to use magic when a templar asks .

I still dont see anything about murder in there.The templars did their duty,which is to kill or retrieve any apostates,an official authority doing their duty doesnt exactly translate to murder last I checked.

Although admittedly templars murdering poor old d'sims does make  the item description a lot more dramatic.

[marshalleck]

jaikss wrote...

Uh uh,because im sure every apostate is oh so eager to use magic when a templar asks .

I still dont see anything about murder in there.The templars did their duty,which is to kill or retrieve any apostates,an official authority doing their duty doesnt exactly translate to murder last I checked.

Although admittedly templars murdering poor old d'sims does make  the item description a lot more dramatic.

Well there's a lovely rationale. Because they claim authority, they are allowed to kill with impunity and it's not murder. 

Użytkownik marshalleck edytował ten post 06 luty 2011 - 11:16

[jaikss]

marshalleck wrote...

jaikss wrote...

Uh uh,because im sure every apostate is oh so eager to use magic when a templar asks .

I still dont see anything about murder in there.The templars did their duty,which is to kill or retrieve any apostates,an official authority doing their duty doesnt exactly translate to murder last I checked.

Although admittedly templars murdering poor old d'sims does make  the item description a lot more dramatic.

Well there's a lovely rationale. Because they claim authority, they are allowed to kill with impunity and it's not murder. 

Right or wrong that is how it is in Andrastian nations for apostates.

[Balitant]

jaikss wrote...

Right or wrong that is how it is in Andrastian nations for apostates.

Then is the legitimacy of rebellion consistent with your viewpoint? Because right or wong there is background and content to why such defiances against authority take place.