134 réponses à ce sujet

[Valus]

Svest wrote...

Here's another example of a bad analogy.  What did the mages do to be put in that situation to begin with besides being born?  They didn't go out and rob a bank or do anything to hurt anyone and yet they are still hunted.  What did Bethany do that was so bad that she had to be locked in the Gallows for the rest of her life?  Who was she a danger to? 

Would you blame a slave for killing his master and trying to escape?  How about killing the people sent to bring him back to slavery?  How is this different than what the templars do to mages?  Can you blame them for wanting their freedom too?  The mages are not criminals beyond the fact that their very existence is a crime.

It's a more than fair analogy in that running away or being an apostate is, in and of itself, a crime. whether or not any of us think it's a crime is irrelevant. It is. Now, I understand what you mean. Sure, in an ideal world being a mage wouldn't be a crime but I'm not concerned with my (or anyone's) idealized personal view of what the world should be like. I'm concerned with looking at evidence while working within the parameters that the gameworld gives us.

Running away from the circle or simply being an apostate is a crime. Blaming the Templars for performing their duties and 'forcing' a mage to go further than they intended still places the blame on the mage. I stand by that analogy.

[JamesX]

Stealing a Loaf of Bread when you are hungry is a bad thing. You can say "I have no other means, and I don't want to die." which is a justification. It is the same reason the Mages seems to justify their use of Blood Magic.

Why? The reason is simple - it is a deadly weapon, it can do things their normal magic cannot do.

So they took the easy way out. There is no indication that they cannot use normal magic to do what they need to do. But because that path is insufficient they took the Blood Magic path.

On the other hand, executing someone for stealing a loaf if bread is excessive. And there are indiciation that Some Templars want to execute all mages that run away - which turned out to be not a prevalent thing. Since the run away from Act 1 indeed survived their capture, even if you hand them over to the Templar who wanted to execute them.

So the actual question is this. Are what the runaway mage of Starkhaven said true? They claime to you that if you hand them over then they are dead - which is false in act 3.

If you let them run away and lie to the templars - they are captured later and put back into the circle as apprentices.
If you hand them over to the Templar that want to kill them unconditionally - they are still back in the circle as apprentices with no changes.

It may be due to Tharask's involvement - but it is still a demonstration of what the Mages claime of the Templars is just as exaggerated as what the Templars claime of the mages.

There is the Tranquil Solution - which Ander says is embodiment of Templer Evil. Which is also false. Even Meredith the embodiment of "oppression" ruled against it.

If you actually side with Templars you can get a better understanding of why Meredith is the way she is (even before her corruption).

All in all the game is much better, much much better, written in regards to Templars as oppose to Mages. The Templars have a wide range of different moral gradiations and a good attention of detail to make them seem gray.

Where as the mages are not so well written. Even Osino (the embodiment of Mage "good") turns out to support Necromancy Research without regards to its consequence. his excuse of "I just hid him from Meredith because it will confirm everything she says about us." rings hollow. His letter to the guy completely implicated him as an active supporter of the research.

Then there is Anders the Mage Crusader who sacrificed 100s to force the Templar's Hand. Who is possessed by a Demon. He himself have classified Demons as those that pray on the darker side of human emotions. Yet he never admitted to himself that he is now a Abomination. Justice has long ago been turned into Vengence (as he himself said).

etc. etc. I think the writer should have done a better job at the Mages side. The "They made me do it." excuse rings hollow. Because the same can be applied to the Templar as well as Mages. There is plenty of gradiation on the Templar's side - there are many Templars who wished to treat mages well.

Even Cullen, when Meredith said "We cannot spare these who surrendered. [paraphrased] will you be responsible for the people they kill, for consequence if they are in deed possessed?"

Cullen's reply I think is awesome. "Yes, I think that is what a Templar does" or something to that point. Cullen at that point have finally realized the truth that Gregory already living. That Templar's JOB is to guarde the Mages. Not only from themselves but from the consequence of their actions. They are there to take the blame for the few errand mages so that the world would blame the Templars for the lapse and not all Mage Kind. The Templar is the Shield of the Circle, they are the bridge between them and the world. They are suppose to be there to assure the public that mages can be trusted, that not all are evil.

etc. etc. The game has a decent backdrop, but executed badly.

[Svest]

Valus wrote...

It's a more than fair analogy in that running away or being an apostate is, in and of itself, a crime. whether or not any of us think it's a crime is irrelevant. It is. Now, I understand what you mean. Sure, in an ideal world being a mage wouldn't be a crime but I'm not concerned with my (or anyone's) idealized personal view of what the world should be like. I'm concerned with looking at evidence while working within the parameters that the gameworld gives us.

Running away from the circle or simply being an apostate is a crime. Blaming the Templars for performing their duties and 'forcing' a mage to go further than they intended still places the blame on the mage. I stand by that analogy.

How is it the mage's fault for wanting freedom?  200 years ago it was also illegal for a slave to try to escape as well.  Do you blame the slave for killing someone who was just "performing their duties" in hunting him?  Or to use an example from the game, is Fenris to blame for killing the slavers that come after him?  They were just doing their duty according to Tevinter law too. 

Your analogy involves someone who has their freedom taken away because of something they chose to do (bank robber robbed a bank).  Mages have their freedom taken away because of who they are.  There is a HUGE difference there. 

Just because something is the law doesn't make it right.  I don't think it is necessary for me to give examples to prove this is it?  I would argue that it is the templars that are committing the real crime.  Even if the Chantry says otherwise.

[Valus]

Svest wrote...

How is it the mage's fault for wanting freedom?  200 years ago it was also illegal for a slave to try to escape as well.  Do you blame the slave for killing someone who was just "performing their duties" in hunting him?  Or to use an example from the game, is Fenris to blame for killing the slavers that come after him?  They were just doing their duty according to Tevinter law too. 

Your analogy involves someone who has their freedom taken away because of something they chose to do (bank robber robbed a bank).  Mages have their freedom taken away because of who they are.  There is a HUGE difference there. 

Just because something is the law doesn't make it right.  I don't think it is necessary for me to give examples to prove this is it?  I would argue that it is the templars that are committing the real crime.  Even if the Chantry says otherwise.

I'm not saying it is the mage's fault for wanting freedom. I am certainly saying it is the mage's fault for acting on that desire by commiting a criminal offense. My analogy works in that almost every crime has a motive, most criminals have a moral justification behind what they do. Whether or not those justifications have any merit is up for personal debate but most people have to make peace with what they are about to do before they do it.  While is some cases the motive may actually excuse the crime it never erases the fact that a crime was committed.

Just because something is the law does not make it right? I wholeheartedly agree. However I'm not speaking to whether or not a law is just. I'm talking about whether or not an infraction upon the law was commited regardless of how we personally feel about it or what the motives were behind commiting the offense.

If we begin to deviate into what we all personally believe and not what is law than this entire thread has no footing because all evidence presented throughout the game is up for internal debate and not grounded in what we know to be true/untrue by virtue of cannon and/or what is irrefutably presented before us in game. If I decide that running away as a mage is not a criminal offense simply because I say so than I have decided I am judge, jury, and executioner for all of Thedas and the world is my sandbox. This playstyle is fine, but not in line with the question I am putting forth, that being the lack of hardcore evidence against the templars.

EDIT* sorry, i totally glossed over one of your questions. YES, I suppose if we were in the Imperium where slavery is legally recognized and we were in the same exact position we are in here I suppose I could make the argument that Fenris is to blame. I am uncertain if runaway slaves are instantly recognized as free citizens if they manage to make their way to the Freemarches, I assume they are. Thankfully that distinction is never made very clear so I don't have to make a thread endorsing slavery.

Modifié par Valus, 21 mars 2011 - 10:28 .

[Nokternul]

JamesX wrote...

Stealing a Loaf of Bread when you are hungry is a bad thing. You can say "I have no other means, and I don't want to die." which is a justification. It is the same reason the Mages seems to justify their use of Blood Magic.

Stealing is inherently immoral though--as you're using coercion of some kind to take someone elses property without their expressed consent. Employing Blood Magic, on the other hand, is not inherently immoral in this way--you're not coercing anyone, nor are you necessarily violating anyone's 'natural rights' or property rights in the process. How one chooses to use said Blood Magic is a different matter altogether.

Also, saying "I have no other means, and I don't want to die" with regard to stealing is not justification--it doesn't make stealing just--it is rationalization.

JamesX wrote...

Why? The reason is simple - it is a deadly weapon, it can do things their normal magic cannot do.

Possessing a deadly weapon isn't immoral either--just as in the real world possessing a gun is not immoral, and is in fact an enumerated right. Everyone has a right to protect themselves.

JamesX wrote...

So they took the easy way out. There is no indication that they cannot use normal magic to do what they need to do. But because that path is insufficient they took the Blood Magic path.

Not entirely accurate. Templars are arguably the most dangerous enemies to apostates--as they are charged with seeking out and effectively imprisoning them. As such, Templars also happen to be trained to combat magic--so typical magic is not likely to be very effective against a Templar. Blood Magic is thus made something of a necessity should a Mage be inclined to protect themselves against a Templar.

On the other hand, executing someone for stealing a loaf if bread is excessive. And there are indiciation that Some Templars want to execute all mages that run away - which turned out to be not a prevalent thing. Since the run away from Act 1 indeed survived their capture, even if you hand them over to the Templar who wanted to execute them.

JamesX wrote...

It may be due to Tharask's involvement - but it is still a demonstration of what the Mages claime of the Templars is just as exaggerated as what the Templars claime of the mages.

It's certainly reasonable to conclude that both sides embellish, or exaggerate, to reinforce their own philosophies and agendas.

JamesX wrote...

There is the Tranquil Solution - which Ander says is embodiment of Templer Evil. Which is also false. Even Meredith the embodiment of "oppression" ruled against it.

This is really just a matter of opinion. I'm sure some would argue there are worse fates than death--perhaps Tranquility being among them; reference Karl in Act I's Tranquility quest where he would prefer to die as opposed to continue living as a Tranquil. In any case, even if Meredith does not support the Tranquil Solution, she eventually issues the order of Annulment which is certainly just as bad.

JamesX wrote...

If you actually side with Templars you can get a better understanding of why Meredith is the way she is (even before her corruption).

One doesn't really need to side with the Templars to get this, I think. To me, it's a matter of extremes. On one hand you have Mages who feel backed into a corner, and thus resort to extreme uses of Blood Magic to protect themselves. On the other hand, you have the Templars who are both extremely zealous and self-righteous willing to carry out their duty in any way possible, for the sake of protecting themselves and the general public against Mages.

JamesX wrote...

Where as the mages are not so well written. Even Osino (the embodiment of Mage "good") turns out to support Necromancy Research without regards to its consequence. his excuse of "I just hid him from Meredith because it will confirm everything she says about us." rings hollow. His letter to the guy completely implicated him as an active supporter of the research.

You just contradicted yourself though. How can Orsino, be "the embodiment of Mage "good" whilst all along being involved with "evil" research. He was never an objective "good guy", he was just made to seem that way until the truth was revealed.

[JamesX]

[quote]Nokternul wrote...

Stealing is inherently immoral though--as you're using coercion of some kind to take someone elses property without their expressed consent. Employing Blood Magic, on the other hand, is not inherently immoral in this way--you're not coercing anyone, nor are you necessarily violating anyone's 'natural rights' or property rights in the process. How one chooses to use said Blood Magic is a different matter altogether.

Also, saying "I have no other means, and I don't want to die" with regard to stealing is not justification--it doesn't make stealing just--it is rationalization.[/quote]
Stealing is bad because why?  Our culture said so.  Goto something like Gypsies or some Pirates, Stealing becomes a proof of manhood, it becomes a good thing.

Just as Stealing is bad for us, Blood Magic is bad for Therades or at the very least Kirkwall.  

It is the justification that Blood Mages give, or the game gives.  Didn't say I agree with it, that is their justification.


[quote]Nokternul wrote...

[quote]JamesX wrote...

Why? The reason is simple - it is a deadly weapon, it can do things their normal magic cannot do.[/quote]

Possessing a deadly weapon isn't immoral either--just as in the real world possessing a gun is not immoral, and is in fact an enumerated right. Everyone has a right to protect themselves. [/quote]This has nothing to do with morality.  This is my explination why mages do it.  Why they turn to Blood Magic.

[quote]Nokternul wrote...

[quote]JamesX wrote...

So they took the easy way out. There is no indication that they cannot use normal magic to do what they need to do. But because that path is insufficient they took the Blood Magic path.[/quote]

Not entirely accurate. Templars are arguably the most dangerous enemies to apostates--as they are charged with seeking out and effectively imprisoning them. As such, Templars also happen to be trained to combat magic--so typical magic is not likely to be very effective against a Templar. Blood Magic is thus made something of a necessity should a Mage be inclined to protect themselves against a Templar.[/quote]Not quite, the most dangerous enemy to Apostate is another mage.  Actually Templar Abilities work as well on Blood Magic as it works on any magic.  Blood Magic is not Unique in this circumstance.  The only difference is that Blood Magic works on things that normal magic does/should not - such as mind control.

It is also incredibly easy to learn - as evident by everyone regardless of apptitude can.  Wheres powerful spells seems only reserved for those with training.  Such as it is a high ranking apprentice that can cast powerful spells where Jowen even before his Harrowing can do blood magic and disable/kill several templars to get away.

[quote]Nokternul wrote...

It's certainly reasonable to conclude that both sides embellish, or exaggerate, to reinforce their own philosophies and agendas.[/quote]Which is my point,  one cannot simply take what each other says a face value.  It seems many just takes oneside as truth and automatically assume the other is propaganda.


[quote]Nokternul wrote...

[quote]JamesX wrote...

There is the Tranquil Solution - which Ander says is embodiment of Templer Evil. Which is also false. Even Meredith the embodiment of "oppression" ruled against it.[/quote]

This is really just a matter of opinion. I'm sure some would argue there are worse fates than death--perhaps Tranquility being among them; reference Karl in Act I's Tranquility quest where he would prefer to die as opposed to continue living as a Tranquil. In any case, even if Meredith does not support the Tranquil Solution, she eventually issues the order of Annulment which is certainly just as bad.[/quote]The point is that Ander made it seem like that is the Templer's Evil, when he seen that both Meredith and Divine both ruled against it, he seems actually surprised.  That is the image of the Templar in his mind - that they as an organization is capable of doing something that ruthless.  Which is wrong.

The sad part is that at one point Anders (I think it was Act 1) actually said Meredith is a good person.  That her intentions are good.  It is sad that events turn out the way it did.

[quote]Nokternul wrote...

[quote]JamesX wrote...

If you actually side with Templars you can get a better understanding of why Meredith is the way she is (even before her corruption). [/quote]

One doesn't really need to side with the Templars to get this, I think. To me, it's a matter of extremes. On one hand you have Mages who feel backed into a corner, and thus resort to extreme uses of Blood Magic to protect themselves. On the other hand, you have the Templars who are both extremely zealous and self-righteous willing to carry out their duty in any way possible, for the sake of protecting themselves and the general public against Mages.[/quote]One actually does.  It is about Meredith's past, and why she became a templar.  If you already know it then you are good.  I am not going to put it in this thread incase people want to find out themselves.

[quote]Nokternul wrote...

[quote]JamesX wrote...

Where as the mages are not so well written. Even Osino (the embodiment of Mage "good") turns out to support Necromancy Research without regards to its consequence. his excuse of "I just hid him from Meredith because it will confirm everything she says about us." rings hollow. His letter to the guy completely implicated him as an active supporter of the research.[/quote]

You just contradicted yourself though. How can Orsino, be "the embodiment of Mage "good" whilst all along being involved with "evil" research. He was never an objective "good guy", he was just made to seem that way until the truth was revealed.
[/quote]That is why "Good" is in quotes.  Throughout the whole game the story painted Orsino as the public face of the Circle.  The reasonable leader who is self-sacrificing (risking himself to give you time to attack the Keep), reasonable (try to impassionately speak to the public about the fate of the circle), trying to use non-violent means to bring the plight of the mages to public eye.  He is painted as the public defender of the mages - their martin luther king (I guess Anders would be Black Panther or Malcolm X).

Even this person who by all account is the leader of the Circle is corrupt.  Meredith's paranoia about him isn't actually completely unfounded.  One cannot completely fault the Templars when the very thing they are suppose to prevent - corruption of the Circle at its highest level - actually happened.

Just trying to show that both sides are wrong, and that it is not nearly as black and white as some believes.

Modifié par JamesX, 21 mars 2011 - 10:27 .

[Svest]

Valus wrote...

I'm not saying it is the mage's fault for wanting freedom. I am certainly saying it is the mage's fault for acting on that desire by commiting a criminal offense. My analogy works in that almost every crime has a motive, most criminals have a moral justification behind what they do. Whether or not those justifications have any merit is up for personal debate but most people have to make peace with what they are about to do before they do it.  While is some cases the motive may actually excuse the crime it never erases the fact that a crime was committed.

Just because something is the law does not make it right? I wholeheartedly agree. However I'm not speaking to whether or not a law is just. I'm talking about whether or not an infraction upon the law was commited regardless of how we personally feel about it or what the motives were behind commiting the offense.

If we begin to deviate into what we all personally believe and not what is law than this entire thread has no footing because all evidence presented throughout the game is up for internal debate and not grounded in what we know to be true/untrue by virtue of cannon and/or what is irrefutably presented before us in game. If I decide that running away as a mage is not a criminal offense simply because I say so than I have decided I am judge, jury, and executioner for all of Thedas and the world is my sandbox. This playstyle is fine, but not in line with the question I am putting forth, that being the lack of hardcore evidence against the templars.

Except by doing so you are ignoring the largest point of evidence against the templars to begin with and that is the injustice of the circle itself.  If you take the circle as a given and something that must be accepted then of course the mages are going to look terrible.  The whole case from the mage's side is that the circle is an evil thing to begin with.  It is a complete failure in that it does not achieve its goals and worse it possibly creates more blood mages than it prevents.  The only thing it does well is lock up those who have committed no crime.  Combine that with the especially harsh treatment from Kirkwall's templars and its not hard at all to see why they would rebel.

Also, I would argue that when the laws are unjust it is in fact not a crime to defend yourself from them.  If a law were passed that said everyone with green eyes must be locked up for the rest of their lives I would not consider it a crime in the least for people with green eyes to defend themselves in any way they could from those coming to lock them up.

[Svest]

Valus wrote...

EDIT* sorry, i totally glossed over one of your questions. YES, I suppose if we were in the Imperium where slavery is legally recognized and we were in the same exact position we are in here I suppose I could make the argument that Fenris is to blame. I am uncertain if runaway slaves are instantly recognized as free citizens if they manage to make their way to the Freemarches, I assume they are. Thankfully that distinction is never made very clear so I don't have to make a thread endorsing slavery.

If that is the case then there is really no point in us having this discussion. 

[Valus]

Svest wrote...
Except by doing so you are ignoring the largest point of evidence against the templars to begin with and that is the injustice of the circle itself.  If you take the circle as a given and something that must be accepted then of course the mages are going to look terrible.  The whole case from the mage's side is that the circle is an evil thing to begin with.  It is a complete failure in that it does not achieve its goals and worse it possibly creates more blood mages than it prevents.  The only thing it does well is lock up those who have committed no crime.  Combine that with the especially harsh treatment from Kirkwall's templars and its not hard at all to see why they would rebel.

Also, I would argue that when the laws are unjust it is in fact not a crime to defend yourself from them.  If a law were passed that said everyone with green eyes must be locked up for the rest of their lives I would not consider it a crime in the least for people with green eyes to defend themselves in any way they could from those coming to lock them up.

FYI, I edited an earlier post to address a question you asked that I failed to answer.

I'm not ignoring that large point I just don't consider it to be evidence. At least not within the confines of evidence as I proposed. Whether or not what the templars are doing is injust is up for debate. I don't think the circle is unjust.  Is my opinion less valid than my opposition's in this respect? Within the parameters of the law (i.e. the supposition you gave that the circle is a given)  then, yes, the mages would look terrible. In the Imperium we see what happens when mages are allowed outside of the circle and a Black Divine Templar order with an entirely different line in the sand as to what is acceptable behavior from a mage. Is that better or worse? That, also, is up for debate.

And again i say, what harsh treatment from the templars? All we have so far is one solid piece of evidence you yourself brought forth, Ser Alric threatening a mage/writing a pretty hienous letter, and alot of vague accusations and interrpretations as to what they might be doing behind closed doors. In a game that encompases this much of a timespan that isn't alot to go off of. I understand we can take certain things to be truth, like mage being on lock down by the end of the game. Against the mountian of evidence we have supporting that the mage circle can no longer be policed I don't see the comparision.

If a law is unjust of course you have a duty to rebel against it. Some of our more progressive governments are products of such rebellions.

However when said revolutionaries are commiting the kind of atrocities we see them commiting in this game habitually than I say there should be more evidence to support their actions of the rebels rather than personal speculation that they might have been wronged at birth. Of course whether or not the evidence given is enough to support the mages is an individual decision and I'm not here to debate that. I'm only here to figure out why the irrefutable evidence is so one sided.

[Svest]

Valus wrote...

FYI, I edited an earlier post to address a question you asked that I failed to answer.

I'm not ignoring that large point I just don't consider it to be evidence. At least not within the confines of evidence as I proposed. Whether or not what the templars are doing is injust is up for debate. I don't think the circle is unjust.  Is my opinion less valid than my opposition's in this respect? Within the parameters of the law (i.e. the supposition you gave that the circle is a given)  then, yes, the mages would look terrible. In the Imperium we see what happens when mages are allowed outside of the circle and a Black Divine Templar order with an entirely different line in the sand as to what is acceptable behavior from a mage. Is that better or worse? That, also, is up for debate.

And again i say, what harsh treatment from the templars? All we have so far is one solid piece of evidence you yourself brought forth, Ser Alric threatening a mage/writing a pretty hienous letter, and alot of vague accusations and interrpretations as to what they might be doing behind closed doors. In a game that encompases this much of a timespan that isn't alot to go off of. I understand we can take certain things to be truth, like mage being on lock down by the end of the game. Against the mountian of evidence we have supporting that the mage circle can no longer be policed I don't see the comparision.

If a law is unjust of course you have a duty to rebel against it. Some of our more progressive governments are products of such rebellions.

However when said revolutionaries are commiting the kind of atrocities we see them commiting in this game habitually than I say there should be more evidence to support their actions of the rebels rather than personal speculation that they might have been wronged at birth. Of course whether or not the evidence given is enough to support the mages is an individual decision and I'm not here to debate that. I'm only here to figure out why the irrefutable evidence is so one sided.

Your original question was why was there no evidence of the templars doing anything wrong.  Not if what they were doing was illegal.  Wrong and illegal are not the same thing.  You say that you do not feel the circle is unjust, which is likely why you fall on the templar's side.  That's fine you are entitled to your opinion.  Its one I happen to strongly disagree with though.  We obviously have very different definitions of right and wrong and there is no way in hell one of us is going to convince the other one to change his mind.  You see a templar's actions and simply see someone performing their duty.  I see the exact same action and see a crime against humanity.  Thus, as i said earlier this discussion is pointless.