4350 réponses à ce sujet

[The Baconer]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
I suppose the part where you have to drain the lifeforce of another person (or yourself) is rather dull when you can just mind control him to do so willingly?
Blood Magic is not just a powerful tool. It is a dangerous tool, and I have not yet seen anything to justify the risk of its use.

And flash freezing someone before shattering them, immolating a person alive, stealing their life force (a la DA:O), sending thousands of wasps to sting someone to death, or trapping them in a slowly collapsing telekenetic cage is a-okay. But involving blood is just not cool, man.

[IanPolaris]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

[sys·tem·at·ic[/i]/ˌsistəˈmatik/Adjective: Done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.
Ian,

Everybody knows that you cannot wipe out 99% of a resisting species spread across several planets without acting in a systematic fashion.  Even you know this.  Only an idiot could ever be persuaded otherwise.

False.  There have been at least three asteroid strikes on earth that have caused sufficient climate change to wipe out 99% of all life on earth.  There was no plan.  It wasn't genocide.  It was a cosmic accident.

False analogy, you cunning fox you.  Try and figure out why: we all have already.  Hint: "Earth" is not "several planets".

Actually it's a very good analogy (if not perfect).  The Quarians tried to wipe out all Geth. This was unquestionably an act of Genocide.  The Geth defended themselves and in the process kicked the Quarians off all of their worlds.

This is not genocide.  It's simple acts of war...and here's where the anology kicked in.

Because the Quarians lost a war THEY STARTED, went from having several systems with inhabitable planets with a population ceiling in the billions to a handfull of ships with a population ceiling in the 10s of millions at best.

Ecological population pressure ALONE would account for 99% of all Quarian deaths.

There was no systematic process that the Geth used to specifically try to annhilate all Quarians (the reverse is not true).  If you talk with both sides at the end of ME2, had the Geth wanted to annihilate all Quarians during the Dawn wars, they easily could have.

So no.  The Geth were undoubtably inhumanly brutal.  I will accept that as a given.  Genocidal they were not.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Silfren wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Silfren,

It might be because hundreds of mages is a drop in the bucket compared to the population of the gallows which has both the Kirkwall AND Starkhaven mages by this time. If you actually look at the cut-scenes of the Gallows prison, it can hold thousands (perhaps even tens of thousands but that's pushing it) easy. Hundreds over the course of three years in a population of thousands is an annoyance but nothing more.

Also the Templars would keep this information very much to themselves because allowing it to get out would make them look weak and incompetant (they are incompetant...but let's not go there....)

-Polaris

How many slaves the Gallows was built to hold is a separate matter from how many mages are housed in it during Hawke's tenure in Kirkwall.  With anyone else, I'd hope this wouldn't need to be pointed out, but since it's you, I guess it has to be.

It's been suggested in other threads that the population of mages against the overall population is proportionally very small.  Weren't you involved in one of those discussions?  Anyway, even if we are talking about an usually large number of mages in Kirkwall due to their also housing Starkhaven's population, that doesn't speak to the question of the physical number of mages actually present.  I honestly don't think we're talking about a very massive number, especially given that we'd probably need a comparable number of templars as a result.  I don't see a few dozen templars being able to handle hundreds or thousands of mages, for instance. 

Based on the fact that we are told that Kirkwall is the centre for Templar Power in Eastern Thedas AND the Templars in Kirkwall are an army in their own right, I'd say the Templars number in at least Brigade if not Division strength.. i.e. likely well over a thousand.  Also with a properly designed slave prison (and the Tevinters were very good about designing such), you can control dozens of unarmed people with a bare handful of armed ones.  We are also told (by Ser Alrik) that the population of mages is booming in Kirkwall (even before the Starkhaven arrivals).

Thus a mage population in the Gallows numbering in the thousands (hundreds certainly) is most certainly reasonable.  I lurked for most of tha discussion, but Lob had some very good "Fermi" numbers on the problem that showed just that.

-Polaris

[Bigdoser]

The Baconer wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
I suppose the part where you have to drain the lifeforce of another person (or yourself) is rather dull when you can just mind control him to do so willingly?
Blood Magic is not just a powerful tool. It is a dangerous tool, and I have not yet seen anything to justify the risk of its use.

And flash freezing someone before shattering them, immolating a person alive, stealing their life force (a la DA:O), sending thousands of wasps to sting someone to death, or trapping them in a slowly collapsing telekenetic cage is a-okay. But involving blood is just not cool, man.

oooh don't forget walking bomb thats good too planting a spirit bolt in someone and then watch the gore fly

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Baconer wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
I suppose the part where you have to drain the lifeforce of another person (or yourself) is rather dull when you can just mind control him to do so willingly?
Blood Magic is not just a powerful tool. It is a dangerous tool, and I have not yet seen anything to justify the risk of its use.

And flash freezing someone before shattering them, immolating a person alive, stealing their life force (a la DA:O), sending thousands of wasps to sting someone to death, or trapping them in a slowly collapsing telekenetic cage is a-okay. But involving blood is just not cool, man.

Nope. But at least I will see it comming. If I am mind-controleld, I wouldn't even realize what had happened. The threat of Blood Magic, is far greater than merely the fact that it uses lifeforce, it is the fact that it is capable of mind control. Of course the fact that it was taught be demons, don't speak in its favor either.

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

[sys·tem·at·ic[/i]/ˌsistəˈmatik/Adjective: Done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.
Ian,

Everybody knows that you cannot wipe out 99% of a resisting species spread across several planets without acting in a systematic fashion.  Even you know this.  Only an idiot could ever be persuaded otherwise.

False.  There have been at least three asteroid strikes on earth that have caused sufficient climate change to wipe out 99% of all life on earth.  There was no plan.  It wasn't genocide.  It was a cosmic accident.

False analogy, you cunning fox you.  Try and figure out why: we all have already.  Hint: "Earth" is not "several planets".

Actually it's a very good analogy (if not perfect).  The Quarians tried to wipe out all Geth. This was unquestionably an act of Genocide.  The Geth defended themselves and in the process kicked the Quarians off all of their worlds.

This is not genocide.  It's simple acts of war...and here's where the anology kicked in.

Because the Quarians lost a war THEY STARTED, went from having several systems with inhabitable planets with a population ceiling in the billions to a handfull of ships with a population ceiling in the 10s of millions at best.

Ecological population pressure ALONE would account for 99% of all Quarian deaths.

There was no systematic process that the Geth used to specifically try to annhilate all Quarians (the reverse is not true).  If you talk with both sides at the end of ME2, had the Geth wanted to annihilate all Quarians during the Dawn wars, they easily could have.

So no.  The Geth were undoubtably inhumanly brutal.  I will accept that as a given.  Genocidal they were not.

-Polaris

You know most actions of genocide usually happens during war, right? But what you are really saying is that, since the Quarians struck first, it is okay for the Geth to virtually wipe the Quarians out. I'd say it is then okay for the Templars to wipe out all of the mages, the second any mage strafed a Templar.

[Silfren]

IanPolaris wrote...

You realize you've just repeated what I've been saying for pages and pages now and admitted it.  The Devs skewed the information to encourage people to side with the Templars more often.  This had a definate effect on the story, but the fact is to present the supposed "choice" as a grey one, the Devs essentially had to lie (or at least so badly skew the information they may as well have been lying).

-Polaris

Yes, I'm aware I just repeated what you've been saying.  Since I was addressing that statement, of course I repeated it.  That's what people do when they want to address a specific quote.  As for "admitting" it, as if I've been trying to deny it all along?  Get over yourself.  

It's no secret that the Devs skewed the information, when they've come right out and openly admitted to having done so.  What I'm trying to get through your adamantium-laced skull is that your insistence that they did it for nefarious reasons is utter bollocks and borders on hysteria.  They did it for reasons that have nothing to do with the game's story and everything to do with trying to maximize replay value and therefore their profits.  I'm seriously beginning to wonder how capable you are of differentiating between the real world and the fictitious setting of Dragon Age.  You definitely don't seem able to grasp the idea that people can set their 21st century moral viewpoint aside in order to consider the situation faced by Hawke and co. within that world's setting.  

The Devs wrote the story and set its rules.  You're sitting there and claiming they've lied to players.  Do you hear yourself?  Honestly?  You sound like an overly obsessed fan who got upset when the story went in a direction you didn't like, and now you're essentially claiming that they broke the rules.  Like I said elsewhere, you don't sound a bit different from Harry Potter fans who were convinced that Rowling wrote Harry and Hermione as the obvious pairing,  got pissed off when it turned out they were wrong, and then had the audacity to point out Rowling's own writing to her in trying to claim that she was wrong in her own interpretation of her own writing, and that doing so was unfair to her readers because she falsely led them to believe something she knew wasn't true.  That's exactly how you're sounding right now. 

[IanPolaris]

Sifren,

Snark aside, that's pretty much what DG is doing. He's misleading his audience by skewiing the information. We even agree on the reason why. It doesn't make it less nefarious. If anything it makes it more nefarious.

-Polaris

[cdtrk65]

You realize that it isn't real people be killed don't you?

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
You know most actions of genocide usually happens during war, right? But what you are really saying is that, since the Quarians struck first, it is okay for the Geth to virtually wipe the Quarians out. I'd say it is then okay for the Templars to wipe out all of the mages, the second any mage strafed a Templar.

Point: Missing it.

Taking your last point first, it was the Templars (Meredith) that initiated the war by declaring a very iffy Right of Annulment.  By contrast the Quarians stuck first.

In the second place if you've been following what I've been saying to Sifren, there is one case where Genocide might be justified...and that's if it's a clear case of :"them or us".  That IS the case with the Geth. The Quarians were intent on justified which makes pretty much anything the Geth do in return as justified.  We even have an example in Thedas:  Darkspawn.  Since Darkspawn can not peacefully coexist with the other humanities, trying to wipe them out is justifiable (the very biologies preclude it).

In the final place, even with the above justification, the Geth did NOT try to systematically destroy the Quarians.  The Quarians started a war and lost almost all of their living space/habitat doing so.  What happens next is as predictable as gravity.  In fact I rather suspect that more Quarians died by Quarian hands (to decidee who got those precious berths on those few remaining ships) than by Geth hands.

ME2 makes it very plain (both from the Quarian and Geth sides of the Dawn War):  Had the Geth been genocidal, the Quarians would be exinct.  Bottom line.  In fact when the Exodus started, that was what the first Admiralty board expected.

-Polaris

[cdtrk65]

Why is Meredith's right of annualment iffy? Oh right because DG made it look like there are more blood mages than there are....

Using your logic you could say Anders did much the same thing. In fact, my impression is he did worse than what Meredith wanted.

[Silfren]

IanPolaris wrote...

Sifren,

Snark aside, that's pretty much what DG is doing. He's misleading his audience by skewiing the information. We even agree on the reason why. It doesn't make it less nefarious. If anything it makes it more nefarious.

-Polaris

No, we don't.  I think he did it for business reasons that have jack-all to do with the story itself.  I don't think he's misleading anyone.  I don't think he's skewing things from a story angle.  From a meta-gaming angle, sure.  From a story one? No.  And you have said something to the effect that you believe he did it in order to screw with people's moral outlook on genocide, or something, unless I have completely misinterpreted your words wherever you've gone on and on and on about things being black and white and not grey, and believing that the devs are superimposing their actual views into the story, which you apparently find frightening.  I don't believe that at all, I think it's hysterical, paranoid nonsense.  I've read quite a few of the quotes you point to of Gaider's, and NONE of what he has actually said comes close to fitting your interpretations.

[KnightofPhoenix]

cdtrk65 wrote...

Using your logic you could say Anders did much the same thing. In fact, my impression is he did worse than what Meredith wanted.

Both are idiots who think they are qualified / entitled to make choices far beyond their capacities.

[Sylvianus]

Anyway, the word genocide to all tastes, in all actions, all subjects, it quickly becomes tiresome. I feel that people in internet use that word so often to be convinced they necessarily reasons, to make the effect more than anything else. That's why I pay little attention to what it said. There is much confusion about this word today, as a philosopher told television.

Soon, hundreds of people are burned in a church. This is genocide.

No, genocide is not the will of destroy a threat ( that' that's how mages are considered ) Mages have never been considered as targets to kill before the act of Anders, causing reaction.

Hawk doesn't destroy the circle, because they are magicians, but he wants to destroy what he believes to be considered a threat to security in Kirkwall. It's simple. Your exaggerations will change nothing.

Yes there were probably victims in a much larger package of blood mages and corrupt fools. The threat is there, and we decided to leave no chance to see her grow up to be overwhelmed by the situation became out of control.

There are innocents victims yes, but that's the effects of war. This point of view you can not be appreciated, but completely justifiable in an extreme situation, and also morally. You think this is heartening that such decisions? No it is not, but sometimes they must be taken in an extreme situation, which is the case of Kirkwall.

Forget your stories of good or evil, it is completely out of reality, your simplistic view on the world give just want to smile.

You blind yourself, you close your eyes, something that has yet relevant number of points that can justify this thought.

Myself I am open to what is said to defend the choice to destroy the Templars, for I am aware that it is very complicated and that there are different considerations.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 03 mai 2011 - 10:34 .

[IanPolaris]

cdtrk65 wrote...

Why is Meredith's right of annualment iffy? Oh right because DG made it look like there are more blood mages than there are....

That's not the reason.  Knight Captain Cullen says that the Right of Annulment is iffy.  It's iffy becasue the Right of Annulment is supposed to be an act of last resort when the circle and all mages in it are beyond redemption and Meredith doesn't come close to proving that when she makes the declaration.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Silfren wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Sifren,

Snark aside, that's pretty much what DG is doing. He's misleading his audience by skewiing the information. We even agree on the reason why. It doesn't make it less nefarious. If anything it makes it more nefarious.

-Polaris

No, we don't.  I think he did it for business reasons that have jack-all to do with the story itself.  I don't think he's misleading anyone.  I don't think he's skewing things from a story angle.  From a meta-gaming angle, sure.  From a story one? No.  And you have said something to the effect that you believe he did it in order to screw with people's moral outlook on genocide, or something, unless I have completely misinterpreted your words wherever you've gone on and on and on about things being black and white and not grey, and believing that the devs are superimposing their actual views into the story, which you apparently find frightening.  I don't believe that at all, I think it's hysterical, paranoid nonsense.  I've read quite a few of the quotes you point to of Gaider's, and NONE of what he has actually said comes close to fitting your interpretations.

Then you haven't been reading what I have been posting.  The reason for the skewed data is EXACTLY what I've been saying all along.  DG really did say (for example) that mages aren't innocent because they are mages and if that's not a bit frightening, then you aren't paying attention....and that WAS expressing DG's actual views.

I also didn't say he skewed the data to mess with people's opinion on genocide which isn't much of an opinion.  Genocide at least these days is well defined.  Either it rises to that level or it does not.  In this case it does.  What I am SAYING is that the Devs have deliberately mislead (and skewing the data is an act of misleading and deception) in order to get people to pick the Templars more often.  That IS using inaccurate data in order to get people to try to pick a different moral choice.

That fact you think it may be for money if anything makes it worse.

-Polaris

[CaptainZaysh]

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually it's a very good analogy (if not perfect).  The Quarians tried to wipe out all Geth. This was unquestionably an act of Genocide.  The Geth defended themselves and in the process kicked the Quarians off all of their worlds.

This is not genocide.  It's simple acts of war...and here's where the anology kicked in.

Meh.  You're simply an apologist for genocide.  Your arguments are despicable because they are the same arguments used by some holocaust deniers: all those Jews didn't die of being executed, they died of typhus carried by lice; the Armenians died of marching, that's all; the Holodomor was just a famine.

I'm not easily disgusted by things I read on the Internet these days, but I found your words - and the thought process they revealed - genuinely detestable.

[Silfren]

IanPolaris wrote...

Then you haven't been reading what I have been posting.  The reason for the skewed data is EXACTLY what I've been saying all along.  DG really did say (for example) that mages aren't innocent because they are mages and if that's not a bit frightening, then you aren't paying attention....and that WAS expressing DG's actual views.

I also didn't say he skewed the data to mess with people's opinion on genocide which isn't much of an opinion.  Genocide at least these days is well defined.  Either it rises to that level or it does not.  In this case it does.  What I am SAYING is that the Devs have deliberately mislead (and skewing the data is an act of misleading and deception) in order to get people to pick the Templars more often.  That IS using inaccurate data in order to get people to try to pick a different moral choice.

That fact you think it may be for money if anything makes it worse.

-Polaris

Back up your claim.  If DG actually did say what you claim he did, quote him.  I've already seen firsthand that you tend to misconstrue quotes, from following your claim back to Gaider's actual words.  So until you actually produce a link to Gaider's own words, then anything you claim he said without backing it up is highly suspect.  If you don't have access to that quote and can't find it, then you really need to stop claiming he said this or that, because claiming that he made an explicit statement without providing us with said statement just amounts to you expecting us to take your at your word, which is stupid under any pretext. 

I'm saying he's doing it to encourage people to replay the game more often, which translates into greater interest in the game and therefore more people buying it.  The bloody game is intended to make money.  Gaider is a writer, but he's also in the gaming business.  His whole freaking point in writing the game is to produce a product to sell.  You're the one seeing deep, dark, nefarious motivations in that, if you're taking what I said to mean that he's promoting a grey view of genocide for money, which is a gross misinterpretation.  

Mages are dangerous just for being mages.  I'm not sure if Gaider said what you claim, but I can certainly see him trying to point out that their inherent power exempts mages from being innocent.  That's sloppy wording, true, and yes on the face of it it sounds morally repugnant, but it could very easily be just another way of saying that mages have to be viewed as the living weapons that they are, because unlike real world people who are targeted for genocide for superficial reasons, mages actually are dangerous by virtue of their mere existence.  

[Silfren]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually it's a very good analogy (if not perfect).  The Quarians tried to wipe out all Geth. This was unquestionably an act of Genocide.  The Geth defended themselves and in the process kicked the Quarians off all of their worlds.

This is not genocide.  It's simple acts of war...and here's where the anology kicked in.

Meh.  You're simply an apologist for genocide.  Your arguments are despicable because they are the same arguments used by some holocaust deniers: all those Jews didn't die of being executed, they died of typhus carried by lice; the Armenians died of marching, that's all; the Holodomor was just a famine.

I'm not easily disgusted by things I read on the Internet these days, but I found your words - and the thought process they revealed - genuinely detestable.

Which is rather amusing given that genocide seems to be all they can talk about.

[Sylvianus]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually it's a very good analogy (if not perfect).  The Quarians tried to wipe out all Geth. This was unquestionably an act of Genocide.  The Geth defended themselves and in the process kicked the Quarians off all of their worlds.

This is not genocide.  It's simple acts of war...and here's where the anology kicked in.

Meh.  You're simply an apologist for genocide.  Your arguments are despicable because they are the same arguments used by some holocaust deniers: all those Jews didn't die of being executed, they died of typhus carried by lice; the Armenians died of marching, that's all; the Holodomor was just a famine.

I'm not easily disgusted by things I read on the Internet these days, but I found your words - and the thought process they revealed - genuinely detestable.

Actually, It is a mechanical war of survival, not genocide. Quarians tried to exterminate what they have found that faulty machines as a threat, so they tried to cut off what has become in reality a race. Geth acted for their survival. Whatever the consequences and misery that has resulted, it is a war, not genocide.

Quarians lost the war as the Japanese during the Second World War. The geth have not sought to prosecute quarians outside their world, they were left alone. It is clear that they were only in a logic of survival. Once assured of this survival, they stopped attacking the Quarians.

The case of Jews is incorrect. And believe me, Jews don't like at all that we  take their example to look at everything and anything. Their example is almost unique.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 03 mai 2011 - 11:09 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Are mages guilty or not-guilty of being mages? If guilty, they are subjet to constant temptation from demons. If not guilty, you are stupid.
Mages aren't innocent of being mages, that is what DG said.

[LobselVith8]

Silfren wrote...

 Whether you like it or not, mages have been clearly written to be potential killing machines.  The question of whether it's morally acceptable to kill an innocent person who might be dangerous is not entirely accurate.  You have two issues at hand here: the nature of blood magic is such that it's undetectable.  A templar isn't going to be able to look at a mage and determine if they're a maleficar or not, if that mage isn't at that moment slicing their hand open to fuel a spell.  If that mage is a suspected blood mage, and especially if there is evidence to back this up, there is an argument to be made that killing them is the correct option, because the implications of you deciding on mercy for a person who turns out to be a blood mage after all, are worse than the outcome of killing an innocent person.  

Meredith never makes the case that she's invoking the Right of Annulment because of the possibility of blood mages amongst the population of the Circle of Magi, she makes it clear to the Champion that she's doing this because Anders' act "cannot be tolerated" and "the people will demand blood." She's giving in to the mob when she declares the deaths of the Circle mages.

Silfren wrote...

The second issue boils down to the purpose behind the Right of Annulment: whether or not it's considered genocide or mass murder is a separate question from whether it is necessary.  Whether or not the Right has often been unjustly applied, the fact remains that it's purpose is to negate the danger posed by a corrupted Circle.  What that means is that as horrible a prospect as it is, those charged with determining whether Annulment is necessary are faced with this dilemma: do they choose against the Annulment because of the innocents at hand and risk allowing an entire Circle to be overrun with demons and blood mages, which in turn creates a threat against the larger population of innocent non-mages, or do they slaughter the Circle down to the last man, woman, and child, in order to protect the larger population? 

Meredith never poses this question to Hawke, though. She makes it clear the destruction of the Chantry is why she's asking Hawke for his assistance. It no longer becomes an issue about the mages and templars, and who is right in the dichotomy when she asks the Champion to assist the Right of Annulment because she says the people will demand the death of the mages.

Silfren wrote...

It isn't a black and white decision, because, once again, the bottom line faced by the person who is charged with that task has to face the fact that death is going to occur in either situation.  Their choice is to decide how much death is going to occur, and to bear the burden of living with the outcome of that choice. 

Killing an entire population of enchanters, mages, and apprentices - regardless of how you want to term it - on the basis that "the people will demand blood" seems fairly black and white to me.

Silfren wrote...

Thanks, I've been an avid reader of the X-Men for over 20 years now.  The comparison between mages and mutants was something I recognized immediately.  While that is certainly a more apt comparison than trying to compare mages to real-life people, it's still not entirely fitting.  The X-Men live in a world of far more advanced technology than that of Thedas, for one, and for another, even though you could compare loose cannon, anti-human mutant killing machines with power-mad blood mages and abominations, there is still the matter of all mages, even those who are morally good, being susceptible to demon possession, which doesn't have a clear parallel in the mutant universe.  

Mages can be possessed, and that's a good argument for properly instructing mages on the use of their abilities, but I don't see the Chantry controlled Circles as a solution when mages will always want what all people inherently desire - freedom. Michael Hamilton has addressed the Chantry controlled Circles as dictatorships, and people have resisted being under such oppression throughout history - even the fictional history of Thedas has everyone from Andraste and Shartan to Maric and Loghain fighting against repressive regimes. I think the mages and the templars would be better applied against the darkspawn who have filled the Deep Roads - which span the entire continent of Thedas - rather than the Chantry controlled Circles, but it seems to be too late for that when the templars and mages are going to war.

[CaptainZaysh]

Sylvianus wrote...

Actually, It is a mechanical war of survival, not genocide. Quarians tried to exterminate what they have found that faulty machines as a threat, so they tried to cut off what has become in reality a race. Geth acted for their survival. Whatever the consequences and misery that has resulted, it is a war, not genocide.

You obviously do not understand any conventional meaning of the term "genocide".  None of the commonly agreed terms I'm aware of employ the caveat "except in wartime".

Sylvianus wrote...

Quarians lost the war as the Japanese during the Second World War. The geth have not sought to prosecute quarians outside their world, they were left alone. It is clear that they were only in a logic of survival. Once assured of this survival, they stopped the genocide of the Quarians.

Fixed your typo.  Like Ian, you need to learn that just because you support the systematic extermination of an ethnic group doesn't mean it isn't genocide.

Sylvianus wrote...

The case of Jews is incorrect. And believe me, Jews don't like at all that we  take their example to look at everything and anything. Their example is almost unique.

Please don't presume to speak for the Jews.  And tragically, their experience is far from unique, as anybody confident enough to publicly opine on this issue really ought to know.

Modifié par CaptainZaysh, 03 mai 2011 - 11:17 .

[GavrielKay]

Silfren wrote...

Mages are dangerous just for being mages.  I'm not sure if Gaider said what you claim, but I can certainly see him trying to point out that their inherent power exempts mages from being innocent.  That's sloppy wording, true, and yes on the face of it it sounds morally repugnant, but it could very easily be just another way of saying that mages have to be viewed as the living weapons that they are, because unlike real world people who are targeted for genocide for superficial reasons, mages actually are dangerous by virtue of their mere existence.  

The personal attacks on this thread are getting a bit much.

I accept that there are things mages can do that "normal" people can't do in the game world.  Of course there isn't really an equivalent to that in the real world, so it leaves an opening to adopt a different morality with regards to the totally fictional idea of a mage.  Certainly the game presents Hawke with any number of really "evil" Templars and mages to muddy the waters of which side is in the "right" for game purposes.

Within the game world the Chantry has spent 1000 years convincing the rank and file that mages can't be trusted and are too dangerous to be free.  To back up their claims they point to Tevinter where mages even keep each other as slaves.  They use tradition, religion and fear to convince the general populace that Templars are necessary and good.

We know it's quite possible for a mage to be raised outside the circle and not become a vicious killer (Morigan, Bethany...) and for one to be raised in the circle and become a menace to everyone (Uldred, Decimus...). 
So can you say the circle works?  We have no way of knowing that the best way to protect people from mages is to lock them up at a young age.  Just because the Chantry and by extension the Templars believe they have the right and duty to enforce this doesn't objectively make it true. 

Mages have a lot of power, true.  But dangerous is a state of mind.  A willingness to use whatever power you do have to do harm to others.  Power shouldn't be the defining criteria.  Hawke sure is powerful.  My Warden could wipe the floor with most any opponent - mage or otherwise. 

So, other than fear of the unknown or fear of some particular type of power that only a few people have access to, why treat mages so incredibly differently from any other powerful character?  Other than Meredith in full crazy mode, no one was suggesting that Hawke be killed just in case she wanted to go on a rampage. 

Fear is a bad reason to deprive someone else of their rights and especially their life.

[Sylvianus]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Actually, It is a mechanical war of survival, not genocide. Quarians tried to exterminate what they have found that faulty machines as a threat, so they tried to cut off what has become in reality a race. Geth acted for their survival. Whatever the consequences and misery that has resulted, it is a war, not genocide.

You obviously do not understand any conventional meaning of the term "genocide".  None of the commonly agreed terms I'm aware of employ the caveat "except in wartime".

Sylvianus wrote...

Quarians lost the war as the Japanese during the Second World War. The geth have not sought to prosecute quarians outside their world, they were left alone. It is clear that they were only in a logic of survival. Once assured of this survival, they stopped the genocide of the Quarians.

Fixed your typo.  Like Ian, you need to learn that just because you support the systematic extermination of an ethnic group doesn't mean it isn't genocide.

Sylvianus wrote...

The case of Jews is incorrect. And believe me, Jews don't like at all that we  take their example to look at everything and anything. Their example is almost unique.

Please don't presume to speak for the Jews.  And tragically, their experience is far from unique, as anybody confident enough to publicly opine on this issue really ought to know.

You're confused, emotional and in total exagerration. No. it is a war of survival, not genocide.
Explain to me how this is a genocide?

The number of deaths ? So the first world war is a genocide?

Willingness to use all means to survive against the enemy ? The fact is that once out of danger, the Geth have ceased their attacks. The war ended because it was a war he had to win by any means against those who attacked them. Geth didn't want to destroy a race, just live and win the war.

" Extermination Of An ethnic group Does not Mean It Is not genocide. ? "
For the case of the Geth against Quarians ? Are you kidding here? What ethnic group you talking about?  

Those are two enemies that confront, use all means, and quarians have simply lost the war.  where is your genocide ?

 Germans have tried everything to win against the French, mustard gas, new weapons of mass destruction, etc.. They have tried many things, it does not mean there was a genocide, despite the many horrible deaths.

 You're exaggerating, you seem to be someone governed more by emotion than by thought.

I do not speak for Jews, just as you do not spoke for them I guess, when you quoted  with your silly desire to blame someone. I also do not like people who do that in a debate that is meant to calm.

But the fact remains the same. Your comparison with jews is more than inaccurately.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 03 mai 2011 - 11:37 .