4350 réponses à ce sujet

[GavrielKay]

Sylvianus wrote...

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.

Not true.  Cullen tells you that Meredith has asked permission for the RoA early in Act 3.  A fair bit before Anders blowing up the Chantry.  Anders merely gives her an excuse to stop waiting for permission and just do it.

[Sylvianus]

GavrielKay wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

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.

Not true.  Cullen tells you that Meredith has asked permission for the RoA early in Act 3.  A fair bit before Anders blowing up the Chantry.  Anders merely gives her an excuse to stop waiting for permission and just do it.

I agree. Meredith is mad, I was talking about what could have thought Hawke in this extreme situation to help the templars. Meredith died at the end and Orsino too. I could not be happier.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 03 mai 2011 - 11:46 .

[TEWR]

in what 1 or 2 days this thread has jumped from 5 total pages to 12? ****....

alright, what have I missed out on?

[KnightofPhoenix]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
alright, what have I missed out on?

Nothing new.

[Simpson14]

To be perfectly honest, I just sided with Meredith for the achievement points

[CaptainZaysh]

Sylvianus wrote...

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?

Since you are ignorant of the matter at hand, I will explain.

"Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", though what constitutes enough of a "part" to qualify as genocide has been subject to much debate by legal scholars."

Presumably 99% would be considered a significant enough part by any objective party.

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

No, since civilians were spared.  There was no systematic attempt to destroy the French or the German peoples.

Sylvianus wrote...
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.

All means including genocide.  Just because you think it was justified doesn't make it not genocide.

Sylvianus wrote...
" 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?  

The quarians are the ethnic group in question.

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

And yet I seem to have studied the issue a teensy bit more than you have.

Sylvianus wrote...
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.

I merely pointed out some facts about the Holocaust: namely that some Holocaust deniers claim the casualties were due to accidental typhus outbreaks, and that the ****s encouraged Jews to flee the country for several years.  You are the one telling us what Jews like and don't like.

Modifié par CaptainZaysh, 04 mai 2011 - 12:09 .

[LobselVith8]

cdtrk65 wrote...

I sided with the templars; I played as a mage and a pro-mage as well. It wasn't an easy decision, considering I wanted to side with the mages. The templars have them in an iron grip to be sure.

90% of the mages meant in Kirkwall were bloodmages/abominations.

Aren't 90% of the dwarves that we encounter members of the carta?

cdtrk65 wrote...

I still would've have sided with them until Anders blew up the chantry.

You can say I judged the whole circle based on one mans decision. However, I looked at his action as the tipping point on the scales toward siding with Meredith. However when Orisino concided allowing an inspection, again I thought to help the mages. Meredith pressed the issue, and I decided to stick with the templars.

The situation you provided is the reason why some of us decided against siding with the templars. Meredith makes it clear that she wants to invoke the Right of Annulment because she's giving in to the mob - this boils down to her addressing to Hawke that this specific act "cannot be tolerated" and that she can't stop this Right because "the people will demand blood."

Meredith never addresses the mages in the Gallows, and as the protagonist, we lack the information to actually determine what the Circle mages are like as a whole. When faced with the Knight-Commander ignoring the man responsible for killing Grand Cleric Elthina and demanding the deaths of enchanters, mages, and apprentices who weren't responsible for Anders' actions, I don't see how fulfilling the Right of Annulment is justified.

cdtrk65 wrote...

However looking at the choice now, the fact that neither one of them backed down and Anders forced the issue by blowing up the chantry. I felt I needed to side with the templars, only because of Anders act.

Hawke said it best I believe by saying his hand were tied. It was either templars or rioters. Might as well let those equiped to handle it, and who is to say that the rioters would have stopped at Kirkwall. Much the way the mages did across all the other chantry's. Perhaps a small group in Kirkwall suffered for the rest of the circle?

Aveline is able to have her men secure the people of Kirkwall while the templars and the mages fight each other in the streets. I'd argue that between the bad leadership demonstrated by Knight-Commander Meredith and First Enchanter Orsino, Guard-Captain Aveline is the only one who seems to actually care about the people of Kirkwall and actually bothers to make certain that they are protected.

cdtrk65 wrote...

Personally I hated the ending point for the game, as it seemed to me that it ended at the climax rather than after. I for one hope Hawke will return to the battle with untied hands for DA3...

I doubt Hawke will return for DA3 (and I'd prefer to get an Origins style opening for DA3 where we have multiple options to chose from and the protagonist is more proactive), but I'd image DLC or an expansion will continue his story.

[Silfren]

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well, we already know that Meredith was seeking approval for the Right of Annulment from the beginning of Act 3.  I think we can at least agree that her stated reasons for calling for it after Anders blows up the Chantry is just grappling at an excuse.  She's already shown that she doesn't really give a crap if her reasoning is based in logic.  I don't think she's giving in to the mob when she makes that declaration.  Remember, part of her statement was "even if I wished to..." indicating that she doesn't wish to at all.  She is the de factor power in the city, and it stands to reason she could put down a mob revolt if the general population wanted to riot, without giving them the blood she claims they'll demand.  That, I believe, is just part of her overall excuse-making for exterminating the Circle.

Also, please understand that I'm not actually anti-mage.  I'm sympathetic to them from start to finish, and have ever since I first played Origins.  I agree with pretty much all your points.  I just, well, can absolutely see the point of view of someone in the world of Dragon Age who has to deal with the reality of mages as potential bombs.  But also, arguing the case of mage versus templar is, as you point out, a separate issue from Meredith.  I absolutely agree that, quite apart from the larger issue, Meredith's calling for the Annulment and using Anders' action for her reason is pretty cut and dried--it's not a justifiable reason to call for the Right, unless she can prove that the Circle mages were in league with him, and we're not given any suggestion that they were.  Hell, she didn't even try to prove that.

I do actually think that she's right that the general population would be so freaked out by the exploding of the Chantry that they would call for blood.  I've seen enough real world examples of mob hysteria to find that completely believeable.  But that is not to say I think Meredith would be right in Annuling the Circle.  It would be far better to publically execute Anders--or better yet strip him of mana and leave him to the mob, if she were actually concerned that giving the mob the blood they want is a necessary thing to do. 

I totally agree that the Circles in their present incarnation are unjust.  I've said elsewhere that a far more appropriate setup would be having the Circles as boarding schools of a sort, where mages are required to go in order to learn to control their magic, and also to learn how to resist both demonic temptation and learn self-defense against blood magic.  But beyond that mages definitely need the freedom of being allowed to stay with their existing families and the right to start new ones, and be allowed to come and go as they will.  Locking them away and treating them like they're monsters is definitely not the solution, and does often lead to the very problems it seeks to prevent.  One wonders why the Chantry keeps such a tight hold on its templar secrets, if mages are the problem it insists they are, when if that were true, it would only be logical to open up that training to everyone.  But yes, I think having a templar force in every town, whose purpose is to hunt down rogues, much like any other criminal, and being on guard in the event of a blood mage/abomination assault, would be a far better scenario than locking them away from the world.

Modifié par Silfren, 04 mai 2011 - 12:14 .

[TEWR]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
alright, what have I missed out on?

Nothing new.

oh ok. Just people being redundant?

[CaptainZaysh]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
alright, what have I missed out on?

Nothing new.

oh ok. Just people being redundant?

Yes, but in quite an amusingly bitchy tone, I'd say.

Modifié par CaptainZaysh, 04 mai 2011 - 12:19 .

[Sylvianus]

Since you are ignorant of the matter at hand, I will explain.

"Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", though what constitutes enough of a "part" to qualify as genocide has been subject to much debate by legal scholars."

Presumably 99% would be considered a significant enough part by any objective party.

The definition of genocide is multiple, there are tons, and there is much confusion about this word today that has been commonplace for anything.

And even if we take your example, it is always wrong. The geth have not eradicated quarians deliberately and systematically. The quarians simply believed they could win the war despite the obvious defeat, they face a stubborn foe against an ennemy far more powerful.

For now you're literally just reads a definition that you did not understand its pratice meaning and spiritual. As a lesson is learned by heart without understanding the true meaning. The war was violent because it involved the survival. The Quarians were severely damaged but not destroyed.

They wanted to make war, they lost, their loss is tragic, but their destruction proved not mean that there is genocide. The genocide was a deliberate nature to want to attack people for the reason of his identity, it is one of the reasons that differentiates it from traditional war crimes. the Geth had just defeated a threat, they would not be taken to Quarian for a religious question, ethnic or racial.

There was no systematic attempt to destroy the French or the German peoples.

As for the geth. The number of deaths does not mean they wanted to destroy their enemies, just survive. 1 Millions of French are dead a youth, and the birth rate halved. is the violence of the war that resulted in losses meaningful for Quarians .. So again the term genocide is not appropriate. The quarians have lost thousands of them because they are much lower, not because the geth wanted to destroy them systematically. It is a war again.

The quarians are the ethnic group in question.

The Quarians have been killed for something other than their identity. Such as the desire to exterminate an entire race, because they attacked first? They are considered a threat to the existence of geth's all, enemies. Once unable to destroy the geth stop attacking them. And on this point I notice that you are unable of developing a proper response.

The desire  to not destroy Quarians is obvious. Quarians losses are reflected in the violence of war, not by the desire or act to systematically destroy a race or ethnic group in whole part or other.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 04 mai 2011 - 12:30 .

[Dean_the_Young]

The saddest part is that you think you're being serious.

[Sylvianus]

As you are when you create your topics with all earnestness.

[LobselVith8]

I understand what you mean, Silfren. I suppose I think the morally ambigious choices of the Anvil or even the ruler of Orzammar gave me more pause than Meredith's demand - she didn't come across to me as a trustworthy character, and she ended up being mentally unstable and possessed by an evil macguffin. Even Orsino's turn into a Harvester makes me feel like the leadership of Kirkwall are idiots instead of compelling me to pick one side over another.

Honestly, I preferred how Origins set it up - you could see the Chantry controlled Circles as unjust, but you still saw good templars like the templars stationed at Lothering, Ser Otto, and even Knight-Commander Greagoir who were doing the right thing. In DA2, I feel like we never really get to know anyone - we have templars like Cullen dismissing mages as weapons and monsters like Ser Alrik, while we have mages like Huon and Evelina who are insane or literal monsters. There's a lack of humanity to the characters, and I don't see a schism of philosophies as much as one person to detest after another.

[Dean_the_Young]

Sylvianus wrote...

As you are when you create your topics with all earnestness.

Who's Earnest? I deplore slavery.

[Sylvianus]

I also deplore slavery. But where is slavery actually ?

Modifié par Sylvianus, 04 mai 2011 - 12:53 .

[TJPags]

Wow.  I go to sleep, and then work, and this thread goes completely off the deep end. 

I'm gonna address some things.  I'm not quoting people because, well, I think everyone knows what they said.  I'm also not going to mass quote dozens of issues.  Most seem to break down into these categories anyway.

1.  I don't care how the UN defines Genocide.  When you show me the UN of Thedas, I'll worry about how they define it.  Until then, the UN here in this world is meaningless when I'm playing a fantasy RPG.

2.  I don't think anyone is in danger of forgetting this is a game.  Talking about being concerned or horrified that people can justify an action they take in a game - by using the laws, rules and information about the world in which the game takes place - because you think it's going to make us all horrible monsters in real life . . .well, aren't there insane groups for people who think that to join?  You know, those lunatics who decry violence in TV, movies, video games, etc.

3.  Even if we were to define mages as a cultural group, even if we were to accept that we kill every last one of them in the Gallows, there are so many examples of mages committing crimes - crimes defined by the laws of Thedas - that it's executing criminals.  It's not killing people of a similar group simply because they are members of that group.

4.  The Gallows is as big as it is.  I don't care how big.  We have no idea how many mages are in it.  Could be 10.  Could be 10,000.  Any number chosen is speculation.  Ever see a hotel with 5000 rooms half empty?  Would you insist there are 5000 people staying there when seeing it from the outside?  Exactly.

5.  Using blood magic is a crime in Thedas.  I don't care what any player thinks of it.  Hell, I don't see anything wrong with it.  I don't see anything wrong with talking on my cell phone while driving, either.  It's still a crime where I live.  Using blood magic is a crime in Thedas, whether it's Merrill, Hawke, Orsino, or anyone else.  It makes them a criminal.

6.  Mages leaving the Gallows without permission is a crime in Thedas..  They are not allowed to do so.  Any mage who leaves the Gallows without permission, whether its Bethany, Orsino, Emile, or Grace, is a criminal.

7.  Hiding mages from the Templars is a crime in Thedas.  So is helping them escape.

8.  Meredith wants to Anull the Circle of Kirkwall.  She seizes on the opportunity provided by Anders, whose action gives her the legal authority to make that call.  She uses as an excuse the fact that he blew up thr Chantry, killing the Grand Cleric and who knows who else.  You know what?  I don't care any more about her excuse.  She doesn't need one.  Where I live, I can be fired because my boss doesn't like my tie.  He doesn't need an excuse.  If he gives one I don't like, or which is silly, or wrong, guess what - I'm still fired, and he still has the right to do it.  Meredith has a right to call for the Right of Anullment.  She need only explain herself to the Divine, who can decide she was wrong.  But you know what?  She has the authority to do it, and her reason doesn't matter in the game world at that moment.

9.  Kirkwall is built on a Hellmouth - or whatever other term you want to use for it.  You know what?  Too bad for Kirkwall.  Bad place to keep mages.  Oh well.  That's where they are.  You can put an alcoholic in a bar - doesn't mean he HAS to take a drink.  Put a mage in Kirkwall, they don't HAVE to use blood magic, or go crazy, or consort with demons.  As so many pro-mage people want to point out, we don't know if they all do.  Hell, pro-mage people like to argue that most mages don't.  If that's true (and I don't think it is) it simply means those who succumb are weak, or inclined to do so, and thus dangerous.

10.  Please, for the love of Pete (and no, I've never used that term before - restriction against cursing, or it'd be different ) stop telling people who side with the templars that they are morally repugnant.  At this point, I'm sick of reading it,  It's an insult, an attack, and a violation of the ToS for this board.

11.  I don't care if people think the Devs stacked the game against mages.  That's a discussion to be had about whether the game is good or not.  It's not a valid point when discussing the effects of what we see in game.  What we see in the game is what we see in the game.  I'd gladly discuss whether the game was fair, or good, or whatever, in the proper forum.  Arguing that the devs stacked the deck against the mages - if true - does nothing to further the discussion being had here.

12.  Now, if people want to debate in game evidence, and how we view it, things like that, I think that would be a great discussion.  If people want to keep playing model UN, and remake the world of Thedas in the image they want it to be . . .well, you know, that might be a great discussion also.  But what Thedas should be, and what it is, are two different discussions.  Let's try to remember that, shall we?

   TJ

[GavrielKay]

There's a difference between the concepts of legal, moral and socially acceptable. In Thedas it's legally fine to take mages from their families, hold them until they go insane while sitting on the spot where the veil is the weakest around and then declare that you can't tell who's bad and must kill them all. That doesn't have to mean those things are morally right.

It's not something I like about the world of DA that it IS considered socially acceptable and even necessary to treat mages as they do. I hope we're given the opportunity to help change how the people of Thedas view mages in future releases.

[OldMan91]

GavrielKay wrote...

There's a difference between the concepts of legal, moral and socially acceptable. In Thedas it's legally fine to take mages from their families, hold them until they go insane while sitting on the spot where the veil is the weakest around and then declare that you can't tell who's bad and must kill them all. That doesn't have to mean those things are morally right.

It's not something I like about the world of DA that it IS considered socially acceptable and even necessary to treat mages as they do. I hope we're given the opportunity to help change how the people of Thedas view mages in future releases.

A cultural change like that requires decades if not centuries for the kind of accepting society you envision. Of course, it all starts with one person acting to start that change. You also need states which are sympathetic to your cause and are willing to nationalize the monopoly of magic, including lyrium and implement its own laws regarding the use and distribution of magic and magical items. Ferelden seems to driving towards that direction rather slowly, what with Alistair actually harboring apostates... so something might happen there.

[GavrielKay]

OldMan91 wrote...

A cultural change like that requires decades if not centuries for the kind of accepting society you envision. Of course, it all starts with one person acting to start that change.

Oh, I certainly didn't mean to imply I thought it'd be easy.  But lots of things that are difficult are still worth doing.  That's why I tend to sympathize with Anders.  I wouldn't have done anything like that personally, but in his position... - at least he helped make the world aware that mages weren't happy.  The status quo absolutely sucks for mages (in Kirkwall more than most places too) and awareness is a big part of change.  Sometimes things have to get really bad before they can start to get better.

[TEWR]

I'd like to say that Cullen does seem to draw issue with annulling the entire Circle. As taken from the DA wiki


If Hawke sides with the Templars, he/she will be asked to decide the fate of 3 mages who surrender. Cullen remarks that some mages were saved at the Lake Calenhad Circle. If Hawke asks Cullen for an opinion, Cullen questions the necessity of annulling the Kirkwall Circle. He says the situation at Lake Calenhad was more dire, where abominations were running loose.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 04 mai 2011 - 02:13 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

@Ethereal: Indeed.

GavrielKay wrote...

I'm curious where folks get the idea that siding with the Templars means that you somehow get to believe that the RoA gets called off? Cullen never expresses any real objection to it and doesn't step in to stop anything until Meredith wants to kill the Champion.

Despite Meredith calling the RoA, Cullen will overrule Meredith and order the templars to obey Hawke's wishes if s/he calls for the mages who surrender to be spared. Meredith is distinctly unimpressed by this.

Cullen also talks about the Ferelden Circle and that by *not* going ahead with the RoA, many were saved who didn't deserve to die. He further goes on to say he believes it's a templar's duty to protect mages if it's possible, and that a RoA should be a last resort.

It's very clear he doesn't agree with Meredith killing all the mages, and all this before she draws her sword on Hawke.

I will add this does NOT confirm or deny whether the RoA takes place in Kirkwall, but I do believe that it's enough to assume a full purge is not a certainty if Cullen takes charge of the templars after Meredith is slain.

The city would still be crazed, the other Templars are presumably running through the Gallows carrying out their duty all through the end-game sequence. Plus the idea that it was bad enough to send all the other circles into open revolt.

By that token, if Hawke and his/her allies flee Kirkwall as soon as they kill Meredith, what is possibly stopping the templars from purging the Kirkwall circle anyway the moment the Champion is gone?

The city is still crazed, there are still templars running around, and now you're not there to stop them. *shrug* Seems a bit optimistic to assume they'll lay down their swords when mages and abominations are still running rampant through the streets.

'Many innocents lived to tell the tale' is a very optimistic/romantic endgame statement.

I think you have to do BioWare scale hand-waving to think that Cullen called off the RoA after Meredith died. It might make the choice seem a bit more grey than black, but I don't think there's any in-game reason to believe it plays out that way. Even if they really do spare the 3 mages that surrender (and that's not a given), that's not much evidence compared to having enough outrage to foment all out revolt of the other circles.

And I think there is enough to assume the RoA down to the last mage is not a certainty with Cullen and (a generally benign) Hawke in charge of Kirkwall.

So we disagree

-------------

Perhaps my problem is that the Gallows Tower fight doesn't feel large enough to be much of an on-the-spot purge compared to the Ferelden Tower. Had the level design in DA2 been that extensive, had we gone up a few more sets of stairs, seen dorm rooms and libraries, I'd be willing to believe Hawke & Co. were personally depopulating the Tower from bottom to top...but it really wasn't anywhere near big enough after DA:O. Perhaps that is a failing on my part that I just can't 'see' it, and my mind wants to think that the real murder-knifing is happening offscreen.

Aside from the 'Three mages' scenario, no one begs Hawke for mercy. DA:O had a blood mage pleading to be spared. You don't find anyone hiding for their lives in DA2. DA:O had a guy cowering in a cupboard. It had a Tranquil trying to avoid notice.

DA2 could have had sympathetic templars attempting to smuggle mages out, or a display of the more ruthless templars going into dorm rooms with swords bared. What could have looked like an epic End-Of-The-Circle purge *didn't*.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 04 mai 2011 - 04:20 .

[GavrielKay]

There are a number of things in DA2 that could have been epic and weren't, sadly. But I agree that the end game especially doesn't feel like anything more than a dungeon crawl with two bosses - and one of those bosses doesn't make sense (either Orsino or Meredith) depending on which side you choose. It all feels very contrived and well, anticlimactic.

I do wonder if not actually having Hawke play out exterminating the young and innocent mages is part of trying to maintain the Templar side as a viable choice for the PC. We've all discussed how they purposely show lots of apostates/blood mages/abominations and almost no regular circle mages. How the story of Kirkwall is stuck in a codex somewhere rather than say a convo you can have with Orsino.

The end game winds up being just two boss battles with some fake grey morality thrown in so you feel like you can play either side without having to take a shower afterwards.

[Xilizhra]

stop telling people who side with the templars that they are morally repugnant. At this point, I'm sick of reading it, It's an insult, an attack, and a violation of the ToS for this board.

Oh, we're not saying that. Only their Hawkes are morally repugnant.

[OldMan91]

Oh, I certainly didn't mean to imply I thought it'd be easy. But lots of things that are difficult are still worth doing. That's why I tend to sympathize with Anders. I wouldn't have done anything like that personally, but in his position... - at least he helped make the world aware that mages weren't happy. The status quo absolutely sucks for mages (in Kirkwall more than most places too) and awareness is a big part of change. Sometimes things have to get really bad before they can start to get better.

I like the way you think.

The end game winds up being just two boss battles with some fake grey morality thrown in so you feel like you can play either side without having to take a shower afterwards.

I did feel that the whole Orsino thing was too... forced. Or the appearance of all those mages turning to blood magic.

Commoner: Hail citizen! Do you wish to peruse my wares? I'll give you a 5% discount!
Mage: Are you threatening me Templar dog!? RAAAAAAARGH.
*Stabs self*
Abomination: I'M EVIL AND I WILL SLAUGHTER YOUR FAMI- oh, are these the notorious pirate robes? How much are they?