4350 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

The fate of the mages is left open-ended. There is no explicit statement that all the mages died in a pro-templar run, and removing a 'many innocents lived to tell the tale' comment doesn't mean everyone was killed. Considering Cullen overrules Meredith if Hawke wants to spare the mages who surrendered, and considering the templars end up kneeling to Hawke when Meredith is dead, s/he probably gets the final say in what happens to the mages (be that spared but kept in the tower, executed, tranquil)--AT LEAST until outside forces are possibly sent by the Divine to instate a new Revered Mother and Knight Commander.

Cullen never revokes the Right of Annulment either in game or in the epilog, and you have no more say over what Cullen does as Knight Commander of the Templars, then he is SUPPOSED to have over the city, i.e. none.  Given the WoG about the Right of Annulment, we are forced to conclude that those mages are either executed or tranquilled....they don't make it explicit for the same reason they don't show you slaughting mage children in the nursery......but it does happen.

-Polaris

[SusanStoHelit]

IanPolaris wrote...

Yes it is, because if you side with the mages, Varric makes it clear that some mages survived.  If any mages survived then it was not a sucessful annulment, and the pro-templar ending makes it very plain that it was.  Conclusion:  Those captured mages were either killed or tranquilled later as DG says is procedure in such cases.

-Polaris

No - because in the pro-mage case there is only one ending. In the pro-Templar one there are two potential endings: one where the mages who tried to surrender were killed, and one where they weren't. I think what we see here is a  simple case of cutting costs and so on - rather than record two different pro-Templar endings they recorded one and simply left out the issue of whether any mages survived or not.

However, the fact is that it makes no logical sense to see a case where all mages are defeated and killed or made tranquil as being in any way defying the templars or an example to other mages elsewhere of how they can be stood up to. So, I'm inclined to lean towards Cullen rescinding the Rite later and 'off screen' as it were, in cases where the mages weren't killed outright.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

IanPolaris wrote...

Cullen never revokes the Right of Annulment either in game or in the epilog,

He can't revoke it when Meredith is alive, and the game ends rather abruptly when she dies. Lots of things aren't mentioned in the epilogue, and it's narrow-minded to declare this means such things definitely don't.

and you have no more say over what Cullen does as Knight Commander of the Templars, then he is SUPPOSED to have over the city, i.e. none.

*amused* What does 'supposed' have to do with anything? What in Kirkwall strikes you as a normal situation? The templars are bowing to Hawke, not just Cullen, and that's pretty much a declaration of fealty right there. Might not last forever, for for the time being it might be enough to avert the RoA--if the Warden wishes to do so.

Given the WoG about the Right of Annulment, we are forced to conclude that those mages are either executed or tranquilled....they don't make it explicit for the same reason they don't show you slaughting mage children in the nursery......but it does happen.

We are not 'forced' to conclude anything. You may choose to if you wish, but logical deduction is not always right.

Unless the devs state otherwise, I prefer to read between the lines.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 03 mai 2011 - 03:58 .

[Silfren]

I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. What I'm trying to point out is that even if it is genocide, there's an argument to be made for its necessity. Whether a person--including the person charged with calling for it and carrying it out--LIKES the idea or hates themselves for having to make it, is a separate issue. We are NOT talking about any real world situations of innocent people being targeted because of some actually harmless characteristic that's been maligned by another group, but people who, though innocent of being mages because of course no one chooses how they are to be born, nevertheless carry a very real potential for harm to others. The situation just can't truly be compared with any real-life situation, because as much as I sympathize with the mages, and as much as I see Anders as a freedom fighter rather than a terrorist, and as much as I want to see the Circles abolished, there's no denying that mages have no real-world equivalent. They ARE walking time bombs.

That's the whole bloody point Bioware is trying to make: that there is no completely right or wrong answer, because mages are dangerous, and even good mages with the best of intentions are at risk of possession.

I'm arguing from two separate standpoints here: I'm separating my personal morality from the situation because I am able to see that one of the outcomes of siding with the mages is the potential of letting blood mages and abominations run amok. That is the evil side of the "good" choice of not annuling the Circle. Whatever people think about the reason the original Right of Annulment was called for, whether there was a legitimately justified reason, or there was just an excuse cooked up, the fact remains that the stated purpose of the Right of Annulment is justifiable: we saw in Ferelden that the problem with mages in the Circle is that it only takes one blood mage to corrupt the entire population. The purpose of the Right of Annulment has nothing to do with whether it's right or wrong to kill people who only might be dangerous, but whether it's acceptable to not kill them because you don't want to kill someone for being only a potential danger, and thereby put the larger population at risk if that potential happens to become the reality.

It is a morally grey situation, and I think they did a masterful job of it. For the life of me I can't see how they messed anything up, because it's a wonderful portrayal of a situation with no right or wrong absolutes. And it's really amusing to see you getting mad over Bioware's interpretation of a story they wrote.

What you're refusing to accept is that we are presented with a situation in Kirkwall where it could be argued that choosing genocide of the mages is the least evil of the available decisions, even if you hate the idea. Again, it's not always about which decision is morally acceptable enough to let you sleep at night, and about which decision results in the least harm. People are going to die no matter what you choose, so it is arguable that the most pragmatic--pragmatic, not moral--decision is to annul the circle.

Modifié par Silfren, 03 mai 2011 - 04:15 .

[IanPolaris]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Cullen never revokes the Right of Annulment either in game or in the epilog,

He can't revoke it when Meredith is alive, and the game ends rather abruptly when she dies. Lots of things aren't mentioned in the epilogue, and it's narrow-minded to declare this means such things definitely don't.

Yes he can.  The moment that Cullen relieves Meredith of her command, he IS the Knight Commander and absent the Grand Cleric he CAN end the Right of Annulment right then.  He doesn't.  Furthermore there is not one scintilla of evidence that he EVER does.

and you have no more say over what Cullen does as Knight Commander of the Templars, then he is SUPPOSED to have over the city, i.e. none.

*amused* What does 'supposed' have to do with anything? What in Kirkwall strikes you as a normal situation? The templars are bowing to Hawke, not just Cullen, and that's pretty much a declaration of fealty right there. Might not last forever, for for the time being it might be enough to avert the RoA--if the Warden wishes to do so.

Who says?  There is absolutely no evidence to support this and plenty of game lore including very recent WoG that contraindicates this.  If Hawke were so popular with the Templars, why isn't he still Viscount?  Hmmm?

Given the WoG about the Right of Annulment, we are forced to conclude that those mages are either executed or tranquilled....they don't make it explicit for the same reason they don't show you slaughting mage children in the nursery......but it does happen.

We are not 'forced' to conclude anything. You may choose to if you wish, but logical deduction is not always right.

Unless the devs state otherwise, I prefer to read between the lines.

You prefer to wear eat meat without facing the fact you have to slaughter a cow (or other animal).  That's really what this comes down to.  A couple of you are grasping at very slender straws indeed to try to tell youselves that you really didn't actually take part in genocide even in a game....when in fact that's exactly what you did.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Sifren,

Hitler said EXACTLY the same thing about the Jews (that they really were dangerous) and even had data and very famous people including Henry Ford and Charles Lindberg that backed him up.

Edit:  Yes the data was cooked, but it was accepted by a depressing number of very respectable academics at the time.  For that matter I am outright accusing Bioware of "cooking" the Data in DA2 to give a similiar erroneous conclusion.

It wasn't right then. It isn't right now. In fact I strongly question just how dangerous mages really are and how much of it is frankly dishonest Bioware storytelling (such as giving a deliberately skewed view of mages...by the Devs own admission, by hiding the fact that Kirkwall is built on a hellmouth, and so much more).

This isn't a grey issue. It's genocide. That's not a grey issue and frankly a lot of people are making themselves look pretty bad trying to make it out like it is (and honestly you're one of them. DG is another).

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 03 mai 2011 - 04:10 .

[IanPolaris]

As for the circle in Feredan, it didn't take "just one bloodmage" to corrupt the circle. It happened because of a thousand years of systematic abuses by the chantry against a population that grasped at any chance to change things. Desperate people do desperate things. Magic is not required.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Sifren,

One more thing. It isn't even a masterful or even very good job even IF we were to accept the premise that genocide is morally grey in such a case (it's not). Marvel Comics had handled the situation with far more thought and care with the X-Men than Bioware has ever done.

There is only one case where genocide is justified: If the survival and success of said group DIRECTLY and OBVIOUSLY threatens the very existance of my own species. In this case it's them or us.

Mages don't come close to qualifying. Darkspawn do.

-Polaris

[Silfren]

IanPolaris wrote...

Sifren,

Hitler said EXACTLY the same thing about the Jews (that they really were dangerous) and even had data and very famous people including Henry Ford and Charles Lindberg that backed him up.

Edit:  Yes the data was cooked, but it was accepted by a depressing number of very respectable academics at the time.  For that matter I am outright accusing Bioware of "cooking" the Data in DA2 to give a similiar erroneous conclusion.

It wasn't right then. It isn't right now. In fact I strongly question just how dangerous mages really are and how much of it is frankly dishonest Bioware storytelling (such as giving a deliberately skewed view of mages...by the Devs own admission, by hiding the fact that Kirkwall is built on a hellmouth, and so much more).

This isn't a grey issue. It's genocide. That's not a grey issue and frankly a lot of people are making themselves look pretty bad trying to make it out like it is (and honestly you're one of them. DG is another).

-Polaris

Did you miss the part of my post where I addressed the issue of comparing DA mages to real-world equivalents?  I already pointed out that there's a difference between real life examples of people who have actually harmless traits that are maligned by someone into a reason to enact genocide against them, and a fantasy world of people who have an actual potential for harm.  You cannot compare the Jews to mages because no real world Jew or any other person has the ability to toss fireballs around, nor is any real world person at perpetual risk of being tempted by demons. 

That is what makes it a grey area.  Is it bad to kill someone for only having the potential for harm?  Of course it bloody is!  But that doesn't nullify the fact that mages in DA are examples of people who do carry the potential for harm to others, and so the question becomes, do you kill someone for a potential harm that may or may not ever happen, and if you choose not to kill them, are you then prepared to accept there will be blood on your hands if that potential turns into a reality and a mage turns into an abomination and slaughters people?

I'm not arguing that it is not genocide.  Stop saying that I am.  What I am saying is that whether you like it or not, the world of Dragon Age presents us with a situation where genocide can be argued to be justified, no matter how unpleasant we find the idea to be, because unlike real world peoples who are subjected to genocide for imaginary potential for harm, the potential for harm that mages pose isn't imaginary at all.

Modifié par Silfren, 03 mai 2011 - 04:25 .

[Paraxial]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Side with the man who said mages shouldn't be treated like people and claimed mages were weapons? I disagree.

Shocking.

[IanPolaris]

Silfren wrote...

I'm not arguing that it is not genocide.  Stop saying that I am.  What I am saying is that whether you like it or not, the world of Dragon Age presents us with a situation where genocide can be argued to be justified, no matter how unpleasant we find the idea to be, because unlike real world peoples who are subjected to genocide for imaginary potential for harm, the potential for harm that mages pose isn't imaginary at all.

Unless you can show me that the very existance of mages actually threatens the very existance of all of humanity (elves, dwarves, etc included) then it's not justified.  You can't because it doesn't.

Edit: Sorry, but there's a VERY high bar to make this even remotely morallty grey and the fact that Bioware had to cook the data in the game (which they've admitted to) to even 'try' to get us to see it, shows that this scenario doesn't even come close.  A lot of people will try to make themselves think it does so they can sleep at night, but that's always been true thoughout human history.

-Polaris


Edit PS:  In WWII Japanese Americans really DID have a potential to do harm and in places (like Hawaii) actually DID do harm...at least some.  Blaming all Japanese Americans and putting them into concentration camps was still morally wrong.  Same here only more so.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 03 mai 2011 - 04:37 .

[Xilizhra]

IanPolaris wrote...

As for the circle in Feredan, it didn't take "just one bloodmage" to corrupt the circle. It happened because of a thousand years of systematic abuses by the chantry against a population that grasped at any chance to change things. Desperate people do desperate things. Magic is not required.

-Polaris

Not only that, Uldred had a whole host of other blood mages behind him.

[LobselVith8]

Bible Doctor wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Side with the man who said mages shouldn't be treated like people and claimed mages were weapons? I disagree.

Shocking.

Why is it shocking? Had Cullen revoked the Right of Annulment, then it would have been less controversial, and he'd have been a moderate who spared lives. Instead, we get the indication that a massacre took place, and the mages saw the incident as a reason to risk their lives and free themselves. The Right of Annulment that was invoked at Kirkwall caused such an outcry from the Circles of Magi that they rose up and emancipated themselves from the Chantry and the Order of Templars.

We can presume that Cullen revoked the Right of Annulment or that the mages weren't made tranquil, but if that was the case, why the rebellion by the mages? Why did all the Circles of Magi break free from a thousand years where they were under oppression to the point that none of the prior Rights of Annulment inspired them to break free but this specific one did?

[TEWR]

I wonder if Gregoir will side with Irving and the Ferelden Circle, since their Circle was the best out of them all. Gregoir and Irving do coexist in a peaceful state, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Templars at Kinloch Hold sided with the mages in the Mage-Templar War.

[IanPolaris]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I wonder if Gregoir will side with Irving and the Ferelden Circle, since their Circle was the best out of them all. Gregoir and Irving do coexist in a peaceful state, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Templars at Kinloch Hold sided with the mages in the Mage-Templar War.

Neither would I.  In fact I strongly suspect given that Alistair is already nationalizing magic in Fereldan, that both Irving and Gregoire will (largely) keep their current positions but answer to King Alistair rather than the Chantry.  In part this is what I mean by Fereldan going "Church of England" on the Chantry.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

SusanStoHelit wrote...

And two final points:

1) It's the Rite of Annulment - not the Right of Annulment. 

This isn't accurate, and was addressed by the developers:

Dan Lazin wrote...

Paeyne is correct -- there are three separate terms that may appear to give the illusion of inconsistency, but, save for the one codex entry that Miashi noted, we are completely consistent in our usage in and across DAO and DAII.

Right of Annulment
Right of Conscription
Rite of Tranquility

I did a search of the full text of both DAO and DAII (not counting DLC or Awakening), and the only misuse is in that one codex entry ("The Rite of Annulment").

[TEWR]

IanPolaris wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I wonder if Gregoir will side with Irving and the Ferelden Circle, since their Circle was the best out of them all. Gregoir and Irving do coexist in a peaceful state, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Templars at Kinloch Hold sided with the mages in the Mage-Templar War.

Neither would I.  In fact I strongly suspect given that Alistair is already nationalizing magic in Fereldan, that both Irving and Gregoire will (largely) keep their current positions but answer to King Alistair rather than the Chantry.  In part this is what I mean by Fereldan going "Church of England" on the Chantry.

-Polaris

I can definitely see Alistair nationalizing magic since he doesn't view mages the same way the Chantry does. He's a good and smart ruler who can earn the favor of his citizens. Most (if not all) of Ferelden loves having him as their king. Add Anora into the equation and I can see mages obtaining more freedoms.

Sadly, this might mean an Exalted March would be declared because of actions Alistair might invoke. Which I suppose might cause even more places to fight back against the Chantry. I don't know I'm just rambling now.

[Urazz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I wonder if Gregoir will side with Irving and the Ferelden Circle, since their Circle was the best out of them all. Gregoir and Irving do coexist in a peaceful state, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Templars at Kinloch Hold sided with the mages in the Mage-Templar War.

Neither would I. In fact I strongly suspect given that Alistair is already nationalizing magic in Fereldan, that both Irving and Gregoire will (largely) keep their current positions but answer to King Alistair rather than the Chantry. In part this is what I mean by Fereldan going "Church of England" on the Chantry.

-Polaris

I can definitely see Alistair nationalizing magic since he doesn't view mages the same way the Chantry does. He's a good and smart ruler who can earn the favor of his citizens. Most (if not all) of Ferelden loves having him as their king. Add Anora into the equation and I can see mages obtaining more freedoms.

Sadly, this might mean an Exalted March would be declared because of actions Alistair might invoke. Which I suppose might cause even more places to fight back against the Chantry. I don't know I'm just rambling now.

If it was an ordinary situation, I would agree with you. But after DA2 where the Chantry loses control of all of the Circles and their Templars (the Chantry's muscle) rebelled to focus on hunting down the mages, I doubt the Chantry will even be able to even get an Exalted March going on Fereldan. On top of that, the Divine is getting old and needs to get a replacement picked if I recall so that's another problem for the Chantry to deal with.

All the other nations will probably be busy trying to keep the mages and templars busy from tearing their kingdoms apart and care more about their own kingdoms over what the Chantry wants. At the most, the only nation that would even really heed the call for an Exalted March on Fereldan would be Orlais and that would only happen if Celene is unable to control the war mongerers in her kingdom.

So with only Orlais being the only nation potentially wanting to attack Fereldan, I think Fereldan's chances of seperating from the Chantry in a "Church of England" style is pretty good right now.  If anything, Fereldan is in a good position to become the next big power in Thedas I think.

Modifié par Urazz, 03 mai 2011 - 05:29 .

[GavrielKay]

There's a point before the end-game where you talk to Cullen and he says that Meredith is waiting on approval to do a Right of Annulment. She's asked for it even before Anders' terrorism. Cullen doesn't say anything about how he wouldn't do it, though he does wonder if being true to his calling and his Commander are still the same thing. Cullen doesn't finally break ranks from Meredith until she wants to kill Hawke as well - so there's no reason to believe he's just itching for a chance to revoke the Annulment.

Meta-gaming aside, when I am at the decision point and have to either choose Templar or mage, I believe that my Hawke is truly supposed to be deciding whether to systematically kill every single mage - man, woman and child - in the circle. Period. That's the way the choice is presented, without having played through once to know you're offered the choice to (perhaps) spare a few who surrender.

So, obviously there are folks who argue that the grey area comes from whether you can statistically save more people by siding with the Templars due to less general havoc on the civilians. There are even a few who argue that it's morally OK to side with the Templars because the mages really have mostly gone bad and are mostly given over to blood magic and abominations anyway. I think the second point is where BioWare cheated a bit and showed you a zillion blood mages and abominations to try to emphasize the potential danger of mages running loose.

For me though, whether the mages are dangerous or not, even whether somewhat more civilians might be saved or not - I can't get past knowing that Hawke is asked to side with a person who truly believes that mages are less than human because of the way they were born. I think some things are worth a fight and worth a measure of collateral damage. The mages deserve better than they have been getting for 1000 years. I've sided with them all but once - and that was me just being completionist and wanting to see the alternate ending.

As far as why would Varric say in the Templar ending that the mages were inspired because they realized the Templars could be defied... I don't think that has to mean that Cullen must have revoked the Right. Even if all the mages ended up dead in the end, at least they tried. And it was shown that the Knight Commander was crazy and her own people had to help take her down. That can be inspiring too.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

IanPolaris wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Cullen never revokes the Right of Annulment either in game or in the epilog,

He can't revoke it when Meredith is alive, and the game ends rather abruptly when she dies. Lots of things aren't mentioned in the epilogue, and it's narrow-minded to declare this means such things definitely don't.

Yes he can.  The moment that Cullen relieves Meredith of her command, he IS the Knight Commander and absent the Grand Cleric he CAN end the Right of Annulment right then.  He doesn't.

What, you mean those 5-10 seconds in between when he draws his sword on her and she starts glowing? Yeah, that's a PERFECT time to revoke the RoA. That wouldn't have ruined the pacing of the climax at all.

Furthermore there is not one scintilla of evidence that he EVER does.

There is observational evidence that Cullen himself doesn't *want* the RoA to go ahead. That doesn't prove or disprove the RoA happening but, like I said before, I choose to read between the lines.

*amused* What does 'supposed' have to do with anything? What in Kirkwall strikes you as a normal situation? The templars are bowing to Hawke, not just Cullen, and that's pretty much a declaration of fealty right there. Might not last forever, for for the time being it might be enough to avert the RoA--if the Warden wishes to do so.

Who says?  There is absolutely no evidence to support this and plenty of game lore including very recent WoG that contraindicates this.

That contradicts what? You're going on the assumption that everything in Kirkwall is going to go by the book. I'm disputing this, since I don't think exploding chanties, large glowy idols and heroes who vanquish Harvesters and insane KCs in one evening figure into the templar charter.

Extraordinary circumstances, as they say. Again, you are free to ignore this and close your mind to other options. I don't care.

If Hawke were so popular with the Templars, why isn't he still Viscount?  Hmmm?

Maybe s/he didn't want to be viscount any more. Maybe Isabela talked Hawke into sailing away with her. Maybe Fenris talked Hawke into going to Tevinter with him. Maybe Merrill talked Hawke into visiting the ruins of Arlathan. Maybe Justice started getting antsy and Hawke decided to take Anders away before something else got blown up.

Is 'Templars' seriously the ONLY possibility you could come up with? Or is it the only one you'll allow yourself to consider, because you think it validates your position?

We are not 'forced' to conclude anything. You may choose to if you wish, but logical deduction is not always right.

Unless the devs state otherwise, I prefer to read between the lines.

You prefer to wear eat meat without facing the fact you have to slaughter a cow (or other animal).  That's really what this comes down to.  A couple of you are grasping at very slender straws indeed to try to tell youselves that you really didn't actually take part in genocide even in a game....when in fact that's exactly what you did.

Trying to tell ourselves...what? I'm not trying to tell myself anything. I'm trying to get *YOU* to see that your views aren't as rock-solid as you think they are so that an intelligent dialogue might become possible. It's called having an open mind and being willing to entertain the idea that more is possible than the little set of rules you've created inside your own head, but you're so anti-Chantry and pro-Mage it's like arguing with an extremist (an extremist...for a computer game. Ooooook.).

But whatever you reckon, Polaris. Always a laugh reading your 'I'm not possibly wrong!' rants.

[IanPolaris]

Shadow of Light Dragon,

I do understand your side and your rational and others. I do. I am a student of history and I've seen the same rationals played out over and over again.

You just happen to be in the moral wrong. That's all.

-Polaris

[Merela]

I don't see how the fact of being a student history makes your pont of view better than everyone else. Because you have study a lot of horrible things? I bet I have study the same, being a student of history as well, and yet I don't see how playing the Templars side is moraly wrong.

Mostly because Thedas' world isn't the same than ours, is it? So why always bringing the Hitler/Jews argument over and over, claiming that killing mages is accomplishing an Holocaust bis? Unless Jews are able to destroy building with their minds or to throw fireball from their hands, in which case I apologise for having spent most of my life in a cave, things are totally different. Actually, I consider it's degrading for all the people who died in the camps to make such a comparaison. You don't compare the fate of millions of innocent people who died for nothing to a bunch of pixels which "died" in a game. Neither you call other people moraly wrongs, child murderers and pro-rapists for having a different opinion of yours on a virtual situation in a video game.

In other case, I think it's time stop playing, because it's becoming quite alarming.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

IanPolaris wrote...

I do understand your side and your rational and others. I do. I am a student of history and I've seen the same rationals played out over and over again.

You just happen to be in the moral wrong. That's all.

Interesting observation, considering I don't believe I ever said which side I personally agree with.

I was just pointing out I didn't believe your views were necessarily as correct as you claim.

But ok. As you like.

[nos_astra]

Merela wrote...
Actually, I consider it's degrading for all the people who died in the camps to make such a comparaison. You don't compare the fate of millions of innocent people who died for nothing to a bunch of pixels which "died" in a game. Neither you call other people moraly wrongs, child murderers and pro-rapists for having a different opinion of yours on a virtual situation in a video game.

That's something that's been churning in the back of my mind, too.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

klarabella wrote...

Merela wrote...
Actually, I consider it's degrading for all the people who died in the camps to make such a comparaison. You don't compare the fate of millions of innocent people who died for nothing to a bunch of pixels which "died" in a game. Neither you call other people moraly wrongs, child murderers and pro-rapists for having a different opinion of yours on a virtual situation in a video game.

That's something that's been churning in the back of my mind, too.

Polaris was just fulfilling Godwin's Law.

It's a common condition on internet forums (not that this makes it ok, but there you go. At least the subject matter was vaguely circling genocide, IIRC).

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 03 mai 2011 - 09:19 .