4350 réponses à ce sujet

[Sabriana]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

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).

I've read enough, and I also tried to make it clear that there is not absolute "right" or "wrong" in the decision. Nobody but the writers know what actually happened after Meredith turned into a rock, heck, Varric even glossed over what happened to Hawke and all the companions, why would he go into details in other instances?

I don't have evidence that makes me conclude absolutely that the surrendering mages were made tranquil. I also don't  have evidence to the contrary. Except that I too read between the lines, and I have a head-canon with Hawke.

Comparing the mage situation to any real world situation is bound to fail, simply because we do not have people here who are capable of what mages can do and are subject to (possession). If I  had a real life mage for a neighbor I'd be scared half to death of her/him, because who knows what will set her/him off. Then what? I'm fried? My whole family is fried? The house? The block? Sheesh, step away from the game for a moment, it is becoming quite disturbing to read your posts, Polaris.

Morality does not figure into this. The Right of Annulment is a lawful option. It's been around for a long time, and part of the Dragon Age world. Is it genocide? Yes, that could be said, but it is still within the law of Andrastian countries. It was set up to protect the innocent from mages gone awry, and is also subject to abuse by authority figures. Seeing that Meredith wasn't absolutely wrong with her suspicions is shown plenty. Iirc, Hawke does a quest for Orsino where a bunch of mages are meeting outside of the circle and outside of the gallows. So they weren't locked away with the key thrown out, on the contrary, they had quite a few templar buddies along.

I can say it is wrong to punish the innocent along with the guilty. Definitely. But I can only apply that to my world. The real one. I don't know what I would think if I did have to worry about someone running around who is succeptible to demonic possession and/or can set my town ablaze with her/his mind, killing many men, women and children.

[Merela]

Hmmm, it stil feels wrong, especially coming from someone who claims being a student of history. Ah well. :s

[earl of the north]

I'm replaying Fallout: NV at the moment (still waiting for the next DLC, come on already release the damn thing) and I'm struck by the fact that I am coming up to a 'genocide' moment......do I nuke the BOS bunker killing all of the BOS members and their families (who like the mage children don't appear in game) or do I forfeit the two endings where I must destroy BOS to progress in the story. One of which is widely considered the 'good' ending, siding with House.

I've no problem morally slaughtering the mages in DA2 or nuking the BOS, I'm only concerned about how it effects my current playthrough, its a strange belief that we have to force our moral compass onto a character living in a world totally different to our own, which is governed by its own reality.....In Dragon Age Mages are inherently dangerous and in Fallout....war, war never changes.

Edit: New DLCs announced for Fallout: NV, the second one comes out on May 17th, third one coming in June and a fourth in July.   Soooooo......I'm going not going to playing DA2 for a few months.

Modifié par earl of the north, 03 mai 2011 - 05:17 .

[Mahtisonni]

When none of the factions seem to be your liking, it's time to assemble your own.

Shame that you couldn't just leave and say "**** this ****" while killing any templars that tried to stop you.
Also it lacks the option of trying to escape from the city instead of just staying there like sitting ducks.

The city clearly doesn't want them there. The mages clearly don't want to stay in that hellhole.
The anwser is very simple.

[WazzuMan]

@ Polaris, I think you need to see a doctor or a counsellor or something because you are clearly taking this topic more seriously than it is.

[IanPolaris]

WazzuMan wrote...

@ Polaris, I think you need to see a doctor or a counsellor or something because you are clearly taking this topic more seriously than it is.

Armchair psychiatrists are worth what you pay for them and I will kindly ask you to leave the snide fake-sympathy out of it please.

Since it's come up, let me be crystal clear:  Yes DA2 is a game.  If you want to side with the Templars in the game, that's fine.  I've done it more than once mainly to see how it played out.   That doesn't bother me.

What bothers me is that too many people here don't recognize a clearly evil and genocidal act for what it is; evil and genocidal, and instead are making up excuses for it...and I don't exclude the bioware writers from this criticism.  This bothers me a lot because once you start making excuses for clearly evil acts in games to try to convince yourself it's not evil, it makes other and worse evil acts easier....and those aren't always in games.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  It particularly bothers me when the lead writer of DG speaking as the lead writer (as opposed to an NPC in Thedas) tries to excuse genocide by saying that mages aren't really innocent because they are mages.  That's far too close to how other utterly horrific acts were justified to otherwise decent people.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 03 mai 2011 - 12:35 .

[nos_astra]

He's trying to make clear that mages have no equivalent in our world. Mages are dangerous! You dismiss it as chantry propaganda and Gaider repeats: They are mages, who can cause death and destruction without even meaning to do so. And you still don't understand. The lead writer tells you that mages are indeed dangerous and they have yet to find a way to deal with this in a manner that is not morally ambiguous. And you keep ignoring it, claiming that ignoring the danger is the morally right thing to do.

Modifié par klarabella, 03 mai 2011 - 12:51 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

And Polaris keeps insisting on using the wrong terms and claim that concepts such as evil even exists, and passes his beliefs as absolute truths.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

@Polaris: It also bothers you that people don't believe 'genocide' definitely takes place in every pro-templar endgame for some reason.

Somehow that got *me* labelled as morally wrong.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 03 mai 2011 - 12:54 .

[IanPolaris]

klarabella wrote...

He's trying to make clear that mages have no equivalent in our world. Mages are dangerous! You dismiss it as chantry propaganda and Gaider repeats: They are mages, who can cause death and destruction without even meaning to do so. And you still don't understand. The lead writer tells you that mages are indeed dangerous and they have yet to find a way to deal with this in a manner that is not morally ambiguous. And you keep ignoring it, claiming that ignoring the danger is the morally right thing to do.

The lead's writer's own lore doesn't back that claim, however.  The best DA2 can do is deliberately 'cook the books' to make mages look more dangerous then they really are (and this has been admitted) AND try to deliberately hide in obscure codex entries the fact that Kirkwall is sitting on a damned Hellmouth.

Even aside from that particular bit of dishonestly, it makes no difference and that should be clear to anyone with a good grouding in basic ethics.  You don't treat human beings (or elves etc) as less than human because they might be 'dangerous'.  Again, I refer to the Japanese Americans SOME of whom (like SOME mages) really were dangerous.  It was still morally wrong to lock up an entire group for what a few could do.

It's exactly the same thing and exactly the same rational.  I am frankly appalled that you don't see it.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  AT no time has anyone suggested that magic not be regulated.  The key point here is that mages need to be treated as the human beings with human rights that they are.  Anything less IS quite objectively evil.  ([t's why the way we used to treat mental patients is now viewed on...shall we say...dimly....)

[IanPolaris]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

@Polaris: It also bothers you that people don't believe 'genocide' definitely takes place in every pro-templar endgame for some reason.

Somehow that got *me* labelled as morally wrong.

Yes. because words have meaning, and the Right of Annulment is most definately gencide by the literal definition of the term.

Call it what it is.

-Polaris

[Sabriana]

IanPolaris wrote...

Armchair psychiatrists are worth what you pay for them and I will kindly ask you to leave the snide fake-sympathy out of it please.

Since it's come up, let me be crystal clear:  Yes DA2 is a game.  If you want to side with the Templars in the game, that's fine.  I've done it more than once mainly to see how it played out.   That doesn't bother me.

What bothers me is that too many people here don't recognize a clearly evil and genocidal act for what it is; evil and genocidal, and instead are making up excuses for it...and I don't exclude the bioware writers from this criticism.  This bothers me a lot because once you start making excuses for clearly evil acts in games to try to convince yourself it's not evil, it makes other and worse evil acts easier....and those aren't always in games.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  It particularly bothers me when the lead writer of DG speaking as the lead writer (as opposed to an NPC in Thedas) tries to excuse genocide by saying that mages aren't really innocent because they are mages.  That's far too close to how other utterly horrific acts were justified to otherwise decent people.

This is getting utterly absurd. It is a lawful act in a fantasy RPG. Real life has nothing to do with it. There are games out there that do far worse, as are movies and books.

So we are too stupid to tell the difference, and our conscience gets blunted because we play a fantasy RPG. Right. Will you excuse me for a moment. I've to go over to the mage tower in my home-town and mow down all the mages in there. Oh wait. I don't have that here. No tower, no mages. Bummer.

You are trying to tell people that an action that is considered lawful in a fantasy RPG will make us evil, and we are in danger of being unable to differentiate between real life and a computer game. Are you serious? The game is rated 18+ here. I'm an adult, and I know quite well that game/movie/fiction-literature actions are simply that: not real life.

Let's take that further. I demand that LukasArt take the Star Wars series off the market. Whole planets get blown to bits, and that's unacceptable and evil. And genocide. Vader does it simply to break Leia's will. People will watch it, and then go out and slaughter other people.

I demand that the whole greek myth about Troy gets burned and eradicated. A whole city-state gets eradicated, for no good reason.

You do realize that there are computer games out there that lets the player pick an "evil" PC, don't you? I know a person who always plays that path first. He likes it. He is also 45 years old, and the nicest person you could ever meet. That's it. I'm done here. Your credibility has now reached rock-bottom as far as I'm concerned.

[GodWood]

IanPolaris wrote...
It's exactly the same thing and exactly the same rational.  I am frankly appalled that you don't see it.

-Polaris

It really, really isn't.

[IanPolaris]

GodWood wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
It's exactly the same thing and exactly the same rational.  I am frankly appalled that you don't see it.

-Polaris

It really, really isn't.

It really is.  Look up the UN/Hague legal definitions and how one can be charged with genocide.  The Right of Annulment definately qualifies.

-Polaris

[Dean_the_Young]

So does wiping out a family of five. Or a squad of seven.

Or not killing anyone at all.

[mousestalker]

1. The factions aren't as morally equivocal as perhaps the writers would have preferred. Orsino in particular isn't very well fleshed out.

2. Arguing with a certain known forum personality is an exercise in futility. He will never admit he has erred in any form, fashion or shape. If anyone really likes arguing with that sort of person, I have a wall at my house that needs to come down. You may bash your head against it as much as you'd like.

3. Despite not really being fleshed out, the mages in DA2 are far from innocent bystanders. Leandra's murderer has a note signed 'O', for example.

4. There are circumstances where killing an innocent may be justified. If an area were flooded with radioactivity, was a missile launch site and a three year old was playing with the launch buttons, you might be justified in shooting her, you monster you. The situation with the mages could conceivably be analogous.

5. Do not feed the trolls.

Modifié par mousestalker, 03 mai 2011 - 01:04 .

[IanPolaris]

Sabriana wrote...

This is getting utterly absurd. It is a lawful act in a fantasy RPG. Real life has nothing to do with it. There are games out there that do far worse, as are movies and books.

Stop.  You obviously didn't read the post you quoted.

I recognize that games often have clearly evil choices.  Let me repeat this with special emphasis just for you:

I have no problem with this.  I have NO PROBLEM with a player picking a clearly evil choice as an evil choice for entertainment!

That is NOT what I am talking about.

My problem is when IN REAL LIFE, people try to tell me that a clearly evil choice in a game isn't.  That's when the alarm bells start ringing because if you start convincing youserlf that evil acts (or at least immoral/unethical acts) really are justified, it becomes a lot easier to do in the future...whether you are playing a game or not.

See the difference?

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

Oh god... I have already explained that it isn't genocide. Why oh why do you persist on claiming it is?!

[IanPolaris]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

So does wiping out a family of five. Or a squad of seven.

Or not killing anyone at all.

Actually no.  There are specific criteria for genocide.  The above don't necessarily qualify, but the right of annulment does.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Oh god... I have already explained that it isn't genocide. Why oh why do you persist on claiming it is?!

It fits the legal definition of genocide.  KoP and others showed that it did using the UN/Hague's own legal codes.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

No no they didn't. They claimed so. I proved them wrong too. It doesn't fit. It wont ever fit. And it wouldn't hold in court. It would fit mass murders (if the killings were unlawful that is) and purging. Not genocide.

[IanPolaris]

mousestalker wrote...
3. Despite not really being fleshed out, the mages in DA2 are far from innocent bystanders. Leandra's murderer has a note signed 'O', for example.

Unless you can show that ALL mages in the circle were guilty (which you obviously can not) then all have to be treated as innocent bystanders because the Right of Annulment targets mages for death because they are mages.  It is this fact that makes it genocide.

4. There are circumstances where killing an innocent may be justified. If an area were flooded with radioactivity, was a missile launch site and a three year old was playing with the launch buttons, you might be justified in shooting her, you monster you. The situation with the mages could conceivably be analogous.

None of which apply in this case.  This isn't a matter of Orsino declaring a revolt, or mages firing fireballs from schoolyards, or the like.  This is a matter where Meredith has sentence an entire ethnic/racial group to death (mages) for a crime they did not commit.  That's about as morally black as it gets.  What Orsino may or may not have done is NOT RELEVENT to that.  It's just  not.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

No no they didn't. They claimed so. I proved them wrong too. It doesn't fit. It wont ever fit. And it wouldn't hold in court. It would fit mass murders (if the killings were unlawful that is) and purging. Not genocide.

Only in your own mind.  KoP posted the legal definitions and steps to genocide and the Right of Annulment fits like a glove.

-Polaris

[Dean_the_Young]

IanPolaris wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

So does wiping out a family of five. Or a squad of seven.

Or not killing anyone at all.

Actually no.  There are specific criteria for genocide.  The above don't necessarily qualify, but the right of annulment does.

-Polaris

The UN's criteria for genocide are so loose as to be meaningless: any group of any size can qualify for being genocided, on such a openness for interpretation that Hawke can be put for it no matter what choice he makes, and for a number of other decision points as well.

[IanPolaris]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

So does wiping out a family of five. Or a squad of seven.

Or not killing anyone at all.

Actually no.  There are specific criteria for genocide.  The above don't necessarily qualify, but the right of annulment does.

-Polaris

The UN's criteria for genocide are so loose as to be meaningless: any group of any size can qualify for being genocided, on such a openness for interpretation that Hawke can be put for it no matter what choice he makes, and for a number of other decision points as well.

The ICC at the Hague would disagree with you.  It's plenty tight enough to charge people for warcrimes and there are cases where serial killers have faced genocide charges in addition to normal murder charges.

-Polaris