176 réponses à ce sujet

[Kartikeya]

It's not the idea that he couldn't lie. It's that, by your own words, you already disbelieve it. Not doubt. Disbelieve. He's a liar until he proves otherwise (again, how?). This isn't being neutral, this is favoring the Templars unless the other party has proof. Even in the face of all this stuff, you're refusing to acknowledge the issue.

Ironically, this is probably the exact attitude that led to people like Ulrik being allowed to have ultimate authority over mages even after they've summarily proven on their own that they deserve nothing of the sort.

[Kartikeya]

Actually, this part of the discussion has hit squick levels for me, due to the subject matter (it's not your intention, but this exact thing happens in real life with rape victims depressingly often, often using the exact same arguments). I'm going to bow out.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Well other than protecting them from a punishment for something they didn't do, if you are playing a mage, you might want to help them to save your own skin. And possibly becoming a rebel leader afterwards.

But I would agree that the game did not offer a balanced perspective. They tried to aim for very dark, but it became too dark it's ridiculous and it didn't feel like we are dealing with people. Just timed explosives. Not much conflict going on there.

[sphinxess]

AshenEndemion wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

AshenEndemion wrote...

I am not rationalizing that Anders is lying about everything. Anders/Vengence intermixes truth with lies. Judgement is necissary to determine which is which. You, however, seem to be rationalizing that Anders is lying about nothing.

You're claiming he's lying about the injustices mages face even when we have a quest that addresses the contrary in "Dissent."

And yet, no injustices against mages are proven. Oh, an injustice against a single mage is. And injustices by a single Templar is. But the "Tranquil Solution" was proven to be nothing more than a deluded fantasy concocted by a madman. The Knight Commander and the Chantry turned down the Tranquil Solution. Dissent only proved that Anders does not have any real idea as to what is truly going on within the Circle of Kirkwall.

Kartikeya wrote...

My contention is that there were a significant number (it does not have to be a majority, or even close to even) of Templars who were corrupt. Your contention is that no, they weren't corrupt, they were just amazingly stupid.

Actually, yes. There are a few corrupt Templars (like Alric). But it is not a significant number of the order. And that is because the vast majority are stupid.

The mages of the Kirkwall Circle are headed by a maleficar for 7+ years, and the Templars of Kirkwall, the most suspicious and strict of the lot, do not even suspect it. The stupidity leaps to the extreme when large quantities of Circle mages turn out to be maleficarum. And still no one suspects the First Enchanter. If the idea is that there is mass corruption because a good number of Templars turn a blind eye to "injustices" (even one as large in scope as Alric), then the same amount of mass stupidity applies to the Templars who turn a blind eye towards the maleficarum who associated with Grace. More, actually. Since finding maleficarum and keeping the public safe from mages is their frakking job, not ensuring the safety of said mages.

Also, the idea that a maleficar could not lie, claiming abuses at the hands of templars in order to stir up sympathy and/or resentment (and shifting attention away from the fact that it is a maleficar making the accusation) is astounding to me...

So they are all a pack of blood mages and they have been planning a takeover for years - and if they just takeover Kirkwall the divine will declare a ezalted march so they must be in it with all the other circles which will all rise up when they perfect the magical nuclear bomb that Anders has been working on - hmmm

The chantry might as well roll over and play dead they dont have a chance.....

[AshenEndymion]

Kartikeya wrote...

It's not the idea that he couldn't lie. It's that, by your own words, you already disbelieve it. Not doubt. Disbelieve. He's a liar until he proves otherwise (again, how?). This isn't being neutral, this is favoring the Templars unless the other party has proof. Even in the face of all this stuff, you're refusing to acknowledge the issue.

Ironically, this is probably the exact attitude that led to people like Ulrik being allowed to have ultimate authority over mages even after they've summarily proven on their own that they deserve nothing of the sort.

My words are, actually, that everyone is a liar until they prove otherwise.  I am innately distrustful of people i do not know.  This doesn't favor the templars, since "S/he is a maleficar/apostate" is not believed until proven either.  Or at the very least, until corroborating evidence is given...  If the person saying the statement had already gained my trust in some way, then the situation would be different.

[TheJist]

Why well I thought that I would be saving innocents but apparently not in fact I save more if I side with the templars do that will probably be my preferred ending for future play throughs.

[ad1dash0lm3s]

I haven't sided with the Mages during any of my playthroughs. Both sides have good points which makes me think about who to choose. Most of the Mages turn to Blood Magic because they think that they will get no justice which pushes me to want them to be killed. The main thing that makes me choose the Templars is Anders.

[LobselVith8]

TheJist wrote...

Why well I thought that I would be saving innocents but apparently not in fact I save more if I side with the templars do that will probably be my preferred ending for future play throughs.

You save three mages siding with the templars, out of the entire population of the Gallows Prison. I'd imagine you'd save many more stopping the templars from killing the mages and apprentices in the Gallows, which is why the survivors who escape Kirkwall tell the other Circles about what happened, and how Hawke becomes a hero (instead of a villain in the templar version) to the mages.

[ddv.rsa]

LobselVith8 wrote...

TheJist wrote...

Why well I thought that I would be saving innocents but apparently not in fact I save more if I side with the templars do that will probably be my preferred ending for future play throughs.

You save three mages siding with the templars, out of the entire population of the Gallows Prison. I'd imagine you'd save many more stopping the templars from killing the mages and apprentices in the Gallows, which is why the survivors who escape Kirkwall tell the other Circles about what happened, and how Hawke becomes a hero (instead of a villain in the templar version) to the mages.

There's more to consider than how many mages are saved or killed. What about ordinary people?

It's interesting to note that if Hawke sides with the mages s/he is forced to go on the run but becomes a hero to them. If Hawke sides with the templars s/he becomes a hero to the common people, and is practically begged to be viscount.

Modifié par ddv.rsa, 02 avril 2011 - 05:02 .

[LobselVith8]

ddv.rsa wrote...

There's more to consider than how many mages are saved or killed. What about ordinary people?

It's interesting to note that if Hawke sides with the mages s/he is forced to go on the run but becomes a hero to them. If Hawke sides with the templars s/he becomes a hero to the common people, and is practically begged to be viscount.

Commit genocide against the innocent and be a hero to the common people... or save the lives of the mages and be a hero to the oppressed.

I'll go with the latter.

[ddv.rsa]

Given the atmosphere and what's happening in Kirkwall at the time, and that even the First Enchanter is a maleficar, I'm hard pressed to call the average mage in that Circle an innocent. I think it's likley that some of them even helped Anders.

I also consider annulment to be capital punishment and not genocide, since all mages aren't being systematically murdered - only the offending circle.

[Camenae]

Why does it have to be one or the other (Other than because the game forces you to choose one or the other)? If you sided with the Templars you're an evil **** who support genocide? If you sided with the Mages you are supporting demons and blood magic? Is anyone really unable to see arguments for BOTH sides, or just getting swept up by the heat of the debate?

[LobselVith8]

ddv.rsa wrote...

Given the atmosphere and what's happening in Kirkwall at the time, and that even the First Enchanter is a maleficar, I'm hard pressed to call the average mage in that Circle an innocent. I think it's likley that some of them even helped Anders.

You mean a small fraction of mages should cast blame on all mages? How many mages do we actually meet out of the hundreds or thousands of mages currently residing in the Gallows? And why should Orsino's actions condemn the entire Kirkwall Circle?

ddv.rsa wrote...

I also consider annulment to be capital punishment and not genocide, since all mages aren't being systematically murdered - only the offending circle.

All mages in Kirkwall are being executed - it's genocide. Also, I don't think you can blame hundreds or thousands of men, women, and children with magical ability for the actions of one man who wasn't a member of the Kirkwall Circle.

[sphinxess]

LobselVith8 wrote...

ddv.rsa wrote...

Given the atmosphere and what's happening in Kirkwall at the time, and that even the First Enchanter is a maleficar, I'm hard pressed to call the average mage in that Circle an innocent. I think it's likley that some of them even helped Anders.

You mean a small fraction of mages should cast blame on all mages? How many mages do we actually meet out of the hundreds or thousands of mages currently residing in the Gallows? And why should Orsino's actions condemn the entire Kirkwall Circle?

ddv.rsa wrote...

I also consider annulment to be capital punishment and not genocide, since all mages aren't being systematically murdered - only the offending circle.

All mages in Kirkwall are being executed - it's genocide. Also, I don't think you can blame hundreds or thousands of men, women, and children with magical ability for the actions of one man who wasn't a member of the Kirkwall Circle.

OK I can see this if you believe in the chantry - capital punishment is the execution for a person convicted of committing a crime - they are born a mage - therefore guilty

[LyletheBloody]

 Why save the mages?  

I'd ask why help the Templar?  When given a choice between helping nice people who occasionally do bad or mean people who occasionally do good, I'd take the choice of the former.

[ddv.rsa]

LobselVith8 wrote...

You mean a small fraction of mages should cast blame on all mages? How many mages do we actually meet out of the hundreds or thousands of mages currently residing in the Gallows? And why should Orsino's actions condemn the entire Kirkwall Circle?

I've already given my opinion on the topic in this thread:

I can understand why Meredith calls for the Rite of Annulment: at this point in the game the Circle is openly challenging the templars, the First Enchanter is involving himself in politics, and then just as Orsino is busy refusing a search of the Circle for blood mages the Chantry explodes. It is also known that the mages are forming illegal organizations and are in contact with apostates. Despite Orsino's protests there's every reason to think mages from the Circle were involved.

LobselVith8 wrote...
All mages in Kirkwall are being executed - it's genocide. Also, I don't think you can blame hundreds or thousands of men, women, and children with magical ability for the actions of one man who wasn't a member of the Kirkwall Circle.

Of course they aren't all to blame. But this is what annulment is about: a serious crime gets committed by the mages, but corruption in a circle is so prevalent that one can't safely sort the innocent from the guilty. Therefore the entire circle is neutralized. That's why the rite exists. The loss of innocent life is an injustice, but sadly it has to happen to protect countless more innocents.

As for the genocide argument, they aren't being murdered because they're mages. That would be genocide. But that's not what happens, annulment is a legal punishment for a crime.

The number of mages involved is also an interesting topic. You say three mages are saved because that's all we see. Following the same of train of thought, we clear the gallows - their main stronghold -  and see only a few dozen mages get killed. Even if you triple that number to account for stragglers and off screen killings, it's a small price to pay to ensure the saftey of a city.

[Rifneno]

ddv.rsa wrote...

As for the genocide argument, they aren't being murdered because they're mages. That would be genocide. But that's not what happens, annulment is a legal punishment for a crime.

If I had to describe a line between this and the nearest bit of logic, I would be tasked with describing a line that does not fit in the universe.

[ddv.rsa]

Rifneno wrote...

ddv.rsa wrote...

As for the genocide argument, they aren't being murdered because they're mages. That would be genocide. But that's not what happens, annulment is a legal punishment for a crime.

If I had to describe a line between this and the nearest bit of logic, I would be tasked with describing a line that does not fit in the universe.

Maybe I'm not making my point clearly. They aren't being killed just for being mages. The rite of annulment is being invoked in response to a crime - not that they're mages , but that the chantry was destroyed by mages. 

[LobselVith8]

They are being murdered for being mages since no Circle mage was responsible for what Anders did. It's the genocide of every magically gifted man, woman, and child in Kirkwall for something they are completely innocent of and trying to cast blame for them for something Anders alone did isn't going to change that, ddv.rsa. They are being slaughtered for being mages.

[Rifneno]

ddv.rsa wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

ddv.rsa wrote...

As for the genocide argument, they aren't being murdered because they're mages. That would be genocide. But that's not what happens, annulment is a legal punishment for a crime.

If I had to describe a line between this and the nearest bit of logic, I would be tasked with describing a line that does not fit in the universe.

Maybe I'm not making my point clearly. They aren't being killed just for being mages. The rite of annulment is being invoked in response to a crime - not that they're mages , but that the chantry was destroyed by mages. 

Legal genocide is still genocide.  Not that it matters, the Right of Annulment Meredith invokes is flat out illegal.  The Chantry law specifically says that the grand cleric can order it.  Elthina's rights do not automatically fall on Meredith simply because she died.  She's not even under the same branch of the Chantry as Elthina!  It would be like if the president of the United States was killed on an attack at a military base, and that base's commander decided it was then his right to launch nuclear weapons at the party he feels is responsible for the attack.

[sphinxess]

ddv.rsa wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

You mean a small fraction of mages should cast blame on all mages? How many mages do we actually meet out of the hundreds or thousands of mages currently residing in the Gallows? And why should Orsino's actions condemn the entire Kirkwall Circle?

I've already given my opinion on the topic in this thread:

I can understand why Meredith calls for the Rite of Annulment: at this point in the game the Circle is openly challenging the templars, the First Enchanter is involving himself in politics, and then just as Orsino is busy refusing a search of the Circle for blood mages the Chantry explodes. It is also known that the mages are forming illegal organizations and are in contact with apostates. Despite Orsino's protests there's every reason to think mages from the Circle were involved.

LobselVith8 wrote...
All mages in Kirkwall are being executed - it's genocide. Also, I don't think you can blame hundreds or thousands of men, women, and children with magical ability for the actions of one man who wasn't a member of the Kirkwall Circle.

Of course they aren't all to blame. But this is what annulment is about: a serious crime gets committed by the mages, but corruption in a circle is so prevalent that one can't safely sort the innocent from the guilty. Therefore the entire circle is neutralized. That's why the rite exists. The loss of innocent life is an injustice, but sadly it has to happen to protect countless more innocents.

As for the genocide argument, they aren't being murdered because they're mages. That would be genocide. But that's not what happens, annulment is a legal punishment for a crime.

The number of mages involved is also an interesting topic. You say three mages are saved because that's all we see. Following the same of train of thought, we clear the gallows - their main stronghold -  and see only a few dozen mages get killed. Even if you triple that number to account for stragglers and off screen killings, it's a small price to pay to ensure the saftey of a city.

Define the crime then - I'm not the one claiming its capital punishment - the only possibility I can see that covers the entire circle is that it's the crime of being a mage - otherwise its genocide and before we go round and round on this I would point to the children and say "not guilty" if its for blowing up the chantry or some sort of thing

How many templars are in the city? - a lot more than a few dozen unless you believe you need hordes of templars to guard every mage

Modifié par sphinxess, 02 avril 2011 - 06:34 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

In some playthroughs I sided with the templars and in others with the mages. Siding with the mages is not that odd. You shouldn't wipe out an entire group because they can be or are dangerous. In fact that are examples in our own history that proves you can do that successfully. Nobody argues today that the Germans are trying to take over the world. At the worst they want to take over the car industry.

Edit: My current attempt... Siding with the templars as a blood mage to see if I can become a viscount.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 02 avril 2011 - 06:49 .

[Rifneno]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

In some playthroughs I sided with the templars and in others with the mages. Siding with the mages is not that odd. You shouldn't wipe out an entire group because they can be or are dangerous. In fact that are examples in our own history that proves you can do that successfully. Nobody argues today that the Germans are trying to take over the world. At the worst they want to take over the car industry.

Edit: My current attempt... Siding with the templars as a blood mage to see if I can become a viscount.

Another analogy I like to use...  by the logic of "they can cause catastophies without even meaning to so we should lock them up," then in real life we should lock up people that are too smart.  Or flat out kill them, because really, us common folk can't possibly come up with a system they can't outsmart.

The similarities?  In actuality, genius is capable of far more destruction than magic.  Don't believe me?  Google "nuclear winter."  No one that isn't ridiculously smart would've ever come up with nuclear technology, something that may well wipe out not just mankind but most life on Earth.  The dinosaurs were wiped out by an asteroid hitting the Earth and causing the exact same thing that nuclear war can cause.  Our very species may die because a few people were just too smart.  Makes Redcliffe seem kind of insignificant, doesn't it?

But if you went public with the notion of "let's get rid of the geniuses!" someone would throw a brick at your head  And rightfully so.  We'd still be living in caves if not for our brains.  It's why human society has advanced at all.  Without modern medicine, you could literally die from a rotten tooth.  It gets infected, the infection spreads to your brain (which is RIGHT next to the jaw), and that's all she wrote.  But because of geniuses, we can take a couple tiny pills and that infection is gone.  Which leaves you to wonder.. how many people that die in Thedas, innocent and good people, would be alive if mages weren't so repressed and there was an Anders Clinic on every corner to heal life-threatening wounds?  How much better would life be if magic was combined with technology to make the hard lives of the people of Thedas so much more comfortable?

And while it's nothing to do with this analogy, I do want to point out...  Tevinter may be full of evil mages with no sense of right and wrong, but you better believe if they weren't there to hold back the Qunari's superior warfare technology, every nation in Thedas would be crushed by their super-communist Qun.  Wanna know how no gunpowder technology works vs gunpowder technology when you take magic out of the equasion?  Ask a native American.  If you can still find one.

[HTTP 404]

not saying the templars are all that great...but the mages were incredibly hypocritical. I know bioware intended for gray area of morality but I did get the sense that chantry is oppressor, etc etc and nudged us towards helping the mages as being the good thing to do....

[HTTP 404]

AshenEndemion wrote...

Kartikeya wrote...

It's not the idea that he couldn't lie. It's that, by your own words, you already disbelieve it. Not doubt. Disbelieve. He's a liar until he proves otherwise (again, how?). This isn't being neutral, this is favoring the Templars unless the other party has proof. Even in the face of all this stuff, you're refusing to acknowledge the issue.

Ironically, this is probably the exact attitude that led to people like Ulrik being allowed to have ultimate authority over mages even after they've summarily proven on their own that they deserve nothing of the sort.

My words are, actually, that everyone is a liar until they prove otherwise.  I am innately distrustful of people i do not know.  This doesn't favor the templars, since "S/he is a maleficar/apostate" is not believed until proven either.  Or at the very least, until corroborating evidence is given...  If the person saying the statement had already gained my trust in some way, then the situation would be different.

So If I told you I was a liar, you would have to believe that I only tell the truth which just discounted your belief that I am in fact a liar.  Its kinda late here and Im tired, maybe I misread you...