176 réponses à ce sujet

[Mystranna Kelteel]

IanPolaris wrote...
Sure.  We deal with an armed robber differently than a burgler, but they are both criminals and locked up for somthing they have DONE.  You don't lock away people (at least not if you want to treat them as humans) for who they are.  Do it for what they've done.
I'd have zero problems with harsh (even teminally harsh) penalties for those that commit crimes with magic, nor with special police (templars) and procedures for the same.  However, punish people for what they do rather than who they are.
-Polaris

See, I don't see protective measures as "punishments".  Requiring a background check and a waiting period before you let someone buy a gun is not a punishment imo.

Yes, the Templars and the current system have gone too far in many cases, but the basic system doesn't seem as broken as people tend to say it is.  Compromises can and should be made, but none of that even comes into play with this decision in the game because you're forced into picking an extreme.

[LobselVith8]

Icy Magebane wrote...

Huon was a blood mage and he escaped from the Kirkwall Circle.

He was also sane before he was taken from the Alienage and forced into the Gallows, where he became mentally unstable.

Icy Magebane wrote...
The First Enchanter funded and collaborated with a necromancer for half a decade if not longer.

And his actions don't reflect on all the men, women, and children of the Kirkwall Circle because he's only one man.

Icy Magebane wrote...

In the Templar version of the ending, you have to fight blood mages as well as Circle mages.

That's what happens when you support the genocide of innocent people - they fight to survive.

Icy Magebane wrote...

There is also a mission regarding "Holdouts" that you can get from the Templars in Act 3 that deals with apostates who escaped the Circle and help others do so. They are all blood mages except for 2... so like 6 out of 8... 

The fraction of mages Hawke encounters doesn't constitute the entire population of the Gallows Prison.

Icy Magebane wrote...

I'm not really sure what else to say about that. There were a lot of blood mages and abominations running around.

There are also many survivors referred to by Varric if Hawke doesn't commit genocide, so not all the mages turned into abominations.

Icy Magebane wrote...

A lot of demons that got summoned by people who either escaped or in the case of Grace, entered the Circle after learning blood magic. So... we're just going to assume she didn't share that knowledge with anybody? It didn't seem like it was a big secret to me.

Are we going to assume the actions of one or a few condemn everyone?

Icy Magebane wrote...

And really, I have heard many times from mage supporters that absolute freedom is a good idea.

The argument made by the pro-mage side is that oppression isn't the answer.

Icy Magebane wrote...

That somehow the Chantry is too oppressive because they have Harrowings and use the Rite of Tranquility. I disagree completely. The Ferelden Circle was nothing like the Gallows, and even there the situation got so out of hand that had it not been for the Warden, Annulment would have been the only option.

People have historically fought to be freed from their oppressors.

Icy Magebane wrote...

I agree that mages should be treated humanely, but they should not be left to their own devices. Especially when demonic possession can occur at any moment and cause a whole town to be wiped out. It's grim work, but necessary.

That's an argument for proper law enforcement, not forcing mages under Chantry and templar subjugation.

[IanPolaris]

Beerfish wrote...

Ferretinabun wrote...

Okay, maybe calling the Right of Annulment for the chantry's destruction when the real culprit is standing right beside her is a tad on the whacko side (not to mention, rather funny), but I'd say her paranoia is pretty much justified given that blood mages crop up like cockroaches in DA2.
Plus, she has a damn sexy voice!

She had plenty of reasons to think about annulement before the chantry went boom.  Her assertions were totally backed up by Orsinos little magic act and Anders act.  Anders an apostate and the head of the circle.

Wrong.  Even if Orsino was a bloodmage all this time (and he hid it very carefully if he did), it still doesn't justify a rite of annulment.  Even Cullen thinks it was unjustified and certainly calling it for an act the circle did NOT commit, is EVIL.  There is no other word for it.

-Polaris

[Rifneno]

Gah.  WTB, working block function.

IanPolaris wrote...

This is why the total prohibition by the chantry is so mind-numbingly stupid.  How can you expect to combat bloodmagic if you aren't allowed to learn/research/study it yourself?  (Obviously bloodmagic would have to be tightly controlled...but the chantry puts it's head in the ground and says LA-LA-LA bloodmagic evil......

So true.  But it's still not as much of an exalted march against common sense as their policy of outright stealing children from their parents.  Is it any wonder there's so many apostates?  What parent is going to give their child to a drug-addicted zealot trained to kill their type and given nearly free reign over their treatment?  They're asking parents to go against every parental instinct they have telling them to protect their children.  And by the time the child grows up, if they haven't fallen prey to a demon, they'll think "I survived it as a naive child, why ruin my life now?" and continue to live as an apostate.  How does the Chantry possibly think that system will work?  It almost gives me a brain hemmorage just thinking about it.

[sonsonthebia07]

Well, she certainly believed that what she was doing was right, I'll give her that much.

[LobselVith8]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

See, I don't see protective measures as "punishments".  Requiring a background check and a waiting period before you let someone buy a gun is not a punishment imo.

Imprisoning innocent people because of who they are is a punishment. Mages were forced into prisons because of a nonviolent protest that both DA:O and DA2 address in the codex "History of the Circle." We have mages in the Ferelden Circle who wanted freedom from the Chantry, and we have an underground railroad smuggling mages out from the oppressive regime of Knight-Commander Meredith and her dictatorship over Kirkwall.

Having the authority to murder men, women, and children without justification (which is exactly what Meredith does when she orders the Right of Annulment for the actions of a former Grey Warden) hardly measures up as a "protective measure" when she's essentially committing the "Final Solution" on all of the mages of Kirkwall.

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Yes, the Templars and the current system have gone too far in many cases, but the basic system doesn't seem as broken as people tend to say it is.  Compromises can and should be made, but none of that even comes into play with this decision in the game because you're forced into picking an extreme.

The basic system was ovethrown by the Circles across Thedas precisely because it's broken - where mages are being raped, tortured, forced to undergo the Rite of Tranquility, and killed. The genocide against the Kirkwall Circle was the last straw - that's why the mages freed themselves from Chantry and templar control.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 07 avril 2011 - 04:39 .

[AlexXIV]

Forst1999 wrote...

@ AlexXIV
Well, severe paranoia ARE a case of insanity.

Well she is in charge of the Circle and they have constant cases of templars betraying the order and bloodmages. I wouldn't know who I can trust if I was in her shoes. And that Cullen stood against her at the end doesn't make sense either. He stands with Hawke even though he/she is a mage and sided wit the mages? Why? I wish Bioware would have thought a bit longer about certain things in their story, then not so many people would be confused by stuff that happened.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 07 avril 2011 - 04:02 .

[AlexXIV]

sonsonthebia07 wrote...

Well, she certainly believed that what she was doing was right, I'll give her that much.

So did Hitler. Just sayin'.

[IanPolaris]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Sure.  We deal with an armed robber differently than a burgler, but they are both criminals and locked up for somthing they have DONE.  You don't lock away people (at least not if you want to treat them as humans) for who they are.  Do it for what they've done.
I'd have zero problems with harsh (even teminally harsh) penalties for those that commit crimes with magic, nor with special police (templars) and procedures for the same.  However, punish people for what they do rather than who they are.
-Polaris

See, I don't see protective measures as "punishments".  Requiring a background check and a waiting period before you let someone buy a gun is not a punishment imo.

Wow.  Just Wow.  You are comparing locking away PEOPLE for what they might become to be the same as a gun background check?  You are just like Cullen.  You clearly view Mages as non-persons to be used as weapons by the chantry and then locked away.  Sorry, but I have a huge issue with that.  I think mages are human beings and need to be treated as such.  A shocker to some I know.

Yes, the Templars and the current system have gone too far in many cases, but the basic system doesn't seem as broken as people tend to say it is.  Compromises can and should be made, but none of that even comes into play with this decision in the game because you're forced into picking an extreme.

Ripping childen from their mothers and then locking them away and calling them evil for what they are, is more than just "going a bit too far".  Anders may be a terrorist that killed innocents, but his reasons are dead centre correct.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

AlexXIV wrote...

Forst1999 wrote...

@ AlexXIV
Well, severe paranoia ARE a case of insanity.

Well she is in charge of the Circle and they have constant cases of templars betraying the order and bloodmages. I wouldn't know who I can trust if I was in her shoes. And that Cullen stood against her at the end doesn't make sense either. He stands with Hawke even though he/she is a mage and sided wit the mages? Why? I wish Bioware would have thought a bit longer about certain things in their story, then not so many people would be confused by stuff that happened.

I had a chat with DG on these forums just a couple of days ago on this very point.  My take was that Meridith had gone so far over the line for so long that Cullen had had it, and he wasn't going to follow any of Meridith's orders.  DG seemed to agree with that overall take.  At least that's an explaination that seems to make the most sense.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

AlexXIV wrote...

Forst1999 wrote...

@ AlexXIV
Well, severe paranoia ARE a case of insanity.

Well she is in charge of the Circle and they have constant cases of templars betraying the order and bloodmages. I wouldn't know who I can trust if I was in her shoes. And that Cullen stood against her at the end doesn't make sense either. He stands with Hawke even though he/she is a mage and sided wit the mages? Why? I wish Bioware would have thought a bit longer about certain things in their story, then not so many people would be confused by stuff that happened.

Saying that the only way any Templar would turn against her was because of bloodmagic right after you AND Knight-Captain Cullen tell her in no uncertain terms her Job Approval rating has taken a nose-dive is both delusional and paranoid all that the same time.

-Polaris

[Rifneno]

IanPolaris wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Forst1999 wrote...

@ AlexXIV
Well, severe paranoia ARE a case of insanity.

Well she is in charge of the Circle and they have constant cases of templars betraying the order and bloodmages. I wouldn't know who I can trust if I was in her shoes. And that Cullen stood against her at the end doesn't make sense either. He stands with Hawke even though he/she is a mage and sided wit the mages? Why? I wish Bioware would have thought a bit longer about certain things in their story, then not so many people would be confused by stuff that happened.

I had a chat with DG on these forums just a couple of days ago on this very point.  My take was that Meridith had gone so far over the line for so long that Cullen had had it, and he wasn't going to follow any of Meridith's orders.  DG seemed to agree with that overall take.  At least that's an explaination that seems to make the most sense.

-Polaris

There is some foreshadowing to this if you talk to him earlier in Act III.  I forget his exact words and don't have a proper save handy, but it was along of lines of wondering aloud whether he's working for Meredith or the templars anymore because they no longer seem to be the same thing.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

IanPolaris wrote...

Wow.  Just Wow.  You are comparing locking away PEOPLE for what they might become to be the same as a gun background check?  You are just like Cullen.  You clearly view Mages as non-persons to be used as weapons by the chantry and then locked away.  Sorry, but I have a huge issue with that.  I think mages are human beings and need to be treated as such.  A shocker to some I know.

Ripping childen from their mothers and then locking them away and calling them evil for what they are, is more than just "going a bit too far".  Anders may be a terrorist that killed innocents, but his reasons are dead centre correct.

-Polaris

People just love to read what they want to read, don't they?  I compared the Circle to a background check because both are protective measures.  I then went on to say that Templars are extreme in their methods.  Acknowledging that they go too far (IE imprisonment and tranquility) makes me "not view mages as people"?  lolwut

No, mages are people.  They are just people with bombs grafted to their arms that, however unfortunate it may be, need to be watched for the sake of society.

I don't think children should be ripped from their familes, but I do deem it necessary that they have a place where they can actually learn to control their power and understand the danger they pose to themselves, their loved ones, and society.  There are plent yof compromises that can be made, such as Circle ordained tutors and such.  But, as I said, siding with the mages in Act 3 doesn't help achieve that compromised state any more than siding with the Templars does, so the logical conclusion I came to was to side with the Templars in the interest of damage control and not starting a holy war that will inevitably bring more innocent mages under the blade.

[AlexXIV]

IanPolaris wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Forst1999 wrote...

@ AlexXIV
Well, severe paranoia ARE a case of insanity.

Well she is in charge of the Circle and they have constant cases of templars betraying the order and bloodmages. I wouldn't know who I can trust if I was in her shoes. And that Cullen stood against her at the end doesn't make sense either. He stands with Hawke even though he/she is a mage and sided wit the mages? Why? I wish Bioware would have thought a bit longer about certain things in their story, then not so many people would be confused by stuff that happened.

I had a chat with DG on these forums just a couple of days ago on this very point.  My take was that Meridith had gone so far over the line for so long that Cullen had had it, and he wasn't going to follow any of Meridith's orders.  DG seemed to agree with that overall take.  At least that's an explaination that seems to make the most sense.

-Polaris

Well he stood with her annulling the Circle even while knowing the Circle wasn't unredeemable. He even said that the Circle of Ferelden was worse and the Warden saved it. And still he stood with Meredith. But he wouldn't touch Hawke, despite Hawke just killed about 2 dozen templars if not more? Thing is Hawke couldn't die because the plot wanted it so. I just wish there would have been a better, story-side reason for Cullen to suddenly turn against Meredith. I would even accept a friendship between Hawke and Cullen or if Cullen had a crush on a female Hawke. Anything that makes more sense then going though with the Right of Annullment on Meredith's side, and then, when only Hawke is left suddenly turn against her to save Hawke.

[LobselVith8]

Icy Magebane wrote...

Kirkwall's Circle is an extreme case. As I've said, Ferelden's Circle was fine. You know who wanted to change things there? Uldred, a guy whose primary goal was to use blood magic and become an abomination. Only the troublemakers seem to have a problem with the Circle.

Edit:  Non-troublemakers would include people like Wynne and Irving.

The same Irving who thanks the Warden for the Magi boon and for freeing them from "their shackles"? Or the same Wynne who doesn't contest that the Circle is a "prison" and when you tell her it's an "oppressive place" after her quest, she says the Magi Warden can "change that" if he returns to the Circle?

I think it should be noted that the Circle was ready to ally with Loghain when Uldred told him he would force the Chantry to give them more freedoms until Wynne told them what happened at Ostagar. Clearly, it wasn't simply Uldred who had a problem with the system at the Ferelden Circle.

[IanPolaris]

AlexXIV wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Forst1999 wrote...

@ AlexXIV
Well, severe paranoia ARE a case of insanity.

Well she is in charge of the Circle and they have constant cases of templars betraying the order and bloodmages. I wouldn't know who I can trust if I was in her shoes. And that Cullen stood against her at the end doesn't make sense either. He stands with Hawke even though he/she is a mage and sided wit the mages? Why? I wish Bioware would have thought a bit longer about certain things in their story, then not so many people would be confused by stuff that happened.

I had a chat with DG on these forums just a couple of days ago on this very point.  My take was that Meridith had gone so far over the line for so long that Cullen had had it, and he wasn't going to follow any of Meridith's orders.  DG seemed to agree with that overall take.  At least that's an explaination that seems to make the most sense.

-Polaris

Well he stood with her annulling the Circle even while knowing the Circle wasn't unredeemable. He even said that the Circle of Ferelden was worse and the Warden saved it. And still he stood with Meredith. But he wouldn't touch Hawke, despite Hawke just killed about 2 dozen templars if not more? Thing is Hawke couldn't die because the plot wanted it so. I just wish there would have been a better, story-side reason for Cullen to suddenly turn against Meredith. I would even accept a friendship between Hawke and Cullen or if Cullen had a crush on a female Hawke. Anything that makes more sense then going though with the Right of Annullment on Meredith's side, and then, when only Hawke is left suddenly turn against her to save Hawke.

Indeed.  I didn't say it was a good explaination, only the best one I could come up with (and DG did endorse it).  Also Cullen did in the heat of battle override Merith's Rite of Annulment by taking prisoners (all three of them), but he clearly breaks ranks even before the final scene.

-Polaris

[The Sum of all Evil]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Sure.  We deal with an armed robber differently than a burgler, but they are both criminals and locked up for somthing they have DONE.  You don't lock away people (at least not if you want to treat them as humans) for who they are.  Do it for what they've done.
I'd have zero problems with harsh (even teminally harsh) penalties for those that commit crimes with magic, nor with special police (templars) and procedures for the same.  However, punish people for what they do rather than who they are.
-Polaris

See, I don't see protective measures as "punishments".  Requiring a background check and a waiting period before you let someone buy a gun is not a punishment imo.

Yes, the Templars and the current system have gone too far in many cases, but the basic system doesn't seem as broken as people tend to say it is.  Compromises can and should be made, but none of that even comes into play with this decision in the game because you're forced into picking an extreme.

Whenever you infringe on someones personal freedoms for his potential to do wrong it will always be unjust and therefore evil.

Ppl. in don't apply to become mages, they are born as such. So the proper comparison would be to lock away all pedophiles (as in the sexual orientation, assuming it is genetically determined) regardless of an offence. But pls. do not discuss the merits of the latter as it would clearly be OT.

[AlexXIV]

IanPolaris wrote...
Indeed.  I didn't say it was a good explaination, only the best one I could come up with (and DG did endorse it).  Also Cullen did in the heat of battle override Merith's Rite of Annulment by taking prisoners (all three of them), but he clearly breaks ranks even before the final scene.

-Polaris

My problem is that as it seems Meredith isn't even in power anymore. The templars listen to Cullen, not Meredith. So he could have prevented the Annullment when Hawke, the 'Champion of Kirkwall' said he/she was against it. But he didn't then. He followed Meredith. For whatever reason. Probably the order plot demanded it. It's not like Cullen hadn't years to think about this problem, especially if he knows that Hawke is a mage and mage supporter. Of course you can say ... ugh ... whatever ... he is human, he makes mistakes. But then it should at least be addressed in game. And I just doubt Cullen is feeling responsible for it later. It's just going to be 'hand-waved'. Again.

[barryl89]

One word sums up the argument against letting mages be free.

TEVINTER.

[Rifneno]

AlexXIV wrote...

My problem is that as it seems Meredith isn't even in power anymore. The templars listen to Cullen, not Meredith. So he could have prevented the Annullment when Hawke, the 'Champion of Kirkwall' said he/she was against it. But he didn't then.

That was another option that should've been if not for plot armor.

Meredith:  I invoke the Right of Annulment!
Orsino:  Are you mad?!
Hawke:  Maker, Anders!  How could you do that!  The grand cleric was in there!  The knight commander was in there!
Meredith:  What are--*MURDERKNIFE*

Isabela and Varric know how to get rid of a body, surely.  If a knight-commander falls in the forest, and her small group of templars don't survive to tell anyone, did she ever order a Right of Annulment?  Who can say for certain?

[Rifneno]

barryl89 wrote...

One word sums up the argument against letting mages be free.

TEVINTER.

Replace "mages" with "middle easterners" and "Tevinter" with "Iraq."  Tell me how it sounds now.  And yes, it is the same thing.

[The Angry One]

3zone5 wrote...

Hate is just one of the reasons why she invoked the right of Annulment she also suspected Orsino of being involved with blood magic, Tervinter Imperium and last but not least a mage blew up the chantry. Plenty of reason to invoke it, innocent or not...

If Ser Kerras isn't killed, we get this little gem right at the beginning of Act 3.




Take that as you will.

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

Rifneno wrote...

barryl89 wrote...

One word sums up the argument against letting mages be free.

TEVINTER.

Replace "mages" with "middle easterners" and "Tevinter" with "Iraq."  Tell me how it sounds now.  And yes, it is the same thing.

Babylon was never a world-spanning empire, and wasn't populated by people with super-human abilities, who formed an upper class and used slaves.

There really is no good comparison between mages and any group in the real world, simply because mages/mutants do not exist.

[AlexXIV]

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

barryl89 wrote...

One word sums up the argument against letting mages be free.

TEVINTER.

Replace "mages" with "middle easterners" and "Tevinter" with "Iraq."  Tell me how it sounds now.  And yes, it is the same thing.

Babylon was never a world-spanning empire, and wasn't populated by people with super-human abilities, who formed an upper class and used slaves.

There really is no good comparison between mages and any group in the real world, simply because mages/mutants do not exist.

I think what he means is that you cannot judge people on their cultural or racial background. Whatever the Tevinter Empire did, isn't the fault of a newborn baby that happens to be born a mage. Easy as that. That mages are dangerous and a problem for all of Thedas is undisputed. Just the question is how to deal with it. Treating innocents like criminals can't be the best answer people can come up with, honestly.

[The Sum of all Evil]

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

barryl89 wrote...

One word sums up the argument against letting mages be free.

TEVINTER.

Replace "mages" with "middle easterners" and "Tevinter" with "Iraq."  Tell me how it sounds now.  And yes, it is the same thing.

Babylon was never a world-spanning empire, and wasn't populated by people with super-human abilities, who formed an upper class and used slaves.

There really is no good comparison between mages and any group in the real world, simply because mages/mutants do not exist.

I think the comparison is that you (as a state) must not infringe on an individuals right because of some experience you had with a group he happens to belong to.