10 replies to this topic

[IanPolaris]

Everyone,

A while ago I was convinced (and still am based on DAO lore) that Meridith's Annulement Order was illegal based on the prior game lore.  David Gaider said that in this case the Knight Commander can give herself the authority of th Grand Cleric.  I am still unhappy about that, but it is what it is.  It's official lore and I mention it only for background.

However, before everyoe brings out their knives accusing me of raising a dead horse, there is a different and more important reason why Meridith's order was illegal.  It turns out that she was not only assuming the authority of the Grand Cleric after Elthina had been assassinated (which DG assures us she can) but in this particular case she was assuming the authority of the Divine herself!  And the Divine is very much alive and very much in contact.

How can I make this extraordinary statement?  Meridith was too amibitious and too smart for her own good.  If you talk with Ser Kerras in Act 3, you find out that KC Meridith has sent to Val Royeaux for the Rite of Annulement.  Given that Elthina is only a couple of hours away (on a bad day), that has to mean (and Meridith herself all but confirms this when you talk with her if she gives you "Best Served Cold", that Elthina turned Meridith down).  It's a very unwise thing to go over the head of your immediate superior and military orders (like the Templars) have a very low tolerance of that.  It not only hurts cohesion, but it can actually hamstring local authority in a crisis and that's what happens here.

Given that we know in Act 3 almost from the beginning that Meridith has gone over Elthina's head to request a Rite of Annulment from the Divine herself, and given that the mages are still alive, we know one of two things must be true:

1.  The Divine turned Meridith down.  Given what we know of Dorthea (now Divine Justina) from Lelianna's song, I think there is a good chance that the Divine did turn Meridith down esp if her Grand Cleric on the spot wouldn't go along.

2.  The Divine hasn't bothered to answer yet.

In either case after the Chantry is bombed, Meridith not only takes the authority of the Grand Cleric (which DG says she can....my understanding notwithstanding) but because she involved the Divine already, she is also abrograting the lawful authority of the Divine herself.

Once Meridith asked the Divine for permission, she by her own act placed final authority in the hands of the Divine, LEGALLY.  Since the Divine is still very much alive either:

1.  She is going against the express order of the Divine (if the Divine turned her down).

2.  She is assuming the authority of the Divine since (presumably) the Divine has yet to answer and the act of making the request placed final authority in the hands of the Divine.

So even given DG's clarification, Meridith is still in the wrong.  Had she not involved the Divine then per DG, she'd still be (barely) legally in the right.  Because she went over the Grand Cleric's head, however, she removed final local authority and is now obligated to wait for the divine (the act of making the requests cedes any possible authority Meridith might have had in this issue to the Divine).  It's worth noting that Elthna could still authorize it at any time (until she died of course) because she did NOT involve the Divine and indeed begged the Divine to keep out of it.

-Polaris

Edited by IanPolaris, 07 April 2011 - 10:59 PM.

[David Gaider]

The Angry One wrote...
Please show us where the Right of Annulment can only be granted if evidence is presented in a court of law or something rather than a judgement call on the Knight-Commander's part which can be supported or denied by the Grand Cleric.

So long as the Grand Cleric was alive and refused Meredith's request for the Right of Annulment, Meredith's only option was to appeal to the Divine. Once the Grand Cleric was dead, and no immediate successor in evidence, Meredith had the legal authority she needed.

This does not mean the Divine could not theoretically call her to the mat later on for choosing wrongly... and one could argue that she was morally obligated to wait for the Divine's answer, but she certainly wasn't legally obligated to do so. Beyond that, one can conjecture until the cows come home with regards to what the repercussions of such a decision would be.

Edited by David Gaider, 08 April 2011 - 01:42 AM.

[David Gaider]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Yes, Meredith's act of genocide against innocent men, women, and children was completely legal according to Chantry law.

"Innocent" in this case being the mages of the Circle, yes.

Who are innocent in the manner of, say, a kitten that CAN EXPLODE IN YOUR FACE AND TAKE OUT AN ENTIRE CITY BLOCK IF YOU TOUCH IT... and might also bite your nose just because. But relatively innocent nonetheless.

At any rate, yes. Legally the templars and the Chantry are required to protect the public (who are innocent in the maner of not being the explode-in-your-face sort of kitten) from the Circle's potential dangers... or that is the intention, anyhow.

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
DG's last post seems to regard mages as something less than human, ie. dangerous weapons that need to be locked away. I was asking for clarification if that was the official Dev position on mages in Dragon Age or if that was simply the nutty Templars talking (because that post sounded a lot like Cullen at his least likeable).

There is no "official Dev position". If I take contention with anything, it's the propensity for people arguing that the templars are terrible oppressors to forget that mages are that dangerous... and not always by choice. In fact, that element of it not always being their choice makes it worse.

But, no, instead some people like to reduce them to concepts and compare them to real world situations... where we have no comparison. If anyone is doing the dehumanizing, it's them. So if I play Devil's Advocate a little, you'll have to forgive me, but it's primarily because I think those people are incredibly naive.

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
I take it then that you and your team are taking  more "anti-mage" position then to show how "naive" we all have been?  Seems that way from where I sit.

I'm not taking an "anti-mage" position at all. I'm pointing out that it's not as clear cut as some people like to paint it-- that perhaps templars are put in an incredibly difficult position. Nowhere do I say that I think they are in the right. That is you, filling in the blanks on your own.

As you tend to do.

Edited by David Gaider, 08 April 2011 - 08:10 PM.

[David Gaider]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
As I am supposed to do as both a reader of a book and the player in a game.[quote]

A reader of a book or player of a game is supposed to interpret. Not write passages that aren't there and then base their arguments on those imagined passages. That is, I'd suggest, one level of interpretation too far.

[quote]Come on, aren't you taking the anti-mage side?[/quote]

No. Read what I said. I suggested that perhaps mages aren't all that innocent. Nowhere did I say the templars were justified or even remotely correct in their actions. Lack of A does not equal B.

[quote]Edit:  And was using an edit to attack me personally, really needed?[/quote]

It is when the naive person I am referring to is you, specifically.

Edited by David Gaider, 08 April 2011 - 08:21 PM.

[David Gaider]

Wulfram wrote...
So children are guilty for being born?

If they are born with a condition than makes them dangerous, they are not innocent of being dangerous.

The suggestion, after all, was that the fact that mages being "innocent" means that the templars are terrible people for oppressing them. And I said that, yes, if one wishes to look at them as creatures who are morally innocent but also unreasonably dangerous by virtue of their very nature... absolutely. Whether or not the templars are doing the right thing is another question completely, but the fact remains that the fact mages are not always at fault for being what they are does not really enter into the equation.

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
Doesn't it?  Otherwise you would use the same argument about any minority group you please (and this argument WAS used many times in history including the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII). 

There is a huge distiction between punishing people for what they've done and for who they are.  I am sorry that isn't clearer to more people.

Remember that part where I mentioned drawing comparison to real world situations that don't apply?

The Japanese-Americans in WWII were incapable of blood magic. They also did not turn into abominations against their will and slaughter innocents. Regardless of what people thought they might do, these things did not happen and they were incapable of being a severe threat to the world just by virtue of existing.

Which mages can be.

My initial point was that it's very easy to draw comparisons to human rights issues. Too easy, in fact, since it requires forgetting the fact that the willingness of the mages to do evil is not always the issue-- and that anyone who could endanger his neighbors by virtue of his existence would very quickly have his neighbors surrounding his house with torches and pitchforks... and that calling those people unreasonable fanatics for trying to protect themselves is just as myopic as suggesting the neighbor should be happy to let himself be burned at the stake.

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
This isa classic human rights issue.  It's simply evil to lock away human beings for what they are rather than what they've done.  That is a cornerstone to western morality.  [Regulating magic is a different matter and I'd probably agree with you on that more than disagree]

And all I'm suggesting is that waving away that "regulating magic" thing as an inconsequential detail that is less important than human rights is naive-- and I take issue with the idea that anyone suggesting the templars aren't all wrong is automatically suggesting they are completely right. That is equally naive, except in the viewpoint of someone who speaks only in hyperbole and for whom only the extremes on either side of the issue exist.

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
However, you are suggestng as a Developer that it's legitament to lock away people for what they might do.  There is no getting around that, and that makes it a classic human rights issue.  Paint as many mages as bloodmages as you like, but that essential point doesn't go away.

Gah.

I'm suggesting the world believes it's legitimate. And I'm suggesting the templars have reasons for what they do that are not without basis. Only in your head is this the equivalent of an endorsement.

And I'm going to stop talking to you now, as it's pretty clear it doesn't matter what I say you will simply interpret anything not-white as equaling black.

[Sheryl Chee]

IanPolaris wrote...

No.  What I linked to and what I am talkig about IS DG's personal beliefs. Not that the templars are right or wrong, but that locking away people for what they might do can be considered reasonable and anyone that disasgrees is naive.  He even used that exact word when addressing me.

If I am to be called naive for calling the slaughter of people for a crime they didn't commit to be murder and genocide and that saying that it's considered evil to punish people for what they are rather than what they've done, then I will proudly bear the title of Naive.

Good grief.

This is what you think David is saying:

It is naive to call the slaughter of innocent people murder.

This is what David is actually saying:

It is naive to assume that absolutely no one in Thedas would find it justified to lock up a bunch of people who are, by an accident of birth, dangerous.

These two things are not the same.