1072 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

That may be but she is not the new Grand Cleric. DG only said that this particular authority fell to her which is why the fact she asked for the Divine to intervene already was an important legal point (and certainly would be in most legal systems I am familiar with). However, it's clearly important for the story that Meridith was legally justified no matter how threadbare, so that is that I guess.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

[dp]

Modifié par IanPolaris, 08 avril 2011 - 06:24 .

[PantheraOnca]

David Gaider wrote...

Once the Grand Cleric was dead, and no immediate successor in evidence, Meredith had the legal authority she needed.

This line means that Meredith wasn't "acting grand cleric" or in any kind of line of succession to become the grand cleric.

If there was a line of succession, Meredith would have been an "immediate successor in evidence." Since there was no such successor, it means that Meredith was not in any line of succession related to Grand Clericry.

It does however, seem to indicate that in cases where a grand cleric cannot be reached, the Knight Commander has the authority to declare an Annulment.

So its basically:

If <local Grand Cleric exists and is contactable> then <Knight Commander must pettition for Annulment>
If no<local Grand Cleric exists and is contactable>  then <Knight Commander may declare Annulment>.

[IanPolaris]

Morgora wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Except Meridith is not the new Grand Cleric.  DG only said that this particular authority fell to her.  At no time does a Templar officer become a member of the chantry at least in the Dragon Age universe I am familiar with.  DG said t was legal apparently because it's important for the story for her actions to be (just barely) legal.

-Polaris

The Templars are the military arm of the Chantry. This makes all Templars members of the Chantry.

Members if the Chantry yes.  Members of the clergy no, which was why the whole legality issue was raised in the first place.

-Polaris

[Morgora]

PantheraOnca wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Once the Grand Cleric was dead, and no immediate successor in evidence, Meredith had the legal authority she needed.

This line means that Meredith wasn't "acting grand cleric" or in any kind of line of succession to become the grand cleric.

If there was a line of succession, Meredith would have been an "immediate successor in evidence." Since there was no such successor, it means that Meredith was not in any line of succession related to Grand Clericry.

It does however, seem to indicate that in cases where a grand cleric cannot be reached, the Knight Commander has the authority to declare an Annulment.

So its basically:

If <local Grand Cleric exists and is contactable> then <Knight Commander must pettition for Annulment>
If no<local Grand Cleric exists and is contactable>  then <Knight Commander may declare Annulment>.

I did not realize DG had posted when I made my post. DG wins.

[LobselVith8]

Morgora wrote...

I did not realize DG had posted when I made my post. DG wins.

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

[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.

[AshenEndymion]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Morgora wrote...

I did not realize DG had posted when I made my post. DG wins.

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

Fixed.

[RosaAquafire]

David Gaider wrote...
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.

Ahahaha, I love you david gaider.

[Torax]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Ser Pounce-A-Lot has been busy.

[Dave of Canada]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Morgora wrote...

I did not realize DG had posted when I made my post. DG wins.

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

Most of them were blood mages.
I felt justified in killing them left and right, I even spared some (assumed) non-blood mages.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 08 avril 2011 - 07:35 .

[LobselVith8]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

So let's kill all the mages of all ages in Kirkwall because of something a former Grey Warden did? That doesn't make any sense to me.

[IanPolaris]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

It's still legalized genocide though, isn't it, unless you agree with Ser Cullen that mages aren't "real people".  Do you?  Your post seems to strongly imply just that.....

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

LobselVith8 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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.

So let's kill all the mages of all ages in Kirkwall because of something a former Grey Warden did? That doesn't make any sense to me.

It's legal murder explicitly driven by hate.  Really it's as simple as that.  Meridith has no concern about protecting anyone (witness that she completely ignores the one obviously guilty party right in front of her!)

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

AshenEndemion wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Morgora wrote...

I did not realize DG had posted when I made my post. DG wins.

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

Fixed.

It may be lawful under Chantry law, but it's still genocide.

Meredith still orders the execution of all the mages in Kirkwall for something Anders did, and the actions of the few don't condemn them all. No amount of Orsino being recycled into a Harvester or dealing with blood mages who have magic amnesia about Hawke being an apostate and against Meredith is going to tell me that it's OK to execute the innocent.

[Torax]

IanPolaris wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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.

So let's kill all the mages of all ages in Kirkwall because of something a former Grey Warden did? That doesn't make any sense to me.

It's legal murder explicitly driven by hate.  Really it's as simple as that.  Meridith has no concern about protecting anyone (witness that she completely ignores the one obviously guilty party right in front of her!)

-Polaris

Aye, she's crazy. She openly refers to magic as a curse. She was acting legally though however. She'd kill them all cause of a hatred fueled by what her sister's "curse" of magic cause to her family and all she knew growing up.

Crazy people and having the license to kill all they hate? Just asking for trouble and there is your last boss. Now improved with saber swords and robots.

[Torax]

LobselVith8 wrote...

AshenEndemion wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Morgora wrote...

I did not realize DG had posted when I made my post. DG wins.

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

Fixed.

It may be lawful under Chantry law, but it's still genocide.

Meredith still orders the execution of all the mages in Kirkwall for something Anders did, and the actions of the few don't condemn them all. No amount of Orsino being recycled into a Harvester or dealing with blood mages who have magic amnesia about Hawke being an apostate and against Meredith is going to tell me that it's OK to execute the innocent.

So? Is anyone saying it's not genocide? What are you attempting to prove here?

[AshenEndymion]

Torax wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

AshenEndemion wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Morgora wrote...

I did not realize DG had posted when I made my post. DG wins.

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

Fixed.

It may be lawful under Chantry law, but it's still genocide.

Meredith still orders the execution of all the mages in Kirkwall for something Anders did, and the actions of the few don't condemn them all. No amount of Orsino being recycled into a Harvester or dealing with blood mages who have magic amnesia about Hawke being an apostate and against Meredith is going to tell me that it's OK to execute the innocent.

So? Is anyone saying it's not genocide? What are you attempting to prove here?

I will... because it's only genocide if one thinks of the mages as people...  If one doesn't, it's no more than dismantling a large number of atomic bombs.  And no one calls that genocide....

[IanPolaris]

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).

-Polaris

[Aloradus]

LobselVith8 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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.

So let's kill all the mages of all ages in Kirkwall because of something a former Grey Warden did? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Personally I dont see what Meredith did as a huge violation, it works. Even if it goes against what has been established, because she is 'crazy' and an idol made her do it.

There are bigger issues - in a story the main character should be the one most invested in the outcome... 

[Torax]

IanPolaris wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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.

It's still legalized genocide though, isn't it, unless you agree with Ser Cullen that mages aren't "real people".  Do you?  Your post seems to strongly imply just that.....

-Polaris

Pretty sure he was implying the mindset of the Templar for that case. I doubt Gaider himself is pro for either. lol

[LobselVith8]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Magical ability has nothing to do with innocence or guilty.

in·no·cent
play_w2("I0152400")
 (n-snt)
adj.
2.
a. Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless:

Since the population of men, women, and children of the Gallows weren't responsible for what Anders did, they are innocent by its very definition. Simply because mages have the capacity to harm others doesn't make them guilty.

David Gaider wrote...

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.

The public of Kirkwall weren't in danger of any Circle mages when the Chantry was destroyed because the Grey Warden mage who was responsible was standing right in front of Knight-Commander Meredith the entire time. Oddly enough, the problem arose with the mages when Meredith ordered an act of genocide against them for an act Andes committed - people, for some odd reason, dislike being killed for something they didn't do, regardless of whether they have the power to "explode" or not.

Torax wrote...

Aye, she's crazy. She openly refers to magic as a curse. She was acting legally though however. She'd kill them all cause of a hatred fueled by what her sister's "curse" of magic cause to her family and all she knew growing up.

Crazy people and having the license to kill all they hate? Just asking for trouble and there is your last boss. Now improved with saber swords and robots.

She was acting with the legal authority to commit gencodie - I don't dispute that.

[Mike Canary]

IanPolaris wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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.

So let's kill all the mages of all ages in Kirkwall because of something a former Grey Warden did? That doesn't make any sense to me.

It's legal murder explicitly driven by hate.  Really it's as simple as that.  Meridith has no concern about protecting anyone (witness that she completely ignores the one obviously guilty party right in front of her!)

-Polaris

Genocide or not, it's still legal, which was a substantial argument of this thread. However, I think Mr. Gaider is less arguing for or against the Annulment (morally or legally) and more trying to help you (and others) understand why Meredith would have felt such drastic actions were understandable.


On a unrelated note that's been bothering me...Why do you keep signing your name when it's written right next to the post? Seems redundant...

[Wulfram]

David Gaider wrote...

"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.

It's not like the mages are any more dangerous than the 50,000 invisible teleporting rogues who murder everyone who goes outside during the Kirkwall night

[IanPolaris]

Torax wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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.

It's still legalized genocide though, isn't it, unless you agree with Ser Cullen that mages aren't "real people".  Do you?  Your post seems to strongly imply just that.....

-Polaris

Pretty sure he was implying the mindset of the Templar for that case. I doubt Gaider himself is pro for either. lol

Perhaps but it's not clear.  I'd like to know if DG's quoted post reflects his (and the Dev's position) or the Templar's position.  I think it's a reasonable thing to ask.

-Polaris