1072 réponses à ce sujet

[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.

[Paeyne]

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.

Fanatacism rarely make sense.

Annulment is basically slaughter that is justified (in the Chantry's mind) by the idea that even a mage child could be devasting if possessed.  Connor is a prime example of this, so perhaps they are right.

I suppose their position is slightly better than kill all mages on sight.

I would agrue that the Templars have done nothing in their thousand year history to try to help or protect the mages from demons.  (Sticking them in a tower and watching them is not helping, its just containment).

I guess killing them is easier than helping them.  

[IanPolaris]

David Gaider wrote...

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

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.

Except that my arguments have been based explicitly on what has been written including my original legality argument that specifically placed Annulment power in the hands of the Grand Cleric and spefically noted that Templars are not in the clergy hiearchy (they have their own).  You have the write to add in new lore of course and I've accepted that, but don't pretend that this isn't what you've done.

Come on, aren't you taking the anti-mage side?

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.

So it's a crime to be born a mage because of what you might do?  That IS what you are saying.

Edit:  And was using an edit to attack me personally, really needed?

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

Hmph.  Nice to know that I am loved at least.  I just didn't think the snark was necessary.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 08 avril 2011 - 08:27 .

[LobselVith8]

Wulfram wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Apostate Hawke has no apostate POV.

Not really, when no Templar ever takes any action about his being a mage

Exactly. Apostate Hawke never has to worry about the templars hunting him, never has to worry about getting raped or beaten, never has to be concerned that he or she might get captured and forced to undergo the Rite of Tranquility, and never has to see things from the perspective of an apostate because Hawke can perform magic in front of templars and members of the city guard, and no one notices Hawke is an illegal mage. It removes the POV of an apostate from an illegal mage Hawke, and ignores any argument people could make for the templars v. mage because Hawke is never genuinely an apostate in the entire storyline of DA2.

This pic from Sylriel sums it up.

Sylriel wrote...



Not my work, simply reposting from the Motivational Posters thread.

I laugh every time i see that pic.  It's so true.

[Stinkface27]

You always make such a great initial post, thorough and well thought out with room for intelligent discussion and debate. Then it always degrades into you twisting Gaider's words into something you can fight about. It's a shame, in my opinion.

[The Angry One]

Why do people keep saying "because of what a mage might do",
It's what they ARE. Nobody can change that and like it or not they are born into a society that hates and fears magic and given the various possessions and abuses has reason to.

[IanPolaris]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

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.

-Polaris

[Mike Canary]

IanPolaris wrote...

Mike Canary wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

A trained warrior is dangerous to others without a sword...soemthing Aveline should know perfectly well. Martial training and the willingness to kill in combat is an attitude first and foremost.

Otherwise by the same logic we should lock away all combat veterans and martial arts masters since they can't 'put down their sword' either.

-Polaris

This argument would make more sense if the average warrior's sword could levitate on its own and start hacking apart innocent people. Like, in theory, a possessed mage could.

Even in Kirkwall which has an abnormally thin Veil, we don't see mages up and going abomination just because.  The times you do see it is under extreme stress...and that's with a thin veil where the rules are different.

In addition, get a person hyped on drugs (PCP for example....and that can happen without said person;'s knowledge in some cases) and a trained warrior/martial-artist is at least as dangeous.

-Polaris

No, but we do see an abnormally large number resort to blood magic and become abominations. We even see a substantial number force others to become abominations (Even Templars). Actions like that are what brought on Meredith's policies, and while these didn't exactly help, what else was she going to do?

As for the drug argument...Really? PCP? In Dragon Age? I'm not sure that particular argument works here....

[Wulfram]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

If you want to look at them as people, as human beings, as children, then yes the people who decided to slaughter them all out of hand are terrible.

It may be frustrating for you that people find the murder of children morally repugnant, even after you've beaten the evil blood mage drum for an entire game, but I don't think it's a sign of naivity.

[Dave of Canada]

Mages are not normal people, they don't deserve the same rights as normal people. They "aren't guilty as birth", they are thrown into the Circle and told to make their life there. Provided they don't do anything to screw up, we've seen that mages can achieve:

• Marriage with permission.
• Can leave the tower at will with permission. (Wynne / Finn)
• Can have a meetings with other circles throughout Thedas
• ... and more.

They can make their life with what they have, it doesn't matter if they are "guilty at birth" because they are dangerous. Unless you're personally feel that having dozens of mages capable of killing hundreds and wiping out entire villages against their will is perfectly fine and dandy.

The Kirkwall Circle is shown as the craziest circle ever and everything they do as unjustified, yet you're ignoring everything the mages are doing to achieve the oppression they are getting. Everything is about escalation, trying to dismiss everything as black and white with the Templar / Mages is dismissing everything the writers have spent time creating.

Saying "mages are good" and "templar are bad" does not make it so, nor does dismissing Gaider's posts about the truth of mages (which is presented in the game but you seem to be ignoring that too).

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 08 avril 2011 - 08:32 .

[LobselVith8]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

The comment was made that the denizens of the Gallows - from the eldest mage to the youngest apprentice - were going to be executed for the actions of an ex-Grey Warden named Anders. In that regard, they are innocent. It's an act of genocide, and it's an example of why people take such an issue with the Chantry controlled Circles when Knight-Commander Meredith can legally murder all the mages for something an apostate did.

[Aloradus]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Lol this about sums up the first post I read by you - arrogant.  People are not connecting with this story  due to many flaws.  However you like to point out posters improper technicalities and semantics because you 'use words for a living.'  People may not know the exact reasons or miscues that cause their disconnect… Instead they put forth something different. If you truly are knowledgeable in the art you could connect the dots.  

Modifié par Aloradus, 08 avril 2011 - 08:33 .

[RolandX9]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Ah, the Project: Wideawake argument. It's depressing enough from fans. From the lead writer...wow. I'll simply rebut with some help from Aral Vorkosigan:

"The really unforgivable acts are committed by calm men in beautiful green silk rooms, who deal death wholesale, by the shipload, without lust, or anger, or desire, or any redeeming emotion to excuse them but cold fear of some pretended future. But the crimes they hope to prevent in the future are imaginary. The ones they commit in the present--they are real."

The Chantry imprisons people for life for things they might do. This is evil. No. Moral. Ambiguity. None.

Modifié par RolandX9, 08 avril 2011 - 08:35 .

[PantheraOnca]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

This is the problematic part. I feel it should.

[frylock23]

"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."

I'm not naive.  Mages can be incredibly dangerous, but just because they can doesn't mean that they will turn out that way.  And, over the course of my DA experiences, I've seen nothing to suggest a good set of statistics one way or the other.  Maybe Ferelden's Circle where most of the mages seemed normal was the outlier, and maybe Kirkwall where most of the mages seemed to be demon summoning blood mages was the outlier.  One or the other is closer to the norm, and until I see at least one more data set, I'm going to continue to error on the side of most mages being relatively normal.  It's that whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

For me, Kirkwall is like the evening news where if it bleeds it leads, but what you see on the news is nowhere near representative of society as a whole.

[Wulfram]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Mages are not normal people, they don't deserve the same rights as normal people. They "aren't guilty as birth", they are thrown into the Circle and told to make their life there. Provided they don't do anything to screw up, we've seen that mages can achieve:

You mean provided no one in their circle screws up, since they can be simply killed out of hand then.  And assuming they pass the Harrowing.  And assuming they're allowed to take the Harrowing rather than simply tranquilled instead because they're not considered to be up to scratch.

[HTTP 404]

the fact that this is a debate kinda gives credence to the writers

[Torax]

LobselVith8 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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.

The comment was made that the denizens of the Gallows - from the eldest mage to the youngest apprentice - were going to be executed for the actions of an ex-Grey Warden named Anders. In that regard, they are innocent. It's an act of genocide, and it's an example of why people take such an issue with the Chantry controlled Circles when Knight-Commander Meredith can legally murder all the mages for something an apostate did.

And all Gaider was saying is that mages are not innocent of becomig a threat to others. While a highly skilled rogue could go crazy and kill people in low town. That rogue doesn't have the power to shape things into being. Being enslaved by demons. Summoning things into this world that do not belong and so on. So some in Thedas would view magic as it having it's good uses. Some view it as a danger. That could have some thinking mages deserve no rights or I'm sure some extremist would just want to kill them at birth. It doesn't make any difference what you believe or another player believes. It only matters what the characters who exist in Thedas believe.

Modifié par Torax, 08 avril 2011 - 08:41 .

[tmp7704]

LobselVith8 wrote...

This pic from Sylriel sums it up.

I really like this one

[LobselVith8]

Stinkface27 wrote...

You always make such a great initial post, thorough and well thought out with room for intelligent discussion and debate. Then it always degrades into you twisting Gaider's words into something you can fight about. It's a shame, in my opinion.

People are simply arguing for balance.

In DA:O, the Warden encountered good templars who were protecting the people in Lothering and were lead by Ser Bryant, the Warden met a good man named Ser Otto looking to help the elves in the Alienage, and even Knight-Commander Greagoir demonstrated concern for the mages in "A Broken Circle" (to the point some think he had a relationship with Irving). Despite the ability to chose the Magi Boon, people saw that there were many good templars. There was balance.

In DA2, we had clumsy attempts to paint virtually all mages as antagonists, even when it makes no sense in the storyline. Why would mages think an apostate Hawke who publicly denounced Meredith is working for her? Why are we denied an apostate POV from the perspective of Hawke? Why are our apostate companions never in any real danger of being discovered by the templars? There's no balance in the sequel.

[The Angry One]

Wulfram wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Mages are not normal people, they don't deserve the same rights as normal people. They "aren't guilty as birth", they are thrown into the Circle and told to make their life there. Provided they don't do anything to screw up, we've seen that mages can achieve:

You mean provided no one in their circle screws up, since they can be simply killed out of hand then.  And assuming they pass the Harrowing.  And assuming they're allowed to take the Harrowing rather than simply tranquilled instead because they're not considered to be up to scratch.

And now we're using the Gallows to define every single circle?

[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.

[Dave of Canada]

Wulfram wrote...

You mean provided no one in their circle screws up, since they can be simply killed out of hand then.

When the majority of the Circle have turned to blood mages and you're unable to tell who is corrupt and who isn't, yes. Unless you're telling me it's perfectly fine to leave blood mages in the Circle. And that's only the Kirkwall Circle during very bad events.

And assuming they pass the Harrowing.

Letting mages fight against a demon, something they'll have to struggle with their entire life, is bad?

And assuming they're allowed to take the Harrowing rather than simply tranquilled instead because they're not considered to be up to scratch.

The First Enchanter has to approve of it too.
And in Jowan's case, the Templar were proven right.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 08 avril 2011 - 08:40 .

[Wulfram]

The Angry One wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

You mean provided no one in their circle screws up, since they can be simply killed out of hand then.  And assuming they pass the Harrowing.  And assuming they're allowed to take the Harrowing rather than simply tranquilled instead because they're not considered to be up to scratch.

And now we're using the Gallows to define every single circle?

All of that is standard Templar practice.

[AshenEndymion]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Mages are not normal people, they don't deserve the same rights as normal people. They "aren't guilty as birth", they are thrown into the Circle and told to make their life there. Provided they don't do anything to screw up, we've seen that mages can achieve:

• Marriage with permission.
• Can leave the tower at will with permission. (Wynne / Finn)
• Can have a meetings with other circles throughout Thedas
• ... and more.

They can make their life with what they have, it doesn't matter if they are "guilty at birth" because they are dangerous. Unless you're personally feel that having dozens of mages capable of killing hundreds and wiping out entire villages against their will is perfectly fine and dandy.

The Kirkwall Circle is shown as the craziest circle ever and everything they do as unjustified, yet you're ignoring everything the mages are doing to achieve the oppression they are getting. Everything is about escalation, trying to dismiss everything as black and white with the Templar / Mages is dismissing everything the writers have spent time creating.

Saying "mages are good" and "templar are bad" does not make it so, nor does dismissing Gaider's posts about the truth of mages (which is presented in the game but you seem to be ignoring that too).

This.