1072 réponses à ce sujet

[RavenB]

The legality of the act seems like a silly point to hang up on. Is the legality really a determining factor in acceptability? I don't think so. Do you know what's also illegal? Apostates. Clearly, though, we're not all in agreement on whether or not mages who don't submit to the Chantry are "wrong".

I don't say this from a pro-templar position, either. I'm very much on the side of mage freedom. I personally play as a mage and so I view the issue from a mage's perspective. I understand that mages can be dangerous, but I would personally still fight as hard as possible to maintain my freedom. Why should my quality of life be worth less than the "common people"? Because there are more of them? Well, not everyone subscribes to utilitarian philosophies.

I also object to Chantry control of issue pertaining to mages, a religious organization that preaches hatred against mages and whose (yet unfounded) belief system is based upon magic being the result of a great sin that turned their God away from the world. They're clearly not in the position to have an unbiased view of mages from the start.

The issue of legality, I think, has little place in the argument, however. The mages are certainly (in my opinion understandably) not acting within the law in rebellion. Arguing legality on the templar side seems out of place, to me.

[Paeyne]

Wulfram wrote...

So children are guilty for being born?

Prior to modern medicine, there have been times in human history where individuals have been put to death for no other reason than they were displaying symptoms of one plague or another.

Men, women and children, even entire villages were put to the torch.

If you look at magic as a disease, one that could cause the deaths of thousands of citizens, the only options they currently have at their disposal is containment, tranquility or death.

If containment is breached and tranquility is not an option only death remains.

I don't like it any more than you do.  Killing a child is abhorrent to me, but if it was the only option to me I would do it.

If I was a guard in Redcliff and had the opportunity to kill Connor before he massacred the castle and half the town, I would do it. 

I would also have to live with that for the rest of my life.

[The Angry One]

Wulfram wrote...

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.

And exagerration.
The tower in Ferelden wasn't "one mage screwing up", it was an abomination and a bunch of blood mages taking control of the tower, capturing the First enchanter and most of the remaining mages and forcing a lockdown.
And if you're referring to Jowan. He was suspected of practicing blood magic. Which he was.

[tmp7704]

David Gaider wrote...

The Japanese-Americans in WWII were incapable of blood magic.

But they knew kung-fu!

sorry, please carry on

[LobselVith8]

Torax wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

That would be applicable if this were a discussion about the dicotomy between the Chantry controlled Circles and mage governing themselves, but this thread was taking issue with Meredith's decree for the Right of Annulment. Meredith orders the Right of Annulment for something Anders did. Does she arrest him? Demand his execution? Kill him? No, she orders the Right of Annulment and if Hawke sides with her, she handwaves his existance. She orders the execution of the Kirkwall Circle for something Anders specifically did, and that makes them innocent.

[IanPolaris]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

I'm sorry but that was exactly the same rational that was used by the Attorney Gen in 1942 to lock away Japanese Americans.  Replace "mage" with "japenese american", threat to the world with "threat to America" and "abomination/demon" with "trusted family relative" and you are there.  The FBI at the time said sure most were good Americans but because of what they were, they could not take the chance.

Edit:  Also Japanese-American spies for Japan could (and did in Hawaii) do considerable damage which further indicates how apt this comparison is (and why the internment was considered justified....ironically the Japaese Americans on Hawaii were never interned and many of them really were Japanese spies!)

Furthermore even in Kirkwall you haven't shown that mages simply by being mage are that dire a threat.  At best you have shown untrained mages are (a point no one here disputes).  It would also help a lot to give the idea that bloodmagic is evil if:

1.  The PC couldn't learn bloodmagic
2.  The NPCS didn't ignore PC use of bloodmagic.

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.

This is a 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]

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 08 avril 2011 - 08:53 .

[hanoobken]

Because Anders openly presented himself as the culprit behind the grand cleric's murder, Meredith did not have the right to invoke RoA. She insisted that people would demand blood, she could have easily given them Anders instead of killing every mage. Burn him alive like they did Andraste, make him pay for his crimes through public execution.

Orsino was just being stubborn, not that we can blame him, but at the end he gave in to Meredith's will to search the circle if only to appease her bloodlust and work something out before it turned into mass genocide. Sure the Knight Commander had good reasons at times, but killing everyone for one man's crime was going overboard.

If she had given in to Orsino's suggestion to search the circle before the final battle things could have been different, but then she was a crazed lunatic already, blame it on the idol (what a convenient excuse).

In DA:O Gregoir also wanted to invoke the rite, though as soon as he saw that the first enchanter was still alive and sane, he saw reason and reversed his decision.

Meredith did not have the right.. end of story.

[Wulfram]

Paeyne wrote...

If I was a guard in Redcliff and had the opportunity to kill Connor before he massacred the castle and half the town, I would do it. 

I would also have to live with that for the rest of my life.

But we're not talking about killing child abominations like Connor.  We're talking about children who aren't doing anything dangerous and whose only crime is being in the prison you put them in.

[Torax]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Torax wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

That would be applicable if this were a discussion about the dicotomy between the Chantry controlled Circles and mage governing themselves, but this thread was taking issue with Meredith's decree for the Right of Annulment. Meredith orders the Right of Annulment for something Anders did. Does she arrest him? Demand his execution? Kill him? No, she orders the Right of Annulment and if Hawke sides with her, she handwaves his existance. She orders the execution of the Kirkwall Circle for something Anders specifically did, and that makes them innocent.

Don't change the subject to deflect. The topic is that it's the opinion some npcs would have in the World of Thedas. You are now trying to deflect and divert back to Meredith. Not all in Thedas see mages as innocent and not dangerous to them. Even Wynne hinted in Origins how villages may kill the local mage cause the crops didn't grow well in a season. Many fear magic and they have valid reasons to. An npc thinking something. Be them Irving or Meredith. are out of your hands. Don't attempt to imagine what they would or wouldn't do. Don't attempt to change the subject either. That is usually an implication of not having a valid response.

Modifié par Torax, 08 avril 2011 - 08:50 .

[tmp7704]

IanPolaris wrote...

I'm sorry but that was exactly the same rational that was used by the Attorney Gen in 1942 to lock away Japanese Americans.  Replace "mage" with "japenese american", threat to the world with "threat to America" and "abomination/demon" with "trusted family relative" and you are there. 

If you have replace this much then it's hardly "exactly the same rationale"...

it's like suggesting you can replace "murder" with "assault" and it's exactly the same thing, too. And yet the law generally disagrees, seeing how it can attach quite differently weighted treatment to these guilty of either.

[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.

[Torax]

tmp7704 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I'm sorry but that was exactly the same rational that was used by the Attorney Gen in 1942 to lock away Japanese Americans.  Replace "mage" with "japenese american", threat to the world with "threat to America" and "abomination/demon" with "trusted family relative" and you are there. 

If you have replace this much then it's hardly "exactly the same rationale"...

it's like suggesting you can replace "murder" with "assault" and it's exactly the same thing, too. And yet the law generally disagrees, seeing how it can attach quite differently weighted treatment to these guilty of either.

To a point he's proving Gaider right. It's attempting to apply things into the World of Thedas for their own rational against Gaider and the Writers. But those are not the World of Thedas. None of them apply to Blood Mages who would summon demons, control minds and supposedly even became the first Dark Spawn if the Chantry is to be believed. But it's an attempt to shield and side step if they are contradicted in the logic they come up with in their heads as a form of attack at what they dislike in the story.

[IanPolaris]

tmp7704 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I'm sorry but that was exactly the same rational that was used by the Attorney Gen in 1942 to lock away Japanese Americans.  Replace "mage" with "japenese american", threat to the world with "threat to America" and "abomination/demon" with "trusted family relative" and you are there. 

If you have replace this much then it's hardly "exactly the same rationale"...

it's like suggesting you can replace "murder" with "assault" and it's exactly the same thing, too. And yet the law generally disagrees, seeing how it can attach quite differently weighted treatment to these guilty of either.

In early 1942 people were afraid that Japanese-Americans by being Japanese-American were going to make it possible for Japan to invade San Fransico (amog other things).  In hindsight it's completely ridiculous but it is what people believed and the Govt Propoganda made things even worse.  So all Japanese-Americans were locked away for what they were because a few might (and DID in Hawaii) do considerable damage as spies and sabatours.  The comparison isn't exact but it's very apt and very close.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

No one is waving it away and no one is saying that magic shouldn't be regulated.  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.

-Polaris

[Paeyne]

Wulfram wrote...

Paeyne wrote...

If I was a guard in Redcliff and had the opportunity to kill Connor before he massacred the castle and half the town, I would do it. 

I would also have to live with that for the rest of my life.

But we're not talking about killing child abominations like Connor.  We're talking about children who aren't doing anything dangerous and whose only crime is being in the prison you put them in.

... and the exploding kitten isn't dangerous until it explodes.

I am not saying that the Right of Annulment used in this instance was necessary, in fact I would argue that it wasn't.  There was no breach of containment that I could see and the reason for the act was Merith's agenda.

That doesn't diminish how dangerous a mage can become, regardless of age.

Modifié par Paeyne, 08 avril 2011 - 09:01 .

[tmp7704]

IanPolaris wrote...

So all Japanese-Americans were locked away for what they were because a few might (and DID in Hawaii) do considerable damage as spies and sabatours.  The comparison isn't exact but it's very apt and very close.

Precisely, it is not exact and i'd argue it's far from being apt and close, either -- considering your average Japanese-American had full control over whether he'd turn into spy or saboteur. While mage's control over whether he'd turn into abomination is far from that (and unlike the spy/saboteur they can't change their mind once that happens)

Modifié par tmp7704, 08 avril 2011 - 09:02 .

[Torax]

IanPolaris wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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.

No one is waving it away and no one is saying that magic shouldn't be regulated.  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.

-Polaris

He isn't saying that "He thinks" it is legitimate. He is just saying what some in Thedas may believe. As in the many who would gladly be Templars. "Apostate, keep your distance." As a Developer he was just giving the mindset of many in the game that you would more than likely ignore. Cause you prefer to blame him instead of them.

[Apollo Starflare]

These discussions always get so messy when real world examples and politics get involved. The current Circle system might be deeply flawed, but having nothing would be even worse - certainly for the average joe. Offhand I think the system needs to focus more on making the Circles a place Mages want to be using various reward and privialedge systems, for all those arguing against the very nature of the Circles it's worth bearing in mind that most 'nice' mages you meet actually seem okay with the idea, just perhaps not the execution.

Obviously implementing a system that made the Circles more appealing to Mages isn't something that would be easy, and I have no idea how it would happen (or even if it's possible) but eh.

[Camenae]

What I don't understand is are you people arguing for mage EQUALITY or absolute mage FREEDOMS?

Why do people say that mages should NOT be regulated? At all?? Guess what, NORMAL PEOPLE ARE REGULATED TOO. We have laws. We have gun-licensing requirements. Every nuclear power plant, in fact just about every facility ever, has an @ss-ton of safety regulations.

Just about every single one of our laws operates on the assumption that we do NOT trust people to just use their self-control to maintain order in society. Why should mages be any DIFFERENT, that they should not have these laws? I get that maybe Templars and the Circle isn't the answer, but why shouldn't they have SOMEthing? I don't understand.

[Wulfram]

Paeyne wrote...

... and the exploding kitten isn't dangerous until it explodes.

I am not saying that the Right of Annulment used in this instance was necessary, in fact I would argue that it wasn't.  There was no breach of containment that I could see and the reason for the act was Merith's agenda.

That doesn't diminish how dangerous a mage can become, regardless of age.

It's not like Warrior Hawke isn't just as dangerous as Mage Hawke.  While the really dangerous NPCs are the assassins.

And there's no point to the Right of Annulment except to authorise the murder of innocents, since Templars need no authorisation to kill blood mages and abominations.

[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.

[LobselVith8]

Camenae wrote...

What I don't understand is are you people arguing for mage EQUALITY or absolute mage FREEDOMS?

Why do people say that mages should NOT be regulated? At all?? Guess what, NORMAL PEOPLE ARE REGULATED TOO. We have laws. We have gun-licensing requirements. Every nuclear power plant, in fact just about every facility ever, has an @ss-ton of safety regulations.

Just about every single one of our laws operates on the assumption that we do NOT trust people to just use their self-control to maintain order in society. Why should mages be any DIFFERENT, that they should not have these laws? I get that maybe Templars and the Circle isn't the answer, but why shouldn't they have SOMEthing? I don't understand.

No one is arguing against regulation via law enforcement to protect everyone, people are arguing against a system where mages are under the authority of a religious order that openly views them as cursed and can exterminate them even if they've done nothing wrong.

[tmp7704]

Wulfram wrote...

It's not like Warrior Hawke isn't just as dangerous as Mage Hawke.  While the really dangerous NPCs are the assassins.

But that's just the gameplay keeping the mage's powers in check and drumming up these of warriors/rogues to provide equally enjoyable experience for the player. I mean, fireballs which tickle at best, really.

[Torax]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Maybe you are the most evil Boss Fight ever. In their heads...

[LobselVith8]

Torax wrote...

Don't change the subject to deflect. The topic is that it's the opinion some npcs would have in the World of Thedas. You are now trying to deflect and divert back to Meredith.

You mean I addressed the very issue that David Gaider responded to - via the innocence of the Kirkwall Circle in Anders destroying the Chantry of Kirkwall?

Torax wrote...

Not all in Thedas see mages as innocent and not dangerous to them.

And that has nothing to do with what I was addressing.

Torax wrote...

Even Wynne hinted in Origins how villages may kill the local mage cause the crops didn't grow well in a season.

 
And I have little doubt we have the Chantry to that for the anti-mage views when we know other cultures respond to mages differently.

Torax wrote...

Many fear magic and they have valid reasons to. An npc thinking something. Be them Irving or Meredith. are out of your hands. Don't attempt to imagine what they would or wouldn't do. Don't attempt to change the subject either. That is usually an implication of not having a valid response.

You continually change the subject and make the responses personal, and I don't see why. This is a discussion over fictional characters in a fictional universe, after all.