1072 réponses à ce sujet

[AshenEndymion]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The other Rights of Annulment were probably "needless slaughter" as well.  The justification is there.  Whether you agree really doesn't matter.  Only that the Divine does.  She agreed with the last 17.  Why so quick to assume she won't agree to this one?

I could ask you a similar question. Why so quick to assume she will agree to this one? Justification doesn't just mean the Divine goes "Yea sure don't worry about it."

Why do I think the Divine will agree with the justification?  Because I believe the justification is warranted, and the Circle deserved to be annulled(Whereas you don't think she will, because you believe it wasn't warranted, and they didn't deserve to be annulled).

You honestly don't think that the reports that are given to the Seekers when they investigate will include all the blood magic and abominations that occur during the Annulment?  Yes that's stacking the deck to make the annulment seem more justified after the fact, but the idea is that if the mages don't just lay down and die, if they turn to blood magic, then they must have been blood mages all along.  And all Maleficarum are to be put to death.

You honestly don't think that happened for the previous ones?  The Divine will not find the Annullment unwarranted, in my opinion, only because it will tell the all the other Templars that Kirkwall was the place where 90% of the mages turn to blood magic, and they shouldn't have been annullled.  No matter what happens in your Circle, you're screwed.

[AngryFrozenWater]

BTW: There are no "Rights of Annulment". There is only the "Rite of Annulment". There are rights to invoke that, though. But mixing up right and rite makes the discussion fuzzy to say the least.

[AshenEndymion]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

AshenEndemion wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Yes. Anders is the one who committed the crime.

But the Circle was annulled because the crime was committed. Not because they did it. If the crime wasn't committed, the Grand Cleric would still be alive, and the Circle would not be annulled.

What kind of logic is that? "Because a random mage did it, we should kill all nearby mages to show how powerful we are!"? You'll have to forgive me if I bash my head against the wall for thinking that's the dumbest argument I've read.

The Circle is not being annulled for killing the Grand Cleric.

• Meredith wants the Circle annulled for their offenses prior to Anders killing the Grand Cleric.
• Anders killed the Grand Cleric.
• Because the Grand Cleric is dead, Meredith can authorize the Right of Annulment.

It is not for the death.  It is because of the death that the Circle is annulled.

So.... because she now has the power and authority to enact the Right of Annulment, she is justified in doing so?

Great logic. Because she can do it, that makes it all better. Last time I checked, all prior offenses were taken care of. Mages were apprehended, made Tranquil, killed, etc. If the problems have been resolved, there is no need to say "The Circle was out of control!"

If prior problems were taken care of, then why send to the Divine for permission?  Obviously the prior problems were not resolved, and the Circle was still out of control in the estimation of the Knight Commaner.

[TEWR]

You honestly don't think that the reports that are given to the Seekers when they investigate will include all the blood magic and abominations that occur during the Annulment?

You're forgetting that Cassandra, a Seeker, pins it all on Meredith on a Pro-Mage and a Pro-Templar playthrough, with Varric giving her other reasons it went that far.

[AshenEndymion]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

BTW: There are no "Rights of Annulment". There is only the "Rite of Annulment". There are rights to invoke that, though. But mixing up right and rite makes the discussion fuzzy to say the least.

David Gaiter has said it is Right of Annulment.  "Rite" is a typo.

[TEWR]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

BTW: There are no "Rights of Annulment". There is only the "Rite of Annulment". There are rights to invoke that, though. But mixing up right and rite makes the discussion fuzzy to say the least.

I was wondering which one was right. I'm writing Rite, other people are writing Right, so I start writing Right. Man, all these people writing Rite and writing Right is really not making me feel right.

[AngryFrozenWater]

AshenEndemion wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

BTW: There are no "Rights of Annulment". There is only the "Rite of Annulment". There are rights to invoke that, though. But mixing up right and rite makes the discussion fuzzy to say the least.

David Gaiter has said it is Right of Annulment.  "Rite" is a typo.

That's odd... Because in DA:O it was "rite". So, suddenly that has changed. OK.

[jadefishes]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

AshenEndemion wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

BTW: There are no "Rights of Annulment". There is only the "Rite of Annulment". There are rights to invoke that, though. But mixing up right and rite makes the discussion fuzzy to say the least.

David Gaiter has said it is Right of Annulment.  "Rite" is a typo.

That's odd... Because in DA:O it was "rite". So, suddenly that has changed. OK.

David Gaider explained that there is no "rite" to perform, only the "right" to annul the current circle. It was inconsistent, but when it comes to canon clarification, you can't ask for a much higher authority to settle it.

[Torax]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

AshenEndemion wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Yes. Anders is the one who committed the crime.

But the Circle was annulled because the crime was committed. Not because they did it. If the crime wasn't committed, the Grand Cleric would still be alive, and the Circle would not be annulled.

What kind of logic is that? "Because a random mage did it, we should kill all nearby mages to show how powerful we are!"? You'll have to forgive me if I bash my head against the wall for thinking that's the dumbest argument I've read.

The Circle is not being annulled for killing the Grand Cleric.

• Meredith wants the Circle annulled for their offenses prior to Anders killing the Grand Cleric.
• Anders killed the Grand Cleric.
  Because the Grand Cleric is dead, Meredith can authorize the Right of Annulment.

It is not for the death.  It is because of the death that the Circle is annulled.

So.... because she now has the power and authority to enact the Right of Annulment, she is justified in doing so?

Great logic. Because she can do it, that makes it all better. Last time I checked, all prior offenses were taken care of. Mages were apprehended, made Tranquil, killed, etc. If the problems have been resolved, there is no need to say "The Circle was out of control!"

Justified? No she isn't justified. She had the ability to enact the Right of Annulment? Absolutely yes.

[AshenEndymion]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

You honestly don't think that the reports that are given to the Seekers when they investigate will include all the blood magic and abominations that occur during the Annulment?

You're forgetting that Cassandra, a Seeker, pins it all on Meredith on a Pro-Mage and a Pro-Templar playthrough, with Varric giving her other reasons it went that far.

Not exactly.  During the pro-templar side she doesn't seem to pin blame.  She only says "So Meredith turned on the Champion..."  That doesn't imply "The Right of Annulment was wrong" to me....

[AngryFrozenWater]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

BTW: There are no "Rights of Annulment". There is only the "Rite of Annulment". There are rights to invoke that, though. But mixing up right and rite makes the discussion fuzzy to say the least.

I was wondering which one was right. I'm writing Rite, other people are writing Right, so I start writing Right. Man, all these people writing Rite and writing Right is really not making me feel right.

Right... In another thread a dev has noted the confusion in DA2 (in the localization text both are used). He said that he will check which one to use and change it in the string tables (meaning the next patch will clear it up).

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 09 avril 2011 - 04:28 .

[Torax]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

AshenEndemion wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

BTW: There are no "Rights of Annulment". There is only the "Rite of Annulment". There are rights to invoke that, though. But mixing up right and rite makes the discussion fuzzy to say the least.

David Gaiter has said it is Right of Annulment.  "Rite" is a typo.

That's odd... Because in DA:O it was "rite". So, suddenly that has changed. OK.

One of their employees went back everywhere and checked. There was only one spot where it was called Rite. It was called Right everywhere else. There was a thread dedicated to this.

[LobselVith8]

AshenEndemion wrote...

Why do I think the Divine will agree with the justification?  Because I believe the justification is warranted, and the Circle deserved to be annulled(Whereas you don't think she will, because you believe it wasn't warranted, and they didn't deserve to be annulled).

Warranted because a mentally unsound Knight-Commander thought so? She may have been within her legal rights to order the execution of the Kirkwall Circle, but I find it morally repugnant that she killed innocent people because of what Anders did. She took advantage of the Grand Cleric's death, and didn't even care that Elthina's killer was standing right in front of her.

AshenEndemion wrote...

You honestly don't think that the reports that are given to the Seekers when they investigate will include all the blood magic and abominations that occur during the Annulment?  Yes that's stacking the deck to make the annulment seem more justified after the fact, but the idea is that if the mages don't just lay down and die, if they turn to blood magic, then they must have been blood mages all along.  And all Maleficarum are to be put to death.

You honestly don't think that happened for the previous ones?  The Divine will not find the Annullment unwarranted, in my opinion, only because it will tell the all the other Templars that Kirkwall was the place where 90% of the mages turn to blood magic, and they shouldn't have been annullled.  No matter what happens in your Circle, you're screwed.

90%? We didn't even meet 90% of the mages in Kirkwall. We can't say a majority of the mages used blood magic when we never encountered them..

[Paeyne]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Is a mage more dangerous than the guy with the kitchen knife? I don't think so. If you are killed does it matter that you are killed by magic or by a kitchen knife? Death is death.

I would agree with you except for some very specific differences.

The guy with the knife can only kill one person at a time.  A better parallel would buy a guy with a bomb.  Actually a guy with virtually unlimited bombs.  (They can also raise the dead and summon friends out of thin air who also have virtually unlimited bombs.)

The second problem is the possession angle.  I would be willing to give mages much more benefit of the doubt if they weren't so easily possessable by demons.  (I know that others can be possessed as well but it is much more difficult and often requires the help of mages to do.)   What was once a nice mild mannered mage becomes an evil creature of destruction.  As Wynne stated in Origins, no matter how vigilant the mage may be, it only takes one slip.

As DA implied, the fact that the exploding kitten is innocent does not make it any less dangerous.  It may not even want to explode.  If I was an exploding kitten I would probably not want to explode.  I might even try very hard not to explode.  As you stated, the fact that I didn't mean to kill anyone doesn't alter the fact dead is dead.

[TEWR]

Justified? No she isn't justified. She had the ability to enact the Right of Annulment? Absolutely yes.

Yes. Legally she may have had the authority. That doesn't justify her enacting it though.

Not exactly. During the pro-templar side she doesn't seem to pin blame. She only says "So Meredith turned on the Champion..." That doesn't imply "The Right of Annulment was wrong" to me....

[sarcasm] You're right, the lyrium idol that messed with her common sense,reasoning, and the normal way of thinking people possess doesn't imply the Right of Annulment was wrong. [/sarcasm]

[LobselVith8]

AshenEndemion wrote...

If problems were taken care of, then why send to the Divine for permission?  Obviously the prior problems were not resolved, and the Circle was still out of control in the estimation of the Knight Commaner.

Meredith ordering the Right doesn't tell us whether there were any legitiment problems with the mages, only that she wanted to purge the mage population in the Gallows. This is the Knight-Commander who lost her mind due to the influence of the Idol she had in her possession.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Torax wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

AshenEndemion wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

BTW: There are no "Rights of Annulment". There is only the "Rite of Annulment". There are rights to invoke that, though. But mixing up right and rite makes the discussion fuzzy to say the least.

David Gaiter has said it is Right of Annulment.  "Rite" is a typo.

That's odd... Because in DA:O it was "rite". So, suddenly that has changed. OK.

One of their employees went back everywhere and checked. There was only one spot where it was called Rite. It was called Right everywhere else. There was a thread dedicated to this.

Ah. OK. I saw a dev busy with it, but that must have been another thread.

[LobselVith8]

AshenEndemion wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

You're forgetting that Cassandra, a Seeker, pins it all on Meredith on a Pro-Mage and a Pro-Templar playthrough, with Varric giving her other reasons it went that far.

Not exactly.  During the pro-templar side she doesn't seem to pin blame.  She only says "So Meredith turned on the Champion..."  That doesn't imply "The Right of Annulment was wrong" to me....

How much of the truth does everyone actually know about what happened? Considering how much "the legend" Varric initially tells in the beginning veers from the truth, I'd have to wonder how much of the truth has slipped into the Champion's decision in siding with the templars or the mages. Given the abysmal reaction from the Circle mages against the templars, where they were pretty much inept to the point that I got the impression they weren't properly trained, I never got the feeling that the entire Circle was really corrupt. Had it been, there would have been an armada of blood mages taking on templars instead of ordinary Circle mages using regular magic in the scenes where they are being cut down. For all of Meredith's insanity and her brutal regime, not everyone had crossed the line into forbidden magic.

What I'd wonder is why the other Circles across Thedas rallied around Hawke as a symbol, either as a hero of the mage cause, or a representation of oppression. The Circle had been slaughtered. Why would this act show that "the mighty templars can be defied" when the choices are between the many survivors in the mage ending, or the apparent decimination of the Circle in the templar ending? Did the last stand by the mages get embellished to a great decree? Would the mages even acknowledge what Anders did, or would it be re-written into the story of Hawke and his defiance against the Chantry and its templars?

[Torax]

LobselVith8 wrote...

AshenEndemion wrote...

If problems were taken care of, then why send to the Divine for permission?  Obviously the prior problems were not resolved, and the Circle was still out of control in the estimation of the Knight Commaner.

Meredith ordering the Right doesn't tell us whether there were any legitiment problems with the mages, only that she wanted to purge the mage population in the Gallows. This is the Knight-Commander who lost her mind due to the influence of the Idol she had in her possession.

I'm just assuming that there was some very bad ones in the heap. Enough of them using blood magic and corrupting others that would further not just Meredith's paranoia but other Templars in her flock as well. Or odds are Cullen and others would have turned on her before. Even Cullen shows his doubts at one point when you talk to him. That if he is serving the order or just the Knight Commander. But, I bet there were far more outliers in the Magi just like there probably were Templars. Enough to push both groups further to extremes. As in no saints. I also wager there were innocent Templars and Mages. But only trying to paint a single side as the villain in that scenario could be considered naive.

[TEWR]

What I'd wonder is why the other Circles across Thedas rallied around Hawke as a symbol, either as a hero of the mage cause, or a representation of oppression. The Circle had been slaughtered. Why would this act show that "the mighty templars can be defied" when the choices are between the many survivors in the mage ending, or the apparent decimination of the Circle in the templar ending? Did the last stand by the mages get embellished to a great decree? Would the mages even acknowledge what Anders did, or would it be re-written into the story of Hawke and his defiance against the Chantry and its templars?

It probably has to do with the fact that Orsino finally took a stand against the Templars, Hawke or no Hawke

[AshenEndymion]

LobselVith8 wrote...

AshenEndemion wrote...

If problems were taken care of, then why send to the Divine for permission?  Obviously the prior problems were not resolved, and the Circle was still out of control in the estimation of the Knight Commaner.

Meredith ordering the Right doesn't tell us whether there were any legitiment problems with the mages, only that she wanted to purge the mage population in the Gallows. This is the Knight-Commander who lost her mind due to the influence of the Idol she had in her possession.

And?  If being insane means that her justification is automatically wrong than any justification Anders can come up with for doing what he did is wrong.

She presented all the justifications she had in her message to the Divine asking for the Right of Annulment during Act 3.  That is the only thing the Divine (and the Seekers) will be able to know about Meredith's beliefs about the Circle at the time.

The real question that should be asked is whether Cullen, after everything is said and done, thought the Circle needed to be purged.  And that likely depends on which side Hawke chooses.  Varric's story is important to the Seekers, to be sure, but neither he, nor Cassandra, will ultimately decide the fate.

For all we know, the reason the rest of the Circles revolted is because the Divine did in fact agree with Meredith, and believed the Right of Annulment was correctly applied... or it could be they revolted, the Divine disagreed with Meredith to appease them, and the Templars revolted against the Chantry because of it.... Until the next game comes out, we won't know for certain.

Modifié par AshenEndemion, 09 avril 2011 - 04:48 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Paeyne wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Is a mage more dangerous than the guy with the kitchen knife? I don't think so. If you are killed does it matter that you are killed by magic or by a kitchen knife? Death is death.

I would agree with you except for some very specific differences.

The guy with the knife can only kill one person at a time.  A better parallel would buy a guy with a bomb.  Actually a guy with virtually unlimited bombs.  (They can also raise the dead and summon friends out of thin air who also have virtually unlimited bombs.)

The second problem is the possession angle.  I would be willing to give mages much more benefit of the doubt if they weren't so easily possessable by demons.  (I know that others can be possessed as well but it is much more difficult and often requires the help of mages to do.)   What was once a nice mild mannered mage becomes an evil creature of destruction.  As Wynne stated in Origins, no matter how vigilant the mage may be, it only takes one slip.

As DA implied, the fact that the exploding kitten is innocent does not make it any less dangerous.  It may not even want to explode.  If I was an exploding kitten I would probably not want to explode.  I might even try very hard not to explode.  As you stated, the fact that I didn't mean to kill anyone doesn't alter the fact dead is dead.

The guy with the knife can kill one at a time, but he can repeat that indefinitely. An area of effect spell that kills multiple victims does the same. The difference is that the guy with the knife has to work harder to kill multiple victims. Serial killers love that.

The fact that a mage can be possessed doesn't make him more dangerous until after the fact. Even then only because he can kill more victims in a short time. The serial killer is also a good sample. He can kill one by one without being seen until caught. Both are just as dangerous.

The guy with the kitchen knife does not have to become a serial killer. The mage does not have to become a danger or a blood mage. It has more to do with things like personality than having access to a weapon like magic or a kitchen knife. You shouldn't lock up or kill all mages because some are rotten apples. To keep it simple: Forum users can be trolls, but not all turn into one. Although sometimes I wonder.

[Paeyne]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

The guy with the knife can kill one at a time, but he can repeat that indefinitely. An area of effect spell that kills multiple victims does the same. The difference is that the guy with the knife has to work harder to kill multiple victims. Serial killers love that.

So your saying that a guy who stabs someone with a knife is the same as someone who blows up an office building.

Wow... um... I am really not sure what to say to that other than I disagree.

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

The fact that a mage can be possessed doesn't make him more dangerous until after the fact. Even then only because he can kill more victims in a short time. The serial killer is also a good sample. He can kill one by one without being seen until caught. Both are just as dangerous.

A terrorist can continue blowing up office buildings until they are caught.  The mage is worse to my mind.  The terrorist at least chooses to perform his acts and can choose to stop, the possessed mage no longer has any choice in the matter and does not have the luxury of stopping until he is put down.

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

The guy with the kitchen knife does not have to become a serial killer. The mage does not have to become a danger or a blood mage. It has more to do with things like personality than having access to a weapon like magic or a kitchen knife. You shouldn't lock up or kill all mages because some are rotten apples. To keep it simple: Forum users can be trolls, but not all turn into one. Although sometimes I wonder.

Owning a kitchen knife does not predispose you to being a serial killer.  Being a mage does predispose you to possession.  That does not automatically mean it will happen.  It does mean that the chances are substantially higher.

Put it this way.  Knowing everything we know about mages, would you want one living in the house next to you, working in the same office as your spouse or sitting in the seat next to your children at school.

If you can honestly say that this would not bother you, then I will just have to bow to you as the better person.

Modifié par Paeyne, 09 avril 2011 - 05:53 .

[Darth Krytie]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Paeyne wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Is a mage more dangerous than the guy with the kitchen knife? I don't think so. If you are killed does it matter that you are killed by magic or by a kitchen knife? Death is death.

I would agree with you except for some very specific differences.

The guy with the knife can only kill one person at a time.  A better parallel would buy a guy with a bomb.  Actually a guy with virtually unlimited bombs.  (They can also raise the dead and summon friends out of thin air who also have virtually unlimited bombs.)

The second problem is the possession angle.  I would be willing to give mages much more benefit of the doubt if they weren't so easily possessable by demons.  (I know that others can be possessed as well but it is much more difficult and often requires the help of mages to do.)   What was once a nice mild mannered mage becomes an evil creature of destruction.  As Wynne stated in Origins, no matter how vigilant the mage may be, it only takes one slip.

As DA implied, the fact that the exploding kitten is innocent does not make it any less dangerous.  It may not even want to explode.  If I was an exploding kitten I would probably not want to explode.  I might even try very hard not to explode.  As you stated, the fact that I didn't mean to kill anyone doesn't alter the fact dead is dead.

The guy with the knife can kill one at a time, but he can repeat that indefinitely. An area of effect spell that kills multiple victims does the same. The difference is that the guy with the knife has to work harder to kill multiple victims. Serial killers love that.

The fact that a mage can be possessed doesn't make him more dangerous until after the fact. Even then only because he can kill more victims in a short time. The serial killer is also a good sample. He can kill one by one without being seen until caught. Both are just as dangerous.

The guy with the kitchen knife does not have to become a serial killer. The mage does not have to become a danger or a blood mage. It has more to do with things like personality than having access to a weapon like magic or a kitchen knife. You shouldn't lock up or kill all mages because some are rotten apples. To keep it simple: Forum users can be trolls, but not all turn into one. Although sometimes I wonder.

I agree that both are dangerous and you can't kill all mages because of a few rotten apples. However, of all the humans in the world, only a percentage have the personality to become a serial killer and out of those who are capable, not everyone will become a serial killer. Every single mage has the potential to become an abomination and willingness does not need to factor in. Serial killers might be predisposed toward behaviour. They may lack a conscience or emotion, but they still are aware that legally what they are doing is wrong and doing it regardless. Intent is required for serial killers.

Mages don't need intent to become abominations.


However, I'm not suggesting that oppression is a good thing or that they deserve how they are treated. I just can see where it's not a black or white situation. And the answer to the situation is probably very complicated. It's hard to find balance when you have those factors to deal with.

[IanPolaris]

Paeyne wrote...

Owning a kitchen knife does not predispose you to being a serial killer.  Being a mage does predispose you to possession.  That does not automatically mean it will happen.  It does mean that the chances are substantially higher.

Yes, but how much higher.  The Devs refuse to tell us (and I believe they refuse to tell us because the number  is so low...and has to be to have stable societies...that it doesn't even come close to justifying the circle).

Honestly, even in Kirkwall, only those mages under extreme duress AND poor (or no) training seem subject to becoming accidental abominations, and that's Kirkwall where the Veil is so thin that demons can cross over on their own and possess/dominate even non-magical people (i.e. the rules are different).  Where the Veil is strong, the real (rate seems be vanishingly tiny).  [And remember Meridith's sister went abomination in Kirkwall where the veil is thin.....Meridith is a Kirkwall native.]

-Polaris