1072 réponses à ce sujet

[Darth Krytie]

IanPolaris wrote...

Paeyne wrote...

No-where in her posts did Darth ever say anything about the Circle. 

Fair enough, but that IS the most common and often only stated defense for the circle system.

So, maybe you ought to consider responding to what people actually say instead of what you assume they meant? That might be nice for everyone who has ever tried to have a discussion with you.

[IanPolaris]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Containment without cause and without redress IS imprisonment. It's why in the US constitution (again as an example) there is a strict limit to how long you can be held without charges being filed.

-Polaris

Thedas isn't the US, Polaris. And it definitely IS in the Dark Ages.

Deal with it.

Oh I am, but that isn't really relevant.  What's relevenat i the audience of DA2 are 21st century Westerners (US, Canada, Europe) for the most part, and thus the moral decisions in the game have to be viewed in that light and per the standards of the sixth century.  [Otherwise the game would look and play very differnently than it does.]  The problem is at least one Dev (DG) want US (not sixth century Europeans but 21st century modern Westerners for the most part) to belileve that it's a reasonable thing to lock away people for what they are.

Now, if we were supposed to understad it's the evil choice but widely supported by the NPC population, that would be one thing.  Many games do that....but no,we are supposed to agree with this frm our modern viewpoint and the Devs (seemed anyway) to get upset when most of us didn't (at least per the DAO play data).

Clearer?

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Darth Krytie wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Paeyne wrote...

No-where in her posts did Darth ever say anything about the Circle. 

Fair enough, but that IS the most common and often only stated defense for the circle system.

So, maybe you ought to consider responding to what people actually say instead of what you assume they meant? That might be nice for everyone who has ever tried to have a discussion with you.

OK, do you support the circle system?  I ask because your rational IS the most common and default defense for it.

-Polaris

[Darth Krytie]

IanPolaris wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Paeyne wrote...

No-where in her posts did Darth ever say anything about the Circle. 

Fair enough, but that IS the most common and often only stated defense for the circle system.

So, maybe you ought to consider responding to what people actually say instead of what you assume they meant? That might be nice for everyone who has ever tried to have a discussion with you.

OK, do you support the circle system?  I ask because your rational IS the most common and default defense for it.

-Polaris

As it currently exists, no.

[IanPolaris]

Darth Krytie wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Paeyne wrote...

No-where in her posts did Darth ever say anything about the Circle. 

Fair enough, but that IS the most common and often only stated defense for the circle system.

So, maybe you ought to consider responding to what people actually say instead of what you assume they meant? That might be nice for everyone who has ever tried to have a discussion with you.

OK, do you support the circle system?  I ask because your rational IS the most common and default defense for it.

-Polaris

As it currently exists, no.

Fair enough.  I apologize then for assuming that you did.

-Polaris

[PantheraOnca]

RosaAquafire wrote...

If you're a parent, you don't give your child free range of the world. You keep them within your four walls. You might set a slightly bigger boundary than that. When you take them out, they're not allowed to wander off and have to stay at your side. Why? Because children have the potential to hurt themselves. They have all the rights of an adult, but their unique situation makes them vulnerable to being taken advantage of and hurt. Now, if they were -- by no choice of their own -- dangerous, to, we'd probably keep them on an even shorter leash.

So I guess we should throw open the doors and let children roam free and do what they please, because they're human beings and it's morally wrong to obstruct their wishes and "lock them away."

Now THAT's a straw man. Or child. as the case may be.

Children don't have the same rights or responsibilities as adults. Its not because children have the potential to hurt themselves, its because they don't know what may hurt them or how to avoid it. They're literally too stupid for their own good.

A young mage may also be too stupid for his or her own good. This is a mage you educate until they are not that stupid any longer.

An adult has at least as many ways to hurt themselves as a child, they are by and large aware of these ways and tend to choose to avoid doing so.

If one's capability to hurt themselves was the determining factor on the age of majority, no one would reach it. Alternatively, quadraplegics would be the only "adults" on the planet.

[Paeyne]

IanPolaris wrote...

As for Asylums, someone is still living in the dark ages. Locking somone in a mental hospital for what they are went out with the Lobotomy. Aslyums (controlled care) does exist, but it exists either on a voluntary basis or for those that have PROVEN they can't live in society without it (i.e. for what they've done). The system was changed because it dehumanized patients (and orderlies....sound familiar?) and often made bad situations worse. "One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest" is not the way it works anymore.

-Polaris

I cannot speak for the US as a Canadian, however as a social worker I have been in both mental care facilities and prisons.

They are not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.

I know several clients that will spend the rest of their lives in a mental care facility because of the high possibility that they will either hurt themselves or others.  I assure you they are not there voluntarily, despite the fact that the damage they did in the outside world was not serious at the time.

I pray that no-one ever subscribes to your line of thinking in this case.  I happen to like these clients and would be grieved if the system were callous enough to put them out on the street.

Modifié par Paeyne, 09 avril 2011 - 07:36 .

[PantheraOnca]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

@IanPolaris: Plus, weren't you the guy who murdered Connor (arguably an innocent mage) in DAO every single game just to 'teach Isolde a lesson'?

Should she have sent him to the horrible Circle prison or what?

To be fair, Isolde was a horrible ****.

[PantheraOnca]

Paeyne wrote...

I assure you they are not there voluntarily, despite the fact that they damage they did in the outside world was not serious at the time.

I think there is a miscommunication going on, since if they've done damage in the "outside world" it would seem to be a case being put in a mental care facility for something that they have DONE, not for strictly what they are.

[IanPolaris]

PantheraOnca wrote...

Paeyne wrote...

I assure you they are not there voluntarily, despite the fact that they damage they did in the outside world was not serious at the time.

I think there is a miscommunication going on, since if they've done damage in the "outside world" it would seem to be a case being put in a mental care facility for something that they have DONE, not for strictly what they are.

Darn it.  Ninjaed!  That was precisely what I was about to point out.  Thanks.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

PantheraOnca wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

@IanPolaris: Plus, weren't you the guy who murdered Connor (arguably an innocent mage) in DAO every single game just to 'teach Isolde a lesson'?

Should she have sent him to the horrible Circle prison or what?

To be fair, Isolde was a horrible ****.

No.  I only killed Conner in one playthough and that was merely to be a 'completionist'.  Other than that, I spare Conner every time either by using the circle tower, or if I'm a bloodmage by sacrificing his mother (which is what I did most of the time since I have all the dialog triggers including the bloodmage one enabled).

-Polaris

[AngryFrozenWater]

Darth Krytie wrote...

Mages don't need intent to become abominations.

I am skipping some of your text here. I agree with your last paragraph, BTW.

I think there is a difference between being a mage and a blood mage. You don't catch blood magic like it is a cold. You need some level of awareness. You need to learn it's specific spells and/or make a deal with a demon to aquire the sills. So, intent is required. There is also the situation where non-mages can become possessed. There's a quest about that. Some mage found a way to do that and is trying to use it to gain influence in society. She may have been mad before all this (she looks pretty insane in the quest), but we are not sure. We only saw the ugly end stage.

[Paeyne]

PantheraOnca wrote...

Paeyne wrote...

I assure you they are not there voluntarily, despite the fact that they damage they did in the outside world was not serious at the time.

I think there is a miscommunication going on, since if they've done damage in the "outside world" it would seem to be a case being put in a mental care facility for something that they have DONE, not for strictly what they are.

The case can go either way.

Someone with a medical condition such as schizophrenia may not have hurt anyone but need to be confined.  That may be a bad example. While there is strong evidence of genetic links there is still no direct evidence that individuals are born with the condition.  Often confinement depends the degree of the condition, on whether they respond to medication or have someone who can monitor them continually.

Please no-one take me to task on my example.  Schizophrenia is an extremely complex condition with varying degrees of severity and a wide variety of symptoms.

I just use it as an example of those who are confined for their own safety because of what they are and not what they may have done.

I will also state flatly that they are confined because we care for them, not out of any desire to punish them.

[Darth Krytie]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...

Mages don't need intent to become abominations.

I am skipping some of your text here. I agree with your last paragraph, BTW.

I think there is a difference between being a mage and a blood mage. You don't catch blood magic like it is a cold. You need some level of awareness. You need to learn it's specific spells and/or make a deal with a demon to aquire the sills. So, intent is required. There is also the situation where non-mages can become possessed. There's a quest about that. Some mage found a way to do that and is trying to use it to gain influence in society. She may have been mad before all this (she looks pretty insane in the quest), but we are not sure. We only saw the ugly end stage.

I am not quite sure why you are bringing up blood mages? Blood mages=/=abominations. You do not need to be a blood mage to become an abomination. However, becoming a blood mage requires intent. And some mages do intend to become abominations. Some of those mages are blood mages and some are not. So, those are two issues that can intersect, but are not necessarily related. 

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

IanPolaris wrote...
The problem is at least one Dev (DG) want US (not sixth century Europeans but 21st century modern Westerners for the most part) to belileve that it's a reasonable thing to lock away people for what they are.

I'm not sure your assumption is correct considering the (to all appearances) horrible attempts you've made at understanding Gaider's position, but suffice to say we 21st century Earth People have no mage equivalent in our society.

If we did, if we had mages, DA-esque demons and abominations, perhaps you would think some sort of segregation would be wise. You would definitely need educational programs so they don't hurt people unintentionally--and considering how successful our world is in getting *regular* kids to go to school, you think we'd have any more luck with mage children?

Would we need a law enforcement unit to deal with abominations, or would the very existence of such a thing be considered a prejudiced oppression?

Now, if we were supposed to understad it's the evil choice but widely supported by the NPC population, that would be one thing.  Many games do that....but no,we are supposed to agree with this frm our modern viewpoint and the Devs (seemed anyway) to get upset when most of us didn't (at least per the DAO play data).

One of the main problems with DA2 is that the endgame has very polarised choices. Siding with the Templars doesn't necessarily mean you agree with imprisoning or killing them. Siding with the Mages doesn't necessarily mean you think they should all be free.

For example, my warrior Hawke had Bethany in the Circle and sympathised with mages. She did not believe they should *all* be free to roam the world, but she also knew that the majority of people fear mages, are prone to attack them, and when mages are threatened bad things can happen. That said, she sided with the mages, both to protect Bethany and because she didn't agree with Meredith calling the Right of Annulment. That does not in any way mean she supported Anders or the mage revolution, she simply didn't support the Templars slaughtering all the mages, and that was it! She would have cheerfully turned control of the situation over to Cullen after that.

If Bioware is basing our 'modern viewpoints' purely on play data are you seem to be suggesting, then I wouldn't be surprised they might raise their brows. Some decisions are more complex than "I will side with the Templars because mages should be imprisoned!" and "I will side with the mages because I think they should be free!"

[IanPolaris]

Paeyne wrote...

PantheraOnca wrote...

Paeyne wrote...

I assure you they are not there voluntarily, despite the fact that they damage they did in the outside world was not serious at the time.

I think there is a miscommunication going on, since if they've done damage in the "outside world" it would seem to be a case being put in a mental care facility for something that they have DONE, not for strictly what they are.

The case can go either way.

Someone with a medical condition such as schizophrenia may not have hurt anyone but need to be confined.  That may be a bad example. While there is strong evidence of genetic links there is still no direct evidence that individuals are born with the condition.  Often confinement depends the degree of the condition, on whether they respond to medication or have someone who can monitor them continually.

Please no-one take me to task on my example.  Schizophrenia is an extremely complex condition with varying degrees of severity and a wide variety of symptoms.

I just use it as an example of those who are confined for their own safety because of what they are and not what they may have done.

I will also state flatly that they are confined because we care for them, not out of any desire to punish them.

Yet those mental patients are confined for what they have DONE...not nessarily in a desire to punish but because their actions and what they do (and don't/can't do) require it.  I happen to know (havine a couple of friends that went through the process) that psychiatrists and counselers only use complete instutionalized care as a last resort and only when it's been proven that this is best for the patient and those around him or her.

Again it's clearly confinement/imprisonmnt for behavior NOT because of what they are...and compaing mages to severely ill menal patients is just a tad extreme.

-Polaris

[Plaintiff]

Paeyne wrote...

PantheraOnca wrote...

Paeyne wrote...

I assure you they are not there voluntarily, despite the fact that they damage they did in the outside world was not serious at the time.

I think there is a miscommunication going on, since if they've done damage in the "outside world" it would seem to be a case being put in a mental care facility for something that they have DONE, not for strictly what they are.

The case can go either way.

Someone with a medical condition such as schizophrenia may not have hurt anyone but need to be confined.  That may be a bad example. While there is strong evidence of genetic links there is still no direct evidence that individuals are born with the condition.  Often confinement depends the degree of the condition, on whether they respond to medication or have someone who can monitor them continually.

Please no-one take me to task on my example.  Schizophrenia is an extremely complex condition with varying degrees of severity and a wide variety of symptoms.

I just use it as an example of those who are confined for their own safety because of what they are and not what they may have done.

I will also state flatly that they are confined because we care for them, not out of any desire to punish them.

Yes, but the flaw in your comparison is that the Circle of Magi is not a care facility, it's a gilded cage. The vast majority of mages are sane, and in full control of their actions, and they're in no danger of hurting themselves or others unless they conciously choose to.

[DreGregoire]

Lesson: Society determines morals.
------------
Why would anybody use real world societies to understand a fantasy world society? It makes no sense. Argue up and down and all around but as long as you continue to try to understand Thedas through with your own preconceived real world notions, you will never see things as they are. Even within Thedas the norms of society vary; however, there are some truths that remain the same. There are mages, there are demons, there are spirits, there are nonmagical people, and there are people who have been appointed to govern (run) the various societies. David Gaider and other moderators have done an amazing job of speaking up in an effort to help those who have a hard time understanding the whys of Thedas. If we stop trying to compare Thedas to Earth we all might have a chance to come to a better understanding of the fantasy world.

[Paeyne]

IanPolaris wrote...

Yet those mental patients are confined for what they have DONE...not nessarily in a desire to punish but because their actions and what they do (and don't/can't do) require it.  I happen to know (havine a couple of friends that went through the process) that psychiatrists and counselers only use complete instutionalized care as a last resort and only when it's been proven that this is best for the patient and those around him or her.

Again it's clearly confinement/imprisonmnt for behavior NOT because of what they are...and compaing mages to severely ill menal patients is just a tad extreme.

-Polaris

I agree that confining someone is a last resort.  Unfortunately, sometimes it is necessary.

Actually I think I am a pretty reasonable person.  I am comparing one person that could be potentially lethal to another person that could be potentially lethal.  If you consider that and extreme comparison I will have to disagree.

As much as I might advocate some form of confinement for mages I would be the first one defending them against Meridith given the circumstances.

You seem to be advocating, Polaris, that mages should ONLY be confined if they have harmed someone in some way.  Given that they may be an abomination by this point, isn't that a little late?

I am not saying the current system is the right way to go, far from it (at least in the case of Kirwall).

What this entire thread basically boils down to is the rights of society vs. the rights of the individual.

[Paeyne]

Plaintiff wrote...

Paeyne wrote...

PantheraOnca wrote...

Paeyne wrote...

I assure you they are not there voluntarily, despite the fact that they damage they did in the outside world was not serious at the time.

I think there is a miscommunication going on, since if they've done damage in the "outside world" it would seem to be a case being put in a mental care facility for something that they have DONE, not for strictly what they are.

The case can go either way.

Someone with a medical condition such as schizophrenia may not have hurt anyone but need to be confined.  That may be a bad example. While there is strong evidence of genetic links there is still no direct evidence that individuals are born with the condition.  Often confinement depends the degree of the condition, on whether they respond to medication or have someone who can monitor them continually.

Please no-one take me to task on my example.  Schizophrenia is an extremely complex condition with varying degrees of severity and a wide variety of symptoms.

I just use it as an example of those who are confined for their own safety because of what they are and not what they may have done.

I will also state flatly that they are confined because we care for them, not out of any desire to punish them.

Yes, but the flaw in your comparison is that the Circle of Magi is not a care facility, it's a gilded cage. The vast majority of mages are sane, and in full control of their actions, and they're in no danger of hurting themselves or others unless they conciously choose to.

Or get possessed.

Its the possession thing that I have the most concerns about.  If the possession thing were off the table I would say that confinement in its current form was completely unnessessary.

[DreGregoire]

Not all circle's are created equal. Please use a place name so we know which circle. Are we just talking about the one in Kirkwall? It seems in some ways the placement of it within a large city may have created a bit more freedom in some ways, well until Meredith started getting concerned.

[IanPolaris]

I would say that a proven (ie adult) mage should only be confined if it's shown by his or her own actions she's a clear and present danger. That's the standard for anyone really. It doesn't have to be after they've harmed anyone...and no one will tell us what the pre-circle spontaneous abomination rate was (because I strongly suspect it's extremely low to approaching zero).

I am sure the Devs intended this to be a burning question of the rights of society vs rights of individual, but there are some things that society clearly (by western standards and those are the standards of the targeted audience) has no right to do, and punishing people for what they are is one of them.

-Polaris

[Plaintiff]

DreGregoire wrote...

Lesson: Society determines morals.
------------
Why would anybody use real world societies to understand a fantasy world society? It makes no sense. Argue up and down and all around but as long as you continue to try to understand Thedas through with your own preconceived real world notions, you will never see things as they are. Even within Thedas the norms of society vary; however, there are some truths that remain the same. There are mages, there are demons, there are spirits, there are nonmagical people, and there are people who have been appointed to govern (run) the various societies. David Gaider and other moderators have done an amazing job of speaking up in an effort to help those who have a hard time understanding the whys of Thedas. If we stop trying to compare Thedas to Earth we all might have a chance to come to a better understanding of the fantasy world.

Because Fantasy is derived from reality. David Gaider and co live in the real world and as writers they draw on a variety of external sources to create Thedas. They take their inspiration from other fantasy and science fiction media, real-world history and culture, polticial and social issues both past and present, personal life exeperiences, family and friends, etc etc.

I consider Dragon Age to be highly innovative, but the world of Thedas is not so different from our own. Nothing is truly original.

[IanPolaris]

DreGregoire wrote...

Lesson: Society determines morals.
------------
Why would anybody use real world societies to understand a fantasy world society? It makes no sense. Argue up and down and all around but as long as you continue to try to understand Thedas through with your own preconceived real world notions, you will never see things as they are. Even within Thedas the norms of society vary; however, there are some truths that remain the same. There are mages, there are demons, there are spirits, there are nonmagical people, and there are people who have been appointed to govern (run) the various societies. David Gaider and other moderators have done an amazing job of speaking up in an effort to help those who have a hard time understanding the whys of Thedas. If we stop trying to compare Thedas to Earth we all might have a chance to come to a better understanding of the fantasy world.

The targeted audience of the game lives in the real world, and thus it's the targeted audience's moral sense that matters.  If the Deves wanted to use a fictional society as an allogary to modern moral questions, that's one thing and that's fine.  However, the Devs seem (to me at least) to have set up a situation that a player with modern western sensibilities would find repugnant (locking away mages just for being mages) and then seem shocked, shocked!, that their target audience doesn't understand and sympathize with the Templars/Chantry who do the deed.

That's.....well inconsistant is the kindest way I can describe it.  Honestly it's not a reasonable position IMO to say that sometimes it's OK to lock up people (or punish people in general) just for what they are, period.  The fact that some don't understand that, bothers me a great deal.

-Polaris

[Paeyne]

IanPolaris wrote...

I would say that a proven (ie adult) mage should only be confined if it's shown by his or her own actions she's a clear and present danger. That's the standard for anyone really. It doesn't have to be after they've harmed anyone...and no one will tell us what the pre-circle spontaneous abomination rate was (because I strongly suspect it's extremely low to approaching zero).

I am sure the Devs intended this to be a burning question of the rights of society vs rights of individual, but there are some things that society clearly (by western standards and those are the standards of the targeted audience) has no right to do, and punishing people for what they are is one of them.

-Polaris

Take possession off the table and I will happily agree with you on this, provided magic regulation and monitoring are involved.

As long as mages can spontaneously combust into rabid evil killing machines I will have to continue to support confinement.

Remember I am not a big supporter of the the Templars either.  In a all these years you would think someone would figured out a way of protecting them from possession that didn't involve reducing them to emotionless shells.