1072 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

stobie wrote...

I didn't get anything more from Mr. Gaider than an acknowledgment that mages are, in fact, inherently dangerous, and thus, those in their world are leery of them until proven otherwise. As far as laws regulating them, that doesn't seem extreme. (killing them all because of what one does IS extreme, however) You don't get to see a lot of strong, positive mages in this game. Even Morrigan had a painful tendency to discount 'weaker' human life. (though she wanted to free Sten, she was ready to exchange captive elves for blood magic - this is when I tried to have my human boy break up with her...) Anders starts as a compassionate healer, more Wynne than Morrigan, then turns into something quite different. He's not doing much to calm the masses.

By this standard no one is innocent because everyone is (or can be) inherently dangerous.  This is a non-starter.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

AshenEndemion wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

He is stating nothing of the like.

By stating that no mage is innocent (and thus can reasonably be punished) simply for being a mage, that is precisely what he is saying and I'm not the only one that has said so by a long chalk.

-Polaris

See... now you're reading into things more than what they are.  I was describing what kitten-bombs mean to me...  Not what it means to DG.

Except Gaider responded to a post that was addressing how mages were innocent of the crime Anders committed with a retort that read how mages could explode because of their magical ability, and how the templars have a responsibility to protect the public.

AshenEndemion wrote...

If you see kitten-bombs as innocent things, and therefore cannot be punished, that's entirely up to you.

DG certainly didn't say you can't.

But I will say you're stupid for thinking that kitten-bombs are innocent....

Again, the Circle of Magi didn't blow up the Kirkwall Chantry, Anders did, so they are innocent of the crime.

[AshenEndymion]

LobselVith8 wrote...

AshenEndemion wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It's changed since page 11 when I mentioned that the Right of Annulment was genocide against innocent people who weren't responsible for what Anders did, and David Gaider responded that mages have magical ability and are dangerous.

DG also said that the mages were innocent as kitten-bombs....  The key word being bombs.  Not kittens.

The mages were innocent of the crime Anders committed.

Are they?  You have proof they had no involvment?  Not-guilty is not the same as innocent....

AshenEndemion wrote...

Edit: Kittens are cute and innocent.  They make you go "awww" and want to love them. 
Bombs are not innocent, and they will kill you.
Mages are bombs (not innocent) in a kitten skin(so they look innocent and you say "aww, you can't kill them, they're pretty and cute.")

Having magical ability doesn't excuse an act of genocide, but I suppose this explains why we were denied a proper apostate POV from Hawke and had to put up with mage antagonists even as an apostate Hawke who condemned Meredith before the people of Kirkwall.

It's not genocide.  Mages are weapons(specifically, bombs).  You disarm bombs. Thus, disarmament.  We can go through this again, but the fact remains, you will continue to say "mages are people, it's genocide" and I will continue to say "mages are weapons, it's disarmament."  Apparently you have not grown tired of this....

[stobie]

And so, there are laws...

[Paeyne]

sphinxess wrote...

Paeyne wrote...

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.

I wish Harrowing was better defined. If its purpose is to see if the mage will "never spontaneously combust into a rapid killing machine" they need to make it more clear. From our one example in DA:O it didn't really seem to be all that importent for the risk <you get your own room without a door/privacy and Templars still watching you> you don't seem to be trusted anymore than before.

I agree that the children with magic are dangerous and should be confined in some sort of watched school until they are old enough to understand what is considered right from wrong. The problem with most of the circles is instead of a loving enviroment its almost a setup to create disfunctional adults <years of fear - told your cursed - etc>

I agree with this whole-heartedly.

To me, the biggest problem is the system itself.

If I could wave a wand and change only one part of the system it would be the attitude of the Templars and the Chantry.

As I implied in an earlier post, there is a vast difference between a group of people who confine someone (for however long) out of a genuine care and concern of their well-being and the well-being of others, and a group who confine someone out of fear, resentment and a belief that they somehow have lesser value.

If you taunt and abuse the exploding kitten repeatedly, you should not be surprised when it goes up in your face.

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Really we're getting nowhere if all you're doing is twisting the lead writers words to continue complaining for the sake of complaining.

I'm not twisting anything.  Read page 11.  DG really said that because of what they are (mages) no mage should be considered innocent.

That's appalling because it essentially states (as WoG) that mages aren't supposed to be treated like human beings (because at least one human right...the right NOT to be punished for what you are....is absent).

-Polaris

I think WoG pointed out to you that you are drawing an inference he never made.  The fact that all mages are potentially very dangerous is simply a fact.  No person with a sword can do the kind of damage one mage can do, and a mage cannot be disarmed short of being made Tranquil.  All this even aside from the fact that they attract demons and can become powerful abominations.  This potential for great harm and difficulty at controlling them is what leads people in Thedas to conclude that they can't be treated as other people are.  Add fear and superstition to the mix, and yes, some think that they aren't actually persons at all, rather some sort of cursed super-being.

WoG was stating the facts, and pointing out how those are interpreted in the game environment.  You're trying to force the inferences on to his words and that's unfair.  If you're going to argue, keep your reasoning to fair bounds or people are going to end up dismissing everything you have to say.

Modifié par Addai67, 09 avril 2011 - 06:28 .

[IanPolaris]

AshenEndemion wrote...

It's not genocide.  Mages are weapons(specifically, bombs).  You disarm bombs. Thus, disarmament.  We can go through this again, but the fact remains, you will continue to say "mages are people, it's genocide" and I will continue to say "mages are weapons, it's disarmament."  Apparently you have not grown tired of this....

 
If mages are people, then it's genocide by definition.  If you don't think mages are people, then we have nothing left to say to each other.

-Polaris

[TJPags]

IanPolaris wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Where in the world of DA do we see the Bill of Rights? A Magna Carta? Any statement that ANY person has these "basic human rights" that people go on about so much?

Easy.  The fact that DA is market to a western culture and the choices presented assume a player in the same type of culture.  That's true with most modern fantasy btw.  The Real World informs the fantasy one and we weren't talking about the PoV of Fantasy Thedas Templar here so this is all the more apparent.

-Polaris

Right, so, in other words, in your mind.  That certainly doesn't make it true for all.

earl of the north wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Where in the world of DA do we see the Bill of Rights? A Magna Carta? Any statement that ANY person has these "basic human rights" that people go on about so much?

Nowhere....In fact, quite the opposite really.

Most of the cultures that have been described in any depth in DA have oppressed members of the populations....Qunari drugged workers/chained mages, Elven second class citzens, Castless dwarfs, Tevinter slaves, circle mages etc.

Exactly. 

We see in DA so many examples of the fact that people (whether elves, dwarves or whoever) do NOT have these basic rights that a lot of people seem to pre-suppose they have.  Keep in mind that such a concept is a relatively modern one . . Magna Carta was written in, what, 1288?  Bill of Rights in 1776.  And remember that even after the Bill of Rights, slavery remained legal in the US.

This is a fantasy world.  It has its own laws, its own rules, and, from what I see, nowhere in those rules is there a concept that people in general, or mages in particular, have any type of "basic human rights".

Maybe they should, and I'm not saying they shouldn't.  But arguing that they do, and that those rights are being violated, seems incredibly out of place in this particular world.

[LobselVith8]

AshenEndemion wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The mages were innocent of the crime Anders committed.

Are they?  You have proof they had no involvment?  Not-guilty is not the same as innocent....

The guilty party (Anders) confessed.

AshenEndemion wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Having magical ability doesn't excuse an act of genocide, but I suppose this explains why we were denied a proper apostate POV from Hawke and had to put up with mage antagonists even as an apostate Hawke who condemned Meredith before the people of Kirkwall.

It's not genocide.  Mages are weapons(specifically, bombs).  You disarm bombs. Thus, disarmament.  We can go through this again, but the fact remains, you will continue to say "mages are people, it's genocide" and I will continue to say "mages are weapons, it's disarmament."  Apparently you have not grown tired of this....

Mages are people, and it was an act of genocide to murder innocent men, women, and children who weren't responsible for what Anders specifically did. It was this argument that Gaider was responding to when he said mages were could explode and were only innocent of being mages of the Circle.

[Nashiktal]

Well technically it isn't genocide. You are only killing the mages in kirkwall, not all mages in thedas.

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...

I think WoG pointed out to you that you are drawing an inference he never made.  The fact that all mages are potentially very dangerous is simply a fact.  No person with a sword can do the kind of damage one mage can do, and a mage cannot be disarmed short of being made Tranquil.  This potential for great harm and difficulty at controlling them is what leads people in Thedas to conclude that they can't be treated as other people are.  Add fear and superstition to the mix, and yes, some think that they aren't actually persons at all, rather some sort of cursed super-being.

Except it's not really an established fact.  There is no evidence that mages are any more dangerous than a lunatic with a sword...or even his fists.  Frankly (esp in the game) a rogue gone bad is far more deadlier than any mage....and can rack up just as high a body count.  The same goes for trained warriors who can never (totally) be disarmed since a warrior is always armed (deadly force is an attitude...weapons are not required...a point Aveline should know).

Also in the context of the thread at the time DG was using his to deny that mages were innocent (and thus the Annulment is not genocide) and that is what I am objecting to.  If mages aren't innocent because the are mages, then you are advocating punishing people for what they are rather than who they are, and that is simply evil.  That's a far cry from saying that mages should be able to do whatever they like with magic.  I will never agree to that!

WoG was stating the facts, and pointing out how those are interpreted in the game environment.  You're trying to force the inferences on to his words and that's unfair.  If you're going to argue, keep your reasoning to fair bounds or people are going to end up dismissing everything you have to say.

People that worship on the alter of DG (and there are a couple here) are going to dismiss what I have to say anyway.  As for the rest, DG was not stating facts.  He was stating a Dev opinion about mage innocence in WoG mode.  Reread page 11 if you doubt me.

-Polaris

[stobie]

The trouble with that is, someone like Loghain, with power & influence, can do just as much damage as a mage turned abomination. A charismatic person can be deadly, & that is inborn. I personally think that Anders's charm is more dangerous than his ability to slap someone with a frost bolt.

I'm not seeing that mages are more dangerous than a Howe, because greed and ambition are also part of a person's nature - possibly even from birth. In a way, I tend to think that mages are 'special needs persons' because they require extra help learning to stand up to the forces against them. (demons)

In game, I would argue that one person with a 2h sword can do *quite* as much damage as a single mage... Fenris has wiped me out a few times with one whirlwind. If mages are completely independent of gear, then why do they have staves, & require the study of blood magic to perform it? An untrained mage shouldn't be a giant force of power - they can be taken over, yes, but that's where the 'country provides special services to train them' part should come in. And that is perhaps what the Chantry is meant to do. Why they can't keep in touch or even live with their families is beyond me. You can't dehumanize someone who IS a human, even if you're scared of them. All you'll do then is corrupt them. (I'm thinking of reality in this case, with issues like orphanages in Romania, for instance.)

[LobselVith8]

Addai67 wrote...

I think WoG pointed out to you that you are drawing an inference he never made.  The fact that all mages are potentially very dangerous is simply a fact. 

The issue is that Gaider was responding to my post where I said mages were being killed for a crime that Anders committed, and were innocent of said crime. Gaider responded that mages were only innocent of being mages and could blow up in your face.

Addai67 wrote...

No person with a sword can do the kind of damage one mage can do, and a mage cannot be disarmed short of being made Tranquil.  All this even aside from the fact that they attract demons and can become powerful abominations.  This potential for great harm and difficulty at controlling them is what leads people in Thedas to conclude that they can't be treated as other people are.  Add fear and superstition to the mix, and yes, some think that they aren't actually persons at all, rather some sort of cursed super-being.

The issue is when a creator responds to an argument about how mages were being killed for a crime they were innocent of committing by saying they are only innocent of being a mage of the Circle.

Addai67 wrote...

WoG was stating the facts, and pointing out how those are interpreted in the game environment.  You're trying to force the inferences on to his words and that's unfair.  If you're going to argue, keep your reasoning to fair bounds or people are going to end up dismissing everything you have to say.

It's listed on page 11 of this thread.

[LobselVith8]

Nashiktal wrote...

Well technically it isn't genocide. You are only killing the mages in kirkwall, not all mages in thedas.

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people. It fits the definition of the word that was introduced in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin. Killing all the mages in Kirkwall is technically genocide.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 09 avril 2011 - 06:40 .

[IanPolaris]

TJPags wrote...

This is a fantasy world.  It has its own laws, its own rules, and, from what I see, nowhere in those rules is there a concept that people in general, or mages in particular, have any type of "basic human rights".

Maybe they should, and I'm not saying they shouldn't.  But arguing that they do, and that those rights are being violated, seems incredibly out of place in this particular world.

That's fine up to a point.  Writers in fantasy have (and will continue to I'm sure) use fantasy analogs to discuss moral issues where the moral PoV of the reader will be dissimiliar to the moral conventional wisdom in the world.  However, that is generally done to make a point.  It is naive to say the least to assume that a player who lives in a modern 21st century world will NOT use 21st centural morals applied to the fantasy game he or she is playing.  Given that, it should come as no suprise at almost everyone (at least this is what I was told based on the internet feedback) in DAO picked mages.  The answer is not to belittle the players for having a 'soft' 21st century attitude of enitlement (and DG did use almost precisely those words) and beat the player over the head with "Mages betray you and do evil blood magic all over, hurr, hurr, which is a fair summary of Act III in DA2).  That doesn't change one iota that fact that Meridith is ordering the slaughter of an entire group of people for what they did even when it is clear they are innocent of the crime that triggered the event!

What did the Devs expect?

-Polaris

[barryl89]

People that worship on the alter of DG disagree with me (and there are a couple here) are going to dismiss what I have to say anyway.  As for the rest, DG was not stating facts disagreeing with my opinion. He was stating a Dev opinion about mage innocence in WoG mode.  Reread page 11 if you doubt me.

-Polaris

I feel dirty for stooping to this but:

Fixed it for you.

[Nashiktal]

IanPolaris wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

I think WoG pointed out to you that you are drawing an inference he never made.  The fact that all mages are potentially very dangerous is simply a fact.  No person with a sword can do the kind of damage one mage can do, and a mage cannot be disarmed short of being made Tranquil.  This potential for great harm and difficulty at controlling them is what leads people in Thedas to conclude that they can't be treated as other people are.  Add fear and superstition to the mix, and yes, some think that they aren't actually persons at all, rather some sort of cursed super-being.

Except it's not really an established fact.  There is no evidence that mages are any more dangerous than a lunatic with a sword...or even his fists.  Frankly (esp in the game) a rogue gone bad is far more deadlier than any mage....and can rack up just as high a body count.  The same goes for trained warriors who can never (totally) be disarmed since a warrior is always armed (deadly force is an attitude...weapons are not required...a point Aveline should know).

Also in the context of the thread at the time DG was using his to deny that mages were innocent (and thus the Annulment is not genocide) and that is what I am objecting to.  If mages aren't innocent because the are mages, then you are advocating punishing people for what they are rather than who they are, and that is simply evil.  That's a far cry from saying that mages should be able to do whatever they like with magic.  I will never agree to that!

WoG was stating the facts, and pointing out how those are interpreted in the game environment.  You're trying to force the inferences on to his words and that's unfair.  If you're going to argue, keep your reasoning to fair bounds or people are going to end up dismissing everything you have to say.

People that worship on the alter of DG (and there are a couple here) are going to dismiss what I have to say anyway.  As for the rest, DG was not stating facts.  He was stating a Dev opinion about mage innocence in WoG mode.  Reread page 11 if you doubt me.

-Polaris

I have to say Ian, that rogue with the poison was a unique situation. The Qunari are not seen much outside the north, and even then I doubt they leave their poison barrels around willy nilly like Arishok did. (Which he explains why he did)

That rogue was in a right place right time situation to do the damage she did. A mage doesn't need  a place or time to massacre a city.

[Paeyne]

IanPolaris wrote...

stobie wrote...

I didn't get anything more from Mr. Gaider than an acknowledgment that mages are, in fact, inherently dangerous, and thus, those in their world are leery of them until proven otherwise. As far as laws regulating them, that doesn't seem extreme. (killing them all because of what one does IS extreme, however) You don't get to see a lot of strong, positive mages in this game. Even Morrigan had a painful tendency to discount 'weaker' human life. (though she wanted to free Sten, she was ready to exchange captive elves for blood magic - this is when I tried to have my human boy break up with her...) Anders starts as a compassionate healer, more Wynne than Morrigan, then turns into something quite different. He's not doing much to calm the masses.

By this standard no one is innocent because everyone is (or can be) inherently dangerous.  This is a non-starter.

-Polaris

I am sorry Polaris but this is extremely dismissive.

One wonders why you post on boards at all if you dismiss a person's opinion so readily.

Your statement also implies that because people are equally innocent they are equally dangerous which is patently untrue.

An exploding kitten and a regular kitten may be equally innocent but they are by no means equally dangerous.

[Nathan Redgrave]

It's interesting, because even with the Circle of Magi in Ferelden overrun with demons and abominations, Knight-Commander Greagor didn't have the authority to call an on-the-spot, emergency Rite of Annulment, he had to send away for that authority. It's possible that the lack of a Grand Cleric afforded Meredith some level of emergency command that Greagor didn't have at the time, but no matter how you slice it, Meredith's leap to the Rite of Annulment in response to Anders's bombing of the Chantry makes no logical sense, and thus can't make legal sense. It's the equivalent of witnessing a man shoot the President in broad daylight, who has a loose blood relation to one of the men in the crowd watching the parade, and then declaring the entire crowd responsible for the deed.

I wouldn't say the Rite was "illegal," per se, but it was stupid, and had Meredith's remaining superiors been within reach to have a say in it, it would never have been allowed. "Legal" isn't a fair measure of anything in this case; the law can allow for some really stupid things if the circumstances fall into place "just so," as they did for Meredith.

[AshenEndymion]

LobselVith8 wrote...

AshenEndemion wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The mages were innocent of the crime Anders committed.

Are they?  You have proof they had no involvment?  Not-guilty is not the same as innocent....

The guilty party (Anders) confessed.

My god.  You are absolutely right.  Anders confessed, so there is no possible way anyone could have helped him.  To think that someone could have helped him is clearly beyond the scope of reason, because Anders confessed to doing it.

Not-guilty of a crime is not the same as innocent of a crime....

[LobselVith8]

AshenEndemion wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The guilty party (Anders) confessed.

My god.  You are absolutely right.  Anders confessed, so there is no possible way anyone could have helped him.  To think that someone could have helped him is clearly beyond the scope of reason, because Anders confessed to doing it.

Not-guilty of a crime is not the same as innocent of a crime....

There is someone who could have helped him. That person's name is Hawke.

[Nashiktal]

AshenEndemion wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

AshenEndemion wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The mages were innocent of the crime Anders committed.

Are they?  You have proof they had no involvment?  Not-guilty is not the same as innocent....

The guilty party (Anders) confessed.

My god.  You are absolutely right.  Anders confessed, so there is no possible way anyone could have helped him.  To think that someone could have helped him is clearly beyond the scope of reason, because Anders confessed to doing it.

Not-guilty of a crime is not the same as innocent of a crime....

I  Certainly didn't help him. It's just the way he asked me to trust him when messing around in the chantry... It just didn't sound right.

[earl of the north]

In the DA world...

Casteless Dwarfs are born with no rights and are considered less than animals by the other Dwarfs.
City Elves are born as second class citizens.
Tevinter slaves are born with no rights (or are enslaved).
Qunari are assigned their role in life and must conform to the will of the Qun.
Mages are born with powers that are both a gift (magical powers) and a curse (threat of possession throughout their lives)

Those are just the facts of the DA world, according to the people who actually invented the DA world and I would like the opportunity to change those facts through future DA games.

Mages however will always have to be regulated in some way.......even if the current system of regulation is failing.

Modifié par earl of the north, 09 avril 2011 - 06:51 .

[LobselVith8]

Paeyne wrote...

I am sorry Polaris but this is extremely dismissive.

One wonders why you post on boards at all if you dismiss a person's opinion so readily.

Your statement also implies that because people are equally innocent they are equally dangerous which is patently untrue.

An exploding kitten and a regular kitten may be equally innocent but they are by no means equally dangerous.

But the discussion is a continuation to what was said on page 11. Some people take issue with the idea that Gaider responded to a comment that mages were innocent of the crime Anders committed and confessed to by saying that mages are only innocent of being mages of the Circle and can explode.

[stobie]

Paeyne wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

stobie wrote...

I didn't get anything more from Mr. Gaider than an acknowledgment that mages are, in fact, inherently dangerous, and thus, those in their world are leery of them until proven otherwise. As far as laws regulating them, that doesn't seem extreme. (killing them all because of what one does IS extreme, however) You don't get to see a lot of strong, positive mages in this game. Even Morrigan had a painful tendency to discount 'weaker' human life. (though she wanted to free Sten, she was ready to exchange captive elves for blood magic - this is when I tried to have my human boy break up with her...) Anders starts as a compassionate healer, more Wynne than Morrigan, then turns into something quite different. He's not doing much to calm the masses.

By this standard no one is innocent because everyone is (or can be) inherently dangerous.  This is a non-starter.

-Polaris

I am sorry Polaris but this is extremely dismissive.

One wonders why you post on boards at all if you dismiss a person's opinion so readily.

Your statement also implies that because people are equally innocent they are equally dangerous which is patently untrue.

An exploding kitten and a regular kitten may be equally innocent but they are by no means equally dangerous.

All this talk of exploding kittens is making me look at my old cat QUITE differently!

Anyway! The non-explosive kitten doesn't  require the training & caution & even regulation that the Explosive Feline might.  I can accept that.  My Hawke mage is trained by her Chantry-trained father - I'm not sure she's a full on apostate.  Morrigan is trained by Whatever-she-is Flemeth.  It's obvious they require training. You don't send Feynriel off into 'whatever' - you send him to get proper training, acknowledging his value as a living thing.