1072 réponses à ce sujet

[stobie]

I guess that depends on how much we're hearing a corrupted Justice, and how much is Anders. I think I would have preferred hearing the 'old Justice '' in the Fade, & I would have liked to have HIM ask me for help. (Get me out of here!)

I'm curious if the writers meant Anders to be a more or less innocent victim of this blending, or if his own inner beliefs were there all along.

[PantheraOnca]

AshenEndemion wrote...


I'm glad I proved a point, even though it was trollish.

Seriously, though.... If no one has basic rights, do they exists?  Or do they not exist until someone has those rights?

The idea of basic rights exists on earth.  Mages (or at least Anders) seems to believe that mages should have basic rights (but not anyone else... like say elves in an Alienage or casteless dwarves).  But the idea of equal rights for all(which is what "human rights" are)?  Doesn't exist in Thedas....

And the insistence that it does, does not make it so.

Claiming no one has basic right is kind of a heavy burden. Without going in to whatever right each class does and does not have, can we assume that nobility has (and is thought to have) something at least approximating what might be referred to as a set of "basic nobel rights?"

For instance, in act 1 we are told that having a name or status would offer some protection from templar and their ilk, so some approximation of safety from illegal search and siesure and imprisonment is granted to those of nobel status. Lets say, for the sake of argument that safety from illegal search, siesure and imprisonment is a "basic nobel right." We can then assume that there may be additional rights to which nobels are entitled. Perhaps a right to carry a sword. The right to speak their mind (except maybe about the maker). I will stop there as there is no need for an exhaustive list. There is a subset of people who have more or different rights than others. Is there any substantial difference between one group and another?

I would argue no. The whole TickingKitty thing makes me believe that some would say there is a substantive difference. Anyway, lets not even consider mages. Is there a substantive difference between a castelss and bhalen or harrowmont? there i would definitely say no. There are circumstantial differences, certainly; substantive ones, not at all. Is there a substantive difference between a howe, a cousland, an amell, or a theirin? Again, I would say no. So on and so forth until the whole world is substantially identical. And by being substantially identical, all should be treated the same.

Now, that is a lovely ideal and may not be particularly realistic or enforcable, but it should be the basis for things.

Now I'll even go so far as to argue that mages ARE substantially different from non-mages in that, by no choice of their own, they can be turned into engines of destruction. HOWEVER. (yes, a period) This one edge case, which can be avoided, does not negate the etirety of the rights they should have from otherwise being substantially identical to everyone else, except for this one thing. It is because of this edge case that the circle system or something like it must exist, but the way it exists in game is deeply flawed.

(i forget what this thread's subject is)

Modifié par PantheraOnca, 09 avril 2011 - 09:57 .

[Torax]

Believe the Rival path shows a different point of view of the situation in contrast to the Friendship. I've never romanced him cause I dislike him. But apparently there is a point in the Rival that Justice gets all angry and takes over for a second.

There is also conflicting stances that Anders seems to just state. They are one but he has his own mind. I'm not sure he even truly knows what is going on at this point. But Justice also known as Vengeance seems more in control in Act 3. His influence had 7 years to warp Anders after all.

[sphinxess]

Xewaka wrote...

The Baconer wrote...

AshenEndemion wrote...
I'm glad I proved a point, even though it was trollish.
Seriously, though.... If no one has basic rights, do they exists?  Or do they not exist until someone has those rights?
The idea of basic rights exists on earth.  Mages (or at least Anders) seems to believe that mages should have basic rights (but not anyone else... like say elves in an Alienage or casteless dwarves).  But the idea of equal rights for all(which is what "human rights" are)?  Doesn't exist in Thedas....
And the insistence that it does, does not make it so.

Then I assume people will stop hatin' on Tevinter for having slaves?

Actually, if Tevinter proves anything, is that keeping Mages imprisoned and under check is the best way to defend the personal freedom of the majority of the population.

Tevinter is more of a Oligarchy - it does keep most of its mages under lock and key

[stobie]

I kind of don't like blaming Justice for what Anders is doing, though I did see that Youtube video of him coming out & yelling at Hawke, with Anders having memory loss. But I much preferred Justice to Anders in Awakening.

Even so, Anders has to have had some underlying belief prior to their joining. That's the part I'm fuzzy about - what he really thinks of mages vs the rest of humanity/elf/dwarf-ity.

[Torax]

stobie wrote...

I kind of don't like blaming Justice for what Anders is doing, though I did see that Youtube video of him coming out & yelling at Hawke, with Anders having memory loss. But I much preferred Justice to Anders in Awakening.

Even so, Anders has to have had some underlying belief prior to their joining. That's the part I'm fuzzy about - what he really thinks of mages vs the rest of humanity/elf/dwarf-ity.

He may have believed that mages are better in some part of his mind. I don't know if he was ever seeking power. Hard to say to be honest. Justice supposedly focused on all the hate Anders had for Templars. If he believed that mages are superior to everyone else? Mostly speculation. I don't remember him saying either way in Awakening but it's been a while since I played it.

[The Baconer]

Xewaka wrote...
Actually, if Tevinter proves anything, is that keeping Mages imprisoned and under check is the best way to defend the personal freedom of the majority of the population.

But according to AshenEndemion's logic, since the concept of human rights doesn't exist in Thedas, why would people use that as an excuse to oppress mages and then turn around and criticize the Tevinter Imperium for having slavery? It goes both ways. And if you want to lock up mages because of slavery in Tevinter, should we also lock up Orlesians (not that I'd necessarily disagree) and Antivans for slavery in their own countries?

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...

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).

Gameplay =/ lore.  They even said that one of their goals in DA2 gameplay development was to bring rogues and mages up to the overpowered-ness of mages.  So there is a leveling that happens because it's a game.  Until Thedas gets weapon technology, no guy with a sword can be as dangerous as someone who can shoot a fireball, let alone control others' minds.

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!

Genocide is a loaded term, but usually is used to refer to extermination of a race or ethnic grouping.  There's no ethnicity in our world that can shoot lighting from their fingertips.  The word does not apply.  By using it, all you're doing is trying to stack your argument with emotional appeal.

[WhiteKnyght]

AshenEndemion wrote...

PantheraOnca wrote...

TJPags wrote...


Here on earth, we think this is true.

On Thedas, they do not.

Thinking or not thinking about SENTIENT (smartasses) rights does not preclude them from existing.

I'm glad I proved a point, even though it was trollish.

Seriously, though.... If no one has basic rights, do they exists?  Or do they not exist until someone has those rights?

The idea of basic rights exists on earth.  Mages (or at least Anders) seems to believe that mages should have basic rights (but not anyone else... like say elves in an Alienage or casteless dwarves).  But the idea of equal rights for all(which is what "human rights" are)?  Doesn't exist in Thedas....

And the insistence that it does, does not make it so.

Just because the idea of equal rights doesn't exist in Thedas does not mean they are right for not having it. There was a point in time when the idea didn't exist in our world. But it exists now because at some point people realized it should exist, then went as far as to fight and die for it. Which is the same thing that happens in the end of DAII with the mages.

[Torax]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Just because the idea of equal rights doesn't exist in Thedas does not mean they are right for not having it. There was a point in time when the idea didn't exist in our world. But it exists now because at some point people realized it should exist, then went as far as to fight and die for it. Which is the same thing that happens in the end of DAII with the mages.

While true, trying to argue about and applying said beliefs in regards to a world that doesn't share them as a whole? That doesn't really do anything. Especially if all that it can be supported with is weighty bullet points to try and make it emotional when the npcs do not necessarily feel the same way. Makes the argument and even the subject pointless over time. Some simply hating what the npc's think and then will argue with other players who simply state that the perspective of some npcs do not agree.

Makes a heated argument of trying to turn others into mage hating child killers. At least that is what it started to seem like over time. And if it's not the players to argue with, bring it back to Gaider. Like he sacrifices mages in his basement at night.

[Xewaka]

The Baconer wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
Actually, if Tevinter proves anything, is that keeping Mages imprisoned and under check is the best way to defend the personal freedom of the majority of the population.

But according to AshenEndemion's logic, since the concept of human rights doesn't exist in Thedas, why would people use that as an excuse to oppress mages and then turn around and criticize the Tevinter Imperium for having slavery? It goes both ways. And if you want to lock up mages because of slavery in Tevinter, should we also lock up Orlesians (not that I'd necessarily disagree) and Antivans for slavery in their own countries?

You misunderstand my point. If human rights do not exist as such (in the sense that they are not recognized) then it makes no sense to consider the mages rights violated. If humans rights are recognized, the Tevinter example shows that keeping a small minority contained is needed to guarantee the human rights of the majority. I'll also remind you that Andraste led a crusade against Tevinter, toppling the empire and liberating most of the slaves. The Tevinter that exists today is but a mere fraction of the whole extent of Tevinter in its glory days. So Tevinter DID got knocked down because of slavery.
And there's also the fact that Joe Average doesn't consider the mages to be really "human". Or at least Cullen states as much.

Modifié par Xewaka, 09 avril 2011 - 10:56 .

[PantheraOnca]

Torax wrote...

Like he sacrifices mages in his basement at night.

How else could he keep the power on? I mean, its completely understandable. Mages are like gergils. Cute, furry, explosive, gerbils. Just put them on a wheel until they pass out from exhaustion then use their blood to invoke the magic necessary for da2:xp or da3:the recolonating.

[lockdown51]

@OP Polaris troll is trolling...

You have some real tunnel vision if you think that the Chantry blowing up did not cause a panic in the city. The Chantry is a big building. Those chunks of it, have to come down sometime and they could kill someone. Also, a mage is a mage is a mage. Might not be morally correct to kill them all, but legally the KC had the power to.

As to the legality of it all, once a superior gets taken out, the next in line has complete control now. Even if an issue is being mulled over by the overall head back at HQ, the people on the ground right then have the power. IE a bomb takes out the Lt of a foot patrol. The platoon sergeant is now commanding and orders the platoon to wipe out everyone in a given area. The platoon sergeant is in his right to do that, even if he is morally wrong. Yes he has higher ups back at HQ that he could send a letter to asking for permission but until an official reply comes that takes into account the bombing and the death of the Lt, then the PSG has all the power.

As soon as the Chantry blew up, the KC was the highest ranking Chantry representative since Anders killed most if not all the high ranking sisters. Legally, she was in the right.

LockDown over and out...

[The Baconer]

Xewaka wrote...
You misunderstand my point. If human rights do not exist as such(in the sense that they are not recognized) then it makes no sense to consider the mages rights violated.

Agreed, but there'd be no reason to complain about slaves either.

If humans rights are recognized, the Tevinter example shows that keeping a small minority contained is needed to guarantee the human rights of the majority.

I don't see any one campaigning to lock up Orlesians or Antivans. Why is slavery only wrong when mages do it?

And there's also the fact that Joe Average doesn't consider the mages to be really "human". Or at least Cullen states as much.

And your average magister wouldn't consider a slave to be a person either. Is either one right?

[Xewaka]

The Baconer wrote...
Agreed, but there'd be no reason to complain about slaves either.

Circle mages are prisoners, not slaves.

The Baconer wrote...
I don't see any one campaigning to lock up Orlesians or Antivans. Why is slavery only wrong when mages do it?

Orlesians treat their servants like slaves. There's a difference. And this is the first reference I have to Antivan slavery, unless you're reffering to the Crows recruitment, which is an organization and not a country.

And your average magister wouldn't consider a slave to be a person either. Is either one right?

Mages are more than human. Their situation requires specific care.

[Torax]

Xewaka wrote...

The Baconer wrote...
Agreed, but there'd be no reason to complain about slaves either.

Circle mages are prisoners, not slaves.

The Baconer wrote...
I don't see any one campaigning to lock up Orlesians or Antivans. Why is slavery only wrong when mages do it?

Orlesians treat their servants like slaves. There's a difference. And this is the first reference I have to Antivan slavery, unless you're reffering to the Crows recruitment, which is an organization and not a country.

And your average magister wouldn't consider a slave to be a person either. Is either one right?

Mages are more than human. Their situation requires specific care.

Leliana didn't seem to think that the Servants she met in Orlais were slaves. She seemed to think they live better than the poor people of fereldon actually. The Elven ones anyway. Kind of sounds like being an Elf in Fereldon blows but they are far well off in Orlais. Just something to consider..

[The Baconer]

Xewaka wrote...

Circle mages are prisoners, not slaves.

So? Like you said, if we're disregarding the concept of human rights, there's no point in complaining about either.

Orlesians treat their servants like slaves. There's a difference.

"if they’re lucky, they end up in Orlais, which has only "servants." Most
nobles treat them decently because they are afraid of admitting the
truth. Orlesians go to great lengths to maintain the fiction that
slavery is illegal."

- from the Codex.

And this is the first reference I have to Antivan slavery, unless you're reffering to the Crows recruitment, which is an organization and not a country.

They're also a highly political organization. Either way, it's human/sentient trafficking that's backed by their government.

Mages are more than human. Their situation requires specific care.

Mages aren't the only mortal beings with mystical powers. Do Reavers, Spirit Warriors, or Templars require special care? Does Fenris require special care?

Modifié par The Baconer, 09 avril 2011 - 11:21 .

[Xewaka]

The Baconer wrote...
Mages aren't the only mortal beings with mystical powers. Do Reavers, Spirit Warriors, or Templars require special care? Does Fenris require special care?

Reavers are a crazy sect of dragon worshippers. Spirit Warriors are abominations. Templars were created specifically to deal with mages. Fenris is an unpleasant person, and he is what he is because of mage intervention.
To answer: Yes, yes, they are the special care, kill him with fire.

Modifié par Xewaka, 09 avril 2011 - 11:31 .

[Dave of Canada]

The Baconer wrote...

Do Reavers

Crazy people.

Spirit Warriors

Extremely uncommon people.

or Templars require special care?

Seekers and they exist to watch mages.

Does Fenris require special care?

Created by mages.

[The Angry One]

The Baconer wrote...

Mages aren't the only mortal beings with mystical powers. Do Reavers, Spirit Warriors, or Templars require special care? Does Fenris require special care?

Are any of those at risk of being taken over by demons just for existing?

[The Baconer]

The Angry One wrote...

Are any of those at risk of being taken over by demons just for existing?

Now that you mention it, a Spirit Warrior probably is.

[The Angry One]

The Baconer wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Are any of those at risk of being taken over by demons just for existing?

Now that you mention it, a Spirit Warrior probably is.

Somewhat of a moot point, the description for Spirit Warriors in Awakening notes that "Templars rarely acknowledge the distinction (between SWs and mages)."

[TEWR]

alright someone fill me in on what these last 10 pages have said please

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

alright someone fill me in on what these last 10 pages have said please

The same arguements being thrown back and forth with slight variations of "You are a fool and know nothing!" added for character. You know, the same as any thread, once it passes 10 pages.

[Torax]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

alright someone fill me in on what these last 10 pages have said please

The same arguements being thrown back and forth with slight variations of "You are a fool and know nothing!" added for character. You know, the same as any thread, once it passes 10 pages.

And generally at this point most of the threads dealing with blood magic, the circle, the chantry. basically anything regarding the mages seems to hit some personally and I'm not sure why. I played the game and didn't find myself caring so much about it.