359 réponses à ce sujet

[Foolsfolly]

OP, I felt very much the same thing you did. My first character was also a pro-mage mage who avoided Blood Magic (I incorrectly thought that playing as the spec would have plot consequences).

I felt disappointed at the whole final act. And you hit a nail on the head when you said it felt like they'd run out of things to say about the Mages. There's two small, unchanging quests (regardless of where you stand you do the same quests) and then you're thrown into the final battle.

I will stop when the Templar supporters aknowledge that the Right of Annulment IS an act of genocide and thus evil.

Morally gray like using a nuke or firebombing a city. When a Circle's out of control and demons and abominations are crawling out of the woodwork it's time to use extreme force or loose battle and have these monsters terrorizing everywhere.

Now, the question should be, was Meredith's Annulment justified not if the Annulment is evil or not. It's a tool to be used as the last resort to stop a greater evil.

[jds1bio]

Foolsfolly wrote...

OP, I felt very much the same thing you did. My first character was also a pro-mage mage who avoided Blood Magic (I incorrectly thought that playing as the spec would have plot consequences).

That class (and that spec) having special quests to be tempted by blood magic or spirits from the Fade would have been a nice touch.

Same with a warrior class being able to take on a few Guard quests, and a Rogue being able to take on a few additional mercenary/smuggler quests.  Oh well, it's not my game.

[IanPolaris]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Morally gray like using a nuke or firebombing a city. When a Circle's out of control and demons and abominations are crawling out of the woodwork it's time to use extreme force or loose battle and have these monsters terrorizing everywhere.

That wasn't the reason she declared a Right of Annulment.  Her declared reason was because the Chantry was destroyed by magic (while completely ignoring the guilty party).  Furthermore when she makes this declaration, abominations and demons are NOT running out of the woodwork.  That only happens AFTER the Templars delare open season on mages.

Even if they were, it is genocide and EVIL to kill every last man, woman, and child of a minority group for something that they DID NOT DO.

Honestly the entire Right of Annulment is evil when you get right down to it.

-Polaris

[Foolsfolly]

That wasn't the reason she declared a Right of Annulment. Her declared reason was because the Chantry was destroyed by magic (while completely ignoring the guilty party).

Exactly. It's completely up to debate if it was right to Annul that Circle. I tend to think it wasn't, so does Cullen.

Even if they were, it is genocide and EVIL to kill every last man, woman, and child of a minority group for something that they DID NOT DO.

Honestly the entire Right of Annulment is evil when you get right down to it.

It's not evil and it's not even genocide. It's an act of war and meant to be the last resort for the Templars. Would you rather have abominations and demons tearing children apart in the streets? Having Kirkwall be one giant feeding frenzy to monsters?

Isn't it evil to allow that to happen?

Would that have happened in Kirkwall here? Probably not. Getting rid of Meredith would have eased tensions and stopping Anders would have kept the nobles supporting the mages. There was corruption but like Cullen said, it was worse in Ferelden...and it really was.

And they kill everyone because everyone (or nearly everyone) is corrupted and you cannot allow demons to continue to exist in the Circle to corrupt and kill more innocents.

Also, on a personal level, I take issue to the whole "The Templars Make Blood Mages" thing. That sounds like an easy excuse like blaming your dad because you shot and killed someone.

[IanPolaris]

It's genocide. It's the deliberate killing of a minority group for something that they did not do. If it turns out that innocent people are killed when fighting abominations, then that's different but that's NOT what the right of annulment is and it's not usually how it's been implemented either.

Honestly most RIghts of Annulment (read the codex entries) are like Kirkwall where the Chantry has a bad day and NOT like Fereldan where you really did have abominations and demons running amok (and even then in most cases you don't need the Right of Annulment to solve the issue).

Look up the word Genocide. The Right of Annulment fits.

-Polaris

[Foolsfolly]

It's genocide. It's the deliberate killing of a minority group for something that they did not do

Not if they're killing a rampant Circle. You can't just say it's genocide always and always evil. Meredith uses it irresponsibility, surprises never cease when she's the villain of the game.

It's one of those not nice things. Like bombing a city, cutting off a limb to save the body, or anything else. There's a time for it. If a Circle becomes a danger to civilians then it's time to just wipe it out and start anew.

[IanPolaris]

Foolsfolly wrote...

It's genocide. It's the deliberate killing of a minority group for something that they did not do

Not if they're killing a rampant Circle. You can't just say it's genocide always and always evil. Meredith uses it irresponsibility, surprises never cease when she's the villain of the game.

It's one of those not nice things. Like bombing a city, cutting off a limb to save the body, or anything else. There's a time for it. If a Circle becomes a danger to civilians then it's time to just wipe it out and start anew.

No it's not.  If you bomb a city (even if you Nuke it), you are not attempting to kill every body of a partcular type in that city.  There is a huge difference between innocent death created by collateral damage (ie bombing) and innocent death dealt out as a deliberate policy.

'The riteof annulment is an order to kill all mages in a circle, men, women,and chilren without regard to any other consideration.  That makes it genocide.  Period.  No getting around it.

Words have meaning.  The Right of Annulment is genocide.  If that word is to have meaning, we need to accept this.  It is what it is.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 13 avril 2011 - 08:34 .

[Dave of Canada]

IanPolaris wrote...

I will stop when the Templar supporters aknowledge that the Right of Annulment IS an act of genocide and thus evil.  If committing an evil act makes you an evil person, then perhaps the Templar supporters should reconsider their stances.

-Polaris

You're right.

I'm a bigoted racist bastard that supports genocide, slavery and rape. I'm crying here, I'm totally wrong in my stance.



*chuckle*

Please, you're only trying to discredit people by trying to make everything black and white and saying that pro-templar supporters are evil. Gaider tries to point out it's gray and you're crying your eyes out saying that he's anti-mage, you need better arguments than trying to make your opposition feel bad for their stance and making everything illegal and wrong.

[IanPolaris]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Please, you're only trying to discredit people by trying to make everything black and white and saying that pro-templar supporters are evil. Gaider tries to point out it's gray and you're crying your eyes out saying that he's anti-mage, you need better arguments than trying to make your opposition feel bad for their stance and making everything illegal and wrong.

It's not a grey issue.  Killing an entire minority group down to the last child for something they didn't commit is evil. I know that DG and others wish it were a grey issue, but it really is that simple and there really isn't any grey in that choice.  It's very clear cut.

-Polaris

[Foolsfolly]

IanPolaris wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

It's genocide. It's the deliberate killing of a minority group for something that they did not do

Not if they're killing a rampant Circle. You can't just say it's genocide always and always evil. Meredith uses it irresponsibility, surprises never cease when she's the villain of the game.

It's one of those not nice things. Like bombing a city, cutting off a limb to save the body, or anything else. There's a time for it. If a Circle becomes a danger to civilians then it's time to just wipe it out and start anew.

No it's not.  If you bomb a city (even if you Nuke it), you are not attempting to kill every body of a partcular type in that city.  There is a huge difference between innocent death created by collateral damage (ie bombing) and innocent death dealt out as a deliberate policy.

'The riteof annulment is an order to kill all mages in a circle, men, women,and chilren without regard to any other consideration.  That makes it genocide.  Period.  No getting around it.

Words have meaning.  The Right of Annulment is genocide.  If that word is to have meaning, we need to accept this.  It is what it is.

-Polaris

The point of firebombing is to kill innocents. That's why the UN is against it (although the US said crap to that). You kill innocents and demoralize the nation you're fighting. When they see the pictures of the dead they'll want to stop fighting. That was the same reasoning to the two nukes too. It was to demoralize, not hit military targets. The civilizans were the targets.

And the particular type is whatever nationality you're at war with.

Genocide would be killing all mages in a country or the world just because they are mages. When they're corrupted they're monsters, many mindless. The Annulment is used when they're monsters. Innocents lost during that are regrettable but it wasn't about killing them just because of who they are.

You're acting like the Annulment means gathering all magic families and systematically killing them to prevent Mage births. Even apostates are taken into the Circle and live their lives. It's illegal to tranquil a mage that's past the Harrowing. Meredith's a monster and you cannot judge the entire act because one crazy idol listening loon wants to kill every mage.

[ForeignPatriot]

IanPolaris wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Please, you're only trying to discredit people by trying to make everything black and white and saying that pro-templar supporters are evil. Gaider tries to point out it's gray and you're crying your eyes out saying that he's anti-mage, you need better arguments than trying to make your opposition feel bad for their stance and making everything illegal and wrong.

It's not a grey issue.  Killing an entire minority group down to the last child for something they didn't commit is evil. I know that DG and others wish it were a grey issue, but it really is that simple and there really isn't any grey in that choice.  It's very clear cut.

-Polaris

Evil is a concept that is entirely subjective. Simply calling it genocide doesn't make it evil. If a group of people are in possession of a weapon that could potentially kill and/or injure thousands more (i.e magic) and it is firmly believed that this is a real possibility, then killing them might not be considered evil by some.

It IS a grey area because you are potentially either killing some people to protect the rest or protecting a minority at the risk of what might happen to everyone else.

The main issue here is that mages are not helpless people. Even mage children have the potential for great danger. Wether they "did" anything or not is irrelevant in the eyes of the Templars. The risks are believed to be way too high to take chances at that point.

You already know the counter argument but, neither side is "right" because they are, at the end of the day, opinions.

[Foolsfolly]

IanPolaris wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Please, you're only trying to discredit people by trying to make everything black and white and saying that pro-templar supporters are evil. Gaider tries to point out it's gray and you're crying your eyes out saying that he's anti-mage, you need better arguments than trying to make your opposition feel bad for their stance and making everything illegal and wrong.

It's not a grey issue.  Killing an entire minority group down to the last child for something they didn't commit is evil. I know that DG and others wish it were a grey issue, but it really is that simple and there really isn't any grey in that choice.  It's very clear cut.

-Polaris

It IS a grey issue. You keep acting like Meredith wanting to Annul the Kirkwall Circle is the rule. Meredith was crazy and paranoid.

That Circle could likely be saved. It was corrupt but Meredith did not attempt to ferret out the corruption, she just wanted to kill everything. Now if she attempted to find and take out all the corrupted mages and the whole Circle rebelled against that then there may be grounds for Annulment.

But as is, she was crazy...a building blew up and she wanted everyone dead. And when everyone's dead she wants to kill Hawke and even claims Cullen has fallen under the sway of Blood Magic. She was crazy.

[IanPolaris]

No. The piont of firebombing is the make the city unusable by the enemy which involves killing civilians but individual civilians are NOT targeted.

The Right of Annulment is different. You are specifically targeting a specific minority group for execution REGARDLESS of what they might have done down to the last child.

Dress it up or try to excuse it all you like, but it is by definition genocide.

Words have meanings.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Foolsfolly wrote...

It IS a grey issue. You keep acting like Meredith wanting to Annul the Kirkwall Circle is the rule. Meredith was crazy and paranoid.

Actually if you read the conditons which prompted the first annulment and accounts of other annulments (see the Codex entries), Rights of Annulment actually resemble Kirkwall much more than Fereldan.  The Antivan circle that started all this COULD have been saved, but it too had a Meridith like Knight Comander and the rest as they say is history.

-Polaris

[Dave of Canada]

IanPolaris wrote...

It's not a grey issue.  Killing an entire minority group down to the last child for something they didn't commit is evil.

Yet if you side with the templar, Aveline says that Donnic has to protect the public from the mages. If you side with the mages, Donnic is preventing the public from joining the fighting on Meredith's side. How many "innocents" will die because of mages going " LET'S BE INNOCENT AND OPPRESSED PEOPLE BY SUMMONING DEMONS AND KILLING CIVILIANS OOPS I ACCIDENTLY BECAME AN ABOMINATION :("?

More than siding with the templar, surely. Therefor, wouldn't protecting the innocent and putting down a rebellion be considered the "good" choice while siding with the rebellion and fighting the local authority and public be considered the "evil" one?

Oh right, I forgot. It isn't a grey issue, who cares what the public thinks? After all, they mean absolutely nothing our to great mage overlords except for "who shall we sacrifice next to entertain our dinner guests?".

I know that DG and others wish it were a grey issue, but it really is that simple and there really isn't any grey in that choice.

If this were the case, DA2 wouldn't be "anti-mage" like you keep repeating everywhere.

It's very clear cut.

In your mind, yes. You refuse to see mages in any other light other than the oppressed innocent victim and the templar as the big evil oppressor. You have no respect for the storyline presented by the writers, you'd rather trivialize everything to make it clear cut .

-Polaris

-Dave

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 avril 2011 - 09:00 .

[IanPolaris]

DA2 is one-sided and heavily slanted antimage (by the Devs own admission) because it really isn't a grey issue but the writers desperately want it to be one. It's never alright and never excusable to punish (let alone kill) people for what they are rather than who they are. DA2 uses every trick in the book to obscure this basic moral point that is a cornestone in modern western morality and ethics (which is the basis from which players make their choices).

-Polaris

[Xewaka]

IanPolaris wrote...
DA2 is one-sided and heavily slanted antimage (by the Devs own admission) because it really isn't a grey issue but the writers desperately want it to be one. It's never alright and never excusable to punish (let alone kill) people for what they are rather than who they are. DA2 uses every trick in the book to obscure this basic moral point that is a cornestone in modern western morality and ethics (which is the basis from which players make their choices).
-Polaris

You still don't address the fact that more innocent civilians will be slain if we let a group of rioters armed with very heavy weaponry loose on one of the biggest cities in the Free Marches.
At that point in the game, the choice is what innocents do you want to kill, the magic-capable or the non-magic capable.

Modifié par Xewaka, 13 avril 2011 - 09:13 .

[Dave of Canada]

Xewaka wrote...

At that point in the game, the choice is what innocents do you want to kill, the magic-capable or the non-magic capable.

The minority (which are corrupt, have blood mages hanging in their ranks and are leading an open rebellion against authority) or the majority (innocent civilians).

It's not gray at all, Waka.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 avril 2011 - 09:15 .

[IanPolaris]

Xewaka wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
DA2 is one-sided and heavily slanted antimage (by the Devs own admission) because it really isn't a grey issue but the writers desperately want it to be one. It's never alright and never excusable to punish (let alone kill) people for what they are rather than who they are. DA2 uses every trick in the book to obscure this basic moral point that is a cornestone in modern western morality and ethics (which is the basis from which players make their choices).
-Polaris

You still don't address the fact that more innocent civilians will be slain if we let a group of rioters armed with very heavy weaponry loose on one of the biggest cities in the Free Marches.
At that point in the game, the choice is what innocents do you want to kill, the magic-capable or the non-magic capable.

I don't address it because it's bolloxs.  No matter what the City Guard does a yeoman job at controlling the population and the gallows is isolated on an island anyway.

The idea that you kill less people by slaughering the circle is non-sensical.  The civilian population is almost completely cut off from the major battlezone (the gallows) to begin with.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

At that point in the game, the choice is what innocents do you want to kill, the magic-capable or the non-magic capable.

The minority (which are corrupt, have blood mages hanging in their ranks and are leading an open rebellion against authority) or the majority (innocent civilians).

It's not gray at all, Waka.

It's not.  It's never justified to kill all [insert minority group here] even if you know some are dangerous rebels.  Doing so is genocide and that IS the definition under interanational law for exactly that reason.

It's no different with mages.

-Polaris

[Xewaka]

IanPolaris wrote...
I don't address it because it's bolloxs.  No matter what the City Guard does a yeoman job at controlling the population and the gallows is isolated on an island anyway.
The idea that you kill less people by slaughering the circle is non-sensical.  The civilian population is almost completely cut off from the major battlezone (the gallows) to begin with.
-Polaris

At that point in game your character doesn't know that, because the face-off happens in Lowtown. The fact that the Templars will manage to push the mages back to the gallows and contain the rebellion regardless of Hawke's intervention is unknown at that moment.

[Foolsfolly]

IanPolaris wrote...

No. The piont of firebombing is the make the city unusable by the enemy which involves killing civilians but individual civilians are NOT targeted.

The Right of Annulment is different. You are specifically targeting a specific minority group for execution REGARDLESS of what they might have done down to the last child.

Dress it up or try to excuse it all you like, but it is by definition genocide.

Words have meanings.

-Polaris

No, you're thinking strategic bombing. FIrebombing is attempting to burn a whole city to ash and all the people within it. The firebombing of Tokyo destroyed 50% of the city and killed more people than either nuke. It was completely to demoralize and murder. That's the point.

It's not killing regardless of what they've done. A Circle has to be corrupt for them to ask for the Annulment. That means the mages are already guilty of corruption and demons and abominations are running wild. That's not execution regardless of what they've done. That excution because of what they've done.

Words do have meaning but you seem immune to them.

[IanPolaris]

Xewaka wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
I don't address it because it's bolloxs.  No matter what the City Guard does a yeoman job at controlling the population and the gallows is isolated on an island anyway.
The idea that you kill less people by slaughering the circle is non-sensical.  The civilian population is almost completely cut off from the major battlezone (the gallows) to begin with.
-Polaris

At that point in game your character doesn't know that, because the face-off happens in Lowtown. The fact that the Templars will manage to push the mages back to the gallows and contain the rebellion regardless of Hawke's intervention is unknown at that moment.

Yes you do know that.  Meridith didn't go fruit-loops all at once.  She had had all the mages confined to the gallows for a long time, and having lived at this time in Kirkwall for seven years, you know damn well its a largely inaccessable island!  The only mages outside is that small group with Orsino or those very, very, few that had permission to be outside the gallows.

-Polaris

[Dave of Canada]

IanPolaris wrote...

I don't address it because it's bolloxs.  No matter what the City Guard does a yeoman job at controlling the population and the gallows is isolated on an island anyway.

So all those blood mages and demons rampaging through the streets were actually lost and looking for the Gallows? Damn, I should've given them directions.

IanPolaris wrote...

It's not.  It's never justified to kill all [insert minority group here] even if you know some are dangerous rebels.  Doing so is genocide and that IS the definition under interanational law for exactly that reason.

Two things:

So you'd rather protect the few (I know the original quote isn't from the movie) over the many and deem that "good" while those protecting the many are "evil"? 

You seem to place a lot of importance on "minority" when it shouldn't really matter in this situation. It can never be justified to kill the minority but it's perfectly fine to kill the majority?

I hope you're never put in a position where you have to make a logical choice.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 avril 2011 - 09:26 .

[IanPolaris]

Foolsfolly wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

No. The piont of firebombing is the make the city unusable by the enemy which involves killing civilians but individual civilians are NOT targeted.

The Right of Annulment is different. You are specifically targeting a specific minority group for execution REGARDLESS of what they might have done down to the last child.

Dress it up or try to excuse it all you like, but it is by definition genocide.

Words have meanings.

-Polaris

No, you're thinking strategic bombing. FIrebombing is attempting to burn a whole city to ash and all the people within it. The firebombing of Tokyo destroyed 50% of the city and killed more people than either nuke. It was completely to demoralize and murder. That's the point.

It's not killing regardless of what they've done. A Circle has to be corrupt for them to ask for the Annulment. That means the mages are already guilty of corruption and demons and abominations are running wild. That's not execution regardless of what they've done. That excution because of what they've done.

Words do have meaning but you seem immune to them.

Yes, word have meaning andthe Right of Annulment fits the definition of Genocide.  Firebombing does not.  Yes firebombing is designed to maximize civilian casualties, but it does NOT if you kill all the people in the zone.  The point of a firebombing is to terrorize the civilian population and render large parts of a city uninhibitable.

Nasty stuff but it's NOT genocide because you are not deliberately targetig all people of a certain type for death.  The Right of Annulment does just that.  The only way firebombing would rise to that level is if you kept bombing ad bombing to deliberately wipe out all life in a city and not even the Dresden/Tokyo firebombings (the most hideous examples) ever reached that level.  Even then many officers even on the allied side still condemned the practice as evil and many still do even today.

-Polaris