359 réponses à ce sujet

[Xewaka]

IanPolaris wrote...
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

You misunderstand. It's not that your character doesn't know it's an island. It's that your character doesn't know if the mages will push from there. I'll recheck the codex to confirm, but I think there's nothing in the rules of magic that prevents mages to devise ways of trasversing a body of water. Or use one of the escape tunnels of the underground mage freedom movement. Or to capture the boats the templars use to move from mainland to the Gallows.
At that point, we don't know what the mages are capable of in their rioting. We only know we have to choose wether we believe supporting a bunch of terrorist zealots is right or if we protect the civilians.

[AtreiyaN7]

As much as I love mages (I play one all the time), sometimes there are mages who are dangerous. Some of them are bad to the bone, nuts, desire power, or are obsessed with revenge, etc. You can't always play the oppression card in relation to mages - each situation is different.

[IanPolaris]

Could mages eventually get off the island? Sure, but remember that the Gallows was a TEVINTER SLAVE PRISON with all the security that implies. That means that even if some mages did manage,they'd be very few at certain choke points which simply accetuates my point. The idea you are saving lots of civilians by siding with the Templars is an almost entirely fabricated falsehood.

The mages are already contained on an island. You simply slaughter them.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

As much as I love mages (I play one all the time), sometimes there are mages who are dangerous. Some of them are bad to the bone, nuts, desire power, or are obsessed with revenge, etc. You can't always play the oppression card in relation to mages - each situation is different.

Yes and that means you handle each case invidividually.  You don't slaughter all mages,men, women, and children because a handful might be 'bad'.

-Polaris

[Dave of Canada]

IanPolaris wrote...

Yes and that means you handle each case invidividually.  You don't slaughter all mages,men, women, and children because a handful might be 'bad'.

-Polaris

Couldn't the same apply to you who calls us "evil" people who support genocide, rape, bigotry, racism, slavery and whatever else you're making up to try and make us feel bad? Follow your own advice and I might consider following it myself.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 avril 2011 - 09:39 .

[Foolsfolly]

How about Anders blowing up a Chantry full of Sisters, Brothers, and Mothers? Was that genocide because he was killing non-mages despite their innocence?

I think that's a better case for genocide than an Annulment. Even the Kirkwall Circle was corrupted from the top down.

[Foolsfolly]

Dave of Canada wrote...

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.

He can say that because his morals are nice and warm. When children are being eaten, building exploding, and the streets running red from demons and abominations slaughtering everything in sight he can seat back contented with the fact that he personally did not kill any innocent mages.

If you have to kill a hundred to save a thousand you're a hero. To kill a thousand to save hundred is short-sighted and irresponsible.

Nasty stuff but it's NOT genocide because you are not deliberately targetig all people of a certain type for death.

YES YOU ARE! You're deliberately targeting your enemy people for death! And guess what? It's not genocide there and it's not genocide when it's a fantasy setting Annulment.

Modifié par Foolsfolly, 13 avril 2011 - 09:54 .

[upsettingshorts]

The Rite of Annullment has more in common with say, sealing off a compromised compartment of a submarine - despite the fact there are crewmen still there trying to fix it - so that the whole ship doesn't sink below crush depth than genocide.

Genocide would be rounding up all the mages just because they're mages everywhere and killing them. Meredith herself crosses this line - though Greagoir did not and seemed to have a better grasp of his function, and Knight Captain Cullen calls her out on it, but until the end is only able to save a small handful, three mages who ask for mercy.

One is situational - based on an emergency that views containment of the problem as the objective. If the problem is contained, no one else need die (Greagoir understood this, and accepts First Enchancter Irving's recommendation even if the player defers). Meredith has allowed her personal prejudices to effect her job, and took it too far. If any single character deserves the most blame for what occurs in Kirkwall, it's her - with Anders a very close second.

[Foolsfolly]

@ Upsettingshorts:

It also has a lot in common with quarantining an area. It's obvious one Abomination (Uldred) can become many in a matter of hours. Annulment stops its spread.

[Hurbster]

I'd be much more likely to side with the mages if they weren't trying to kill me every 5 minutes. And were not all evil blood mages. It's damn obvious that bar a few the Kirkwall Circle was GONE, corrupted, ect ect.

And, just like when you were arguing that the gift of land magically tranforms that land into an embassy, you are wrong about this being genocide, Ian. You want the head writer of the game to tell you again or something ?

[IanPolaris]

Foolsfolly wrote...

@ Upsettingshorts:

It also has a lot in common with quarantining an area. It's obvious one Abomination (Uldred) can become many in a matter of hours. Annulment stops its spread.

That is the excuse but it doesn't fly.  The Right of Annulment is NOT quarantine.  It is the deliberate act of legal murder of all mages in a circle tower for what they are rather than actual guilt or innocence.  By any rational definition, that IS genocide.

Words have definitions and not even the game writers can change that no matter how much they might want to.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Foolsfolly wrote...

How about Anders blowing up a Chantry full of Sisters, Brothers, and Mothers? Was that genocide because he was killing non-mages despite their innocence?

I think that's a better case for genocide than an Annulment. Even the Kirkwall Circle was corrupted from the top down.

You'd be wrong.  Here is the difference (and please look up 'genocide' to avoid looking foolish in the future).

Ander's action was wrong and evil, but it wasn't genocide.  It was an act of terror and indiscriminate murder, yes, but not genocide.

Why not?  Because Anders didn't target a specific group for murder.

That's what makes the Right of Annulment genocide and a Fireboming not genocide.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Hurbster wrote...

I'd be much more likely to side with the mages if they weren't trying to kill me every 5 minutes. And were not all evil blood mages. It's damn obvious that bar a few the Kirkwall Circle was GONE, corrupted, ect ect.

This was a deliberate choice to make the mages look as bad as possible.  Even the devs admit that the protrayal of mages in DA2 is very skewed and one sided.  Bioware wanted you to react just as you did (because apparently too many people sided with mages in DAO).

And, just like when you were arguing that the gift of land magically tranforms that land into an embassy, you are wrong about this being genocide, Ian. You want the head writer of the game to tell you again or something ?

DG emphised the 'quotes' and clarified it.  I was far, far from the only one that considered the compound an embassy...but nice ad hominem.

-Polaris

[Foolsfolly]

Polaris you're an idiot.

[Rifneno]

Dave of Canada wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Yes and that means you handle each case invidividually.  You don't slaughter all mages,men, women, and children because a handful might be 'bad'.

-Polaris

Couldn't the same apply to you who calls us "evil" people who support genocide, rape, bigotry, racism, slavery and whatever else you're making up to try and make us feel bad? Follow your own advice and I might consider following it myself.

The first day I go without seeing Anders called a terrorist, I'll give some credence to not saying things like "genocide."  Until then, I'll do as the "terrorist" callers are doing:  calling 'em like I see 'em.

Foolsfolly wrote...

How about Anders blowing up a Chantry full of Sisters, Brothers, and Mothers? Was that genocide because he was killing non-mages despite their innocence?

I think that's a better case for genocide than an Annulment. Even the Kirkwall Circle was corrupted from the top down.

Then you think wrong.  Read up some more on what genocide means.  Because it doesn't mean "killing more than one innocent person."  "Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group."  One bomb hardly qualifies as "deliberate and systematic" elimination.  If he was trying to wipe out the Chantry's followers, that would qualify.  He's not.

YES YOU ARE! You're deliberately targeting your enemy people for death! And guess what? It's not genocide there and it's not genocide when it's a fantasy setting Annulment.

Yes it is.  Go to that link I gave and scroll to the "stages of and influences leading to" part.  Tell me exactly which one of those doesn't describe something the Chantry is doing to the Circle of Magi.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The Rite of Annullment has more in common with say, sealing off a compromised compartment of a submarine - despite the fact there are crewmen still there trying to fix it - so that the whole ship doesn't sink below crush depth than genocide.

Genocide would be rounding up all the mages just because they're mages everywhere and killing them. Meredith herself crosses this line - though Greagoir did not and seemed to have a better grasp of his function, and Knight Captain Cullen calls her out on it, but until the end is only able to save a small handful, three mages who ask for mercy.

One is situational - based on an emergency that views containment of the problem as the objective. If the problem is contained, no one else need die (Greagoir understood this, and accepts First Enchancter Irving's recommendation even if the player defers). Meredith has allowed her personal prejudices to effect her job, and took it too far. If any single character deserves the most blame for what occurs in Kirkwall, it's her - with Anders a very close second.

Agreed, in cases like the Ferelden Tower it's more like your submarine example.  In Meredith's case, it's simply small scale genocide.  The Circle wasn't out of control until she went Charles Manson on it.  There was no immediate danger of the whole ship going down.  Especially the first time she asks for the Right of Annulment.

[nos_astra]

Although my canon Hawke is pro-templar and helped annul the Circle, I have to admit, the actions against mages fit the following description remarkably well:
http://en.wikipedia....ges_of_genocide

Dragon Age is a dark, cruel world, indeed.

Modifié par klarabella, 13 avril 2011 - 01:13 .

[AlexXIV]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The Rite of Annullment has more in common with say, sealing off a compromised compartment of a submarine - despite the fact there are crewmen still there trying to fix it - so that the whole ship doesn't sink below crush depth than genocide.

Genocide would be rounding up all the mages just because they're mages everywhere and killing them. Meredith herself crosses this line - though Greagoir did not and seemed to have a better grasp of his function, and Knight Captain Cullen calls her out on it, but until the end is only able to save a small handful, three mages who ask for mercy.

One is situational - based on an emergency that views containment of the problem as the objective. If the problem is contained, no one else need die (Greagoir understood this, and accepts First Enchancter Irving's recommendation even if the player defers). Meredith has allowed her personal prejudices to effect her job, and took it too far. If any single character deserves the most blame for what occurs in Kirkwall, it's her - with Anders a very close second.

Question is though, was it neccessary to seal off the compartment? If it turns out later that it wasn't, you'd still have to live with it for the rest of your life. You'd probably be kicked out of the army as well. So do you really think the Annullment was the only choice resolving the problems in Kirkwall? I think assassinating Meredith would have been one of many better choices.

Erm maybe I should mention this is not meant to disagree with anything you said. Just sort of ... my thoughts added to it.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 13 avril 2011 - 12:40 .

[AlexXIV]

Well there is a definition of genocide. And I wouldn't know why 'killing all mages' wouldn't meet it. I suggest wikipedia if you don't know what I mean. Ah well I should have read Klarabella's post first, nm.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 13 avril 2011 - 12:43 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Polaris you're an idiot.

It took you three pages to find out about that?

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

Polaris you're an idiot.

It took you three pages to find out about that?

Because Ian contests the idea that it's not quarantine when the templars are murdering men, women, and children for a crime they didn't do? Anders is an apostate who was known to the templars, he isn't a member of Kirkwall's Circle of Magi. Meredith orders all the Circles mages killed for something Anders did, and slaughtering all the mages of the city-state constitutes genocide.

[Rifneno]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

Polaris you're an idiot.

It took you three pages to find out about that?

Because Ian contests the idea that it's not quarantine when the templars are murdering men, women, and children for a crime they didn't do? Anders is an apostate who was known to the templars, he isn't a member of Kirkwall's Circle of Magi. Meredith orders all the Circles mages killed for something Anders did, and slaughtering all the mages of the city-state constitutes genocide.

Actually, Meredith attempted to get the RoA before Anders did it.  Elthina said no, so she sent a request to The Divine in Orlais.  I have a sneaking suspicion this is why Leliana shows up all anti-mage.  Who knows what crazy load of crap Meredith told them in that letter?

[nos_astra]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Because Ian contests the idea that it's not quarantine when the templars are murdering men, women, and children for a crime they didn't do?

No, because he won't shut up about ... anything ... ever.

And because he's trying to tell us how to play the game the right way. And how it should be written the right way.

All of it applies to you as well, of course.

Modifié par klarabella, 13 avril 2011 - 03:08 .

[LobselVith8]

klarabella wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Because Ian contests the idea that it's not quarantine when the templars are murdering men, women, and children for a crime they didn't do?

No, because he won't shut up about ... anything ... ever.

And because he's trying to tell us how to play the game the right way. And how it should be written the right way.

All of it applies to you as well, of course.

I've never told anyone how to play DA. I have openly disagreed with the Chantry controlled Circles, and I discuss the issue in mage-centric threads. Since this thread focuses on mages, why are you surprised the issue had been brought up?

[The Baconer]

Rifneno wrote...
  Who knows what crazy load of crap Meredith told them in that letter?

Probably what what was actually happening. It certainly warranted an investigation, what with all the demon summonin' maleficarin' muderer helpin' shenanigans. Not that Meredith knew about the last part, but still.

Modifié par The Baconer, 13 avril 2011 - 03:52 .

[caridounette]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Genocide would be rounding up all the mages just because they're mages everywhere and killing them. Meredith herself crosses this line - though Greagoir did not and seemed to have a better grasp of his function, and Knight Captain Cullen calls her out on it, but until the end is only able to save a small handful, three mages who ask for mercy.

Thats where the problem is for me. Its not about how justified the Rite is. Its about being able to support the templars in a way that lets you roleplay a character who will show mercy to some mages while not being able to play a promage game without oking the whole blood magic / demons thing. Why cant a promage Hawke get a chance to kill the mages who turn ? I know i might miss some of them and accidently free a few blood mages but thats a risk a promage character is willing to take i think (not guilty until proven wrong mindset).

Now that i know the ending of the game, i find it hard to try saving the circle. I can play promage all along and feel bad for sending the templars on the mages when i do not know the extent of the corruption in the circle but the ending itself makes it feel like protemplar is the most merciful/responsible way to go.