359 réponses à ce sujet

[The Baconer]

caridounette wrote...
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.

The mages you can choose to save will be made Tranquil anyway.

[IanPolaris]

caridounette wrote...

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.

That's because the Devs want you to feel that way.  They script the scenes in such a way that you see all the bad parts of the mages while making it deceptively easy to forget:

1.  Cullen never actually rescinds the Right of Annulment even after he relieves Meredith of command.
2.  The Right most certainly is (by definiton) genocide and requires the slaughter of all mages INCUDING innocent Children.
3.  The mages you capture are not spared (at best they are made tranquil...per DG).

All that and more is glossed over so you can feel warm and fuzzy about siding with a group that not only follows a clear lunatice that wants mass murder, but willingly follows those orders because of "Divine Right"and religious ferver.

Shame on you bioware.

-Polaris

[AlexXIV]

In my first playthrough I was mage supporter but Orsino turning into a blob sort of made me think 'wtf'. So my second playthrough I had somewhat of a hate on Orsino and helped the templars. Though at the end I really felt bad about it because really it is an emotional decision to go with the templars. After a patch or something I will play again hopefully without bugs and make my canon playthrough siding with the mages. I don't want my Hawke to kill innocents for no good reason. Bad enough my Shep had to kill 300000 Batarians now. I mean there is a good reason, since the reaper invasion would have been worse. But I don't see how it helps anyone if Hawke sides with the templars. So killing innocents for nothing is rather ... ugh.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 13 avril 2011 - 05:02 .

[caridounette]

Oh actually i found one dialogue that made me connect with being a mage, now that i think about it.

Its from talking to Fenris after bringing him to the Fade where he betrays you. With enough rivalery, he blames you for the outcome. Im not saying hes right to blame Hawke but he does tell her/him that they should not have been in the Fade in the first place and that one day Hawke will realize not all mages are as strong as she/he is.

Sometimes i feel Fenris is the best companion to make you see what it is to be a mage... beyond your almighty self. Too bad hes yelling and brooding half the time.

[The Baconer]

caridounette wrote...
Sometimes i feel Fenris is the best companion to make you see what it is to be a mage... beyond your almighty self. Too bad hes yelling and brooding half the time.

And a hypocrite. If he were a mage he wouldn't be any different from the magisters he loves ragging on so much.

Modifié par The Baconer, 13 avril 2011 - 05:17 .

[AlexXIV]

Yeah I feel like that about Fenris too. He says some smart thing but his whole badass behaviour seems a bit ... premature. I mean I don't buy it, it somehow comes across as fake.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 13 avril 2011 - 05:06 .

[In Exile]

IanPolaris wrote...
1.  Cullen never actually rescinds the Right of Annulment even after he relieves Meredith of command.

But you've already killed the resisting mages by that point. Cullen would actually have to deal with:

3.  The mages you capture are not spared (at best they are made
tranquil...per DG).

Which is not genocide.

Cullen was at the Ferelden Circle and could have sent mages of to Aenar, which is what Gregoire does when he puts the circle into quarantine. Irving makes it clear the fate is not pleasant and may well involve torture & prison/isolation or otherwise for the rest of their lives, but consents.

2.  The Right most certainly is (by definiton) genocide and requires the slaughter of all mages INCUDING innocent Children.

Or you could make them tranquil.

All that and more is glossed over so you can feel warm and fuzzy about siding with a group that not only follows a clear lunatice that wants mass murder, but willingly follows those orders because of "Divine Right"and religious ferver.

I feel for the mages, but let's tone down the crazy.

[AlexXIV]

It is genocide to kill mages because they are mages. It's like killing jews for being jews or black people because they are black or europeans because they are europeans. Or for that matter, humans because they are humans. That you let some live may be redeeming or not, but doesn't change the fact. Some jews survived the holocaust, so it was not genocide? We can discuss this all day, but I can already tell you my final stance in this. I won't let any excuse count. Because excuses are like a-holes. Everyone got one and everyone thinks his own smells better than the other ones.

[upsettingshorts]

IanPolaris wrote...

Shame on you bioware.

This is the aspect of your arguments that prevents rational individuals from taking your position seriously.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 13 avril 2011 - 05:16 .

[caridounette]

The Baconer wrote...

caridounette wrote...
Sometimes i feel Fenris is the best companion to make you see what it is to be a mage... beyond your almighty self. Too bad hes yelling and brooding half the time.

And a hypocrite. If he were a mage he wouldn't be any different then the magisters he loves ragging on so much.

You touched something there. when you think about it, whio sint an hypocrite about the whole <if i had magic id abuse it>. Merrill turns to blood magic, Anders hosts a spirit, the First Enchanter looses it completly. Is there a single sane mage somewhere? other then you / Bethany. One could argue its because you were raised as an apostate in a responsible/caring family ... 

Still its hard to find a character one cannot declare hypocrite. Might be cause thats how you write good characters

[AlexXIV]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Shame on you bioware.

This is the aspect of your arguments that prevents rational individuals from taking your position seriously.

Well I have to agree. It is not Bioware's fault or wrong doing to make you feel more emotional about one side. I mean everyone should be able to seperate emotion from common sense, or logic, or rational thinking. It's not Bioware's fault that people fail to do it. In opposite actually. Bioware challenges people, which is a good thing.

[IanPolaris]

The Baconer wrote...

caridounette wrote...
Sometimes i feel Fenris is the best companion to make you see what it is to be a mage... beyond your almighty self. Too bad hes yelling and brooding half the time.

And a hypocrite. If he were a mage he wouldn't be any different then the magisters he loves ragging on so much.

Indeed not.  We see exactly that when the Pride demon in the fade tempts Fenris would almost exactly that (the power of the magisters so he can finally be 'free'...which  the Pride demon doesn't bother to hide means 'free to enslave and dominate others') and Fenris folds like a little girl.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

AlexXIV wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Shame on you bioware.

This is the aspect of your arguments that prevents rational individuals from taking your position seriously.

Well I have to agree. It is not Bioware's fault or wrong doing to make you feel more emotional about one side. I mean everyone should be able to seperate emotion from common sense, or logic, or rational thinking. It's not Bioware's fault that people fail to do it. In opposite actually. Bioware challenges people, which is a good thing.

Actually it is.  Bioware is deliberately giving short shrift to the fact that the Templars are committing genocide AND are deliberately and willfully (and even the Devs have admitted this) giving an extremely skewed and one-sided view of mages to encourage you to pick the templars because of your emotions.  They are doing so because too many people picked mages in DAO and instead of admitting that their 'morally grey choice" may not be as morally grey as they thought, they instead stack the deck.

I think "shame on you bioware" is entirely called for (especially for the hideousness no matter what side you take that is Act 3 and the bad story crafting in it).

-Polaris

[Asdara]

AlexXIV wrote...

It is genocide to kill mages because they are mages. It's like killing jews for being jews or black people because they are black or europeans because they are europeans. Or for that matter, humans because they are humans. That you let some live may be redeeming or not, but doesn't change the fact. Some jews survived the holocaust, so it was not genocide? We can discuss this all day, but I can already tell you my final stance in this. I won't let any excuse count. Because excuses are like a-holes. Everyone got one and everyone thinks his own smells better than the other ones.

Okay... 

First I guess I should say I agree with you that the definition of genocide is not negotiable and you've got the right of it.  However, I'm going to have to point out that we're not talking about Jews or black people or Europeans, or even human beings when discussing mages.  We're talking about mages.  Specifically.  People who can, quite easily, become destructive unhinged agents of misery, enslavement, and death.  The fact that some of them have started doing that already in a location is, for me, enough reason to neutralize it and let the Maker judge if I have done wrong.  

Philosophically it is akin to the question of: would you kill 1 innocent to save X number of other innocents?  There's no right answer, you are damned by one system of morality or another if you say yes or if you say no.  

It's still genocide we're seeing perpetrated on the mages, but it has more complexity when you incorporate the facts about the nature of what mages are, and what they potentially become.  I don't think anyone in this game feels bad for mowing down all the demons that pop up out of the ground on a regular basis.  What about mages who are occupied by active rage demons and boiling their neighbor's face off?  What about just a mage who is a little twitchy and might one day become either of the two previous examples?  Starting to get more complicated to mow him down isn't it?  But if you don't... you'll be back around having to later.

It's a problem - but I don't think Bioware restricts people from being able to side with the mages simply because that moral ambiguity always remains.  Even if Orsino turned abomination, does that mean all his underlings will as well?  Does that mean there is not one redeemable soul in that tower?  No.  There will be an innocent in there, somewhere, and you're back to the question: do they die to potentially save the life of someone else?  There's no right answer.

[AlexXIV]

IanPolaris wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Shame on you bioware.

This is the aspect of your arguments that prevents rational individuals from taking your position seriously.

Well I have to agree. It is not Bioware's fault or wrong doing to make you feel more emotional about one side. I mean everyone should be able to seperate emotion from common sense, or logic, or rational thinking. It's not Bioware's fault that people fail to do it. In opposite actually. Bioware challenges people, which is a good thing.

Actually it is.  Bioware is deliberately giving short shrift to the fact that the Templars are committing genocide AND are deliberately and willfully (and even the Devs have admitted this) giving an extremely skewed and one-sided view of mages to encourage you to pick the templars because of your emotions.  They are doing so because too many people picked mages in DAO and instead of admitting that their 'morally grey choice" may not be as morally grey as they thought, they instead stack the deck.

I think "shame on you bioware" is entirely called for (especially for the hideousness no matter what side you take that is Act 3 and the bad story crafting in it).

-Polaris

Well you see it too much in a 'who wins' perspective. If you know you do the right thing despite the odds it makes you the greater person. I mean you can discuss it, try to convince people. That's all fair and right. But the game is not supposed to give a fair picture. The game tells Hawke's story. So Hawke met alot of bloodmages and not many 'evil' templars. Hawke's mother was killed by a bloodmage. The First Enchanter was actually a bloodmage. This is what Hawke experiences. But it is not the whole picture, just what happened from Hawke's point of view.

So Hawke must decide to act on his or her emotions, use his or her personal experience for judgement, or maybe make a decsion based on other factors. Like for example the fact that he or she will have to kill alot of innocent people if he or she sides with the templars. That's Hawke's choice. And it is a hard one. Why should it be easy though? Would it make the game better? I don't think so.

You seem convinced that Bioware intended to make the mages look bad. And maybe they did. But matter of factly they don't make all mages look bad. And there are plenty of reasons to blame the templars and chantry more than the mages. Just they are probably not as easy to find.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 13 avril 2011 - 05:42 .

[The Baconer]

AlexXIV wrote...
You seem convinced that Bioware intended to make the mages look bad. And maybe they did. But matter of factly they don't make all mages look bad.

B-but Bioware made one of the good mages have darker skin. Obviously they're trying to play into your subconscious racism.

Shame on you, Bioware.

Modifié par The Baconer, 13 avril 2011 - 05:32 .

[caridounette]

Asdara wrote...

It's a problem - but I don't think Bioware restricts people from being able to side with the mages simply because that moral ambiguity always remains.  Even if Orsino turned abomination, does that mean all his underlings will as well?  Does that mean there is not one redeemable soul in that tower?  No.  There will be an innocent in there, somewhere, and you're back to the question: do they die to potentially save the life of someone else?  There's no right answer.

Also, it is a game meant to be roleplayed, not a matter of counting how many innocents stand on each side ofthe fence (everyone has his guess on that part). Trying to be too logical about it ruines the whole <this is a RPG> point of the experiment. When i side with the mages, its a much from an emotional standpoint as a anything moral.

Do i know if my sister can be protected when i side with the templars? I do not. Well some players / Hawke characters can think its a good enough reason to side with the mages. She is the perfect symbol of innocence and the longer she stays in there the more chances she has to be corrupted.

Its hard to think ppl who enact genocides/revolutions  have no  emotional triggers to do so...

One can argue as logically as they want, whne you play, you do get emotionnaly involved (or at least try to, since its hard to understand mages even when you play one) and make choices from that.

[Darkhour]

Shinian2 wrote...

Good analysis. I also didnt like being told I was 'supporting Meredith' during the runup to meeting Grace, when the whole game I had been supporting mages. It felt like railroading.

I like how hawk never explains himself. They give him a god damned voice, but he never uses it.

*Hawk walks in*
Templar: He must be one of Meredith's spies.
Hawke: ....
Mage: He's not taking me in!!
Anders: Um, we are sooo pro-mage. Tell him Hawke.
Hawke: ....nah
Templar: You guys get out of here. We'll handle the champion.
Hawke: ...
*fight ensues*

Another thing I hate is parts were you should be taking action but you just stand there.

Grace: I'm going to kill his sister.
Hawke: ...
Thrask: Wait, that isn't part of the plan.
Hawke: ,,,
Grace: Plan? Ha! I'm going to walk over there and kill her.
Varric: psst, Hawke, you might want to jump in an stop her...
Merril: Are you really just going to stand there and let her kill your sister?
Hawke: Grace, you touch her and you're dead. But only after you carry out your threat.
Merrill: They're arguing with each other, nows your chance to strike while they aren;t paying attention to you.
Hawke:...
Anders: Give me the damned murder knife and I'll throw it, but for gods sake how can you just stand there and not even try to stop her!!
Hawke:...I think I'll just patiently stand over here and see how this plays out.
Varric: Mother****er, r u cereal?

Modifié par Darkhour, 13 avril 2011 - 05:35 .

[LobselVith8]

caridounette wrote...

Oh actually i found one dialogue that made me connect with being a mage, now that i think about it.

I never really get the mage perspective from apostate Hawke personally. I'm going as a rogue Hawke now, and Bethany gives me more of an illegal mage POV than I received from the mage protagonist.

caridounette wrote...

Its from talking to Fenris after bringing him to the Fade where he betrays you. With enough rivalery, he blames you for the outcome. Im not saying hes right to blame Hawke but he does tell her/him that they should not have been in the Fade in the first place and that one day Hawke will realize not all mages are as strong as she/he is.

Fenris blames Hawke for Fenris betraying him to a demon? Not that I like the way that quest railroads all of the characters into stabbing Hawke in the back to begin with (with the exception of Anders because he's currently an abomination).

caridounette wrote...

Sometimes i feel Fenris is the best companion to make you see what it is to be a mage... beyond your almighty self. Too bad hes yelling and brooding half the time.

Fenris is as colored by his bad experiences as a slave in Tevinter as Anders is by his experiences as a Circle mage living under the templars and the Chantry of Andraste. Both characters speak their own opinions and life experiences, and both of them are unwilling to look at the perspective from the other side.

[Asdara]

caridounette wrote...

Asdara wrote...

It's a problem - but I don't think Bioware restricts people from being able to side with the mages simply because that moral ambiguity always remains.  Even if Orsino turned abomination, does that mean all his underlings will as well?  Does that mean there is not one redeemable soul in that tower?  No.  There will be an innocent in there, somewhere, and you're back to the question: do they die to potentially save the life of someone else?  There's no right answer.

Also, it is a game meant to be roleplayed, not a matter of counting how many innocents stand on each side ofthe fence (everyone has his guess on that part). Trying to be too logical about it ruines the whole <this is a RPG> point of the experiment. When i side with the mages, its a much from an emotional standpoint as a anything moral.

Do i know if my sister can be protected when i side with the templars? I do not. Well some players / Hawke characters can think its a good enough reason to side with the mages. She is the perfect symbol of innocence and the longer she stays in there the more chances she has to be corrupted.

Its hard to think ppl who enact genocides/revolutions  have no  emotional triggers to do so...

One can argue as logically as they want, whne you play, you do get emotionnaly involved (or at least try to, since its hard to understand mages even when you play one) and make choices from that.

The Hawke I'm roleplaying can't have emotions and logic?  I'm not trying to just blow you off here, but it seems like you think I am implying that we don't roleplay and that is far from my stance - I love RP and all its elements and I've made many a purely character based choice, either logical or emotional.  We possess both though, and just because my rouge (1st unspoiled char.) loved her sister didn't mean the circle should win vs. the templars and potentially take over the city afterwards.  Luckily I was able to spare her, but my Hawke was always hoping that Bethany would not have turned and could be saved.  Logically, my Hawke deduced that if her sister was alright she wouldn't have to kill her, and she turned out to be right - yay - but... I digress.

Emotion sometimes overpowers logic, but it never makes logic cease to exist.  You can be both emotional and logical and try to assert one impulse over the other if you try, why couldn't a character with the same range of capability do the same thing?

Besides all that, I am speaking from a player perspective in the quote above, not a character.  I understood us to be talking about the game developer elements involved in the choice dynamic - something my Hawkes all know nothing about.

Modifié par Asdara, 13 avril 2011 - 05:38 .

[AlexXIV]

Asdara wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

It is genocide to kill mages because they are mages. It's like killing jews for being jews or black people because they are black or europeans because they are europeans. Or for that matter, humans because they are humans. That you let some live may be redeeming or not, but doesn't change the fact. Some jews survived the holocaust, so it was not genocide? We can discuss this all day, but I can already tell you my final stance in this. I won't let any excuse count. Because excuses are like a-holes. Everyone got one and everyone thinks his own smells better than the other ones.

Okay... 

First I guess I should say I agree with you that the definition of genocide is not negotiable and you've got the right of it.  However, I'm going to have to point out that we're not talking about Jews or black people or Europeans, or even human beings when discussing mages.  We're talking about mages.  Specifically.  People who can, quite easily, become destructive unhinged agents of misery, enslavement, and death.  The fact that some of them have started doing that already in a location is, for me, enough reason to neutralize it and let the Maker judge if I have done wrong.  

Philosophically it is akin to the question of: would you kill 1 innocent to save X number of other innocents?  There's no right answer, you are damned by one system of morality or another if you say yes or if you say no.  

It's still genocide we're seeing perpetrated on the mages, but it has more complexity when you incorporate the facts about the nature of what mages are, and what they potentially become.  I don't think anyone in this game feels bad for mowing down all the demons that pop up out of the ground on a regular basis.  What about mages who are occupied by active rage demons and boiling their neighbor's face off?  What about just a mage who is a little twitchy and might one day become either of the two previous examples?  Starting to get more complicated to mow him down isn't it?  But if you don't... you'll be back around having to later.

It's a problem - but I don't think Bioware restricts people from being able to side with the mages simply because that moral ambiguity always remains.  Even if Orsino turned abomination, does that mean all his underlings will as well?  Does that mean there is not one redeemable soul in that tower?  No.  There will be an innocent in there, somewhere, and you're back to the question: do they die to potentially save the life of someone else?  There's no right answer.

Well there have always been excuses. They are not really humans. They are dangerous. They are different. That's not different to real life, many people who were cheering at witches being burned at a stake thought it was the right thing. Whether it is true or not doesn't even matter because the simple truth is that people most of the time know less than they think they do. Is it ever necessary to kill someone? Is there a situation it can't be avoided? The only situation I could think of is self defense when you are attacked. Or defending someone who is being attacked.
 
Kill one innocent so one hundret will live? I wouldn't do it. It is not my place to judge how much a life is worth. Neither would I want to count corpses to justify my actions.

Fact is, the mages gave up. Fact is also, Meredith wants them dead anyway. Also fact is, not all mages deserve to die. If you still can side with the templars, fine. It's not like my moral compass needs to work for everyone. Well but it is my opinion. And I think people in general don't really think hard enough about such things. I know it is not really a fun topic, but important nevertheless. I know it is a game and not real. But people who think about it are real.

[caridounette]

Asdara wrote...

caridounette wrote...

Asdara wrote...

It's a problem - but I don't think Bioware restricts people from being able to side with the mages simply because that moral ambiguity always remains.  Even if Orsino turned abomination, does that mean all his underlings will as well?  Does that mean there is not one redeemable soul in that tower?  No.  There will be an innocent in there, somewhere, and you're back to the question: do they die to potentially save the life of someone else?  There's no right answer.

Also, it is a game meant to be roleplayed, not a matter of counting how many innocents stand on each side ofthe fence (everyone has his guess on that part). Trying to be too logical about it ruines the whole <this is a RPG> point of the experiment. When i side with the mages, its a much from an emotional standpoint as a anything moral.

Do i know if my sister can be protected when i side with the templars? I do not. Well some players / Hawke characters can think its a good enough reason to side with the mages. She is the perfect symbol of innocence and the longer she stays in there the more chances she has to be corrupted.

Its hard to think ppl who enact genocides/revolutions  have no  emotional triggers to do so...

One can argue as logically as they want, whne you play, you do get emotionnaly involved (or at least try to, since its hard to understand mages even when you play one) and make choices from that.

The Hawke I'm roleplaying can't have emotions and logic?  I'm not trying to just blow you off here, but it seems like you think I am implying that we don't roleplay and that is far from my stance - I love RP and all its elements and I've made many a purely character based choice, either logical or emotional.  We possess both though, and just because my rouge (1st unspoiled char.) loved her sister didn't mean the circle should win vs. the templars and potentially take over the city afterwards.  Luckily I was able to spare her, but my Hawke was always hoping that Bethany would not have turned and could be saved.  Logically, my Hawke deduced that if her sister was alright she wouldn't have to kill her, and she turned out to be right - yay - but... I digress.

Emotion sometimes overpowers logic, but it never makes logic cease to exist.  You can be both emotional and logical and try to assert one impulse over the other if you try, why couldn't a character with the same range of capability do the same thing?

Im sorry if the intent was misunderstood here. I was certainly not implying you were wrong or did not know how to roleplay. Actually i go about it the same way you do when i play a protemplar Hawke. 

Saving your sister is jsut one emotionnal exemple of why a nonmage Hawke could want to save the circle. I think the logic part has been well covered so far. I did not want to say its emotion vs logic, jsut that when you actually play, even a very clear cut issue can become grey because of personal involvements / beliefs.


Im curious if your sister could not be saved (lets say templar XYZ arrives first and chops her down) how many ppl would prefer siding with mages? 

[nos_astra]

IanPolaris wrote...
3.  The mages you capture are not spared (at best they are made tranquil...per DG).

Could you provide a link, please?

I have learned not to trust anything you state as fact because in most cases it's based on an ambiguously worded statement you chose to inteprete in your favour.

IanPolaris wrote...
All that and more is glossed over so you can feel warm and fuzzy about siding with a group that not only follows a clear lunatice that wants mass murder, but willingly follows those orders because of "Divine Right"and religious ferver.

Shame on you bioware.

-Polaris

What is this I don't even

[Asdara]

AlexXIV wrote...

Asdara wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

It is genocide to kill mages because they are mages. It's like killing jews for being jews or black people because they are black or europeans because they are europeans. Or for that matter, humans because they are humans. That you let some live may be redeeming or not, but doesn't change the fact. Some jews survived the holocaust, so it was not genocide? We can discuss this all day, but I can already tell you my final stance in this. I won't let any excuse count. Because excuses are like a-holes. Everyone got one and everyone thinks his own smells better than the other ones.

Okay... 

First I guess I should say I agree with you that the definition of genocide is not negotiable and you've got the right of it.  However, I'm going to have to point out that we're not talking about Jews or black people or Europeans, or even human beings when discussing mages.  We're talking about mages.  Specifically.  People who can, quite easily, become destructive unhinged agents of misery, enslavement, and death.  The fact that some of them have started doing that already in a location is, for me, enough reason to neutralize it and let the Maker judge if I have done wrong.  

Philosophically it is akin to the question of: would you kill 1 innocent to save X number of other innocents?  There's no right answer, you are damned by one system of morality or another if you say yes or if you say no.  

It's still genocide we're seeing perpetrated on the mages, but it has more complexity when you incorporate the facts about the nature of what mages are, and what they potentially become.  I don't think anyone in this game feels bad for mowing down all the demons that pop up out of the ground on a regular basis.  What about mages who are occupied by active rage demons and boiling their neighbor's face off?  What about just a mage who is a little twitchy and might one day become either of the two previous examples?  Starting to get more complicated to mow him down isn't it?  But if you don't... you'll be back around having to later.

It's a problem - but I don't think Bioware restricts people from being able to side with the mages simply because that moral ambiguity always remains.  Even if Orsino turned abomination, does that mean all his underlings will as well?  Does that mean there is not one redeemable soul in that tower?  No.  There will be an innocent in there, somewhere, and you're back to the question: do they die to potentially save the life of someone else?  There's no right answer.

Well there have always been excuses. They are not really humans. They are dangerous. They are different. That's not different to real life, many people who were cheering at witches being burned at a stake thought it was the right thing. Whether it is true or not doesn't even matter because the simple truth is that people most of the time know less than they think they do. Is it ever necessary to kill someone? Is there a situation it can't be avoided? The only situation I could think of is self defense when you are attacked. Or defending someone who is being attacked.
 
Kill one innocent so one hundret will live? I wouldn't do it. It is not my place to judge how much a life is worth. Neither would I want to count corpses to justify my actions.

Fact is, the mages gave up. Fact is also, Meredith wants them dead anyway. Also fact is, not all mages deserve to die. If you still can side with the templars, fine. It's not like my moral compass needs to work for everyone. Well but it is my opinion. And I think people in general don't really think hard enough about such things. I know it is not really a fun topic, but important nevertheless. I know it is a game and not real. But people who think about it are real.

Yes, but (regarding the underlined and bolded) those things weren't true.  They really were human beings.  They weren't actually trying to take over the world's gold reserves and put Germans out of work.  They were perfectly capable of reading and living independently of their master's completely un-Christian care.  And so on. 

The truth of the claim does matter.  It matters more than anything else and transforms an excuse into an actual reason. Maybe not always a good reason.  Maybe not a reason that justifies the action taken - but a reason based in fact and reality - not simply made up qualities to engender hatred and distrust.

A mage can, in fact, be possessed and become a terribly powerful force of destruction, oppression, death, and other things.  

Let me make up what will hopefully be a non-offensive example:  I show you a man who uncontrollably goes off into a killing rage whenever he sees the colors pink, blue, or green - basically all the time then, if he's let outside.  I can keep him locked up, in a room without those colors, for his safety and the safety of others OR I can let him wander about aimlessly killing people, because we don't want to put value on lives.  Can you say he should be walking about?  Or do you want him away somewhere?  Maybe HE doesn't want to slaughter innocents whenever he turns his head the wrong way and prefers to be away, as long as his keepers aren't abusive.  What if they are though?  Now do you want him out again?  Does he want out?  If so, is it because he's decided the value of his quality of life is greater than the lives of those he'll kill if he goes ballistic outside?  Is he right or wrong?  

That's just one guy.  Say you have hundreds of people just like him.  Fine if certain circumstances don't occur, but completely unhinged and dangerous if something goes wrong.  Does a controlled environment seem appropriate?  For there good and ours it would certainly seem so - but as above... what about corruption?  And what's the answer when things become untenable?  When the parameters have been breached that signal a complete breakdown of the containment system?  Neutralization is the option we're given, and it's an option of last resort.  The alternative it to abolish the containment without any back of plan of further containment in place.  Is that responsible?  If so, to whom?

These are the things that get my brain turning about this - choosing either side (and I've chosen both, as I said, across a half-dozen characters by now).  

We don't have a real-life parallel to mages in real life fitting the situation - even the rampages of a mass-muderer are just the acts of an individual with human capabilities only - not fireballs and dream killing options.  We put those guys in prison, sure, but there aren't tens of thousands of them spread across the world all active at once.

[LobselVith8]

klarabella wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
3.  The mages you capture are not spared (at best they are made tranquil...per DG).

Could you provide a link, please?

Here's the quote from David Gaider you were looking for:

David Gaider wrote...

The issue is this:

By the time the Right of Annulment is invoked, the tower in question has moved beyond the possibility of mages being brought under control enough that Tranquility would even be possible. It's possible some mages might survive the initial assault, but the order cannot be "take any prisoners you can" simply because by that point a mage might have been corrupted and become a blood mage... something which cannot be detected under normal circumstances. Thus capturing them becomes a means for them to escape the quarantine.

So therefore the order is "kill everyone". At the end of the day, if any mages are still alive for whatever reason... then, yes, I imagine they could theroretically be made Tranquil as opposed to executed outright.