hoorayforicecream wrote...
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
To be fair to Polaris, not everyone got a UN definition of Ethnicity lying around. Such definitions (those by the UN) are often very long, very boring, and very irrelevant.
Oh, I know. I just find it hilarious that he dismisses the definition of ethnicity as recognized by the US Government, but is willing to use Weber's Dictionary instead.
You are aware that those charters are written for a world where mages don't exist, right? You'll have to excuse me if I roll my eyes while you claim we should follow the letter of the law rather than the spirit of it when it's written for something totally alien to the subject at hand.
hoorayforicecream wrote...
Congratulations. You've won the argument where you provide your own definition, then use it to back up your own claims. Good job, sir. 
Congratulations, you're condescending and add nothing at all to the debate besides self-superiority and thinly veilled trolling.
louise101 wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
The goal of an Annulment is however not to kill all mages. It is to cleanse the tower, which sadly often involves killing all the mages. The death of all the mages is simply collateral damage.
The goal of the Right of Annulment is to Cleanse the tower by explicitly instructing Templars to kill all mages no matter what. That's genocide. No getting around it. It includes killing little boys and girls that are completely blameless.
-Polaris
I have to say this, your incessant need to drag real life history into gaming disturbs me somewhat. If you have a problem take it up with the people that made the game, not the ones that play it. Or stop playing them.
Anders didn't give a jot if any innocents were around. Bringing children into it is an absolute stab in the dark to tear people down. Its rather sick to be honest.
You'll have to explain to me what part of his quote is real life history. I must've missed the history class where they told us about the time the Spanish invoked the Right of Annulment on their mages.
Anders mostly certainly did "give a jot" if innocents were around. What do you think he meant when he "There's nothing you can say to me that I haven't already said to myself"? Why do you think there's a banter where he flatly tells Isabela that if he kills innocents trying to achieve justice, then he in turn deserves to be killed? Think maybe, just MAYBE, that had something to do with why he sat there and didn't defend himself or attempt to run when told he was going to be killed?
Bringing children into it is not "a stab in the dark." Go play Origins. Try to carry out the Right of Annulment.
Bioware rams it down your throat that this involves killing helpless children. In your own words, if you've got a problem with that, take it up with them or stop playing.
Uzzy wrote...
Trying to bring in modern morality is doomed to fail. The two highlighted points, acceptance of women and homosexual relationships, are pretty much the only thing equivalent to modern morality in the world of Thedas, and even that's far from universal. I'd go so far as to say those are only in Dragon Age to cater to the player base, though they are justified inworld.
Everything else? It's downright medieval, or more precisely, typical dark fantasy.
There's a reason modern morality is modern. Because generally speaking it's
better. You can use the "well you can't compare their morality to ours!" idea to condone virtually anything. Slavery for instance. Should we all go tell Fenris that slavery is awesome because lots of ancient cultures didn't realize it was wrong to frickin' own other people? No better yet, how about Tevinter? If I'm not allowed to bring my morality into the Free Marches, why are you free to bring your morality into Tevinter? Because by their society mass blood sacrifices for giggles is a-okay. Who are you to judge? ... Exactly.
In Exile wrote...
Could she have been denied again? Sure. But the Rite, the rights of mages, and the justification of the Rite of Annulment in DA2 are somewhat independent and thorny moral issues.
They might be, if we had more than massive amounts of supposition to go on. As it stands in order to support the RoA we have to assume that most of the Circle has gone bad, assume that the templars have or will lose control, assume that what we see isn't pretty much on par for the hundreds of years the Circle has been kept in an insanity vortex, assume that the loss of innocents in the public if the Circle goes bad outweighs the loss of innocents in the Circle if it doesn't (and propotionate to certainty of such), and assume that annuling the Circle won't do more harm than good. That last one, albiet via metagaming, we know for a fact is not true.
All of this, we're supposed to assume on the word of a woman already not playing with a full deck when she was tainted by an ancient evil whose last victim was cutting off people's body parts and feeding them back to them so they could hear the song. Given the consequences for being wrong, this is way too much to assume.
Retour en haut
