945 réponses à ce sujet

[Lewie]

Uzzy wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Uzzy wrote...

I think you missed my point. Which was simply that bringing in UN definitions and the Nuremburg defence isn't going to fly here, as Thedas operates under a very different standard of morality. You and others are holding characters up to a level of morality which simply does not exist in their world.

It was brought up under the foolish notion that the pro-templar side would stop sticking their fingers in their ears and admit what they're supporting.  Sure, it's all well and good to slaughter innocent people begging for mercy because they *might* be a threat but let's not hear any ugly words!

I don't think anyone on the 'pro-templar' side has disputed the fact that the Right of Annulment is a horrible act that results in many deaths, often of innocents. Calling it 'genocide', however, is quite wrong and demeans the argument.

It is a horrible act for those that are innocent. I simply keep it in the context of why it was created in the first place, the need for the order in Thedas i understand and can't help thinking if Meredith had been sane would she have still, or Gregior or anyone else who had the authority. If it was created because one blood mage killed templars and mages then escaped and killed 70, and kirkwall has many blood mages, templars are being infected it is safe to say kirkwall warrants it. If you were sitting in your house and a blood mage came in to slaughter you and your family i would imagine you would be glad to see templars coming. Thats maybe neither here nor there but protecting the population from demons is the whole point of the order.

The blood mages wanted 'chaos in their ranks' what did they expect would happen.

[Rifneno]

louise101 wrote...
I have to say this, your incessant need to drag real life history into gaming disturbs me somewhat.

....

louise101 wrote...
I saw the street after the Omagh bombing what scares me that people think you actually agree with these types of acts if you kill fictional people in a game.

[Lewie]

Rifneno wrote...

louise101 wrote...
I have to say this, your incessant need to drag real life history into gaming disturbs me somewhat.

....

louise101 wrote...
I saw the street after the Omagh bombing what scares me that people think you actually agree with these types of acts if you kill fictional people in a game.

Yes if you can give examples can't i? These attrocities in real life are absolutely horrific.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Bible Doctor wrote...

Uzzy wrote...
Calling it 'genocide', however, is quite wrong and demeans the argument. 

Calling it genocide is not wrong, it fits the exact definition of the word. It is a systematic extermination of a group of people, that is exactly was the Rite is. The issue is that people tend to relate that word with a specific act in history, The Holocaust. Comparing the rite to the Holocaust is incorrect. It would be technically correct to call what the Grey Wardens want to do to the Darkspawn genocide. Wiping out an entire group is what genocide is.

The argument should be, do you believe that genocide is ever an appropriate solution to an issue. More specifically, do you believe genocide is appropriate if a group may be corrupted.

Don't start this part of the discussion again.... It is not genocide, since it does not fit the definition.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 22 avril 2011 - 12:01 .

[Rifneno]

louise101 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

louise101 wrote...
I have to say this, your incessant need to drag real life history into gaming disturbs me somewhat.

....

louise101 wrote...
I saw the street after the Omagh bombing what scares me that people think you actually agree with these types of acts if you kill fictional people in a game.

Yes if you can give examples can't i? These attrocities in real life are absolutely horrific.

So I take it "hypocrisy" is going to join "genocide" on the list of words we're defining?

[Paraxial]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Don't start this part of the discussion again.... It is not genocide, since it does not fit the definition.

Which definition does it 'not fit' suzy may?

[EmperorSahlertz]

All of them.

[Paraxial]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

All of them.

I can't tell if you're being facetious, or if you actually believe that.

Genocide is not confined to the elimination of an ethnic or religious group.

Genocide is the successful attempt by a dominant group, vested with formal authority and/or with preponderant access to the overall resources of power, to reduce by coercion or lethal violence the number of a minority group whose ultimate extermination is held desirable and useful and whose respective vulnerability is a major factor contributing to the decision for genocide.

- Vahakn Dadrian

That is only one of the definitions (hell I got that off of Wikipedia, didn't even have to look), there are many. It is debated on as much as the definition of a 'terrorist' is.

Modifié par Bible Doctor, 22 avril 2011 - 12:22 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Bible Doctor wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

All of them.

I can't tell if you're being facetious, or if you actually believe that.

Genocide is not confined to the elimination of an ethnic or religious group.

Genocide is the successful attempt by a dominant group, vested with formal authority and/or with preponderant access to the overall resources of power, to reduce by coercion or lethal violence the number of a minority group whose ultimate extermination is held desirable and useful and whose respective vulnerability is a major factor contributing to the decision for genocide.

- Vahakn Dadrian

That is only one of the definitions (hell I got that off of Wikipedia, didn't even have to look), there are many. It is debated on as much as the definition of a 'terrorist' is.

I cannot be bothered with explaining how the Annulments are not genocide again. If you want, go back a few pages and read the explanation. If not, fine stay ignorant. I am not gonna bother with people who refuse to listen.

Just know, that the Circle system itself is far closer to genocide, than the Annulments are.

[Lewie]

If a circle is to be annuled and templars go to clear it out, they have no way of telling who is a blood mage or not, that is a big problem. These laws are in place to protect the whole population not just kirkwall. Setting them free puts good mages at risk also, thats who demons seek out to get a foothold. Meredith up top going mad and mages underground deliberately inciting chaos... A way to tell would change the rite for the better no doubt. 

[Paraxial]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
If not, fine stay ignorant.

Oh irony.

Modifié par Bible Doctor, 22 avril 2011 - 12:26 .

[Lewie]

Rifneno wrote...

louise101 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

louise101 wrote...
I have to say this, your incessant need to drag real life history into gaming disturbs me somewhat.

....

louise101 wrote...
I saw the street after the Omagh bombing what scares me that people think you actually agree with these types of acts if you kill fictional people in a game.

Yes if you can give examples can't i? These attrocities in real life are absolutely horrific.

So I take it "hypocrisy" is going to join "genocide" on the list of words we're defining?

Ok i am a hypocrite, fair enough. 

[Rifneno]

louise101 wrote...

If a circle is to be annuled and templars go to clear it out, they have no way of telling who is a blood mage or not, that is a big problem. These laws are in place to protect the whole population not just kirkwall. Setting them free puts good mages at risk also, thats who demons seek out to get a foothold. Meredith up top going mad and mages underground deliberately inciting chaos... A way to tell would change the rite for the better no doubt. 

I'm unconvinced the demon threat is nearly as great as the Chantry claims.  Of course it is a threat, but they act as if every mage is constantly plagued by demons whispering in their ear.  But if that's the case, why the Harrowing?  I believe at some point they mention the mage origin warden underwent the rite much younger than usual because they're an exceptionally powerful mage.  Obviously we can make the Warden look older than Flemeth if we want but the default looks what, about early 20's?  Jowan says he's older, he looks about the same.  So if demons plague mages so much, why is facing one after 20 years a big deal?

Then there's the several arguments to made for the Circle doing more harm than good to begin with.  All of these "omgz armageddon!!!" scenarios that they use to justify the RoA are only possible because they've got an entire nation's worth of mages in one building.  If they're spread out then one abomination can't contaminate others and create an army of abominations.  One abomination is a big problem but it's nothing compared to what we see from Uldred's revolt.

Also, the extreme methods encourage mages to go apostate.  Children taken to the Circle have to give up their family apparently, as that was the major reason Isolde tried to hide Connor.  So parents who don't want to lose their children (which is to say, lots of them) will hide their mage children.  And then, as Bethany says about why she isn't in the Circle, they're not always accepting of adult apostates, so once children raised as apostates are old enough to decide for themselves it's dangerous to go to the Circle.  Not that many would want to since in the best case scenario a nice prison.

Then there's the way some people view mages as being inherently evil.  Ever ask Jowan about his parents?  When he first showed signs of magical ability his mother basically disowned him.  A child and his mother suddenly starts only refering to him as "that thing".  Talk about planting the seeds for mental illness.  And making it easy for the demons: who's going to be harder to trick into possession, a mage that's mentally healthy or one that has some severe self esteem problems?

Basically I think the Chantry's ideas on how to deal with the danger mages present have all failed badly.  There definitely needs to be some organization overseeing them, there definitely needs to be warriors with anti-magic abilities policing them.  But the Chantry has spent 1,000 years proving they're not suited to the task of doing it.

[mesmerizedish]

Bible Doctor wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
If not, fine stay ignorant.

Oh irony.

*giggles*

I've changed my mind. In light of recently revealed definitions of genocide, I can no longer say I wouldn't call the Right genocide. I'm not sure that I would, either, because it's early, I haven't had coffee, and I don't want to think.

[nos_astra]

Bible Doctor wrote...

Genocide is the successful attempt by a dominant group, vested with formal authority and/or with preponderant access to the overall resources of power, to reduce by coercion or lethal violence the number of a minority group whose ultimate extermination is held desirable and useful and whose respective vulnerability is a major factor contributing to the decision for genocide.

- Vahakn Dadrian

I admit that some/many definitions come close, but:
Neither does anyone want the mages' ultimate extermination (in fact the annulment of a Circle is considered regrettable and probably a waste of ressources), nor is their vulnerability a major factor in the decision (quite the opposite).

Rifneno wrote...
I'm unconvinced the demon threat is nearly as great as the Chantry claims. 

I believe, David Gaider has said this is the reason why they hit you in the face with insane numbers of abiminations in DA2. Because people have a tendency to handwave the threat a mage poses to the non-mage populace.

Modifié par klarabella, 22 avril 2011 - 01:30 .

[AlexXIV]

louise101 wrote...


If a circle is to be annuled and templars go to clear it out, they have no way of telling who is a blood mage or not, that is a big problem. These laws are in place to protect the whole population not just kirkwall. Setting them free puts good mages at risk also, thats who demons seek out to get a foothold. Meredith up top going mad and mages underground deliberately inciting chaos... A way to tell would change the rite for the better no doubt. 

Because setting them free was the only alternative to annulling them. Because the mages would not have allowed the templars to take them prisoner and search the Gallows for proof of bloodmagic. And of course there was no way how Hawke and company could have found bloodmages, because they never found any before?

Look if I assume the worst I can always make up horror scenarios of what could have happened. Obviously you think without the Annullment every mage would have run through Kirkwall in their small cloth like drooling lunatics and would have slaughtered everyone. Because clearely there was no way to control the situation, because they were basically surrounded by demons and bloodmages already. This is really not different from any other demagogy which clearly aims to appeal to the fears of people and use it for someone's own political agenda.

[AlexXIV]

klarabella wrote...
I believe, David Gaider has said this is the reason why they hit you in the face with insane numbers of abiminations in DA2. Because people have the tendency to handwave the threat a mage poses to the non-mage populace.

And David must know because he is an expert in handwaving. I can't believe that there was no way to subdue bloodmagic if templars actually have the right to watch mages day and night and restrict the places they can go. They could forbid practice of magic, confiscate all books, forbid casting of any spells, even the slightest. They could confine the mages to not leave the circle by no circumstances. Basically put them all under arrest. Why not do that before deciding there is no way to control the situation? Obviously Orsino is still relatively free too speak at the gallows. Why? I don't think the templars did everything possible to save the Circle. Not to mention that those bloodmages who got away with it probably had the help of templars. Such like Thrask. I am not really a fan of tranquilizing but honestly, before I wipe out a whole circle I rather tranquilize a couple of suspects.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 22 avril 2011 - 01:34 .

[In Exile]

Rifneno wrote..
They might be, if we had more than massive amounts of supposition to go on.

We have personal encounters with the mages. Tarhone attempts to posses templars. Decimus and the Starkhaven mages use bloodmagic to raise the dead. Grace wants you to kill templars to let her escape. Quentin uses bloodmagic to kill your mother.

There's evidence that blood-magic is out and about Kirkwall. Some of these facts depend on whether or not Hawke uncovers them, and I'd agree with you that they're not sufficient to justify the RoA.

But the RoA isn't unjustifiable. If you think the burden of proof for it happen to be met before Anders ever having commited his act, you could make an attempt to argue it was justified.

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.

The last two don't seem to be part of the calculus that the RoA actually demands.

That being said, you're just laying out the burden of proof. We don't have to assume these things - we just have to believe the evidence we have for it is sufficient to justify them as beliefs.

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.

No, you're metagaming now. Meredith was off her rocker, but we didn't know about ancient magic at the time.

And like I said: you could believe the RoA was justified was on just what you say before what Anders did and independent of Meredith at all.

Mages kill your mother, kidnapp your sister, roam around the streets all the time, summon demons and turn into abominations...

Hawke has lots and lots of first-hand evidence. It's just a question of sufficiency.

[nos_astra]

AlexXIV wrote...
Because setting them free was the only alternative to annulling them. Because the mages would not have allowed the templars to take them prisoner and search the Gallows for proof of bloodmagic.

I thought, this was one of the reasons. Orsino had refused to let the templars search the tower before, claiming that if they found anything they would have annulled the Circle anyway.

AlexXIV wrote...
And of course there was no way how Hawke and company could have found bloodmages, because they never found any before?

Yes, may the powers of plot be with Hawke.

[AlexXIV]

klarabella wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
Because setting them free was the only alternative to annulling them. Because the mages would not have allowed the templars to take them prisoner and search the Gallows for proof of bloodmagic.

I thought, this was one of the reasons. Orsino had refused to let the templars search the tower before, claiming that if they found anything they would have annulled the Circle anyway.

AlexXIV wrote...
And of course there was no way how Hawke and company could have found bloodmages, because they never found any before?

Yes, may the powers of plot be with Hawke.

He may have refused before, but after Meredith evokes the right he seems to be rather ok with it. Aside from that I don't even know how Orsino would have stopped Meredith from searching the Gallows. With bloodmagic? It is the right of the templars I believe to make sure the Circle does not harbor bloodmages. And if they can Annull the circle, how does it make sense that there are laws against them searching for clues?

[In Exile]

AlexXIV wrote...

Genocide is, simply put, killing people for what they are. It can't get easier. The mages are not killed for doing something wrong or evil. They are killed for being born so. I don't know why people are so upset about the word genocide.

You're making the point wrong. Genocides that have happened were always justified for the moral failing, evil character, etc. etc. of the people who were targeted in this horrific way.

The RoA has an (alleged) reason for culling: that mages are blood mages now, irredemable, and out of control. The point is that actual genocides have made these precise claims.

By making it about ''mages are innocent'' instead of systematic abuse always comes with some justification, you cede ground to those looking to justify the RoA on the idea that the mages actually deserve it.

It is merely a desciption for killing people for a very special reason. Reason being that they are different. A danger to 'normal' people, a danger to life style, culture, etc, etc. Does it really feel better to say 'we killed innocents' than 'we comitted genocide'? Well then call it as you wish, it makes no difference to the dead. Call it cleansing, call it restoring order, whatever makes you feel good. But if you have to hide your actions behind pretty words I'll just assume you know already that and why you have a reason to hide.

If you actually grant that the mages are evil and you still want to say it's genocide, it'd be like arguing killing darkspawn is genocide.

Genocide isn't actually killing innocents, and throwing the word around in defence of innoncents instead of as an accusation for planned killing is just feeding into the other argument.

Modifié par In Exile, 22 avril 2011 - 01:49 .

[In Exile]

[quote]Bible Doctor wrote...
Genocide is the successful attempt by a dominant group, vested with formal authority and/or with preponderant access to the overall resources of power, to reduce by coercion or lethal violence the number of a minority group whose ultimate extermination is held desirable and useful and whose respective vulnerability is a major factor contributing to the decision for genocide.

- Vahakn Dadrian

That is only one of the definitions (hell I got that off of Wikipedia, didn't even have to look), there are many. It is debated on as much as the definition of a 'terrorist' is. [/quote]

[/quote]

That's a bad definition for the bolded reason. It not only misses the point, but it would suggest that victimization is a crucial aspect of genocide (and if, for example, a repressed minority had the power to turn tables on the majority, it would not be genocide).

The formal UN resolution is much better:

[quote]


In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• (a) Killing members of the group;
  
• ( Causing serious bodily or mental
  harm to members of the group;
  
• © Deliberately inflicting on the
  group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical
  destruction in whole or in part;
  
• (d) Imposing measures intended to
  prevent births within the group;
  
• (e) Forcibly transferring children of
  the group to another group.

[/quote]

Would the templars need to actually use the RoA for us to accuse them of genocide? Not really, because what is happen in the Circles (and certainly what is happening in Kirkwall) already is.

The reason why I am so against this genocide = systematic killing definition that gets thrown around here is that the word is weightier and means more.

Letting the debate become about unjustfiable and systematic killing of innocents just lets people try and justify the templar actions as a whole.

Modifié par In Exile, 22 avril 2011 - 01:50 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

AlexXIV wrote...

klarabella wrote...
I believe, David Gaider has said this is the reason why they hit you in the face with insane numbers of abiminations in DA2. Because people have the tendency to handwave the threat a mage poses to the non-mage populace.

And David must know because he is an expert in handwaving. I can't believe that there was no way to subdue bloodmagic if templars actually have the right to watch mages day and night and restrict the places they can go. They could forbid practice of magic, confiscate all books, forbid casting of any spells, even the slightest. They could confine the mages to not leave the circle by no circumstances. Basically put them all under arrest. Why not do that before deciding there is no way to control the situation? Obviously Orsino is still relatively free too speak at the gallows. Why? I don't think the templars did everything possible to save the Circle. Not to mention that those bloodmages who got away with it probably had the help of templars. Such like Thrask. I am not really a fan of tranquilizing but honestly, before I wipe out a whole circle I rather tranquilize a couple of suspects.

Because, contrary to popular belief, the Templars do treat the mages as human beings. They are not a "Big Brother" system, constantly watching all the mages. The Templars rely on the mages to police amongst themselves for Blood Magic, as much as they rely on themselves to root out such mages.

[AlexXIV]

In Exile wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Genocide is, simply put, killing people for what they are. It can't get easier. The mages are not killed for doing something wrong or evil. They are killed for being born so. I don't know why people are so upset about the word genocide.

You're making the point wrong. Genocides that have happened were always justified for the moral failing, evil character, etc. etc. of the people who were targeted in this horrific way.

The RoA has an (alleged) reason for culling: that mages are blood mages now, irredemable, and out of control. The point is that actual genocides have made these precise claims.

By making it about ''mages are innocent'' instead of systematic killing always comes with some justification, you cede ground to those looking to justify the RoA on the idea that the mages actually deserve it.

It is merely a desciption for killing people for a very special reason. Reason being that they are different. A danger to 'normal' people, a danger to life style, culture, etc, etc. Does it really feel better to say 'we killed innocents' than 'we comitted genocide'? Well then call it as you wish, it makes no difference to the dead. Call it cleansing, call it restoring order, whatever makes you feel good. But if you have to hide your actions behind pretty words I'll just assume you know already that and why you have a reason to hide.

If you actually grant that the mages are evil and you still want to say it's genocide, it'd be like arguing killing darkspawn is genocide.

Genocide isn't actually killing innocents, and throwing the word around in defence of innoncents instead of as an accusation for planned killing is just feeding into the other argument.

Well no. Genocide is not always justified. Even less for 'supposed evilness'. It can as well be excused by saying that you are of a superiour race and need more living space (see Hitler) or that the 'other race' is not really human and human/christian rights and philosophy does not apply to them (see colonisation of africa, australia, etc.).

Genocide on it's base is nothing but killing people who are different for what they are. In a big scale. There is not really any justification necessary because it is just describing an action. Like suicide. You don't say everyone who commits suicide is an evil person. Some people do maybe. Well anyway, that genocide is mostly considered unlawful nowadays does have good reasons I think and we don't really do debate this.

What disturbs me is that people would go ahead and claim that killing people was necessary without much proof aside from hate speeches, and then go on calling it cleaning or something. As if they just cleaned the bathroom. You know we didn't really do anything bad. We cleaned it. Because is was dirty and needed cleaning.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 22 avril 2011 - 01:59 .

[Rifneno]

In Exile wrote...

We have personal encounters with the mages. Tarhone attempts to posses templars. Decimus and the Starkhaven mages use bloodmagic to raise the dead. Grace wants you to kill templars to let her escape. Quentin uses bloodmagic to kill your mother.

Tarhone has been dead for 6 years and her actions only indicate that the templars themselves may also require Annuling from time to time yet there's no RoA for them.  Decimus is also long dead.  We don't really know for sure any of the other Starkhaven blood mages survived, save for Grace, who is also dead at the time of the RoA.  Quentin is an apostate and there's no proof he was ever in the Circle to begin with.  I imagine he was but we really don't know and either way the Circle can't be held accountable for him.

A few blood mages isn't really reason to Annul the Circle anyway.  Look at Jowan.  They knew he was a blood mage and they didn't even apprehend him immediately because they wanted to see if Lily was involved in wrongdoing.

But the RoA isn't unjustifiable. If you think the burden of proof for it happen to be met before Anders ever having commited his act, you could make an attempt to argue it was justified.

Oh of course.  I'm not saying it's never justified.  Just that it wasn't in Kirkwall.  And that I take issue with people trying to sugar coat the facts so they can feel better about themselves.  It's genocide, plain and simple.  Unfortunately genocide is, in some extremely rare cases, justified.  This winter I'm greatly looking forward to some major Reaper genocide.

The last two don't seem to be part of the calculus that the RoA actually demands.

What the Chantry law dictates means nothing to me.  I'm listing what I think is the requirement for the RoA to be justified in my moral view.  The RoA is about as extreme an act as one can commit and as such I think it requires an extreme burden of proof.

No, you're metagaming now. Meredith was off her rocker, but we didn't know about ancient magic at the time.

I thought we were discussing the actual ethics of it, not from the viewpoint of our characters.  Sadly the viewpoint from our characters is even harder to decide because Hawke should reasonably have knowledge from living in Thedas that we aren't given.  We don't even know if a Circle is 200 mages or 15,000.  I'm sure Hawke doesn't have an exact number but he's got a much better educated guess than we do.