945 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexXIV]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

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.

Yep that they treat them like human beings is clearly documented in the Annullment in which every mage gets a fair trial, right? Because that would be expected the right of a human being, or not? If you mean by treating them like human beings by raping them and abuse them in other ways then I'd actually agree. Sorry but losing patience for reasonable discussion because you don't really seem interested in reason anyway. You have your agenda, we know it. We can see it in your avatar.

[nos_astra]

AlexXIV wrote...
Yep that they treat them like human beings is clearly documented in the Annullment in which every mage gets a fair trial, right?

Sorry, but why would mages in Thedas get a fair trial when nobody else does?

[nos_astra]

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.

That's what I assumed when I read about the "stages of genocide" in Wikipedia.

[ajm317]

IanPolaris wrote...

Ajm,

The problem is the mages we see as hostile combatants are almost certainly NOT a vaid representative sample of mages any more than the bandits we face in the kirkwall streets are a representative sample of Kirkwall's population either.

The big problem is that it's a self-selecting sample. By fighting Hawke (or by engaging in baditry) they are already criminals. That means that the chance that they'd do further criminal actions (like bloodmagic) will be (very) disporportionately high.

It would be like making conclusions about African Americans based on a sampling of African Americans out of Federal Prison.

-Polaris

I realize that this is 7 pages back (I'm gone for 12 hours and 7 pages pass) but I'm not sure what's up with this response.  I don't see where I was disagreeing with you.  In fact, that was exactly the argument I was trying to make.

Modifié par ajm317, 22 avril 2011 - 02:48 .

[AlexXIV]

klarabella wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
Yep that they treat them like human beings is clearly documented in the Annullment in which every mage gets a fair trial, right?

Sorry, but why would mages in Thedas get a fair trial when nobody else does?

Well elves don't but they should, shouldn't they? Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but most societies are built on the premise that there is some kind of justice.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 22 avril 2011 - 02:10 .

[In Exile]

AlexXIV wrote...
Well no. Genocide is not always justified.

You misunderstand. The people that argue for it always have a reason. Making it about the templar's reason isn't the right way to go about it because it lets people who want to handawave away systematic murder get into a debate about how mages are special evil snowflakes.

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.).

That's the point. If you make the debate about whether or not we need the living space, it gives legitimacy to the other side. What the templars did is genocide, but it's genocide because genocide is more than just systematic killing for a poor reason.

Genocide on it's base is nothing but killing people who are different for what they are.

No; it's more than that. Forced labour camps would be genocide.

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.

But the whole point is genocide is such a big deal because it isn't just systematic murder. Systematic murder is in itself morally abhorent and unjustifiable, but genocide is more than that and apprecating the crime of the templars with the RoA requires pointing that out.

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.

*sigh*

There is proof. Making it about proof is the problem. This is what I'm saying. Right now you're concending that if some imaginary burden was met, suddenly it would all be okay.

[In Exile]

Rifneno wrote...

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.

It's a drop in the bucket. One more bloodmage that escaped from the Kirkwall circle from the tally. Putting aside your totally insane throw-away statement, that is.

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. 

Grace is dead because she just finished leading a bloodmage insurrection. Let's not hide that fact.

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.

He has a letter from Orsino telling him how he should totally keep going with his research. If we're going to be using meta-game evidence.

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.

The whole point is that it might not be 'a few'. There's a fair amount of evidence to suggest that Kirkwall has a tremendous problem with bloodmagic running rampant.

It's just a question of there being enough blood mages to justify the RoA, not if.

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.

I'm going to not answer this part. I'm going to back away, instead.

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.

...You just said you sometimes think genocide is justified.

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.

You mentioned evidence.

If we're talking about meta-game evidence, then we know Orsino practiced blood magic and funded (for years) blood magic research. We know the Starkhaven mages potentially destroyed their own Circle and practiced bloodmagic. We know that the Veil is weak in Kirkwall and mages constantly face threat of demonic posession.

Meta-game wise, we have enough evidence that the Circle went bad (because they're done what Uldred did in DA:O ; they just sucked less at it).

Modifié par In Exile, 22 avril 2011 - 02:24 .

[AlexXIV]

In Exile wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
Well no. Genocide is not always justified.

You misunderstand. The people that argue for it always have a reason. Making it about the templar's reason isn't the right way to go about it because it lets people who want to handawave away systematic murder get into a debate about how mages are special evil snowflakes.

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.).

That's the point. If you make the debate about whether or not we need the living space, it gives legitimacy to the other side. What the templars did is genocide, but it's genocide because genocide is more than just systematic killing for a poor reason.

Genocide on it's base is nothing but killing people who are different for what they are.

No; it's more than that. Forced labour camps would be genocide.

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.

But the whole point is genocide is such a big deal because it isn't just systematic murder. Systematic murder is in itself morally abhorent and unjustifiable, but genocide is more than that and apprecating the crime of the templars with the RoA requires pointing that out.

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.

*sigh*

There is proof. Making it about proof is the problem. This is what I'm saying. Right now you're concending that if some imaginary burden was met, suddenly it would all be okay.

Well you must excuse me but my Paragon Shep just blew up 300.000 people to stop a Reaper invasion. So I am maybe a bit confused. I think the Annullment could be justified, despite it being genocide. I think it could even be justified in Ferelden. The only reason it wasn't necessary because the Warden was like a god(dess) sent to earth to right all wrongs. But honestly, the situation in the Ferelden Circle was hopeless for the templars. It isn't in Kirkwall.

I don't really want to make people change their decisions. If I can make them doubt them it would already be more than expected.

[In Exile]

AlexXIV wrote...
Well you must excuse me but my Paragon Shep just blew up 300.000 people to stop a Reaper invasion.

Shepard can also turn himself in as a war-criminal after Arrival, no? Haven't played the DLC yet.

So I am maybe a bit confused. I think the Annullment could be justified, despite it being genocide. I think it could even be justified in Ferelden. The only reason it wasn't necessary because the Warden was like a god(dess) sent to earth to right all wrongs. But honestly, the situation in the Ferelden Circle was hopeless for the templars. It isn't in Kirkwall.

I don't really want to make people change their decisions. If I can make them doubt them it would already be more than expected.

Then don't through around the accusation as if it has moral weight. If your going to vouch for genocide as an acceptable option, don't accuse others of gleefully doing it. They just have a different burden of proof than you do; you don't get to hold the moral highground.

[AlexXIV]

In Exile wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
Well you must excuse me but my Paragon Shep just blew up 300.000 people to stop a Reaper invasion.

Shepard can also turn himself in as a war-criminal after Arrival, no? Haven't played the DLC yet.

So I am maybe a bit confused. I think the Annullment could be justified, despite it being genocide. I think it could even be justified in Ferelden. The only reason it wasn't necessary because the Warden was like a god(dess) sent to earth to right all wrongs. But honestly, the situation in the Ferelden Circle was hopeless for the templars. It isn't in Kirkwall.

I don't really want to make people change their decisions. If I can make them doubt them it would already be more than expected.

Then don't through around the accusation as if it has moral weight. If your going to vouch for genocide as an acceptable option, don't accuse others of gleefully doing it. They just have a different burden of proof than you do; you don't get to hold the moral highground.

I didn't mean to throw it around and I have to check what I wrote, maybe I did accidently. But I made clear a couple of times that I was talking about the definition. Also I fear it does get more weight by calling it by it's name. Same thing with the 'killing children' thing. And suddenly people change their mind. What? The children too?. It is just too easy to state a fact without looking closely what it actually means. I am not even sure if you can commit genocide at any time in any situation without bearing mental scars from it. At least if you have a conscience and people are not just chess figures for you.

Well and even if Shepard turns him/herself in. What's supposed to happen. Shep will say there was no other option. I sometimes think it would have been better to let the Reapers come. At least the Reapers would have killed the people then and not Shep.

[Rifneno]

In Exile wrote...


It's a drop in the bucket. One more bloodmage that escaped from the Kirkwall circle from the tally. Putting aside your totally insane throw-away statement, that is.

You're aware that the RoA is to stop a massive outbreak of abominations, not to punish the Circle right?  Because people that have been dead for more than half a decade aren't a big threat in the here and now.

Grace is dead because she just finished leading a bloodmage insurrection. Let's not hide that fact.

/facepalm.  Half of them were templars, and it was a rebellion to overthrow Meredith and put someone that isn't insane in charge of the templars.  Stop trying to twist things.

He has a letter from Orsino telling him how he should totally keep going with his research. If we're going to be using meta-game evidence. 

Didn't I just say I'm talking about the actual viewpoint of the actual people and not the in-game characters?  I'm pretty sure I did.  Yep, I did.

The whole point is that it might not be 'a few'. There's a fair amount of evidence to suggest that Kirkwall has a tremendous problem with bloodmagic running rampant.

Riiight, I forgot that what we see as Hawke is an accurate sampling of life in Kirkwall and not a game designed to give us a constant stream of combat.  I mean it's not like we see a dozen dragons (so rare they're believed to be extinct) or that there's more gang members on the streets at night than there are law-abiding citizens during the day.  I guess we should just kill everyone in Kirkwall because of the gangland sidequests right?

I'm going to not answer this part. I'm going to back away, instead.

I see the Reaper example was fruitless.

...You just said you sometimes think genocide is justified. 

...  Okay?  And?

You mentioned evidence.

If we're talking about meta-game evidence, then we know Orsino practiced blood magic and funded (for years) blood magic research. We know the Starkhaven mages potentially destroyed their own Circle and practiced bloodmagic. We know that the Veil is weak in Kirkwall and mages constantly face threat of demonic posession.

Meta-game wise, we have enough evidence that the Circle went bad (because they're done what Uldred did in DA:O ; they just sucked less at it).

Oh this is awesome.  So we're going to hold the actions of a dead Starkhaven mage in evidence for inacting the RoA on the Kirkwall Circle.  Brilliant, why didn't we remember to bring Lee Harvey Oswald's gun to the OJ Simpson trial?

[moilami]

louise101 wrote...

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. 

At least you admitted it.

[moilami]

Uzzy wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

moilami wrote...

I know a better word though. But since Internet laws says the one who uses it loses automatically I don't use it.

I... don't understand? I might agree with your better word though, since my objection to "genocide" is purely symantic.

Basically he's wanting to call it a holocaust.

Interesting you knew so well what it is.

[nos_astra]

AlexXIV wrote...

klarabella wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
Yep that they treat them like human beings is clearly documented in the Annullment in which every mage gets a fair trial, right?

Sorry, but why would mages in Thedas get a fair trial when nobody else does?

Well elves don't but they should, shouldn't they? Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but most societies are built on the premise that there is some kind of justice.

You think human commoners can get a fair trial in Dragon Age?

They can certainly pledge their cause to a court (like their liege lord) and he alone would decide how justice would be sserved. Like in DAO where the Arl of Amaranthine holds court and decides off the top of his/her head if a delinquent should die/be flogged/serve in the army/run free.

Fair trial. *snorts*

[nos_astra]

moilami wrote...

Uzzy wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

moilami wrote...
I know a better word though. But since Internet laws says the one who uses it loses automatically I don't use it.

I... don't understand? I might agree with your better word though, since my objection to "genocide" is purely symantic.

Basically he's wanting to call it a holocaust.

Interesting you knew so well what it is.

It's a synonym for genocide. Not too hard to guess.

[moilami]

klarabella wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

klarabella wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
Yep that they treat them like human beings is clearly documented in the Annullment in which every mage gets a fair trial, right?

Sorry, but why would mages in Thedas get a fair trial when nobody else does?

Well elves don't but they should, shouldn't they? Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but most societies are built on the premise that there is some kind of justice.

You think human commoners can get a fair trial in Dragon Age?

They can certainly pledge their cause to a court (like their liege lord) and he alone would decide how justice would be sserved. Like in DAO where the Arl of Amaranthine holds court and decides off the top of his/her head if a delinquent should die/be flogged/serve in the army/run free.

Fair trial. *snorts*

This is why you can't really call individual mages terrorists in DA. Nor speak about "right of annulment" or whatever it is as other than newspeak propaganda.

[Uzzy]

Rifneno wrote...

In Exile wrote...


It's a drop in the bucket. One more bloodmage that escaped from the Kirkwall circle from the tally. Putting aside your totally insane throw-away statement, that is.

You're aware that the RoA is to stop a massive outbreak of abominations, not to punish the Circle right?  Because people that have been dead for more than half a decade aren't a big threat in the here and now.

Point of order: The RoA is to stop a Circle that is considered irredeemable. A massive outbreak of abominations would be a sufficient, but not a necessary condition for that to occur.

[moilami]

klarabella wrote...

moilami wrote...

Uzzy wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

moilami wrote...
I know a better word though. But since Internet laws says the one who uses it loses automatically I don't use it.

I... don't understand? I might agree with your better word though, since my objection to "genocide" is purely symantic.

Basically he's wanting to call it a holocaust.

Interesting you knew so well what it is.

It's a synonym for genocide. Not too hard to guess.

Similarities here being certain people gathered systematically to a concentration camp by certain organisation with "final solution" on hand.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Bible Doctor wrote...

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.

Actually, since mages are segregated from society in the Andrastian nations through the Circles of Magi, both ideologically and physically, they can be considered a seperate group. And there have been 17 Annulments so far, one Rite enacted each generation.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
It says so specifically in the parts I bolded. Genocide is for all intents and purposes meant as an extermination of a people. The annulment is not.

Except you missed that it addresses it's either in whole or in part.

[In Exile]

[quote]Rifneno wrote...
You're aware that the RoA is to stop a massive outbreak of abominations, not to punish the Circle right?  Because people that have been dead for more than half a decade aren't a big threat in the here and now.[/quote]

The rite is to address a circle ''gone bad''. Here is an example from the codex:

[quote]In the 83rd year of the Glory Age, one of the mages of the Nevarran
Circle was found practicing forbidden magic. The templars executed him
swiftly, but this brewed discontent among the Nevarra Circle. The mages
made several magical attacks against the templars, vengeance for the
executed mage, but the knight-commander was unable to track down which
were responsible.
Three months later, the mages summoned a demon and turned it
loose against their templar watchers. Demons, however, are not easily
controlled. After killing the first wave of templars who tried to
contain it, the demon took possession of one of its summoners. The
resulting abomination slaughtered Templars and mages both before
escaping into the countryside.
The grand cleric sent a legion of templars to hunt the fugitive.
They killed the abomination a year later, but by that time it had slain
70 people.
Divine Galatea, responding to the catastrophe in Nevarra and
hoping to prevent further incidents, granted all the Grand Clerics of
the Chantry the power to purge a Circle entirely if they rule it
irredeemable. This Rite of Annulment has been performed 17 times in the
last 700 years.

[/quote]One mage was found practicing blood magic. Brewed discontent. Some mages made attacks on the templars (there were few enough that the templars had to attempt to track them down). One demon was summoned. A single abomination was created.

I don't know what you think the burden of proof for the RoA is, but Galatea set precedent that made Kirkwall look like a jaunt through a field of flowers and cuddles.

[quote]
/facepalm.  Half of them were templars, and it was a rebellion to overthrow Meredith and put someone that isn't insane in charge of the templars.  Stop trying to twist things.
[/quote]

Yeah, like Grace. Who totally wasn't insane. I'm not twisting things. Thrask and some templars followed along, but Thrask was wrong and participated in the kidnapping of innocents.

She was a blood mage, however crazy Meredith was and however much the templars didn't support her they still formed an armed insurrection, and that's by the standards given to us, weighty enough for the RoA. Read the codex.

[quote]Riiight, I forgot that what we see as Hawke is an accurate sampling of life in Kirkwall and not a game designed to give us a constant stream of combat. [/quote]

I'm referencing only quests and then only named characters. We know at least those blood mages exist. That they summoned a bazzilion fodder abominations for you to fight isn't the point; the point is that there were blood mage apostates in Kirkwall throughout, they were supported by the first Enchanter, and given the framework of the RoA, that's enough to justify it at the discretion of the Grand Cleric or Divine.

[quote]I mean it's not like we see a dozen dragons (so rare they're believed to be extinct) or that there's more gang members on the streets at night than there are law-abiding citizens during the day.  I guess we should just kill everyone in Kirkwall because of the gangland sidequests right?[/quote]

I don't think you understand what it takes to justify the RoA. The named, speaking characters indentified as bloodmages in DA2 are enough.

[quote]
I see the Reaper example was fruitless.[/quote]

Other than showing that you don't understand what genocide is. Killing the equivalent of a god isn't genocide.

[quote]
...  Okay?  And?
[quote]

Well, we've got enough evidence that it is.

[quote]Oh this is awesome.  So we're going to hold the actions of a dead Starkhaven mage in evidence for inacting the RoA on the Kirkwall Circle.  Brilliant, why didn't we remember to bring Lee Harvey Oswald's gun to the OJ Simpson trial?[/quote]

Ah, I see. You're illiterate. Well, that makes things easier.

[Uzzy]

moilami wrote...

klarabella wrote...

moilami wrote...

Uzzy wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

moilami wrote...
I know a better word though. But since Internet laws says the one who uses it loses automatically I don't use it.

I... don't understand? I might agree with your better word though, since my objection to "genocide" is purely symantic.

Basically he's wanting to call it a holocaust.

Interesting you knew so well what it is.

It's a synonym for genocide. Not too hard to guess.

Similarities here being certain people gathered systematically to a concentration camp by certain organisation with "final solution" on hand.

You know, I've just spent half a year studying the Holocaust at University, and to compare the Right of Annulment to it is one of the most disgusting things I've come across. But as you're so eager to suggest the links, without the guts to name names, I'll do it for you.

Divine Justinia V = Hitler
Knight Commander Meredith = Heydrich
Templars = SS-Totenkopfverbande
Kirkwall Circle = Auschwitz

That's obviously the totally absurd conclusion you're getting at.

Modifié par Uzzy, 22 avril 2011 - 03:18 .

[AlexXIV]

Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", though what constitutes enough of a "part" to qualify as genocide has been subject to much debate by legal scholars. While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG).
 
Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: 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; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

The term "genocide" was coined by Raphael Lemkin (1900–1959), a Polish-Jewish legal scholar, in 1944, firstly from the Greek root génos (γένος) (birth, race, stock, kind); secondly from Latin -cidium (cutting, killing) via French -cide.

Maybe people are just too lazy to google it.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 22 avril 2011 - 03:20 .

[Lewie]

Maybe it just boils to what you base your decision on. I base it on what the codex says, plain and simple. Its the law set for that world, that time, those circumstances. I don't get why people can't understand that.

If our modern day law is the important thing to some then they shouldn't play any games that involve killing of any sort. Why can't people differentiate the two?

[LobselVith8]

louise101 wrote...

Maybe it just boils to what you base your decision on. I base it on what the codex says, plain and simple. Its the law set for that world, that time, those circumstances. I don't get why people can't understand that.

If our modern day law is the important thing to some then they shouldn't play any games that involve killing of any sort. Why can't people differentiate the two?

Except it's not antagonists that the Order of Templars are killing - the same people who Meredith asks the Champion to help her kill - but Circle mages who are being condemned for an attack made by an apostate. Frankly, Hawke isn't dealing with all the facts he could have, and he doesn't have the same insight into what the Circle mages are like as his sister Bethany does if she was imprisoned in the Gallows by Cullen, but he does know that they are innocent of Anders' actions. The implication of killing mages and apprentices for something they didn't do is seen as wrong by some people.

[AlexXIV]

louise101 wrote...

Maybe it just boils to what you base your decision on. I base it on what the codex says, plain and simple. Its the law set for that world, that time, those circumstances. I don't get why people can't understand that.

If our modern day law is the important thing to some then they shouldn't play any games that involve killing of any sort. Why can't people differentiate the two?

No law is unquestionable. Ever. Not 2000 years ago, not in 2000 years.

The basic concept of morale is: Treat others in the same way that you expect them to treat you.

Lie to them and you deserve to be lied to. Steal from them and you deserve to be stolen from. Kill them and you deserve to be killed by them.

You don't need to be pro-mage to side with the mages. I know I am not supporting a world ruled by mages or something. But that doesn't give anyone a right to treat them like the Chantry and the templars do. And if you base your reasoning on a Chantry law ... well then you don't need to be surprised that people bring up Hitler or other dictators. They tend to make their own laws so they hardly break them. A law is not automatically 'good' just by being a law. Especially if we are not even talking about a democratic law.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 22 avril 2011 - 03:52 .