945 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexXIV]

Btw. do we even have something like official in-game lore that states that the RoA was legal? I know DG popped in and said that it was, but is there like a codex entry or wiki entry or an in-game quote?

[Lewie]

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

The reason for the rite is clear, i simply base a decision on that alone its not just anders, there are blood mages turning into abominations, infecting templars is pretty serious, so simply put how is it wrong to invoke the rite when we fight how many in kirkwall? Its also obvious Orsino was busy behind closed doors. When you get into the gallows and the rooms are full of abominations, if you side with the mages, and you tell Orsino this... its only a guess as to whether they just 'poofed' at the last minute, or were practicising blood magic for a while. To me it couldn't be more clear or defined it was made because one went riot. Thats the law whether i think its right or not. I don't add to it, or take fact away or twist it to what i THINK it should be. Weighing up the facts we are given and realising what the rite means, to me isn't difficult. It simply is what it is.

[LobselVith8]

AlexXIV wrote...

Btw. do we even have something like official in-game lore that states that the RoA was legal? I know DG popped in and said that it was, but is there like a codex entry or wiki entry or an in-game quote?

No, there isn't anything in canon that said Meredith's use of the Right of Annulment was legal, only WoG. There isn't even anything in the game that contradicts the codex entries about mages being controlled by templars or in servitude or in service to the Chantry, but David Gaider said those were factually incorrect as well. I suspect it's an issue of multiple writers handling the game and not everyone being on the same page.

[Wulfram]

There's no suggestion the RoA isn't legal, and you'd expect Orsino to mention that if it wasn't.
Not that it makes much difference to me. Legal does not mean right.

[Benchmark]

LobselVith8 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Btw. do we even have something like official in-game lore that states that the RoA was legal? I know DG popped in and said that it was, but is there like a codex entry or wiki entry or an in-game quote?

No, there isn't anything in canon that said Meredith's use of the Right of Annulment was legal, only WoG. There isn't even anything in the game that contradicts the codex entries about mages being controlled by templars or in servitude or in service to the Chantry, but David Gaider said those were factually incorrect as well. I suspect it's an issue of multiple writers handling the game and not everyone being on the same page.

Really? Thats what you think? So, you are saying that the game is open to interpretation and the in game events are meant to be seen as messages from the different writers as to what they want you to understand?

So throwing in dozens of mages that use blood magic and demonology, many of them FROM THE CIRCLE would mean that they want you to interpret it as a circle that is corrupted.

So letting you hear hearsay about abuses in the circle would allow you to take the interpretation that the Templars are making the mages become corrupted?

Guess what! You can interpret it anyway that you wish and be right, because the writers intended for you to be able to do that!!!!! Congratulations on wasting 20 pages of posts because you only want to allow one interpretation and refuse to allow a different one, despite just admitting to the game world being a result of multiple interpretations!

[AlexXIV]

I am just suprised because since she evokes it one should think that the question arises but is never tackled in the game or predecessors.

[AlexXIV]

Benchmark wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Btw. do we even have something like official in-game lore that states that the RoA was legal? I know DG popped in and said that it was, but is there like a codex entry or wiki entry or an in-game quote?

No, there isn't anything in canon that said Meredith's use of the Right of Annulment was legal, only WoG. There isn't even anything in the game that contradicts the codex entries about mages being controlled by templars or in servitude or in service to the Chantry, but David Gaider said those were factually incorrect as well. I suspect it's an issue of multiple writers handling the game and not everyone being on the same page.

Really? Thats what you think? So, you are saying that the game is open to interpretation and the in game events are meant to be seen as messages from the different writers as to what they want you to understand?

So throwing in dozens of mages that use blood magic and demonology, many of them FROM THE CIRCLE would mean that they want you to interpret it as a circle that is corrupted.

So letting you hear hearsay about abuses in the circle would allow you to take the interpretation that the Templars are making the mages become corrupted?

Guess what! You can interpret it anyway that you wish and be right, because the writers intended for you to be able to do that!!!!! Congratulations on wasting 20 pages of posts because you only want to allow one interpretation and refuse to allow a different one, despite just admitting to the game world being a result of multiple interpretations!

The point is that to our knowledge only the Grand Cleric had the Right. Now we learn that the KC had it too and we learn it from the BSN. There is no room for interpretation or DG wouldn't have said it is legal. Your rant is useless.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 22 avril 2011 - 04:22 .

[Benchmark]

AlexXIV wrote...

I am just suprised because since she evokes it one should think that the question arises but is never tackled in the game or predecessors.

It is a plot device. Just like the insanity sword and making sure Meredith won't be willing to compromise forcing Hawke to make a decision at a really bad pivot point. Since it is a bad plot device, they didn't spend a lot of time on defending it.

The only real choice the writers want you to make is A. Side with mages that want freedom but represent a substantial risk to the population. B. Side with the Templars who represent oppression but work to create security for the population.

It is a very poorly constructed debate on Liberty vs Security. And it is designed to pull at our "Live Free or Die" heartstrings.

Modifié par Benchmark, 22 avril 2011 - 04:27 .

[Benchmark]

AlexXIV wrote...

Benchmark wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Btw. do we even have something like official in-game lore that states that the RoA was legal? I know DG popped in and said that it was, but is there like a codex entry or wiki entry or an in-game quote?

No, there isn't anything in canon that said Meredith's use of the Right of Annulment was legal, only WoG. There isn't even anything in the game that contradicts the codex entries about mages being controlled by templars or in servitude or in service to the Chantry, but David Gaider said those were factually incorrect as well. I suspect it's an issue of multiple writers handling the game and not everyone being on the same page.

Really? Thats what you think? So, you are saying that the game is open to interpretation and the in game events are meant to be seen as messages from the different writers as to what they want you to understand?

So throwing in dozens of mages that use blood magic and demonology, many of them FROM THE CIRCLE would mean that they want you to interpret it as a circle that is corrupted.

So letting you hear hearsay about abuses in the circle would allow you to take the interpretation that the Templars are making the mages become corrupted?

Guess what! You can interpret it anyway that you wish and be right, because the writers intended for you to be able to do that!!!!! Congratulations on wasting 20 pages of posts because you only want to allow one interpretation and refuse to allow a different one, despite just admitting to the game world being a result of multiple interpretations!

The point is that to our knowledge only the Grand Cleric had the Right. Now we learn that the KC had it too and we learn it from the BSN. There is no room for interpretation or DG wouldn't have said it is legal. Your rant is useless.

I wasn't arguing the legality of the RoA, so your response is misplaced.

I was actually just making sure Lob recognized he is recognizing interpretation as a valid argument for the gameworld, when he hasn't done so for 20 pages.

Modifié par Benchmark, 22 avril 2011 - 04:30 .

[moilami]

Uzzy wrote...

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.

I said in the previous post what were the similarities. I can repeat them.

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

Each time I hear someone saying "me has studied in uni" I just laugh.

[Icy Magebane]

I think people are getting a little dramatic... at no point is there a "final solution" to the mage problem, other than the rejected proposal by Ser Alrik. Whether people like or dislike the idea of Circles, the simple fact is that they are used to contain and monitor mages to avoid a situation where demonic abominations freely roam the world. There is no other purpose behind them. There were abusive Templars in the Kirkwall Circle, that is true. But this is an extreme case that in no way reflects the general treatment of mages in Thedas. Perhaps Ferelden is an extreme example of a more relaxed Circle? I don't know... we've only seen 2 Circles so far. But this idea that Circles are akin to death camps is absurd.

[moilami]

louise101 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

The reason for the rite is clear, i simply base a decision on that alone its not just anders, there are blood mages turning into abominations, infecting templars is pretty serious, so simply put how is it wrong to invoke the rite when we fight how many in kirkwall? Its also obvious Orsino was busy behind closed doors. When you get into the gallows and the rooms are full of abominations, if you side with the mages, and you tell Orsino this... its only a guess as to whether they just 'poofed' at the last minute, or were practicising blood magic for a while. To me it couldn't be more clear or defined it was made because one went riot. Thats the law whether i think its right or not. I don't add to it, or take fact away or twist it to what i THINK it should be. Weighing up the facts we are given and realising what the rite means, to me isn't difficult. It simply is what it is.

I wonder would you had said to French resistance group "u noobs there is law".

In other words, why I should care of this "law" you are touting so much about? Will you say next Andraste gave you the law?

Templars are best impaled from rear in medieval style and left to die.

[nos_astra]

moilami wrote...
I said in the previous post what were the similarities. I can repeat them.

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

Each time I hear someone saying "me has studied in uni" I just laugh.

I'm not sure what the "final solution" is supposed to be. The RoA? Being made Tranquil? The Tranquil Solution (that was refused)?

Whatever it is, even without it the situation of the mages fits the definition of genocide In Exile has provided. And guess what, genocide is a horrible thing (whether you label it holocaust or not). However, his posts had a lot more impact than your hitting us over the head with an even weightier buzzword.

I would appreciate if you stopped that.

Modifié par klarabella, 22 avril 2011 - 04:49 .

[Benchmark]

Icy Magebane wrote...

I think people are getting a little dramatic... at no point is there a "final solution" to the mage problem, other than the rejected proposal by Ser Alrik. Whether people like or dislike the idea of Circles, the simple fact is that they are used to contain and monitor mages to avoid a situation where demonic abominations freely roam the world. There is no other purpose behind them. There were abusive Templars in the Kirkwall Circle, that is true. But this is an extreme case that in no way reflects the general treatment of mages in Thedas. Perhaps Ferelden is an extreme example of a more relaxed Circle? I don't know... we've only seen 2 Circles so far. But this idea that Circles are akin to death camps is absurd.

Hmmm, a voice of reason. Who let you in here?

[moilami]

Icy Magebane wrote...

I think people are getting a little dramatic... at no point is there a "final solution" to the mage problem, other than the rejected proposal by Ser Alrik. Whether people like or dislike the idea of Circles, the simple fact is that they are used to contain and monitor mages to avoid a situation where demonic abominations freely roam the world. There is no other purpose behind them. There were abusive Templars in the Kirkwall Circle, that is true. But this is an extreme case that in no way reflects the general treatment of mages in Thedas. Perhaps Ferelden is an extreme example of a more relaxed Circle? I don't know... we've only seen 2 Circles so far. But this idea that Circles are akin to death camps is absurd.

Tell then from history what is better comparison for this particular genocide.

[AlexXIV]

moilami wrote...

Icy Magebane wrote...

I think people are getting a little dramatic... at no point is there a "final solution" to the mage problem, other than the rejected proposal by Ser Alrik. Whether people like or dislike the idea of Circles, the simple fact is that they are used to contain and monitor mages to avoid a situation where demonic abominations freely roam the world. There is no other purpose behind them. There were abusive Templars in the Kirkwall Circle, that is true. But this is an extreme case that in no way reflects the general treatment of mages in Thedas. Perhaps Ferelden is an extreme example of a more relaxed Circle? I don't know... we've only seen 2 Circles so far. But this idea that Circles are akin to death camps is absurd.

Tell then from history what is better comparison for this particular genocide.

There is no historical context because there has never been a race as 'superior' (in raw power) as mages to all others.

Closest I could see would be jews in medivial times but they didn't really have magic or even bloodmagic.

There is reason in having Mage Circles. My problem is not that the Circles exist, but how they are run. Namely in a way that eventually made the mages to rise up and throw all of Thedas into a war. Which is the final judgement on a system that failed.

[moilami]

AlexXIV wrote...

moilami wrote...

Icy Magebane wrote...

I think people are getting a little dramatic... at no point is there a "final solution" to the mage problem, other than the rejected proposal by Ser Alrik. Whether people like or dislike the idea of Circles, the simple fact is that they are used to contain and monitor mages to avoid a situation where demonic abominations freely roam the world. There is no other purpose behind them. There were abusive Templars in the Kirkwall Circle, that is true. But this is an extreme case that in no way reflects the general treatment of mages in Thedas. Perhaps Ferelden is an extreme example of a more relaxed Circle? I don't know... we've only seen 2 Circles so far. But this idea that Circles are akin to death camps is absurd.

Tell then from history what is better comparison for this particular genocide.

There is no historical context because there has never been a race as 'superior' (in raw power) as mages to all others.

Closest I could see would be jews in medivial times but they didn't really have magic or even bloodmagic.

There is reason in having Mage Circles. My problem is not that the Circles exist, but how they are run. Namely in a way that eventually made the mages to rise up and throw all of Thedas into a war. Which is the final judgement on a system that failed.

How are mages powerful when compared to rouges or warriors?

[AlexXIV]

moilami wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

moilami wrote...

Icy Magebane wrote...

I think people are getting a little dramatic... at no point is there a "final solution" to the mage problem, other than the rejected proposal by Ser Alrik. Whether people like or dislike the idea of Circles, the simple fact is that they are used to contain and monitor mages to avoid a situation where demonic abominations freely roam the world. There is no other purpose behind them. There were abusive Templars in the Kirkwall Circle, that is true. But this is an extreme case that in no way reflects the general treatment of mages in Thedas. Perhaps Ferelden is an extreme example of a more relaxed Circle? I don't know... we've only seen 2 Circles so far. But this idea that Circles are akin to death camps is absurd.

Tell then from history what is better comparison for this particular genocide.

There is no historical context because there has never been a race as 'superior' (in raw power) as mages to all others.

Closest I could see would be jews in medivial times but they didn't really have magic or even bloodmagic.

There is reason in having Mage Circles. My problem is not that the Circles exist, but how they are run. Namely in a way that eventually made the mages to rise up and throw all of Thedas into a war. Which is the final judgement on a system that failed.

How are mages powerful when compared to rouges or warriors?

In the lore, not gamemechanics. We are not discussing failing gamemechanics, are we? Or we would have to discuss how non mages disappear right before you just to teleport behind your back. I know people like to bring game mechanics into lore discussions like 'I killed 102 bloodmages, this is proof the circle was beyond salvation' but that just like ... a different topic, because the game mechanic do not really reflect lore well. Or just talk about how nobody ever recognized Hawke special class in any way. Templar? Bloodmage? Who cares.

[Benchmark]

AlexXIV wrote...

moilami wrote...

Icy Magebane wrote...

I think people are getting a little dramatic... at no point is there a "final solution" to the mage problem, other than the rejected proposal by Ser Alrik. Whether people like or dislike the idea of Circles, the simple fact is that they are used to contain and monitor mages to avoid a situation where demonic abominations freely roam the world. There is no other purpose behind them. There were abusive Templars in the Kirkwall Circle, that is true. But this is an extreme case that in no way reflects the general treatment of mages in Thedas. Perhaps Ferelden is an extreme example of a more relaxed Circle? I don't know... we've only seen 2 Circles so far. But this idea that Circles are akin to death camps is absurd.

Tell then from history what is better comparison for this particular genocide.

There is no historical context because there has never been a race as 'superior' (in raw power) as mages to all others.

Closest I could see would be jews in medivial times but they didn't really have magic or even bloodmagic.

There is reason in having Mage Circles. My problem is not that the Circles exist, but how they are run. Namely in a way that eventually made the mages to rise up and throw all of Thedas into a war. Which is the final judgement on a system that failed.

Jews in medieval Europe wouldn't be a good parallel because they had no abilities that posed a significant threat to the nation they were part of.

Maybe Arabs under the Great Khan? The Golden Horde was forced to turn back several times because Arabic cities were rebuilding armies after he had conquered them but failed to kill their leaders. When he returned the final time to retake a city that had revolted, he simply killed all of the fighting age men so they couldn't build any more armies...

Nope, that one isn't good either. Except that we could all argue in circles about his motivations and whether it was genocide.

Modifié par Benchmark, 22 avril 2011 - 05:09 .

[moilami]

klarabella wrote...

moilami wrote...
I said in the previous post what were the similarities. I can repeat them.

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

Each time I hear someone saying "me has studied in uni" I just laugh.

I'm not sure what the "final solution" is supposed to be. The RoA? Being made Tranquil? The Tranquil Solution (that was refused)?

Whatever it is, even without it the situation of the mages fits the definition of genocide In Exile has provided. And guess what, genocide is a horrible thing (whether you label it holocaust or not). However, his posts had a lot more impact than your hitting us over the head with an even weightier buzzword.

I would appreciate if you stopped that.

Final solution is to systematically collect mages to circles or kill them at sight.

This is interesting how furiously chantry apologist try to apologise.

[moilami]

AlexXIV wrote...

moilami wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

moilami wrote...

Icy Magebane wrote...

I think people are getting a little dramatic... at no point is there a "final solution" to the mage problem, other than the rejected proposal by Ser Alrik. Whether people like or dislike the idea of Circles, the simple fact is that they are used to contain and monitor mages to avoid a situation where demonic abominations freely roam the world. There is no other purpose behind them. There were abusive Templars in the Kirkwall Circle, that is true. But this is an extreme case that in no way reflects the general treatment of mages in Thedas. Perhaps Ferelden is an extreme example of a more relaxed Circle? I don't know... we've only seen 2 Circles so far. But this idea that Circles are akin to death camps is absurd.

Tell then from history what is better comparison for this particular genocide.

There is no historical context because there has never been a race as 'superior' (in raw power) as mages to all others.

Closest I could see would be jews in medivial times but they didn't really have magic or even bloodmagic.

There is reason in having Mage Circles. My problem is not that the Circles exist, but how they are run. Namely in a way that eventually made the mages to rise up and throw all of Thedas into a war. Which is the final judgement on a system that failed.

How are mages powerful when compared to rouges or warriors?

In the lore, not gamemechanics. We are not discussing failing gamemechanics, are we? Or we would have to discuss how non mages disappear right before you just to teleport behind your back. I know people like to bring game mechanics into lore discussions like 'I killed 102 bloodmages, this is proof the circle was beyond salvation' but that just like ... a different topic, because the game mechanic do not really reflect lore well. Or just talk about how nobody ever recognized Hawke special class in any way. Templar? Bloodmage? Who cares.

Game mechanics certainly are valid points to consider and evaluate as much as hearsay lore.

[Icy Magebane]

moilami wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

There is no historical context because there has never been a race as 'superior' (in raw power) as mages to all others.

Closest I could see would be jews in medivial times but they didn't really have magic or even bloodmagic.

There is reason in having Mage Circles. My problem is not that the Circles exist, but how they are run. Namely in a way that eventually made the mages to rise up and throw all of Thedas into a war. Which is the final judgement on a system that failed.

How are mages powerful when compared to rouges or warriors?

Mages are powerful, but the reason they are so heavily scrutinized is because they attract demons.  Power itself isn't the issue, but the fact that they can be dominated by creatures who seek to cause destruction in the mortal realm.  I will admit that there is prejudice among the non-magical members of every race, but this isn't the only reason for Circles.  There are legitimate concerns when considering complete freedom for mages.  Even the most well-intentioned mage must contend with demons who will make every attempt to possess them.  The result of such a possession is more than a company of town guards can handle.  So while a talented rogue is indeed dangerous, there is no risk that this person is acting at the behest of an outside force.

Modifié par Icy Magebane, 22 avril 2011 - 05:10 .

[Plaintiff]

Icy Magebane wrote...

I think people are getting a little dramatic... at no point is there a "final solution" to the mage problem, other than the rejected proposal by Ser Alrik. Whether people like or dislike the idea of Circles, the simple fact is that they are used to contain and monitor mages to avoid a situation where demonic abominations freely roam the world. There is no other purpose behind them. There were abusive Templars in the Kirkwall Circle, that is true. But this is an extreme case that in no way reflects the general treatment of mages in Thedas. Perhaps Ferelden is an extreme example of a more relaxed Circle? I don't know... we've only seen 2 Circles so far. But this idea that Circles are akin to death camps is absurd.

I wouldn't call them death camps. They're prisons. The mages may be generally well-treated, (the ones that obey the rules, anyway), but it's a gilded cage at best and I hardly think Ferelden's Circle is a shining example of fair treatment. Mages require special permission to leave the tower and it certainly wouldn't be granted for frivolous reasons like "visiting the family I haven't seen since I was twelve", if you play the Mage Origin, Greagoir is very much opposed to mages leaving the Circle, even to fight the darkspawn at Ostagar. I can only assume he wants Ferelden to become a black and twisted Blightland where no life can grow.

Plenty of things occur within the Ferelden Circle that I would consider "abuse" which are actually completely legal as the situation stands currently. Wynne's child being taken from her at birth is a shining example of standard Circle law. Another would be the templars in Awakening who set a trap for Anders after I've taken him into the Wardens. Discouraging relationships, the Harrowing, teaching them that they are cursed and unfit to join regular society... I could go on. Life in the Ferelden Circle is hardly ideal, if it were, Uldred would never have been able to amass any followers to enact his takeover in the first place and Anders wouldn't try so hard to escape.

As Anders say to Sebastian when prompted, his discontent with the Circle has nothing to do with demons, nor was he abused by templars. It stems from being deprived of the basic freedoms that regular people take for granted.

[AlexXIV]

Benchmark wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

moilami wrote...

Icy Magebane wrote...

I think people are getting a little dramatic... at no point is there a "final solution" to the mage problem, other than the rejected proposal by Ser Alrik. Whether people like or dislike the idea of Circles, the simple fact is that they are used to contain and monitor mages to avoid a situation where demonic abominations freely roam the world. There is no other purpose behind them. There were abusive Templars in the Kirkwall Circle, that is true. But this is an extreme case that in no way reflects the general treatment of mages in Thedas. Perhaps Ferelden is an extreme example of a more relaxed Circle? I don't know... we've only seen 2 Circles so far. But this idea that Circles are akin to death camps is absurd.

Tell then from history what is better comparison for this particular genocide.

There is no historical context because there has never been a race as 'superior' (in raw power) as mages to all others.

Closest I could see would be jews in medivial times but they didn't really have magic or even bloodmagic.

There is reason in having Mage Circles. My problem is not that the Circles exist, but how they are run. Namely in a way that eventually made the mages to rise up and throw all of Thedas into a war. Which is the final judgement on a system that failed.

Jews in medieval Europe wouldn't be a good parallel because they had no abilities that posed a significant threat to the nation they were part of.

Maybe Arabs under the Great Khan? The Golden Horde was forced to turn back several times because Arabic cities were rebuilding armies after he had conquered them but failed to kill their leaders. When he returned the final time to retake a cityt that had revolted, he simply killed all of the fighting age men so they couldn't build any more armies...

Nope, that one isn't good either. Except that we could all argue in circles about his motivations and whether it was genocide.

I know it is not a good example but there is no good example. Jews however were a thorn in the eye of the christians since they were obviously 'heretics' and on the other side restricted from haveing titles or land, etc. Also they could only work as merchants or money loaner. Which made them rich and even more hated. They were defenitely considered a threat by the Church but nowhere as much as a mage by the Chantry. Since Jews didn't have magic. There is no viable historical comparison.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 22 avril 2011 - 05:12 .

[moilami]

Icy Magebane wrote...

moilami wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

moilami wrote...

Icy Magebane wrote...

I think people are getting a little dramatic... at no point is there a "final solution" to the mage problem, other than the rejected proposal by Ser Alrik. Whether people like or dislike the idea of Circles, the simple fact is that they are used to contain and monitor mages to avoid a situation where demonic abominations freely roam the world. There is no other purpose behind them. There were abusive Templars in the Kirkwall Circle, that is true. But this is an extreme case that in no way reflects the general treatment of mages in Thedas. Perhaps Ferelden is an extreme example of a more relaxed Circle? I don't know... we've only seen 2 Circles so far. But this idea that Circles are akin to death camps is absurd.

Tell then from history what is better comparison for this particular genocide.

There is no historical context because there has never been a race as 'superior' (in raw power) as mages to all others.

Closest I could see would be jews in medivial times but they didn't really have magic or even bloodmagic.

There is reason in having Mage Circles. My problem is not that the Circles exist, but how they are run. Namely in a way that eventually made the mages to rise up and throw all of Thedas into a war. Which is the final judgement on a system that failed.

How are mages powerful when compared to rouges or warriors?

Mages are powerful, but the reason they are so heavily scrutinized is because they attract demons.  Power itself isn't the issue, but the fact that they can be dominated by creatures who seek to cause destruction in the mortal realm.  I will admit that there is prejudice among the non-magical members of every race, but this isn't the only reason for Circles.  There are legitimate concerns when considering complete freedom for mages.  Even the most well-intentioned mage must contend with demons who will make every attempt to possess them.  The result of such a possession is more than a company of town guards can handle.  So while a talented rogue is indeed dangerous, there is no risk that this person is acting at the behest of an outside force.

Why would a mage let a demon posses him anymore than a madman shooting randomly at people on the street?