945 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

Wulfram wrote...

So if you round up a group, stick them in a prison where you regularly kill or lobotomise them and then massacre all of them if they try to resist, that's not genocide?

Its a lot more complicated than that. So your oversimplification serves no purpose, but to try and strawman the entire argument.

First of all: They don't regularly kill or lobotimize the mages. They only kill as punishment, and the Rite of Tranquility is given to mages if they desire it, or if they've been condemned to.
Second of all: They don't call for an annulment the second a mage try to resist. Then they probably just kill or tranquilize the mage in question (depending on the type of resistance the mage did ofcourse).
Third of all: It still isn't genocide.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 20 avril 2011 - 03:25 .

[Wulfram]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Its a lot more complicated than that. So your oversimplification serves no purpose, but to try and strawman the entire argument.

First of all: They don't regularly kill or lobotimize the mages. They only kill as punishment, and the Right of Tranquility is given to mages if they desire it, or if they've been condemned to.

They try to kill every mage in the tower.  It's called the Harrowing.  Occasionally, they decide to skip it and just go straight to wiping their mind, since that way they get some slave labour.

Second of all: They don't call for an annulment the second a mage try to resist. Then they probably just kill or tranquilize the mage in question (depending on the type of resistance the mage did ofcourse).

They wipe out the tower whenever mages plural try to resist.  Or indeed, as in Kirkwall, when they aren't resisting.

Third of all: It still isn't genocide.

Would "mass murder of innocents for the crime of being born" suit you better?

[LobselVith8]

Addai67 wrote...

And you are right- a Right of Annulment is called when a particular Circle is considered so irredeemably corrupted that the templars need to pull the plug for the sake of the innocent outside it.  It's a bit easier to agree with Greagoir about this than with Meredith, but then again there is ample evidence that in Kirkwall, mages have a particularly virulent strain.

The problem with assessing whether Meredith is right or wrong is that we never actually meet the mages in the Gallows, with the exception of very brief lines we have with a few mages for particular quests, and the two mages we get frequent time with from the Circle of Kirkwall are Orsino and Bethany. Judging mages from inside of the Gallows by the actions of those outside of the Gallows doesn't seem to be an accurate gauge at assessing if the Circle is the "virulent strain" you seem to think it is.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Wulfram wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Its a lot more complicated than that. So your oversimplification serves no purpose, but to try and strawman the entire argument.

First of all: They don't regularly kill or lobotimize the mages. They only kill as punishment, and the Right of Tranquility is given to mages if they desire it, or if they've been condemned to.

They try to kill every mage in the tower.  It's called the Harrowing.  Occasionally, they decide to skip it and just go straight to wiping their mind, since that way they get some slave labour.

Second of all: They don't call for an annulment the second a mage try to resist. Then they probably just kill or tranquilize the mage in question (depending on the type of resistance the mage did ofcourse).

They wipe out the tower whenever mages plural try to resist.  Or indeed, as in Kirkwall, when they aren't resisting.

Third of all: It still isn't genocide.

Would "mass murder of innocents for the crime of being born" suit you better?

1. They don't try and kill them with the Harrowing. If they actually thought you were going to fail the Harrowing they wouldn't put you under. They are trying to brace the mages for the future of demonic temptation.
2. When they call for an annulment, it is becasue the Circle has been deemed irredeemable. When the Circle is deemed irreedemable would depend on the Knight-Commander and Grand Cleric in question. For instance, in Kirkwall the mages were allowed to resist for 7 years before the annulment was called. During the first annulment, the mages only harbored the killers for a few days, before the annulment was called.
3. Not really. It is the neccesary killings of innocent, to purge the circle of undesireable elements.

[Wulfram]

There's no evidence that the Harrowing serves any such purpose.  They simply throw you to the sharks.

Making a few speeches does not constitute resistence.  We see no true resistance from the Kirkwall circle, apart from a conspiracy in which Templars played an equal part and which simply sought a less crazy knight commander, rather than anything extravagant like freedom.

They behead kneeling prisoners who are offering no resistance and about whom they have absolutely no evidence of any sort of wrongdoing, beyond them simply being mages and being inside their prison.  There is no necessity, this is simple butchery.

[ajm317]

Let us look at the definition of genocide:

...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.
– Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II

This is the definition of genocide as used by the UN.

The RoA is an attempt to destroy, in part, an ethnic/racial group (mages) by either killing them or causing them serious mental harm.  It is, by definition, genocide.

That's all there really is to it.

Whether or not the RoA is justified in certain circumstances and what the motive for its use is are seperate issues.  It is indeed concievable that the RoA might be necessary in some situations, but it would still be genocide.

Modifié par ajm317, 20 avril 2011 - 04:07 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Wulfram wrote...


There's no evidence that the Harrowing serves any such purpose.  They simply throw you to the sharks.

Making a few speeches does not constitute resistence.  We see no true resistance from the Kirkwall circle, apart from a conspiracy in which Templars played an equal part and which simply sought a less crazy knight commander, rather than anything extravagant like freedom.

They behead kneeling prisoners who are offering no resistance and about whom they have absolutely no evidence of any sort of wrongdoing, beyond them simply being mages and being inside their prison.  There is no necessity, this is simple butchery.

Any mage kneeling and asking for mercy could be a blood mage, the Templars have no way of knowing. Which is why they kill all the mages in the Circle. If they could discern between the two, they would only kill the blood mages. That is the neccesity. That is why they kill all the mages within the circle.
There is certainly proof that the Harrowing serves to give young mages experience with how to handle demons. It is after all what happens. It is not meant to be some sort of immunity granter. It is suppsoed to validate the mages ability to resist demons. It serves that purpose perfectly.
The Kirkwall offers a lot of resistance to the Templars throughout the game. For instance refusing to let the Templars investigate the tower for blood magic, collaborating with the mage underground and smuggling mages out the Circle. There is a hwole lot of resistance in the Kirkwall Circle actually.

[Lewie]

Rifneno wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
And you are right- a Right of Annulment is called when a particular Circle is considered so irredeemably corrupted that the templars need to pull the plug for the sake of the innocent outside it.  It's a bit easier to agree with Greagoir about this than with Meredith, but then again there is ample evidence that in Kirkwall, mages have a particularly virulent strain.

It's not a bit easier, there's worlds of difference.  The Ferelden Circle was overrun with abominations and Gregior rightfully felt it was unlikely there even was any real survivors inside.  It posed an immediate and immense danger.  The Kirkwall Circle was none of that.  The templars had complete control of the Circle and it was no immediate danger to anyone, at least no moreso than it had ever been.  The "extremely contagious illness" comparison works for Gregior.  It completely and totally falls flat with Meredith.  Meredith is attempting genocide, that's all there is to it.

Are there more corrupt mages in Kirkwall?  Of course, the place is a portal to hell.  But who put every mage in the country in the Gallows?  The templars did.  A great many of them, probably most of them, weren't from Kirkwall.  So it's not so much "burning a quarantine full of an extremely virulent disease," it's more like "burning a quarantine with a moderately virulent disease that we injected them with."

In Ferelden the circle was at least contained, and still viable for the RoA. Imagine Gregiors response to the templar order 'being infected' if it had happened. Both the mage and templar order in kirkwall was a disaster which in kind destroyed both. Both leaders failed, Meredith seemed blind to what her own order was up to, although was her decision to refuse the tranquil solution a sign of some mercy/understanding? Or would that only stand in the way of her invoking the RoA as some think that was her plan all along. Orsino even asks hawke to find rebels in his own order implying that he knew what was coming. Yet siding with the mages and seeing Orsino go mr blobby didn't make me feel more empathy for mages. They were pushed into a corner yes but i remembered the elf (forget his name) who stabs his own wife in front of you, that was infuriating once they turn to blood magic they are unforgiveable. The magisters son also, letting fenris kill him was gratifying to say the least. They also were deliberating trying to sabotage the templars Meredith was not the only one with a plan up her sleeve and their plan worked didn't it? Push mad Meredith and she cracks out the whip. The whole thing was a disaster waiting to happen.

[Camenae]

I know in the game they can't tell who's a blood mage, but why can't they? Check their wrists/torso for cuts? Maybe ask Merrill to do her thing, if they don't trust Anders' word? If only they had the Priori Incantatum spell.

[EmperorSahlertz]

ajm317 wrote...

Let us look at the definition of genocide:

...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.
– Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II

This is the definition of genocide as used by the UN.

The RoA is an attempt to destroy, in part, an ethnic/racial group (mages) by either killing them or causing them serious mental harm.  It is, by definition, genocide.

That's all there really is to it.

Whether or not the RoA is justified in certain circumstances and what the motive for its use is are seperate issues.  It is indeed concievable that the RoA might be necessary in some situations, but it would still be genocide.

Again. It is not genocide. I've even bolded the important part now. The annulment is NOT intended to destroy all mages. The intention of an annulment is to make the tower safe for the mages to inhabit again. If it were to be a real genocide, they would not reinhabit a circle with mages, after an annulment.

[ajm317]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

ajm317 wrote...

Let us look at the definition of genocide:

...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.
– Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II

This is the definition of genocide as used by the UN.

The RoA is an attempt to destroy, in part, an ethnic/racial group (mages) by either killing them or causing them serious mental harm.  It is, by definition, genocide.

That's all there really is to it.

Whether or not the RoA is justified in certain circumstances and what the motive for its use is are seperate issues.  It is indeed concievable that the RoA might be necessary in some situations, but it would still be genocide.

Again. It is not genocide. I've even bolded the important part now. The annulment is NOT intended to destroy all mages. The intention of an annulment is to make the tower safe for the mages to inhabit again. If it were to be a real genocide, they would not reinhabit a circle with mages, after an annulment.

You bolded one part, but missed another.  In whole or in part.  You do not have to kill all mages for it to be genocide.  Hitler never attempted to kill all Jews.  He only attempted to kill those in continental Europe.  He was still guilty of genocide.

If you go into a town, round up all the people of African descent and shoot them, you are guilty of genocide, regardless of whether or not you attempt to kill all the people living in Africa.

Modifié par ajm317, 20 avril 2011 - 04:20 .

[Addai]

Rifneno wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
And you are right- a Right of Annulment is called when a particular Circle is considered so irredeemably corrupted that the templars need to pull the plug for the sake of the innocent outside it.  It's a bit easier to agree with Greagoir about this than with Meredith, but then again there is ample evidence that in Kirkwall, mages have a particularly virulent strain.

It's not a bit easier, there's worlds of difference.  The Ferelden Circle was overrun with abominations and Gregior rightfully felt it was unlikely there even was any real survivors inside.  It posed an immediate and immense danger.  The Kirkwall Circle was none of that.  The templars had complete control of the Circle and it was no immediate danger to anyone, at least no moreso than it had ever been.  The "extremely contagious illness" comparison works for Gregior.  It completely and totally falls flat with Meredith.  Meredith is attempting genocide, that's all there is to it.

Are there more corrupt mages in Kirkwall?  Of course, the place is a portal to hell.  But who put every mage in the country in the Gallows?  The templars did.  A great many of them, probably most of them, weren't from Kirkwall.  So it's not so much "burning a quarantine full of an extremely virulent disease," it's more like "burning a quarantine with a moderately virulent disease that we injected them with."

The templars had control of the Circle, really?  Is that why Orsino was researching necromancy, and why every escaped Circle mage you encounter is deep into blood magic?  It only took a few determined blood mages to turn Ferelden's Circle into what it was.  It's not a stretch for Hawke to conclude that the mages are lost and you need to do a controlled burn to try to save the rest of the city.

[Lewie]

Seriously.. one abomination: (codex)

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 Right of Annulment has been performed 17 times in the last 700 years.

—From Of Fires, Circles, and Templars: A History of Magic in the Chantry, by Sister Petrine, Chantry scholar

[Rifneno]

louise101 wrote...

In Ferelden the circle was at least contained, and still viable for the RoA. Imagine Gregiors response to the templar order 'being infected' if it had happened. Both the mage and templar order in kirkwall was a disaster which in kind destroyed both. Both leaders failed, Meredith seemed blind to what her own order was up to, although was her decision to refuse the tranquil solution a sign of some mercy/understanding? Or would that only stand in the way of her invoking the RoA as some think that was her plan all along. Orsino even asks hawke to find rebels in his own order implying that he knew what was coming. Yet siding with the mages and seeing Orsino go mr blobby didn't make me feel more empathy for mages. They were pushed into a corner yes but i remembered the elf (forget his name) who stabs his own wife in front of you, that was infuriating once they turn to blood magic they are unforgiveable. The magisters son also, letting fenris kill him was gratifying to say the least. They also were deliberating trying to sabotage the templars Meredith was not the only one with a plan up her sleeve and their plan worked didn't it? Push mad Meredith and she cracks out the whip. The whole thing was a disaster waiting to happen.

1.  I believe the reason she refused the Tranquil Solution was because she either didn't yet have the idol or it hadn't had time to make her batty.  She was always an extremist, but she only passed the line to genocidal lunatic because of the lyrium idol.  I could be wrong of course, purely speculation, but to quote a supergenius who uses boxes of explosives for cover in a gunfight, "theory fits evidence."
2.  The Magister's son wasn't a mage.  He had a cowl on, which is usually a sign of cloth armor (i.e. mages) but then again so did Meredith and several others.  Since the Kirkwall Circle told him to go away when he came in professing demons were talking to him, I think he's in the clear.  The Kirkwall Circle isn't big on taking chances.    I think he was either suffering severe schizophrenia, or he was one of the few non-mages whom the demons could influence through Kirkwall's paper veil.
3.  They had good reason to sabotage Meredith.  She was totally off her rocker.  Half of that resistance was templars, her own men.

Camenae wrote...

I know in the game they can't tell who's a blood mage, but why can't they? Check their wrists/torso for cuts? Maybe ask Merrill to do her thing, if they don't trust Anders' word? If only they had the Priori Incantatum spell.

I assume they just heal their wounds afterwards.  They have to do some kind of healing.  While a single wrist slit isn't going to kill anyone, they'd easily die from blood loss if they kept doing it everytime they wanted to cast something.  Merrill's check involves blood magic, so I can't imagine they'd ever endorse it.

Addai67 wrote...
The templars had control of the Circle, really?  Is that why Orsino was researching necromancy, and why every escaped Circle mage you encounter is deep into blood magic?  It only took a few determined blood mages to turn Ferelden's Circle into what it was.  It's not a stretch for Hawke to conclude that the mages are lost and you need to do a controlled burn to try to save the rest of the city.

Necromancy isn't necessarily blood magic.  You could raise corpses with spirit magic in DAO, and we have no evidence that's changed.  There's plenty of blood mages, yes.  There's also plenty of corrupt templars.  There's plenty of dragons and those are "extinct."  We don't know how many blood mages were initially involved in Uldred's uprising.  There's no way to tell which abominations and corpses were innocent bystanders and which were blood mage rebels.

[Wulfram]

So basically, if you assume every mage is an evil blood mage, and that blood mages of necessity deserve death - apart from cute Dalish? - then slaughtering them is necessary.  Why don't they just strangle them as children?
Feeding people to lions validates their ability to resist lions.  It's still murder.
The First Enchanter does his job, and complains to Meredith's supposed boss.  That is not resistance.

If you decided to kill all the elves in the region, because they were getting restless and might rebel against your enslavement, then that wouldn't be genocide?  Because it's not you're intention to destroy them, just to stop a rebellion.  And after all, you intend to get some new slaves...

[Benchmark]

Rifneno wrote...

tausra wrote...

Urazz wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Didn't I just spend two freaking pages explaining how it ISN'T genocide? Why does he refuse to listen?

It may not be genocide but it's pretty darn close.

Actually it's not. It may be a slaughter, a massacre, butchery, or mass killing but it's nowhere near deserving to be called genocide. Genocide implies that EVERYONE sharing the title of Mage is killed off, not the execution of a single circle. If the Rite of Annulment had a big brother rite that annuled every Circle then it would be genocide, but not until then.

How many times must the "in whole or in part" thing be brought up?

How many times does the fact that you are misinterpreting the world for your side of the argument need to be brought up?

"Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"

Notice your definition.  A very good and unbiased definition. Notice you used it to refute only one argument, but you didn't apply the definition to the situation as a whole.

 I agree "whole or in part", killing someone for being born is wrong, ergo Templars do not kill mages at birth. Orsino questions why they don't when he is feeling the full brunt of the unfairness of being killed by Meredith. Orsino feels the circle can be saved, Meredith doesn't. But, Orsino also is hiding all the blood mages and rebels from her. Orsino thinks the circle is not corrupted... despite having blood magic items and research in his office. He shouldn't be lamenting the actions of the Templars, he should be accepting some responsibility.

The definition you provided states individuals are being killed because of their ethnic group. Mages during an RoA are not being killed for being mages, they are being killed because they represent a dire threat to the safety and security of the surroundings. And an RoA is intended to only be called when it is shown that the Circle is unsaveable or corrupted. Read this great codex find. Thanks for the work louise101.

louise101 wrote...

Seriously.. one abomination: (codex)

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 Right of Annulment has been performed 17 times in the
last 700 years.

—From Of Fires, Circles, and Templars: A History of Magic in the Chantry, by Sister Petrine, Chantry scholar

Mages are not being killed for being mages, they are being killed for being a threat that could potentially escape into the countryside and spend a year long killing spree.

Since, by your kindly provided definition, killing can only be considered genocide if it is done for the express purpose of eliminating a group, this is not genocide. RoAs are called for the elimination of an unacceptable threat to the nation and people around the Circle.

If you would like to argue that Meredith could be charged with attempted genocide, that her personal intent was to eradicate the mages for being mages, you may be able to make a case. With her past history of suffering at the hands of abominations, paranoia, hate, fear, and idol crazy- well it's possible she didn't make the call "just" because the Kirkwall circle has been full of blood mages and that Orsino was trying to stop her from rooting out. (reference the argument they are having at the start of "The Last Straw")

[EmperorSahlertz]

ajm317 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

ajm317 wrote...

Let us look at the definition of genocide:

...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.
– Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II

This is the definition of genocide as used by the UN.

The RoA is an attempt to destroy, in part, an ethnic/racial group (mages) by either killing them or causing them serious mental harm.  It is, by definition, genocide.

That's all there really is to it.

Whether or not the RoA is justified in certain circumstances and what the motive for its use is are seperate issues.  It is indeed concievable that the RoA might be necessary in some situations, but it would still be genocide.

Again. It is not genocide. I've even bolded the important part now. The annulment is NOT intended to destroy all mages. The intention of an annulment is to make the tower safe for the mages to inhabit again. If it were to be a real genocide, they would not reinhabit a circle with mages, after an annulment.

You bolded one part, but missed another.  In whole or in part.  You do not have to kill all mages for it to be genocide.  Hitler never attempted to kill all Jews.  He only attempted to kill those in continental Europe.  He was still guilty of genocide.

If you go into a town, round up all the people of African descent and shoot them, you are guilty of genocide, regardless of whether or not you attempt to kill all the people living in Africa.

I did not bold that part becasue it is irrelevant once the first criteria is not met. The intention of the annulment is not to destroy. The argument ends there. It is not genocide. Hitler was guilty of genocide because he was intending to destroy jews.

[Wulfram]

The purpose is to eliminate a group. Namely, every Mage the Templars could locate in the Free Marches. Because they believe those mages pose a threat. Because they are in the same prison as some people who used a method the Templars disapproved of to resist their imprisonment..

[Lewie]

Fixed.

It was in act 2 when Meredith refused the tranquil solution, why she didn't see that as a viable option only adds fuel to the fact she wanted the RoA all along.  Regardless of whether Meredith was right or wrong i still think invoking it was needed. Everyone was going bat**** insane idol or not. Would Gregior still of a clear mind have chosen to invoke it? I think he would without a doubt. 

They may have had reason to sabotage Meredith but i can't side with a blood mage for any reason, considering they will eventually be a full on abomination and the mage they were is gone. Once that line is crossed they are doomed. DOOMED I TELL YOU. 

Modifié par louise101, 20 avril 2011 - 05:05 .

[Benchmark]

Wulfram wrote...

So basically, if you assume every mage is an evil blood mage, and that blood mages of necessity deserve death - apart from cute Dalish? - then slaughtering them is necessary.  Why don't they just strangle them as children?
Feeding people to lions validates their ability to resist lions.  It's still murder.
The First Enchanter does his job, and complains to Meredith's supposed boss.  That is not resistance.

If you decided to kill all the elves in the region, because they were getting restless and might rebel against your enslavement, then that wouldn't be genocide?  Because it's not you're intention to destroy them, just to stop a rebellion.  And after all, you intend to get some new slaves...

Murder is a tricky word. If you kill someone without provacation, you murdered them. If you kill them because they are theratening you, you still murdered them. If you beat them in a war and killed them on the field of combat, you still murdered them.

In your elf example, no that would not be genocide(legal definition). Would it result in a effectual genocide(noun usage definition)? Yes, at least in the area.

Have events like that happened all through history and were often even necessary for the survival of one group over another? Yes. Primitive and preindustrial humanity was an amazingly competitive place. Life was hard and things that seemed necessary then, don't seem as necessary now.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Wulfram wrote...

So basically, if you assume every mage is an evil blood mage, and that blood mages of necessity deserve death - apart from cute Dalish? - then slaughtering them is necessary.  Why don't they just strangle them as children?
Feeding people to lions validates their ability to resist lions.  It's still murder.
The First Enchanter does his job, and complains to Meredith's supposed boss.  That is not resistance.

If you decided to kill all the elves in the region, because they were getting restless and might rebel against your enslavement, then that wouldn't be genocide?  Because it's not you're intention to destroy them, just to stop a rebellion.  And after all, you intend to get some new slaves...

When an annulment is called, all blood mages within the circle must die. Yes. Merrill, if it were up to me, would have been murder-knifed aswell, or at least turned in to the circle and let them deal with her.
And they don't strangle them as children for the very fact that they have done nothing wrong, yet.
The Harrowing is not murder. The Circle does it to help the apprentices realize the constant threat of demons. It would have been a greater crime not to teach the mages how to defend themselves. It is a test.

And no, when you prevent a rebellion by killing peasants, it is not genocide.
First of all, you probably wouldn't kill all peasants by virtue of being peasants to stop the rebellion.
Second of all, you only kill the insurgents and the ones unwilling to surrender. Even then you would probably just put the ones who refused in prison.

For it to qualify as genocide (in this case against Elves), it would have to target Elves specifically, for the sole reason of them being Elves, afterwards you wouldn't repopulate the area just cleansed of Elves with even more Elves.

[ajm317]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

ajm317 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

ajm317 wrote...

Let us look at the definition of genocide:

...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.
– Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II

This is the definition of genocide as used by the UN.

The RoA is an attempt to destroy, in part, an ethnic/racial group (mages) by either killing them or causing them serious mental harm.  It is, by definition, genocide.

That's all there really is to it.

Whether or not the RoA is justified in certain circumstances and what the motive for its use is are seperate issues.  It is indeed concievable that the RoA might be necessary in some situations, but it would still be genocide.

Again. It is not genocide. I've even bolded the important part now. The annulment is NOT intended to destroy all mages. The intention of an annulment is to make the tower safe for the mages to inhabit again. If it were to be a real genocide, they would not reinhabit a circle with mages, after an annulment.

You bolded one part, but missed another.  In whole or in part.  You do not have to kill all mages for it to be genocide.  Hitler never attempted to kill all Jews.  He only attempted to kill those in continental Europe.  He was still guilty of genocide.

If you go into a town, round up all the people of African descent and shoot them, you are guilty of genocide, regardless of whether or not you attempt to kill all the people living in Africa.

I did not bold that part becasue it is irrelevant once the first criteria is not met. The intention of the annulment is not to destroy. The argument ends there. It is not genocide. Hitler was guilty of genocide because he was intending to destroy jews.

First criteria is met.  The intent of a RoA is to kill every mage in a circle.  That is intent to destroy.

That they repopulate their concentration camp later is not relevant. 

[Benchmark]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

ajm317 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

ajm317 wrote...

Let us look at the definition of genocide:

...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.
– Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II

This is the definition of genocide as used by the UN.

The RoA is an attempt to destroy, in part, an ethnic/racial group (mages) by either killing them or causing them serious mental harm.  It is, by definition, genocide.

That's all there really is to it.

Whether or not the RoA is justified in certain circumstances and what the motive for its use is are seperate issues.  It is indeed concievable that the RoA might be necessary in some situations, but it would still be genocide.

Again. It is not genocide. I've even bolded the important part now. The annulment is NOT intended to destroy all mages. The intention of an annulment is to make the tower safe for the mages to inhabit again. If it were to be a real genocide, they would not reinhabit a circle with mages, after an annulment.

You bolded one part, but missed another.  In whole or in part.  You do not have to kill all mages for it to be genocide.  Hitler never attempted to kill all Jews.  He only attempted to kill those in continental Europe.  He was still guilty of genocide.

If you go into a town, round up all the people of African descent and shoot them, you are guilty of genocide, regardless of whether or not you attempt to kill all the people living in Africa.

I did not bold that part becasue it is irrelevant once the first criteria is not met. The intention of the annulment is not to destroy. The argument ends there. It is not genocide. Hitler was guilty of genocide because he was intending to destroy jews.

Emperor is right. The actual proof of genocide isn't to show that someone died and then say that person who died was part of a larger group. Genocide is only a possible charge if it can be reasonably proven that the intent of the killing was solely a sytematic plan to eliminate the larger group, and not to kill the individual in question.

[Wulfram]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And they don't strangle them as children for the very fact that they have done nothing wrong, yet.
.

The people slaughtered during the right of annulment haven't done anything wrong.  In fact, many of them are children.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Wulfram wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And they don't strangle them as children for the very fact that they have done nothing wrong, yet.
.

The people slaughtered during the right of annulment haven't done anything wrong.  In fact, many of them are children.

Indeed. It is regretable loss of life. However it is a small price to pay, compared to what could happen. If a single abomination can kill 70 people, a whole Circle of them is a terrifying prospect. The Templars have no way of saving the innocents within the tower, because the guilty will use them as a human shield, and will hide amongst them. If the Templars could, they would no doubt attempt to save as many as possible, but sadly they can't.