945 réponses à ce sujet

[Lewie]

Rifneno wrote...

ajm317 wrote...

17 RoA's in 700 years is not a lot.

Wha?

There is about a dozen circles in Thedas.

17 RoA's in 700 years is once every 41 years.

That means that there's about 2 every lifetime.

That means that if you're a mage, in the circle, you have a 1 in 6 chance of dying in a RoA.

That sounds like a lot to me.

Now now.  Let's be fair.  Mages don't live as long as most people because templars try to kill them so much.  And of course, lots of them commit suicide.  So see?  Don't you feel silly now?  

The blame for the RoA's lies with demons does it not.

[ajm317]

Benchmark wrote...

ajm317 wrote...

You are looking at this wrong.

You only need to answer two questions.

1.  Was a substantial portion of the mage population killed?
2.  Was this intentional?

You do not need to kill all mages in all Thedas, or attempt to, or even desire to.  No where is that required by the definition.

Meh, I think you are looking at this wrong too. Your two questions would correctly define any battle or event in history. Genocide(legal), not genocide(literal), requires a third.

Again it goes back to what is considered "substantial."

It is something of a grey area, but in general a battle does not kill a "substantial" portion of a population in my opinion.  For example, in the battle of Gettysburg only about 5,000 Confederates died out of a population of about 10 million.  That's only 1 in 2000.  In this case we're talking probably 1 in 12 (potentially more with the Starkhaven mages).

EDIT:  Also, it is important to point out that it needs to be intentional that you killed a substantial portion of that population.  In other words, you knew you were killing a substantial portion of that population and you killed it anyway.

Modifié par ajm317, 20 avril 2011 - 05:58 .

[Rifneno]

louise101 wrote...
The blame for the RoA's lies with demons does it not.

Well the Chantry is full of self-righteous hypocrites but I don't know if I'd call them de--oh, you mean literally.  No.

[Benchmark]

ajm317 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

ajm317 wrote...

17 RoA's in 700 years is not a lot.

Wha?

There is about a dozen circles in Thedas.

17 RoA's in 700 years is once every 41 years.

That means that there's about 2 every lifetime.

That means that if you're a mage, in the circle, you have a 1 in 6 chance of dying in a RoA.

That sounds like a lot to me.

Now now.  Let's be fair.  Mages don't live as long as most people because templars try to kill them so much.  And of course, lots of them commit suicide.  So see?  Don't you feel silly now?  

Good point.  I rescind my absurd argument.

Haha your argument is biased.

If we use your lifespan of 80 yrs (really high for darkage existence)- I will agree that you have a 1-6 chance of experiencing an RoA.

That also means you have a 1-6 chance of being involved in a Circle that turns to blood magic and demonology. That is a pretty high incidence of failure for Circles in general. Circles filled with mages trained to resist demons and avoid blood magic fall to it 1-6 times...

Pretty compelling.

[Wulfram]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Is there a reason you refuse to listen? If the Tempalrs could, they would spare all innocents. However, that is not possible. So they make the safe choice of killing everybody. It is a grim task, but it is a neccesary one.

You may think their justifications for their mass slaughter of innocents because they're mages is valid, but that doesn't change that they're engaging in the mass slaughter of innocents because they're mages - it just means that they're engaged in a justified mass slaughter of innocents. 

A virtuous genocide is still a genocide.

[Benchmark]

Rifneno wrote...

louise101 wrote...
The blame for the RoA's lies with demons does it not.

Well the Chantry is full of self-righteous hypocrites but I don't know if I'd call them de--oh, you mean literally.  No.

No, blame for the RoA lies with the mages that summon and consort with the demons.

[Lewie]

Benchmark wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

louise101 wrote...
The blame for the RoA's lies with demons does it not.

Well the Chantry is full of self-righteous hypocrites but I don't know if I'd call them de--oh, you mean literally.  No.

No, blame for the RoA lies with the mages that summon and consort with the demons.

Well yes, but no demons, no need for it. Good mages, good magic, good circles much win all round, which also brings up the responsibility that a mage has. Many mages stay clear from demons those that don't threaten everyone around them.

Modifié par louise101, 20 avril 2011 - 06:08 .

[Rifneno]

Benchmark wrote...

Haha your argument is biased.

If we use your lifespan of 80 yrs (really high for darkage existence)- I will agree that you have a 1-6 chance of experiencing an RoA.

That also means you have a 1-6 chance of being involved in a Circle that turns to blood magic and demonology. That is a pretty high incidence of failure for Circles in general. Circles filled with mages trained to resist demons and avoid blood magic fall to it 1-6 times...

Pretty compelling.

First of all, it's quite clear that DA is based upon people living a fairly modern average lifespan.  Blame this on magical healing or whatever you like, but there's too many old people by today's standards in the games, along with us never hearing reference to unusual age (i.e. hearing a 25 year old refered to as an old person) for DA to be using the average lifespans of the era.  For instance the average lifespan during the Roman Empire was 28.  That is clearly not the case in DA.

Second, you're making assumptions that you cannot prove.  We've seen 2 Annulments.  Most people would say that one of those just, the other unjust.  We know nothing at all of the other 17 Annulments (that codex was written before Kirkwall's and Ferelden's is usually called off).  Who are you to say those Annulments were justified?

Modifié par Rifneno, 20 avril 2011 - 06:11 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Wulfram wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Is there a reason you refuse to listen? If the Tempalrs could, they would spare all innocents. However, that is not possible. So they make the safe choice of killing everybody. It is a grim task, but it is a neccesary one.

You may think their justifications for their mass slaughter of innocents because they're mages is valid, but that doesn't change that they're engaging in the mass slaughter of innocents because they're mages - it just means that they're engaged in a justified mass slaughter of innocents. 

A virtuous genocide is still a genocide.

It's still not genocide. I don't know why people are so adamant at calling it something which it is not. It certainly is the mass killing of mages, but it still doesn't constitute genocide.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 20 avril 2011 - 06:14 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Rifneno wrote...

Benchmark wrote...

Haha your argument is biased.

If we use your lifespan of 80 yrs (really high for darkage existence)- I will agree that you have a 1-6 chance of experiencing an RoA.

That also means you have a 1-6 chance of being involved in a Circle that turns to blood magic and demonology. That is a pretty high incidence of failure for Circles in general. Circles filled with mages trained to resist demons and avoid blood magic fall to it 1-6 times...

Pretty compelling.

First of all, it's quite clear that DA is based upon people living a fairly modern average lifespan.  Blame this on magical healing or whatever you like, but there's too many old people by today's standards in the games, along with us never hearing reference to unusual age (i.e. hearing a 25 year old refered to as an old person) for DA to be using the average lifespans of the era.  For instance the average lifespan during the Roman Empire was 28.  That is clearly not the case in DA.

Second, you're making assumptions that you cannot prove.  We've seen 2 Annulments.  Most people would say that one of those just, the other unjust.  We know nothing at all of the other 17 Annulments (that codex was written before Kirkwall's and Ferelden's is usually called off).  Who are you to say those Annulments were justified?

Who are you to say they weren't? They were called, and they were authorized. That alone points in the direction of them being justified.

[Rifneno]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Who are you to say they weren't? They were called, and they were authorized. That alone points in the direction of them being justified.

Remember when I said "stop talking to me"?  I wasn't kidding.  I'm utterly sick of your thickheaded nonsense.  You have no interest in listening to any reason, and I have no interest in bothering with you.  Go away.  If I want to talk to Meredith, I'll do it in-game.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Who are you to say they weren't? They were called, and they were authorized. That alone points in the direction of them being justified.

If they were similar to Meredith invoking the Right of Annulment against the Circle of Kirkwall for something that an apostate did, I respectfully disagree.

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Who are you to say they weren't? They were called, and they were authorized. That alone points in the direction of them being justified.

If they were similar to Meredith invoking the Right of Annulment against the Circle of Kirkwall for something that an apostate did, I respectfully disagree.

I doubt there are many repeats of the Kirkwall incident in history. If there was a tendency for Grand Clerics to die just prior to an annulment, I'd guess we would have heard about it. Chances are, that most of the Annulments were called with good reason.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 20 avril 2011 - 06:22 .

[Lewie]

The Right of Annulment is issued when a circle is 'no longer under control'. Gregior said this himself. Mad Meredith or no, Orsino or no, idol or no that was still the case in Kirkwall.

[Benchmark]

Rifneno wrote...

Benchmark wrote...

Haha your argument is biased.

If we use your lifespan of 80 yrs (really high for darkage existence)- I will agree that you have a 1-6 chance of experiencing an RoA.

That also means you have a 1-6 chance of being involved in a Circle that turns to blood magic and demonology. That is a pretty high incidence of failure for Circles in general. Circles filled with mages trained to resist demons and avoid blood magic fall to it 1-6 times...

Pretty compelling.

First of all, it's quite clear that DA is based upon people living a fairly modern average lifespan.  Blame this on magical healing or whatever you like, but there's too many old people by today's standards in the games, along with us never hearing reference to unusual age (i.e. hearing a 25 year old refered to as an old person) for DA to be using the average lifespans of the era.  For instance the average lifespan during the Roman Empire was 28.  That is clearly not the case in DA.

Second, you're making assumptions that you cannot prove.  We've seen 2 Annulments.  Most people would say that one of those just, the other unjust.  We know nothing at all of the other 17 Annulments (that codex was written before Kirkwall's and Ferelden's is usually called off).  Who are you to say those Annulments were justified?

Your right. I make the assumption that the RoAs were called for based on the rules laid out for calling them. I am making an assumption. But you are countering with the idea that I should assume all of the RoAs were made for unjust reasons and not following the rules for calling them.

I personally feel that calling an RoA would be an extremely difficult event. One example I have seen put forward in these forums is that it would be like a sub commander launching a nuke. The rules laid out for launching a nuke, the checks and counter checks, make it very hard to launch one. Since no stir crazy sub commanders have been launching nukes, I assume most Knight Commanders wouldnt run around calling RoAs.

It is assumption. But I base my assumption on the average Templar commander being a relatively normal human being who has dedicated his life to military service. You base yours on the assumption that Templars are the seeds of evil.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If they were similar to Meredith invoking the Right of Annulment against the Circle of Kirkwall for something that an apostate did, I respectfully disagree.

I doubt there are many repeats of the Kirkwall incident in history. If there was a tendency for Grand Clerics to die just prior to an annulment, I'd guess we would have heard about it. Chances are, that most of the Annulments were called with good reason.

The problem is that's speculation. We have no idea how valid any of the prior Rights of Annulment were, so it's impossible to make a claim either way. Anything said would be speculative.

It's possible the reasoning for the prior Rights could be the same as the Right invoked against the Circle of Kirkwall. An apostate killed Grand Cleric Elthina, but his existance his handwaved by the Knight-Commander while she orders the execution of mages and apprentices.

We have no evidence that the Circle of Kirkwall was corrupt, particularly when Hawke never has a chance to actually meet the many mages of the Gallows, and the few who he does interact with are limited to a few lines of dialogue. The only basis we can make any assumptions are apostates who are already outside the Gallows, giving us no insight into what the mages and apprentices living in the Gallows are like. The two mages from the Circle of Kirkwall we do meet with some regularity are Orsino and Bethany, who are very different from each other.

[nos_astra]

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

It kind of applies to the situation of the mages in general, not the Rite of Annulment in particular. I believe, there are several stages of genocide defined and some of them fit the situation of the mages extremely well.

[EmperorSahlertz]

klarabella wrote...

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

It kind of applies to the situation of the mages in general, not the Rite of Annulment in particular. I believe, there are several stages of genocide defined and some of them fit the situation of the mages extremely well.

Indeed. The removal of mages from their homes, the removal of mage's offspring, and a bunch of other factors fit right into parts of the genocide definition. However, none of those things are done with the intent of destroying mages, which invalidates its candidacy for genocide.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 20 avril 2011 - 06:34 .

[ajm317]

Benchmark wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Benchmark wrote...

Haha your argument is biased.

If we use your lifespan of 80 yrs (really high for darkage existence)- I will agree that you have a 1-6 chance of experiencing an RoA.

That also means you have a 1-6 chance of being involved in a Circle that turns to blood magic and demonology. That is a pretty high incidence of failure for Circles in general. Circles filled with mages trained to resist demons and avoid blood magic fall to it 1-6 times...

Pretty compelling.

First of all, it's quite clear that DA is based upon people living a fairly modern average lifespan.  Blame this on magical healing or whatever you like, but there's too many old people by today's standards in the games, along with us never hearing reference to unusual age (i.e. hearing a 25 year old refered to as an old person) for DA to be using the average lifespans of the era.  For instance the average lifespan during the Roman Empire was 28.  That is clearly not the case in DA.

Second, you're making assumptions that you cannot prove.  We've seen 2 Annulments.  Most people would say that one of those just, the other unjust.  We know nothing at all of the other 17 Annulments (that codex was written before Kirkwall's and Ferelden's is usually called off).  Who are you to say those Annulments were justified?

Your right. I make the assumption that the RoAs were called for based on the rules laid out for calling them. I am making an assumption. But you are countering with the idea that I should assume all of the RoAs were made for unjust reasons and not following the rules for calling them.

I personally feel that calling an RoA would be an extremely difficult event. One example I have seen put forward in these forums is that it would be like a sub commander launching a nuke. The rules laid out for launching a nuke, the checks and counter checks, make it very hard to launch one. Since no stir crazy sub commanders have been launching nukes, I assume most Knight Commanders wouldnt run around calling RoAs.

It is assumption. But I base my assumption on the average Templar commander being a relatively normal human being who has dedicated his life to military service. You base yours on the assumption that Templars are the seeds of evil.

Templars don't necessarily have to be "seeds of evil" for the RoA to be misused.  History is full of examples of corruption by authority figures, particularly in autocratic regimes like Thedas and particularly in examples when extreme prejudice or racism are involved, again like in Thedas.  Furthermore human beings have a remarkable ability to rationalize things when their personal interests are at stake.  A Templar who felt he had something to gain by "wiping the slate clean" might be a bit more eager to see blood magic on the part of his circle than one who does not.  Given that Thedas doesn't exactly seem to have a whole lot in the way of due process and forensic technology, it's not to hard to see how this could be misused, intentionally or otherwise.

Again, we've only seen 2.  One was justifiable, one wasn't, and even the justifiable one was avoidable.  We have 2 data points to go on and the RoA is batting 0.500.  At least as the developers have chosen to present it to us so far it doesn't have a great track record.

Modifié par ajm317, 20 avril 2011 - 06:36 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

The annulment of the Kirkwall Circle was dubious perhaps. But it wasn't unjustified. A lot of people disaggrees with the reasons though.

[ajm317]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The annulment of the Kirkwall Circle was dubious perhaps. But it wasn't unjustified. A lot of people disaggrees with the reasons though.

I think it was clearly unjustified based on the information Meredith had at the time.  Meredith didn't know that Orsino was a blood mage.  In fact, the RoA had nothing to do with the circle at all.  She did it to provide "justice" to the mob for the apostate mage Anders.  The prescence of blood mages wasn't even used as a pretext.  It was clearly "Anders killed the Grand Cleric so now I'm going to kill every mage in Kirkwall."  I don't think that's in the Chantries hand book and if it is, they need to burn that book.

Modifié par ajm317, 20 avril 2011 - 06:41 .

[Benchmark]

ajm317 wrote...

Benchmark wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Benchmark wrote...

Haha your argument is biased.

If we use your lifespan of 80 yrs (really high for darkage existence)- I will agree that you have a 1-6 chance of experiencing an RoA.

That also means you have a 1-6 chance of being involved in a Circle that turns to blood magic and demonology. That is a pretty high incidence of failure for Circles in general. Circles filled with mages trained to resist demons and avoid blood magic fall to it 1-6 times...

Pretty compelling.

First of all, it's quite clear that DA is based upon people living a fairly modern average lifespan.  Blame this on magical healing or whatever you like, but there's too many old people by today's standards in the games, along with us never hearing reference to unusual age (i.e. hearing a 25 year old refered to as an old person) for DA to be using the average lifespans of the era.  For instance the average lifespan during the Roman Empire was 28.  That is clearly not the case in DA.

Second, you're making assumptions that you cannot prove.  We've seen 2 Annulments.  Most people would say that one of those just, the other unjust.  We know nothing at all of the other 17 Annulments (that codex was written before Kirkwall's and Ferelden's is usually called off).  Who are you to say those Annulments were justified?

Your right. I make the assumption that the RoAs were called for based on the rules laid out for calling them. I am making an assumption. But you are countering with the idea that I should assume all of the RoAs were made for unjust reasons and not following the rules for calling them.

I personally feel that calling an RoA would be an extremely difficult event. One example I have seen put forward in these forums is that it would be like a sub commander launching a nuke. The rules laid out for launching a nuke, the checks and counter checks, make it very hard to launch one. Since no stir crazy sub commanders have been launching nukes, I assume most Knight Commanders wouldnt run around calling RoAs.

It is assumption. But I base my assumption on the average Templar commander being a relatively normal human being who has dedicated his life to military service. You base yours on the assumption that Templars are the seeds of evil.

Templars don't necessarily have to be "seeds of evil" for the RoA to be misused.  History is full of examples of corruption by authority figures, particularly in autocratic regimes like Thedas and particularly in examples when extreme prejudice or racism are involved, again like in Thedas.  Furthermore human beings have a remarkable ability to rationalize things when their personal interests are at stake.  A Templar who felt he had something to gain by "wiping the slate clean" might be a bit more eager to see blood magic on the part of his circle than one who does not.  Given that Thedas doesn't exactly seem to have a whole lot in the way of due process and forensic technology, it's not to hard to see how this could be misused, intentionally or otherwise.

Again, we've only seen 2.  One was justifiable, one wasn't, and even the justifiable one was avoidable.  We have 2 data points to go on and the RoA is batting 0.500.  At least as the developers have chosen to present it to us so far it doesn't have a great track record.

I agree. That is why there are so many checks to the RoA system. Meredith got a free way around those checks when she became the only authority in Kirkwall. Emergency powers etc.

I doubt many other Circles would have similarly ridiculous chains of events. Or maybe they would, just depends on who gets around to writing about it I guess.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The annulment of the Kirkwall Circle was dubious perhaps. But it wasn't unjustified. A lot of people disaggrees with the reasons though.

We lack any evidence and information about the mages and apprentices living in the Gallows to make any determination about whether it was justified or not. Speculation about what the mages were like doesn't make our assumptions factual.

[ULTIMATEAGENERALSHEPARD]

this totally off topic but got to know how do you get the last five achievements in dragon age origins they all involve the DLC all of them i need this to complete all of my achievements in dragon age origins

[LobselVith8]

ULTIMATEAGENERALSHEPARD wrote...

this totally off topic but got to know how do you get the last five achievements in dragon age origins they all involve the DLC all of them i need this to complete all of my achievements in dragon age origins

You need to complete Sebastian's first quest, gain full friendship or rivalry with him, give him a family heirloom you find in his Act II quest, and complete his act II and III quests.