1207 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

Agamo45 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

That might almost make sense of the Chantry was an "evil empire" but it isn't. It isn't even directly in control of any nation, aside from maaaybe Kirkwall. So why isn't OK to say that "holding mages in the Circle is unfortunate but life isn't fair and it's the only way to stop more people from dying"?

Because common sense dictates that their system doesn't work?  Most of the abominations we see are because of the Chantry's heavy-handed rules.

And considering the Divine was about to crush Kirkwall for "falling to magic" after her own templars abused the mages into minor rebellions, I'd say "evil empire" fits just fine.

We've seen what happens when mages are allowed to rule themselves. You get a magocracy like Tevinter, in which the magisters use their power to crush everyone else under their heels. The magisers need for more bodies and more power fuels the slave trade. I'd say that fits the "evil empire" far better than the Chantry. What the Chantry does is in the best interests of the vast majority of the population.

Logical fallacy.  We've seen ONE empire that is governed as a magocracy.  It does NOT follow that any and every other society that allowed its mages to be free would inevitably turn into another Tevinter.  Even more so since nearly all of us on the pro-mage side do not take allowing mages to live freely to mean not having any oversights to deal with rogues.  

[Silfren]

Agamo45 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Agamo45 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

That might almost make sense of the Chantry was an "evil empire" but it isn't. It isn't even directly in control of any nation, aside from maaaybe Kirkwall. So why isn't OK to say that "holding mages in the Circle is unfortunate but life isn't fair and it's the only way to stop more people from dying"?

Because common sense dictates that their system doesn't work?  Most of the abominations we see are because of the Chantry's heavy-handed rules.

And considering the Divine was about to crush Kirkwall for "falling to magic" after her own templars abused the mages into minor rebellions, I'd say "evil empire" fits just fine.

We've seen what happens when mages are allowed to rule themselves. You get a magocracy like Tevinter, in which the magisters use their power to crush everyone else under their heels. The magisers need for more bodies and more power fuels the slave trade. I'd say that fits the "evil empire" far better than the Chantry. What the Chantry does is in the best interests of the vast majority of the population.

And by that perversion of logic, we should lock up all the Germans or else they'll take over and try to kill all the jews.

Seriously, how do real people believe this stuff?  I get how people in a primitive society with little to no education system can get suckered in by it, but real people in the real world who know real history should know better than this.

I know my history, which is why I know that not everyone has good intentions. There is evil out there, and it flourishes when naive fools like liberals allow it to. Going back to this fictional universe, power corrupts as they say, and mages have far more power at their fingertips than any normal person could dream of.

Nice.  That kind of sh*t has no place in the Bioware forums, this diehard liberal would appreciate you not going there.

[GavrielKay]

Addai67 wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...
You can't stand up to be counted among a group of people who do such things and say, well, I didn't personally do it so it's ok.

Where does that sort of thinking end?  If all Andrastians are responsible for every act of every templar, then what about the dwarves living among them, who aren't members of that religion but also benefit?  Societies aren't closed systems- everyone is inter-connected to everyone else.  Assigning blame to every Chantry representative for the actions of a few just sounds like prejudice.

And locking up all mages because some of them might some day give in to temptation is definetly prejudice.

Anyway, to elaborate on my thought...  the level of guilt decreases with decreasing authority and responsibility.  So the lowly Chantry sister who is handing out food to the poor in a backwater village is basically blameless - but should not deny or hide any abuses that she knows about. 

The Grand Cleric in a city as obviously messed up as Kirkwall, the very person who promoted Meredith to Knight Commander and stood by while things went from bad to worse, who shrugs and basically tells you that if the Maker wants to step in and fix it he's welcome to do so - that person is buried up to her neck in guilt.  And I doubt the sisters and mothers surrounding Elthina are entirely oblivious to what's happening around them. Everyone knew that Meredith was blocking the appointment of a proper Viscount.  It appears to be public knowledge that Kirkwall has rather more Tranquil around than is easily explainable.  Anyone who chose to ignore the situation in favor of maintaining the Chantry's reputation as a thoroughly good and necessary institution regardless of how badly it was failing has some guilt to carry around.

[Silfren]

Sister Helen wrote...

The most powerful moment in the game was the cutscene where the templars are storming the semi-barricaded mage area. 

On the first playthrough, I was pro-mage (Freedom from Tyranny! Freedom from Oppression!), and it was horrible, seeing those anonymous figures in metal plate, armed with swords, cutting down scared people, of all ages, in robes. It was a nightmare.

On the second playthrough, I was pro-templar (Protect the Cursed from Themselves and Others! Protect Others from the Cursed!), and the SAME scene was still terrible.  Those were my troops, scared kids really, only clad in metal and faith, going against monsters throwing fireballs from their fingertips, and being cut down.

In this game, both sides are righteous; and both sides have committed atrocities. It is attractive to judge from a distance of two removes, to know the outcome of the events and to condemn an individual (Elthina) for inaction or failing to favor one side over the other.  But the flaw in it is that such a judgment is too simplistic.

The final battle isn't righteous on both sides, whatever can be said for the rest of the game.  The Right of Annulment is called for unjust reasons, to slaughter innocent mages for a crime they did not commit.  And you don't actually see mages of all ages being cut down.  All the mages you see are adults, or at least no younger than late teens, and one key detail of Annulment--how's that for a euphemism, too, by the way--is that it includes young apprentices as well as full mages.  Meaning small children are among that number.  I'm glad, on the one had, that we don't see any small children being cut down, because I don't think I could stand to play the game after that, but it's certainly a valid criticism that no one who chooses to side with the templars has to face the full implications of that choice.  There may be justifiable reasons from Hawke's perspective to go with the Annulment that have nothing to do with the innocents of the mages, but it still cheapens the whole experience that Bioware didn't include visuals of small children being "annulled."

I really have no problem with the reasons people come up with why Hawke can decide that Annulment is the only decision she can make, even if it's not exactly a just one.  But pretending that both sides are portrayed equally is just not true.

[Silfren]

vehzeel wrote...

Anders should have placed that magic explosion in the templar hall instead. The grand cleric didn't actively side with anyone, but wanted to protect mages, templars and common folk alike. My opinion is that she was one of few voices of reason in Kirkwall. She realized that oppressing mages could bite the Chantry/templars in the a**, just like she was aware of the dangers of unrestricted wizardry. Her biggest fault was that she didn't share her viewpoints and wisdom with neither the mages nor the templars.

And yet Elthina did nothing whatsoever to put a stop to the abuses Meredith and Co. were enacting against the mages.  She may have WANTED to protect the mages along with the rest of Kirkwall, but she wasn't actually doing squat to prove that's what she wanted.  

Between mages and templars, the templars had all the power, and the mages none.  So by refusing to take any action at all, Elthina was effectively siding with the templars.  I don't see why people can't understand this.  And the mages can't be expected to tell the difference either, when the outcome of not doing anything to rein in the templars is identical to the outcome of siding with them. 

And, once again, Elthina did NOT have to be an advocate for greater mage freedom in order to put a stop to their abuse.  Requiring the templars and Meredith to abide by Chantry law would have maintained the status quo just fine, including the heavy restrictions on mages.

Elthina apparently did NOT know that oppressing the mages could bite the Chantry in the ass.  After all, look what happened when she made no move whatsoever to deal with their oppression.  

[Silfren]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

Not really. That just means that the Divine is able to summon soliders for one cause or other. That's powerful certainly, but still a far cry from an "evil empire" with "a thousand years of oppression." The Chantry isn't an evil empire any more than all of Christendom was in the Middle Ages.

Well, aside from that pesky Inquisition, or the Crusades, or any number of atrocities committed by Christianity for the glory of Christ, or more specifically the Roman Catholic Church.  There's a mountain of evidence pointing to the evils committed by that institution.  Far more evidence of its evil than of any good its done.  And its what the Chantry was modeled after, so there you go. 

The upshot being, essentially, that whether the Chantry is an evil empire is a matter of opinion, not fact, and some of us consider it to be one of the most evil institutions in existence.

[Addai]

GavrielKay wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...
You can't stand up to be counted among a group of people who do such things and say, well, I didn't personally do it so it's ok.

Where does that sort of thinking end?  If all Andrastians are responsible for every act of every templar, then what about the dwarves living among them, who aren't members of that religion but also benefit?  Societies aren't closed systems- everyone is inter-connected to everyone else.  Assigning blame to every Chantry representative for the actions of a few just sounds like prejudice.

And locking up all mages because some of them might some day give in to temptation is definetly prejudice.

Not really equivalent.  All mages do possess an inherently dangerous power.  Not all Chantry representatives, let alone all Andrastians, commit crimes.

It appears to be public knowledge that Kirkwall has rather more Tranquil around than is easily explainable.  Anyone who chose to ignore the situation in favor of maintaining the Chantry's reputation as a thoroughly good and necessary institution regardless of how badly it was failing has some guilt to carry around.

It's also apparent that mages are crazier in Kirkwall than the average.  By this reasoning, annullment really is just.

[Addai]

I repeat the request of others that RL politics be left out of the discussion- and the same for RL religious groups.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

I repeat the request of others that RL politics be left out of the discussion- and the same for RL religious groups.

Especially when people have no problem criticizing one RL group / idea / whatever, but take issue when an opposing view is posted.

[Silfren]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...
You can't stand up to be counted among a group of people who do such things and say, well, I didn't personally do it so it's ok.

Why? You don't have control over what other poeple do. Especially if that group is enormoulsy broad. You could group corrupt individuals with any number of huge groups of people they also have something in common wit, other than their relgious institution.

It's one thing if you are completely unaware of the atrocities being carried out by the religious institution you belong to.  It's quite another if you are, but just look the other way.  It's not enough that you're not actively participating in its crimes.  If you're not speaking out against the crimes, or making excuses for them, and trying to go about life while steadfastly ignoring what's being done by your church in your deity's name...well.  If you don't agree with those crimes, you have a responsbility to make that clear.  Sticking your head in the sand amounts to condoning the institution's crimes; whether you actually do or not is immaterial because by your silence you are sending the message that you agree.  In real world terms, I have stopped associating with certain former friends who refuse to criticize the Catholic church, much less cease to be affiliated with it, because as far as I'm concerned they are tacitly condoning child abuse and rape. 

If the average layperson does not agree with or condone the practices of its religious institution, I don't expect them to rise up and take arms against it.  I do, however, expect them to be openly critical of it, or to stop attending services, etc.  It would be a different matter if the religious body in question was actively and brutally punishing its congregants for dissent.  But aside from what happens to the mages, there's nothing in the game to indicate that the common folk live under conditions in which they would be harshly dealt with for being openly critical.  

[Silfren]

Addai67 wrote...

I repeat the request of others that RL politics be left out of the discussion- and the same for RL religious groups.

I agree with avoiding full-out discussions of real world politics and religious issues, but I hope we're not expected to go out of our way to avoid any mentions whatsoever, given that some of the parallels are obvious enough that it would be difficult not to.

[Addai]

Silfren wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

I repeat the request of others that RL politics be left out of the discussion- and the same for RL religious groups.

I agree with avoiding full-out discussions of real world politics and religious issues, but I hope we're not expected to go out of our way to avoid any mentions whatsoever, given that some of the parallels are obvious enough that it would be difficult not to.

I think it's pretty apparent when the line is crossed from neutral reference to partisan and derogatory.

[Master Shiori]

Silfren wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

I repeat the request of others that RL politics be left out of the discussion- and the same for RL religious groups.

I agree with avoiding full-out discussions of real world politics and religious issues, but I hope we're not expected to go out of our way to avoid any mentions whatsoever, given that some of the parallels are obvious enough that it would be difficult not to.

It would be appreaciated if you didn't though, regardless of how similar they seem to you.

There is plenty of material in the game itself to debate over without drawing paralels with RL society/politics/religion.

[sonsonthebia07]

Well I can't say I was exactly happy that he nuked a building with a lot of essentially innocent people residing in it. And the grand cleric herself - I don't envy her position, and I think she was doing the best she could by trying to remain passively neutral. I think she knew how it would end up. I don't think Anders was entirely correct in the assumption that she was a "doddering old biddy".

But he is right, in one thing. Big changes aren't generally made without drastic action. It was certainly one way to rile people up to fight.

[Silfren]

Addai67 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

I repeat the request of others that RL politics be left out of the discussion- and the same for RL religious groups.

I agree with avoiding full-out discussions of real world politics and religious issues, but I hope we're not expected to go out of our way to avoid any mentions whatsoever, given that some of the parallels are obvious enough that it would be difficult not to.

I think it's pretty apparent when the line is crossed from neutral reference to partisan and derogatory.

I would agree with you, but I've been jumped once already by a third party who interjected into a discussion I was having with someone else, over my answering a question as to what my personal religion is.  So I'm a little wary now.  But ah well, I'm fine with your request as long as no one plans to go ape**** over the occasional reference or parallel mention.

[GavrielKay]

Addai67 wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...
And locking up all mages because some of them might some day give in to temptation is definetly prejudice.

Not really equivalent.  All mages do possess an inherently dangerous power.  Not all Chantry representatives, let alone all Andrastians, commit crimes.

All people possess an inherently dangerous power.  Everyone has the ability to kill, or to persuade someone else to kill, or to preach a thousand years of hatred against a group of people for being born different.  Only the mages end up imprisoned for life though.

Danger is everywhere.  Life isn't safe.  There is no guarantee of safety no matter how many mages' lives are ruined.  So why ruin the mages lives?

It's also apparent that mages are crazier in Kirkwall than the average.  By this reasoning, annullment really is just.

Or, killing everyone who was involved in torturing/raping/Tranquiling the mages and causing the mages to go crazy is just.

Edit:  Fix quotes

Modifié par GavrielKay, 25 mai 2011 - 09:03 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

GavrielKay wrote...
Danger is everywhere.  Life isn't safe.  There is no guarantee of safety no matter how many mages' lives are ruined.  So why ruin the mages lives?

The premise however is that it would lessen danger.
Because danger has scales.

[GavrielKay]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...
Danger is everywhere.  Life isn't safe.  There is no guarantee of safety no matter how many mages' lives are ruined.  So why ruin the mages lives?

The premise however is that it would lessen danger.
Because danger has scales.

Sure. But curfews and travel restrictions and mandatory self defense training might lessen the danger too.  But we don't seem to be forcing that on anyone.

[Addai]

GavrielKay wrote...
All people possess an inherently dangerous power.  Everyone has the ability to kill, or to persuade someone else to kill, or to preach a thousand years of hatred against a group of people for being born different.  Only the mages end up imprisoned for life though.

Non-mages can't kill masses of people with their minds, or control thought.  The degree we're talking about is different, hence different standards.

Or, killing everyone who was involved in torturing/raping/Tranquiling the mages and causing the mages to go crazy is just.

Indeed, which is why the rationale you're using is flawed.  Best to talk about direct personal responsibility, not something more diffuse and second-hand- all Chantry priests being complicit for the acts of a few, etc.  Although, what you're talking about here is retribution and that's another thing entirely.  Annulment is intended to be a preventative, to save other innocent lives.

BTW I tend to agree with you that the Circle system is broken and actually makes the problem worse.  The question is how you go about changing it.  Let's just say that in my view, Anders' approach isn't it.

Modifié par Addai67, 25 mai 2011 - 09:24 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

GavrielKay wrote...
Sure. But curfews and travel restrictions and mandatory self defense training might lessen the danger too.  But we don't seem to be forcing that on anyone.

Because we don't have mages, who are more dangerous than any average person. Even when children, they can cause unparralelled destruction without knowing what they are doing. 

So for me it's clear, mages need to be strictly regulated and yes, at the expense of a lot of personal freedoms.
But I do not think the Chantry is an efficient institution to handle it, at least it no longer is.

[Master Shiori]

GavrielKay wrote...

All people possess an inherently dangerous power.  Everyone has the ability to kill, or to persuade someone else to kill, or to preach a thousand years of hatred against a group of people for being born different.  Only the mages end up imprisoned for life though.

Danger is everywhere.  Life isn't safe.  There is no guarantee of safety no matter how many mages' lives are ruined.  So why ruin the mages lives?

Not really. Every person in Thedas can learn how to use a weapon and go on a killing/pillaging/raping spree, yes. But a mage has more power under his/her command than a normal person does and thus can cause far more damage and is a lot harder to stop.
In fact, a mage doesn't even need to have a desire to hurt anyone. But they attract demons and are constantly at risk of possession. 

And it's not about guaranteeing anyone's safety. It's about creating and maintaining a controlled enviroment where any act of possession can be countered without endangering innocents and, thus, lessening the danger such individuals could potentialy pose to common people.

Comparing mages to groups in real life doesn't work because people with such powers don't exist outside fantay or science fiction. The ideal of freedom in real life is based on the fact that all man and woman are equal, as in normal human beings. This isn't the case in Thedas and, because of that, such RL ideals need to be modified to reflect the situation presented in a fictional world.

[Silfren]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...
Danger is everywhere.  Life isn't safe.  There is no guarantee of safety no matter how many mages' lives are ruined.  So why ruin the mages lives?

The premise however is that it would lessen danger.
Because danger has scales.

The answer to this is that it doesn't matter how restrictive you are toward mages, it will not eliminate the danger in its entirety, and there is considerable evidence that the injustice of the Circle system actually creates as much, if not more, of the danger it claims to prevent.  Honestly, it shouldn't be surprising to any reasonable person that mages would resort to blood magic and making deals with Fade creatures when they constantly have their noses rubbed in the realization that they'll be treated with suspicion and contempt no matter how much they toe the line. 

The real world answer is that nobody is entitled to the kind of absolutely risk-free existence that comes only from restricting the rights of an entire group of people not for what they've done but for how they were born.  In the real world, justice demands that we wait until a crime has been committed before locking a person away, and we make the punishment fit the crime, in that we don't provide the same level of punishment for theft as we do for murder.  (Referring of course to sane justice systems and not insane mockeries of such).  Yes, it's true that mages don't have any kind of real world equivalent, in that they do carry a certain danger by virtue of existence.  But a more humane system is called for; requiring that mages be trained, and having secular forces set up to hunt any that go rogue, but otherwise allowing mages to live normal lives, all while not constantly preaching that mages are cursed by the Maker and abominations waiting to happen...all that would go a long way toward making the average joe blow mage a lot less dangerous to the people around him than locking him away and treating him like a bomb waiting to go off.

[Silfren]

Addai67 wrote...

Indeed, which is why the rationale you're using is flawed.  Best to talk about direct personal responsibility, not something more diffuse and second-hand- all Chantry priests being complicit for the acts of a few, etc.  Although, what you're talking about here is retribution and that's another thing entirely.  Annulment is intended to be a preventative, to save other innocent lives.

Oddly enough, the Annulment Meredith was invoking was most assuredly retributive, and not preventative at all.

[Ryzaki]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...
Sure. But curfews and travel restrictions and mandatory self defense training might lessen the danger too.  But we don't seem to be forcing that on anyone.

Because we don't have mages, who are more dangerous than any average person. Even when children, they can cause unparralelled destruction without knowing what they are doing. 

So for me it's clear, mages need to be strictly regulated and yes, at the expense of a lot of personal freedoms.
But I do not think the Chantry is an efficient institution to handle it, at least it no longer is.

This. 

The Chantry utterly fails at it but it doesn't mean their heart is in the wrong place. 

[Silfren]

GavrielKay wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...
Danger is everywhere.  Life isn't safe.  There is no guarantee of safety no matter how many mages' lives are ruined.  So why ruin the mages lives?

The premise however is that it would lessen danger.
Because danger has scales.

Sure. But curfews and travel restrictions and mandatory self defense training might lessen the danger too.  But we don't seem to be forcing that on anyone.

You know, just last night I came across that codex referring to the abomination that killed 70 people.  You know the one, the codex a lot of folks like to use to highlight the exceptional danger that mages face.

I find it extremely telling that said abomination killed 70 people over the course of a year.  A year.  What is so exceptional about that?  If unfettered abominations are so extraordinarily dangerous compared to non-mages, I'd have expected a far larger death toll over that period of time.  But 70 people in a year's time doesn't exactly conjure horrific images of world-shattering danger.