1207 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

The problem is that everyone who says "I'm in favor of stopping it, but not this way" has failed to provide a decent way of stopping it... well, except for KoP, who provided a plan that it would take a Xanatos or Vetinari-level mind to pull off... something that is in short supply in Thedas and shorter supply in Kirkwall.

I said this before, and I'll say it again: if you side with the Templars, there is no reason for the status quo to change. There is no indication that you will or can do anything to break the cycle. With the mages, there's no telling how this will turn out, I will admit. I just feel that the Status Quo is inherently more dangerous than the vast majority of possible results of a single circle of mages going free and a widespread mage revolution being stirred up.

If Kirkwall got wiped off the map, who would notice outside the Free Marches?  I don't see why what happens to one Circle should make any difference.  If it does spark a world war, I'm dubious.  We'll have to see how they develop the story further, but I have a hard time believing that.

[dragonflight288]

If Kirkwall got wiped off the map, who would notice outside the Free Marches? I don't see why what happens to one Circle should make any difference. If it does spark a world war, I'm dubious. We'll have to see how they develop the story further, but I have a hard time believing that.

Well, the Divine and the King of Ferelden were BOTH watching the events in Kirkwall very closely, so it is likely that other monarchs were doing so as well. Kirkwall was setting some dangerous precedents, a Knight-Commander being the acting Viscount, a potential free apostate serving as the city's protector, the very thin veil, the list is quite long.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

It isn't. That's the fundamental difference between realists and idealists. Realist look at the world and how it is and adapt. Idealist look at the world and how it ought to be.

If Thedas is moving beyond the medieval mentality like I think it is, then this is the reality that must be delt with.

So you also subscribe to the idea that what Anders did is destiny?

As for Kirkwall, I'm not going to discuss it any more.  The story setup makes no sense so there's no sense in talking about it.

[ElvaliaRavenHart]

dragonflight288 wrote...

If Kirkwall got wiped off the map, who would notice outside the Free Marches? I don't see why what happens to one Circle should make any difference. If it does spark a world war, I'm dubious. We'll have to see how they develop the story further, but I have a hard time believing that.

Well, the Divine and the King of Ferelden were BOTH watching the events in Kirkwall very closely, so it is likely that other monarchs were doing so as well. Kirkwall was setting some dangerous precedents, a Knight-Commander being the acting Viscount, a potential free apostate serving as the city's protector, the very thin veil, the list is quite long.

The same could be said for Ferelden when placing Alistair on the throne as a Grey Warden and also a Warden who becomes an Arl/Arlessa who might be a mage if playing a mage warden.  Therefore a Mage Warden and Mage Hawke have something in common besides Anders, The Chantry, and rogue templars.  Which points to Kirkwall and Ferelden having something in common.

Modifié par ElvaliaRavenHart, 04 juin 2011 - 03:08 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
So you also subscribe to the idea that what Anders did is destiny?

When did I mention destiny?

If you mean medieval style governments evolving into more "mordern" systems being inevitable, this is not an issue about destiny. It's rather a trend that includes economic, political, social and technological development contributing to it. No system lasted forever and their collapse was inevitable and they were followed by others. But I am not arguing that it's due to some external factor of "destiny".  It's rather due to more material and concrete factors.

A lot of things I am seeing in Thedas, while limited, seem to be hinting at such a trend. With Celene patronizing intellectuals despite the Chantry being unhappy about it. Ferelden's rising middle class and sense of proto-nationalism (and its policies vis a vis mages, at least with Alistair, though I don't see why Anora wouldnt' try something similar). Orlais' decline and the rise of Nevarra. Kirkwall trying to impose its sovereignity and the Chantry ultimately failing to control it due to losing its legitimacy.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

@CGG: I do not agree with your premise that abuse 'creates' blood mages. Is Anders a blood mage? No. Was he abused? Most definitely.

Deals with demons create blood mages. And even though the Templers seemed to be particularly cruel to their charges in Kirwall, I would say it was the thin veil, the thing that keeps the demons from interacting with mages, that led to the rampant blood mage problem in Kirkwall.

If demons can more easily reach mages, they are able to exert a more powerful pull, it is only natural that more mages will take the deal, right?

Also,

"You seem to be arguing that any time there is a SIGNIFICANT blood mage presence in a circle, every mage in that circle should be murdered whether or not they are a blood mage."

This is certainly the Qunari view on mages. Blood mages can exert a powerful corruptive force on their fellows. Remember Uldred? Remember what he did to the other mages? He was turning them into abominations left and right. Literally.

'Significant,' is the key word here. In the case of Uldred, there was indeed a right of annulment coming for the circle. And the corruption stemmed from ONE SINGLE BLOODMAGE. It takes just one blood mage, a powerful one though, to spoil the whole pot. The chantry indeed seems to preach exaclty what you seem to balk at. If a circle is 'significantly currupted' it must burn.

Now wether Kirwall's curruption was significant enough is open to interpretation.

By that rationale, we should have murdered Wynne in origins. She was in the circle during a blood mage outbreak, so murder her. Honestly, the Warden should have been murdered too, because she had been in the Ferelden circle not too long ago, and might also have been corrupted. And that leaves only Morrigan, an apostate - also should be put to death, or at least turned over to the Templars until she submits to the circle. Good luck finishing Origins without any casters. Hopefully everyone here who sides with the templars never keeps a mage in their party in any of the games, or plays a mage, otherwise that would simply be hypocritical.

And I'm not saying abuse alone creates blood mages. I am saying that driving someone insane or making them desperate makes them more likely to make a deal with a demon. Also, some people in this thread argue that Anders did make a deal with a demon, and is an abomination. This is a prevailing opinion in this thread actually, so you can't use him as an example of a mage who was tortured and didn't submit to demons... most of the people who are against him in this thread feel that he did submit to demons and that he is a prime example of why mages are dangerous no matter what.

Yes, you have to make a deal with a demon to become a blood mage, just like you have to kill someone to become a murderer. But if you're tortured and twisted to the point that you become a psychopath, the person who tortured you caused you to become one, even if you are the person who eventually sticks that knife into a stranger. Torture creates blood mages in the same way that abject poverty creates thieves - people will do things when they are desperate that they will not do when they have options. Does the blood mage decide to deal with the demon? Yes, in the same way that a starving man may decide to break into a market and steal a loaf of bread. His own free will plays some part in his decision, but without hunger he would be less likely to do it.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 04 juin 2011 - 03:27 .

[Rifneno]

[quote]Ryzaki wrote...

If we're gonna use the comparison that loosely I'm pretty sure there's plenty of reasonable historical figures Meredith can be compared to.[/quote]

Joseph Stalin. Vlad Trepes. Elizabeth Bathory. Take your pick, there's plenty of bloodthirsty demons IRL.

Actually, maybe Bathory would be a better analogy for Ser Alrik. Total sadist that got off on wanton torture and molestation of young girls, that's got Alrik written all over it. For references sake, she was the inspiration for the Countress in the Blackmarsh. I was going to say Caligula, but there's more to his memory than just being a pervert.

[quote]Like you're ignoring the definition of terrorist? 'kay. [/quote]

There is no "the" definition, that's the problem. There's over a hundred documented definitions. Some Anders fits, some he doesn't. A few of the loosest ones, most of us fit because they're worded loosely enough to include harmless April Fool's Day or Halloween pranks.

Genocide, on the other hand, hasn't been used as a political tool quite so much. It has a legal definition in international law. The only defenses I've seen for why the RoA doesn't qualify is "the institution defining the word doesn't exist in Thedas," an argument that could apply to [i]any[i]word, and "magic isn't an ethnic trait," which the fact it's openly acknowledge in-game that magical ability runs in families obviously contradicts. But frankly, I don't care really. Call it what you will, I don't feel like squabbling over word games. And no, these last two paragraphs aren't squabbling over it, I'm simply clarifying the issue once. If you want to say Anders was terrorism and Meredith wasn't genocide because one was done at 7:15 and the other at 9:27 or something, feel free.

[quote]Addai67 wrote...

The Chantry and civil governments check each other's power, and this is a good thing.[/quote]

Were it true. The Chantry openly defying Ferelden's edict on the Circles indictes otherwise. And as that's the only government decision we've seen that was against the Chantry's wishes, it can hardly be said the Chantry is kept in check even if you do think Alistair/Anora's ruling was unreasonable.

[quote]Addai67 wrote...

He's sentimental and naive by thinking that fusing himself to a Fade spirit is anything but a really bad idea.  When it comes to his big plan to free mages, it consists of blow up the Chantry- ?? - profit!  He's waxing on about "someday our children will be free" when he has no clue, and doesn't seem to care, how to pick up the pieces of the sh*tstorm he created.  He's content to let Hawke figure that out.[/quote]

Act III is virtually declaring open war against common sense and nearly every character is complicit. I'm not saying that gives him a free pass, but it should be taken into account that a great deal of stuff was happening merely because the writers were forcing a specific end.

[quote]Bethany is the only mage in the game with an ounce of sense, and that's not saying much.[/quote]

She's also raised an apostate. When the only mage in the game that stays pure is an apostate, it doesn't do much for the Circle's PR.

[quote]Phoenix_Loftian wrote...

Holy Maker! What in the hell have I created!? I'm amazed and flattered that this topic is STILL going on...[/quote]

The templar-mage debate is like Flemeth, a powerful force no mortal could hope to stop that occasionally has to switch bodies.

[quote]Ryzaki wrote...

...I wonder if the state would charge citizens to house their mage children.

They have to get that money from somewhere. Probably taxes. [/quote]

I imagine it would pay for itself many times over. Obviously there's healing, but even the destructive magic has many purely helpful applications. Did you know dynamite was invented by Alfred Nobel (yes, of the "Nobel Peace Prize") not for war but for clearing rubble in mining? A good force mage would be worth his or her weight in gold.

I'm sure I'll get flak for this, but I could even see positive uses for blood magic. Imagine if when a child goes missing, the parents need only have to ask the guard to send for the official tracker and get that vial they keep with the important papers in the basement.

[quote]Ryzaki wrote...

Except everyone in the circle *wasn't* innocent. They were innocent of Anders' crime. Not of being bloodmages. The RoA should've been called much earlier but Elthina was in the way. Anders only gave Meredith a convient excuse.[/quote]

Sweet Jesus. <deep breath> Okay, here's an idea. When you're about to post a defense for the templars, ask yourself "Could this defense be used to excuse Hitler of the holocaust?" If the answer is "yes," you should probably keep it to yourself.

[quote]Wulfram wrote...

Religious doctrine has very little role in the position of mages.  It bans blood magic, and limits their political power.  But they are not hated and oppressed because of the Chantry.[/quote]

WHAT.  

[quote]Ryzaki wrote...

Oh so I suppose Orsino, Grace and Alain aren't circle mages? 

I condemned them to death because there was bloodmages *everywhere* in the circle and out.[/quote]

I always find it cute how that logic works for the mages, but people get bent out of shape when one of us pro-mage types jokingly uses the same logic to say that the Chantry needs to be completely wiped out.

[quote]GavrielKay wrote...

I hate the Qun as well. Anything that survives mostly by brainwashing people from birth doesn't sit well with me. If you couldn't possibly come up with the notion by doing some real critical thinking, then I probably don't agree with it. That's just me of course
[/quote]

Rifneno approves. (+50)

[quote]Wulfram wrote...

I've seen no clear evidence that the Chantry does preach that magic is a curse.[/quote]



[quote]CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Ugh linequoting, how I hate linequoting. The bane of discourse. I understand it on a fundamental level, and I engage in it from time to time, but oh the frustration of seeing page after page of linequoting in a formerly rich wall-of-text discussion.[/quote]

Oh, I know right? I hate that crap.

...

What?

[quote]Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

Blood magic comes from demons. Period. This is the source.[/quote]

There's lots of evidence it can be taught. The only evidence we have that it can ONLY be granted by demons is Anders ranting about Merrill once. And he later contradicts that by asking her if she only learned it by accident and not by a deal with a demon.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Blood magic is said to have originated from demons. It does not mean you always have to have a demon to learn it.

Even Anders asks Merrill in a banter if she simply cut her finger one day, by accident, and realised the power there. Merrill confirmed in the same banter she was taught by a demon.

[Ryzaki]

That logic works for mages because as one can *clearly* see from DAO it only takes a few rotten apples to turn the entire circle into a complete mess.

When we see the Chantry do that then we can compare the two.

I'm still waiting for the definitionof terrorist that Anders doesn't fit.  

Modifié par Ryzaki, 04 juin 2011 - 03:58 .

[Shimmer_Gloom]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

@CGG: I do not agree with your premise that abuse 'creates' blood mages. Is Anders a blood mage? No. Was he abused? Most definitely.

Deals with demons create blood mages. And even though the Templers seemed to be particularly cruel to their charges in Kirwall, I would say it was the thin veil, the thing that keeps the demons from interacting with mages, that led to the rampant blood mage problem in Kirkwall.

If demons can more easily reach mages, they are able to exert a more powerful pull, it is only natural that more mages will take the deal, right?

Also,

"You seem to be arguing that any time there is a SIGNIFICANT blood mage presence in a circle, every mage in that circle should be murdered whether or not they are a blood mage."

This is certainly the Qunari view on mages. Blood mages can exert a powerful corruptive force on their fellows. Remember Uldred? Remember what he did to the other mages? He was turning them into abominations left and right. Literally.

'Significant,' is the key word here. In the case of Uldred, there was indeed a right of annulment coming for the circle. And the corruption stemmed from ONE SINGLE BLOODMAGE. It takes just one blood mage, a powerful one though, to spoil the whole pot. The chantry indeed seems to preach exaclty what you seem to balk at. If a circle is 'significantly currupted' it must burn.

Now wether Kirwall's curruption was significant enough is open to interpretation.

By that rationale, we should have murdered Wynne in origins. She was in the circle during a blood mage outbreak, so murder her. Honestly, the Warden should have been murdered too, because she had been in the Ferelden circle not too long ago, and might also have been corrupted. And that leaves only Morrigan, an apostate - also should be put to death, or at least turned over to the Templars until she submits to the circle. Good luck finishing Origins without any casters. Hopefully everyone here who sides with the templars never keeps a mage in their party in any of the games, or plays a mage, otherwise that would simply be hypocritical.

And I'm not saying abuse alone creates blood mages. I am saying that driving someone insane or making them desperate makes them more likely to make a deal with a demon. Also, some people in this thread argue that Anders did make a deal with a demon, and is an abomination. This is a prevailing opinion in this thread actually, so you can't use him as an example of a mage who was tortured and didn't submit to demons... most of the people who are against him in this thread feel that he did submit to demons and that he is a prime example of why mages are dangerous no matter what.

Yes, you have to make a deal with a demon to become a blood mage, just like you have to kill someone to become a murderer. But if you're tortured and twisted to the point that you become a psychopath, the person who tortured you caused you to become one, even if you are the person who eventually sticks that knife into a stranger. Torture creates blood mages in the same way that abject poverty creates thieves - people will do things when they are desperate that they will not do when they have options. Does the blood mage decide to deal with the demon? Yes, in the same way that a starving man may decide to break into a market and steal a loaf of bread. His own free will plays some part in his decision, but without hunger he would be less likely to do it.

First, off I was talking about the right so as to explain that, within the lore of Dragon Age, the thing you seem to balk at, killing every member of the circle 'becuase of a few blood mages' is EXACTLY the reason the right was created.  And in fact you CAN kill Wynne in Dragon Age Origins. 

But I'm not saying you should.  Though I can see the rationale.  And I can get through Origins fine without her.  The cooldown on healing pots was good enough.

The right is a last resort.  As the warden you can decide that the Circle is able to be saved.  And go vigilante.  In fact that is what I did.  The only reason I brought it up was to show the awesome power of blood magic and what just one blood mage is able to do.

Now.  Imagine that Uldred had made his deal with the Pride Demon OUTSIDE the circle.  What could a free Uldred do?  Can you imagine the destruction?

Switching gears, lets use your poverty analogy.  If you were able to somehow magically get rid of poverty would that eliminate theft?  Have there never been theives that did not suffer from poverty?  What is the price for not locking up a theif?  Well... I guess its more stolen property.  What is the price for not locking up an Abomination?  Well, we have seen that many times over.

The stakes are greater.  Blood magic and Theivery are not the same thing.  The analogy is fundementally flawed.

[Taraberra]

There are worse people than the Grand Cleric, even though she wasn't really that great. I think Anders has good intentions with wanting mages to be less like feared monsters and more like a person, but his means of going about it seemed pretty...drastic. He just gave the Templars another reason why mages are bad. So he just screwed himself/mages over more by acting how they expect. Blood magic is useful though. That hemorrhage power in the game is so rad.

[KnightofPhoenix]

What I will say, having watched X-Men First class, I'd be more strongly opposed to those comparing Anders with Magneto from here on in.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 04 juin 2011 - 04:00 .

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Blood magic is said to have originated from demons. It does not mean you always have to have a demon to learn it.

Even Anders asks Merrill in a banter if she simply cut her finger one day, by accident, and realised the power there. Merrill confirmed in the same banter she was taught by a demon.

Using blood magic without demons is like using an H-bomb without nuclear scientists.  You don't NEED an expert to use blood magic... but it isn't like you can go to the 'blood magic' section of the circle library and learn how to raise the dead.  To bring it back to the H-bomb analogy, you aren't going to find the equations for urianium enrichment on the internet.

The knowledge for blood magic is restricted.  I'm not sure, but think think the First Enchanter may know a bit of blood magic.  And the Wardens certianly know some of it... but Blood Magic is simply not accessable to most mages (and we are talking the vast majority here) without demons.

Its just not going to happen.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

The right is a last resort.  As the warden you can decide that the Circle is able to be saved.  And go vigilante.  In fact that is what I did.  The only reason I brought it up was to show the awesome power of blood magic and what just one blood mage is able to do.

Now.  Imagine that Uldred had made his deal with the Pride Demon OUTSIDE the circle.  What could a free Uldred do?  Can you imagine the destruction?

Switching gears, lets use your poverty analogy.  If you were able to somehow magically get rid of poverty would that eliminate theft?  Have there never been theives that did not suffer from poverty?  What is the price for not locking up a theif?  Well... I guess its more stolen property.  What is the price for not locking up an Abomination?  Well, we have seen that many times over.

The stakes are greater.  Blood magic and Theivery are not the same thing.  The analogy is fundementally flawed.

Well I was trying not to get too emotional or graphic here. Ok, I'll come up with a better analogy.

I assume you think that murder is wrong, and that guns are dangerous. Let's say someone comes into your room every night when you are sleeping, holds you down, and cuts you with knives. He does this every night for years, and you have no way to fight back. You cannot leave your room. Now, someone hands you a gun. You still have no way to move or escape, the only way to prevent him from cutting you with his knives is to fire the gun. The guy comes into your room. Do you shoot him? Or, because murder is wrong and guns are dangerous, do you just let him cut you with knives every single night for the rest of your life, until your body is covered with scars and you are too weak to move? 

If you kill him, is it because you are inherently a dangerous person, and a MURDERER? Should I kill you now, to prevent you from ever picking up that gun, you MURDERER? You horrible, soulless, cursed monster? 

Now say this guy doesn't just break into your room every night to cut you with knives. Say you also have to watch him cut other people with knives... innocent children. And you have the chance to stop him, if you only murder him with this gun. Will you pick up the gun? He hasn't killed anyone, and guns are very dangerous.

By your reasoning, if you murder him it is because of your own anger, your own murderous tendencies, not because the gun is the only way you have to fight back. By your reasoning, he is not the main contributing factor to your decision to fire the gun. If you kill him to save those children, you are not a good person. You are an awful murderer who should be imprisonsed forever.

Good enough analogy for you?

I guess my biggest problem with this thread is that I have too much compassion for abuse sufferers, and too much faith in psychological studies that show that abuse leads to future personality issues that perpetuate the cycle of abuse.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 04 juin 2011 - 04:12 .

[The Baconer]

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...
Using blood magic without demons is like using an H-bomb without nuclear scientists.  You don't NEED an expert to use blood magic... but it isn't like you can go to the 'blood magic' section of the circle library and learn how to raise the dead.  To bring it back to the H-bomb analogy, you aren't going to find the equations for urianium enrichment on the internet.

The knowledge for blood magic is restricted.  I'm not sure, but think think the First Enchanter may know a bit of blood magic.  And the Wardens certianly know some of it... but Blood Magic is simply not accessable to most mages (and we are talking the vast majority here) without demons.

Its just not going to happen.

Or, you know, be taught by an existing blood mage, or read about it from a tome (Jowan). But I guess that would be too simple.

[Rifneno]

Ryzaki wrote...

That logic works for mages because as one can *clearly* see from DAO it only takes a few rotten apples to turn the entire circle into a complete mess.

Merely your opinion.  There isn't enough salt in the universe.

I'm still waiting for the definitionof terrorist that Anders doesn't fit.  

Was there a part of "I'm not playing word games with you" that was unclear?

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

Using blood magic without demons is like using an H-bomb without nuclear scientists.  You don't NEED an expert to use blood magic... but it isn't like you can go to the 'blood magic' section of the circle library and learn how to raise the dead.  To bring it back to the H-bomb analogy, you aren't going to find the equations for urianium enrichment on the internet.

For that analogy to work, all blood mages would have to be demons themselves.  A nuclear scientist can teach others, who in turn become nuclear scientists because of their knowledge.

[Ryzaki]

So you mean you can't back it up? What a surprise.

[Shimmer_Gloom]

The Baconer wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...
Using blood magic without demons is like using an H-bomb without nuclear scientists.  You don't NEED an expert to use blood magic... but it isn't like you can go to the 'blood magic' section of the circle library and learn how to raise the dead.  To bring it back to the H-bomb analogy, you aren't going to find the equations for urianium enrichment on the internet.

The knowledge for blood magic is restricted.  I'm not sure, but think think the First Enchanter may know a bit of blood magic.  And the Wardens certianly know some of it... but Blood Magic is simply not accessable to most mages (and we are talking the vast majority here) without demons.

Its just not going to happen.

Or, you know, be taught by an existing blood mage, or read about it from a tome (Jowan). But I guess that would be too simple.

Blood Magic is not tought in the circle.  So a circle mage should not have option number one.  There is no blood mage to learn from.  Option number two may be true if, like I said, the First Enchanter or some such is given access to restricted knowledge.  This is an area I'm a bit murky with.

But outside the circle there is even LESS chance for a mage to learn blood magic.  Magical knowledge outside the circle is illeagal.  Thus, rare.

In all cases the chance one would run across blood magic without the help of demons is very, very, slim.

So, since blood magic is not tought in the circle and you can't find it leagally anywhere else... how does one aquire it?  Demons.  It allways comes back to demons.

[Plaintiff]

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

First, off I was talking about the right so as to explain that, within the lore of Dragon Age, the thing you seem to balk at, killing every member of the circle 'becuase of a few blood mages' is EXACTLY the reason the right was created.  And in fact you CAN kill Wynne in Dragon Age Origins. 

But I'm not saying you should.  Though I can see the rationale.  And I can get through Origins fine without her.  The cooldown on healing pots was good enough.

The right is a last resort.  As the warden you can decide that the Circle is able to be saved.  And go vigilante.  In fact that is what I did.  The only reason I brought it up was to show the awesome power of blood magic and what just one blood mage is able to do.

Now.  Imagine that Uldred had made his deal with the Pride Demon OUTSIDE the circle.  What could a free Uldred do?  Can you imagine the destruction?

Switching gears, lets use your poverty analogy.  If you were able to somehow magically get rid of poverty would that eliminate theft?  Have there never been theives that did not suffer from poverty?  What is the price for not locking up a theif?  Well... I guess its more stolen property.  What is the price for not locking up an Abomination?  Well, we have seen that many times over.

The stakes are greater.  Blood magic and Theivery are not the same thing.  The analogy is fundementally flawed.

Actually, Uldred was not working on his own, he had a secret cabal of Bloodmages at his command, and if he wasn't a senior enchanter he never would've had the opportunity to take over the circle.

I think the danger of abominations is grossly misrepresented by the Chantry and the Templars. In both games, you take them down on a regular basis and even in the lore, the most powerful abomination,known, Khedra, who ****ed up an entire city, only did so over the course of years, and was only able to do so in the first place because he was in the position of Viscount.

In any case, the Right does not exist to slaughter many for the crimes of the few. If it did, Annulments would be called every week, but they aren't. Templars hunt bloodmages and apostates on an individual basis. As you said, the Right of Annulment is for a Circle that is absolutely irredeemable, and if the Circle of Ferelden was salvageable in Origins, then the Circle in Kirkwall definitely was too.

You might consider the analogy flawed, but I think it's a valid point to state that people will resort to desperate measures when pushed. Anders himself was never beaten or raped by a templar, he has not experienced the same level of abuse that other mages have. He is one (extremely strong-willed) individual and isn't really a yardstick by which other mages can be measured. Few people could by expected to retain sanity after a year of solitary confinement, let alone a mage.

While there will certainly always be mages that lust for more power, most mages we meet cite a desire for freedom or revenge as their motivation for turning to blood magic. Certainly, eliminating poverty would not prevent theft entirely, but it would be severely reduced. People do not commit crimes without motivation. Remove the motivation and the crime will not occur.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 04 juin 2011 - 04:24 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Ryzaki wrote...

So you mean you can't back it up? What a surprise.

Some definitions of terrorism require it to be systematic. Or to be designed to inspire fear toward a certain group. There was nothing in Anders' attack to indicate more would be forthcoming, or that there was any sort of system behind it. It wasn't even intended to put forward the idea that 'no chantry is safe.' It was more similar to an assassination attempt that caused collateral damage than a straight out terrorist strike... like if someone planted a bomb to kill Stalin, and ended up killing hundreds of people on a parade route.

/shrugs

I am still of the opinion that the term would apply, but that without the context of a world with a political and social makeup similar to the early 19th century or later, the word has little relevance to any serious debate.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 04 juin 2011 - 04:24 .

[Ryzaki]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

So you mean you can't back it up? What a surprise.

Some definitions of terrorism require it to be systematic. Or to be designed to inspire fear toward a certain group. There was nothing in Anders' attack to indicate more would be forthcoming, or that there was any sort of system  behind it.

Trying to force the mages to fight the templars by having the templars threaten the mages life isn't using fear? Banking on an paraoid woman whose fear of bloodmages abilities would cause her to anull the circle isn't using fear? 

As for Anders' attack which definition (I'd like an actual link to this) means there must be more than one attack? 

His whole speech is about his political agenda behind destroying the Chantry! It wasn't just an assassination of the Grand Cleric. It was to start a war by removing one ofthe main sources of compromise! In what place would that not be defined as terrorism? I'd really like to know. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 04 juin 2011 - 04:32 .

[The Baconer]

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

Blood Magic is not tought in the circle.  So a circle mage should not have option number one. 

Right, since because it's not an official Circle-approved class it would be impossible for mages to learn it at all. Especially through clandestine, off-the-record means.

Option number two may be true if, like I said, the First Enchanter or some such is given access to restricted knowledge.

The Baconer wrote...

or read about it from a tome (Jowan).

[Silfren]

Ryzaki wrote...

And for some odd reason the templar abuses aren't part of his complaints. 

I'm pretty sure Elthina knows about the increase in tranquilities. Probably assumes its Meredith's paranoia. And Meredih's own mental state makes me think she feels that Alrik was probably tranquiling potential bloodmages (doesn't help that every apostate to her is a bloodmage). It should but people in Kirkwall sit on their hands. (Hi Cullen.) And it helps for them to kick the idiot ball around. 

Indeed. Which to me suggests that she mayhave brushed off their concerns and attempts to tell her about tbe abuses. That or they were sick of her ignoring them while she played Vicount. 

Oh I doubt it. But if Kerass was so concerned about Alain reporting him to threaten him (and not to merely say "ha. like anyone cares!") suggests to me that someone *did* care and it would've been an issue if it got to the right ears. 
 

Elthina would have to be blind and deaf not to know about the increasing number of Tranquil mages.  So if she were to think that the sudden increasing numbers of them is due to Meredith's paranoia--read, and not because of any wrongdoing on the part of those mages--and she's still just throwing up her hands, then that makes her "neutrality" even more vile.

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Rifneno: "For that analogy to work, all blood mages would have to be demons themselves. A nuclear scientist can teach others, who in turn become nuclear scientists because of their knowledge."

Sigh. Its not a perfect analogy. I meant that the knowledge required to become a scientist that specializes in nuclear weapons technology is incredibly complex and highly RESTRICTED.

The purpose was to demonstrate how silly the notions is that one just 'stumbles' upon highly technical and restricted knowledge. Just as you don't have nuclear scientists at every university just waiting some somebody to ask them how build a nuke... you aren't going to learn blood magic by asking the First Enchanter. Or walking into a bar and going "Hey! Any blood mages in this joint?!"

The analogy works because blood mages, like the scientist I was talking about are highly sought after and regulated people. The best way to learn blood magic (or science) is to learn it the way that the mage (or scientist) did himself. Demons.

Do people honestly not see the connection? Demons give quick and easy access to POWERFUL blood magic. The one blood mage who didn't get his magic from demons (Jowan) was not even close to an untrained boy abomination. Abominations and mages that get their powers through demons are getting it from the source. If you want to be a blood mage you go to a demon. If you want to be an expert on nukes, you go to their experts.

Demons are the CLEAR experts.

[Silfren]

Ryzaki wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Yes, it's your speculation that the Right of Annulment was warranted when there's no proof it was justified, particularly when the person who invoked it mentions she's doing so to appease the mob.

As for antagonists, we face many of them outside the Gallows, and most of them have no known affiliation with the Kirkwall Circle. I see no reason to condemn an entire population to execution any more than one should kill every dwarf in Kirkwall because of the "waves" of carta members we can face as Hawke.

 

Letter from the circle in the serial killer's office about O and being given books. 

Grace and Alain being bloodmages and being supported by templars. 

Huon escapes from the circle and is a bloodmage. 

The other chick is a abomination. 

How is that no proof that there was no justiifcation for the RoA? You have several bloodmages freely moving within the circle and even converting some of the templars to their side. You end up breaking a group of bloodmages and templars trying to overthrow Meredith. As for Meredith's reasonings yeah they were weak. However the RoA was sent for far before Anders' bomb. Elthina just kept stopping Meredith. 

The divine is considering an Exalted March to deal with the mage problem. I'd rather annull the circle than having the divine see the whole city as an enemy. (this is frankly the justification Meredith should've given. Not the people revolting). 

And waves of dwarves can't control people's minds. But we're not going to agree on that. 

Thing is, Annulling the Circle mages does nothing for any apostates outside of Kirkwall.  And the apostates are the ones causing any "problems," not the Circle mages.