1008 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I'd like to point out that it isn't genocide, and that Polaris, no matter how bad he wants it to be right, is wrong. It is not genocide, and it will never become genocide. It would be if it was done under the correct motive, however since the motive isn't in order with the genocide's requirement, the entire argument that it is genocide falls to pieces.

Of course this will fall on deaf ears, since genocide is such a powerful term and the pro-mages are usually desperate to cling to such words, no matter if it is incorrect.

Motivation is irrelevant.  Read the statutes on Genocide again.  That fact that the Templars are trying to eredicate a specific phyisically identifiable group (mages) makes the act one of genocide.

-Polari

[Playest]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I'd like to point out that it isn't genocide, and that Polaris, no matter how bad he wants it to be right, is wrong. It is not genocide, and it will never become genocide. It would be if it was done under the correct motive, however since the motive isn't in order with the genocide's requirement, the entire argument that it is genocide falls to pieces.

Of course this will fall on deaf ears, since genocide is such a powerful term and the pro-mages are usually desperate to cling to such words, no matter if it is incorrect.

I'm confused how does motive come into play here?

Why would the reasoning behind the act change the nature of the act itself?

Is killing all of the blonde people in atlanta genocide?

[Rifneno]

GavrielKay wrote...

I meant it entirely tongue in cheek.  The Chantry and a number of forum posters want us to believe that the damage a single mage can do is so horrific that it rivals a nuclear weapon.  That mages are so hugely dangerous that even after they are trained and have passed their Harrowing they still cannot be trusted out in the world living their own lives.  And then they utterly fail to make that point by not even sending Templars with Hawke to help recapture the escaped mages.

Ahh.  Apologies, I should've known you meant it that way.  

GavrielKay wrote...

When the danger comes from something we absolutely can't control, we just accept that there is danger and live as best we can.  There are places all around the world where folks live with tornados, volcanos, floods and freezing.  Those people make a decision to tough it out for their own reasons and just deal with casualties as they happen.  The same should be done with mages - they are a natural occurence that can cause destruction at unpredictable intervals.  The fact that it is physically possible to gather them up and lock them into a tower doesn't make it right.

Indeed.  But you forgot the most important detail: that it doesn't work.  Even if one did feel it a morally grey choice to punish a minority for crimes they're suspected of doing in the future, it falls flat on its face when most of the damage done by the villainous mages is either directly or indirectly due to the Circle system.  Even the Connor/Redcliffe thing might not have happened if Lady Isolde could've openly sought a quality teacher for Connor instead of having to take a renegade lackwit.  It doesn't even have the possibility of being a grey area unless the system actually does what it claims.  Instead we have evidence it just provokes mages into wrongdoing.

AquamanOS wrote...

It could also be in attempt to counter DAO, which was heavily mage biased. All of the Templars are various shades of jerks, and the most prominate party member was heavily anti Templar (despite being one himself, he wasn't even a mage).

How do you figure that? There's almost no evil templars in DAO. The only really bad templar I can think of in DA1 was Rylock. Whereas in DA2 it's a den of rapists and murderers.

Playest wrote...

It’s less Personal Freedom vs Public Safety as it is Coke vs Pepsi.

  If I actually bothered to put quotes in a sig, that would be it.

Dave of Canada wrote...

You made a choice, consequences of said choice doesn't stop you from having made that choice. It was a choice.

But thou must!

Hmm.. and now, pages of Ryzaki playing word games. Never seen that before.

[LobselVith8]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Playest wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

You may believe we pushed too hard in the other direction, and that's fair, but if we had intended for there to be one solution there would be no argument about it at all, would there? What you see, after all, is there because we chose for it to be there.

What was the choice we made exactly? 

On the one hand we can watch Anders blow up the chantry, kill Orsino, kill Meredith and the world will be pushed to the brink of war. 

While on the other hand… we can watch Anders blow up the chantry, kill Orsino, kill Meredith and the world will be pushed top the brink of war. 

It’s less Personal Freedom vs Public Safety as it is Coke vs Pepsi.


-edited for spacing

On one side, Hawke saves a bunch of mages, escapes with them and goes on the run.

On the other, Hawke becomes Viscount of Kirkwall, rules for a few years, then disappears.

Sounds pretty different to me.  

Both a pro-mage and pro-templar Hawke are "gone" after three years, and the Champion of Kirkwall is being sought out by Cassandra. Doesn't a pro-templar Hawke who helps Meredith still inspire the Circles of Magi to rise up against the Chantry and the templars, even though they view Hawke as a symbol of oppression and the Right of Annulment can transpire with complete victory for the templars? Isn't Cassandra looking for a pro-templar Hawke who is already on their side? I don't understand how the ending accomodates different choices when the choices presented lead down the same road, and the pro-templar ending virtually identical to the pro-mage ending (that at least has some rationale for Cassandra looking for a pro-mage Hawke since he's a hero to the opposing side, even if it's still a flawed mess that has mages rallying around a man who did absolutely nothing but kill people for seven years).

Mike Laidlaw even admitted the narrative and the significance of choice was an issue in Dragon Age 2 in the "Thank You!" thread where he addressed the concerns about the narrative and significance of choice. If one of the creators behind Dragon Age 2 admitted that narrative and choice was an issue in Hawke's story, why is this being contested?

[RangerSG]

IanPolaris wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Did Gaider and the other PTB intend for fans to side with the templars as Hawke in Dragon Age 2?

Those quotes were in response to a poster who was determined to paint the templars as evil oppressors-- when my position has always been there are no easy answers to this particular question. It's very easy for us comfortable western folk to take the attitude that anything which isn't democratic and fair is clearly wrong-- which is a pat answer to a complex problem, especially in a world where the situation is simply not the same as in our own.

There you go again putting down people that are raised with a Western notion of ethics, and morality.  The fact is that wrong is wrong, and punishing a group of people en masse for what they are (which IS genocide according to the UN) for something someone else did, is always wrong, and I don't care if you were raised in a Western Democracy or in the Myammar or the DPRK (the most rigid dictatorships in the world).  The point is that your problem actually ISN'T all that complex and you are resorting IMO to some cheap stunts with the storytelling and writing to make it appear to be so (such as non-representative samples of mages in the game and such as showing evil mages but only alluding to evil templars).

You may believe we pushed too hard in the other direction, and that's fair, but if we had intended for there to be one solution there would be no argument about it at all, would there? What you see, after all, is there because we chose for it to be there.

Frankly yes, because I don't think you actually recognize a really morally grey choice from one that one seems that way.

-Polaris

No, he's not "putting you down." He's saying you are inserting modern morality into a place it isn't known, and that's not a realistic response. Even your appeal to the UN definition demonstrates the point. It's not role-playing a character to interpret things in the light of criteria that the character does not possess.

Though modern historians love to do this too, so you're hardly alone in this one. I can't believe the number of modern historians who scream at a figure for being "intolerant" in societies where tolerance was not even arrived at as a virtue yet. Let alone there's a certain hubris about assuming our virtues must be right and everyone else's wrong.

[Huntress]

Ryzaki wrote...

Oh yes Bethany must always be a circle mage.

There's no way she could be dead or a warden...oh wait.  

Not to mention there's also the fact that Hawke might not give a hoot about Bethany!   

I really hate when people try to label an act as defintely anything (cowardly, heroic, whatever). Especially when they themselves don't bother doing it. In RL most people don't go running around saving people that they don't know and break the law to do so. I guess we're all cowards. 

 

is that so?

Poeple do alot of heroic acts, some even try to get inside houses on fire to save someone also, forgetting they can BURN alive while trying. Some people even go to the flames to save an animal.. stupid if you ask me, so many animals go to extintion and yet, nothing happen the world keep going. You don't know about this hero's because you probably don't read newspaper or just skip to the cartoons, thats fine too. People donate their Organs to save someone also life. would you?

Any way I don't know what Bioware tryed to do in DA2, if it was showing how desperated people convert to monsters and blow up chantry.. well, yes they are desperated people, not thinking rational, and probably half loco*.

What they fail to show was the why this mages turned or were forced to get to that point of their life. If we saw what turned all this mages loco, we might had the chance to judge more clearly, but because is only 1 side and so many people going crazy-demons-lover, well i believe the templar are cruel, doing alot of very bad things and should be stoped.

[Ryzaki]

Huntress wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Oh yes Bethany must always be a circle mage.

There's no way she could be dead or a warden...oh wait.  

Not to mention there's also the fact that Hawke might not give a hoot about Bethany!   

I really hate when people try to label an act as defintely anything (cowardly, heroic, whatever). Especially when they themselves don't bother doing it. In RL most people don't go running around saving people that they don't know and break the law to do so. I guess we're all cowards. 

 

is that so?

Poeple do alot of heroic acts, some even try to get inside houses on fire to save someone also, forgetting they can BURN alive while trying. Some people even go to the flames to save an animal.. stupid if you ask me, so many animals go to extintion and yet, nothing happen the world keep going. You don't know about this hero's because you probably don't read newspaper or just skip to the cartoons, thats fine too. People donate their Organs to save someone also life. would you?

Any way I don't know what Bioware tryed to do in DA2, if it was showing how desperated people convert to monsters and blow up chantry.. well, yes they are desperated people, not thinking rational, and probably half loco*.

What they fail to show was the why this mages turned or were forced to get to that point of their life. If we saw what turned all this mages loco, we might had the chance to judge more clearly, but because is only 1 side and so many people going crazy-demons-lover, well i believe the templar are cruel, doing alot of very bad things and should be stoped.

I guess the word most went completely over your head huh? 

[Huntress]

Ryzaki wrote...

Huntress wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Oh yes Bethany must always be a circle mage.

There's no way she could be dead or a warden...oh wait.  

Not to mention there's also the fact that Hawke might not give a hoot about Bethany!   

I really hate when people try to label an act as defintely anything (cowardly, heroic, whatever). Especially when they themselves don't bother doing it. In RL most people don't go running around saving people that they don't know and break the law to do so. I guess we're all cowards. 

 

is that so?

Poeple do alot of heroic acts, some even try to get inside houses on fire to save someone also, forgetting they can BURN alive while trying. Some people even go to the flames to save an animal.. stupid if you ask me, so many animals go to extintion and yet, nothing happen the world keep going. You don't know about this hero's because you probably don't read newspaper or just skip to the cartoons, thats fine too. People donate their Organs to save someone also life. would you?

Any way I don't know what Bioware tryed to do in DA2, if it was showing how desperated people convert to monsters and blow up chantry.. well, yes they are desperated people, not thinking rational, and probably half loco*.

What they fail to show was the why this mages turned or were forced to get to that point of their life. If we saw what turned all this mages loco, we might had the chance to judge more clearly, but because is only 1 side and so many people going crazy-demons-lover, well i believe the templar are cruel, doing alot of very bad things and should be stoped.

I guess the word most went completely over your head huh? 

Maybe so, but you compleatly forgot that just because you don't see people doing it, it means not one will, and thats wrong, inaccurate. This is off-topic so am going to stop, have a good day!

[hoorayforicecream]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Mike Laidlaw even admitted the narrative and the significance of choice was an issue in Dragon Age 2 in the "Thank You!" thread where he addressed the concerns about the narrative and significance of choice. If one of the creators behind Dragon Age 2 admitted that narrative and choice was an issue in Hawke's story, why is this being contested?

Because admitting that choice is not significant does not equate to having no choice at all. I can choose vanilla or chocolate for my milkshake flavor, and that's not much of a significant choice compared to deciding the fate of a group of people, but it's still a choice. Read the post I responded to, that fellow said that there was no choice at all. There is definitely a choice, even if the overall results are similar (note: Not the same).

I'm pretty sure the "many mages" that Hawke saved (should she decide to side with the mages) are probably pretty grateful that they weren't killed. Heck, even you and Polaris argue to this day about how awful the choice is to support genocide and blah blah. If there really isn't a choice at all, then there's no reason to debate. The results are the same either way, right? Why did you even start this thread? Because at some level, the choice does matter.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 16 juin 2011 - 03:21 .

[LobselVith8]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Mike Laidlaw even admitted the narrative and the significance of choice was an issue in Dragon Age 2 in the "Thank You!" thread where he addressed the concerns about the narrative and significance of choice. If one of the creators behind Dragon Age 2 admitted that narrative and choice was an issue in Hawke's story, why is this being contested?

Because admitting that choice is not significant does not equate to having no choice at all. I can choose vanilla or chocolate for my milkshake flavor, and that's not much of a significant choice compared to deciding the fate of a group of people, but it's still a choice.

I addressed the significance of choice. Where is the significance of choice in having the choice to say no, and having it ignored? It doesn't seem like a significant choice (i.e. Petrice). Having a choice between the mages and the templars, and having virtually identical outcomes, where the protagonist will always disappear, isn't much of a significant choice when the action provides the same outcome: mage revolution.

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Read the post I responded to, that fellow said that there was no choice at all. There is definitely a choice, even if the overall results are similar (note: Not the same).

The fellow was likely addressing the significance of choice, rather than the semantics of there being any type of choice at all. It's an issue that's been noted since even the two endings are virtually identical, via the mage and templar outcomes where the mages will always be inspired by Hawke that "the templars can be defied," even if the templars defeated and killed all the mages in the Circle of Kirkwall.

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I'm pretty sure the "many mages" that Hawke saved (should she decide to side with the mages) are probably pretty grateful that they weren't killed. Heck, even you and Polaris argue to this day about how awful the choice is to support genocide and blah blah.

I don't find Meredith's argument compelling when she wants to kill an entire population of people to appease the mob. Others disagree. What's your point? I also find Orsino and Meredith to be completely ridiculous antagonists in Act III who lack the complexity of Loghain or the ambiguity of even DAA's the Architect, and I find the presentation of templars and mages laughable for the most part since the mage antagonists are cardboard cutout villains and as everyone is acting like an idiot, i.e. Hawke informing Cullen about Anders' actions in Act III when Anders is standing right next to Hawke leads to nothing happening.

hoorayforicecream wrote...

If there really isn't a choice at all, then there's no reason to debate. The results are the same either way, right? Why did you even start this thread? Because at some level, the choice does matter.

The title explains why I started the thread, since (in my opinion) it seemed that the creators wanted us to side with the templars over the mages.

[Ryzaki]

Huntress wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Huntress wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Oh yes Bethany must always be a circle mage.

There's no way she could be dead or a warden...oh wait.  

Not to mention there's also the fact that Hawke might not give a hoot about Bethany!   

I really hate when people try to label an act as defintely anything (cowardly, heroic, whatever). Especially when they themselves don't bother doing it. In RL most people don't go running around saving people that they don't know and break the law to do so. I guess we're all cowards. 

 

is that so?

Poeple do alot of heroic acts, some even try to get inside houses on fire to save someone also, forgetting they can BURN alive while trying. Some people even go to the flames to save an animal.. stupid if you ask me, so many animals go to extintion and yet, nothing happen the world keep going. You don't know about this hero's because you probably don't read newspaper or just skip to the cartoons, thats fine too. People donate their Organs to save someone also life. would you?

Any way I don't know what Bioware tryed to do in DA2, if it was showing how desperated people convert to monsters and blow up chantry.. well, yes they are desperated people, not thinking rational, and probably half loco*.

What they fail to show was the why this mages turned or were forced to get to that point of their life. If we saw what turned all this mages loco, we might had the chance to judge more clearly, but because is only 1 side and so many people going crazy-demons-lover, well i believe the templar are cruel, doing alot of very bad things and should be stoped.

I guess the word most went completely over your head huh? 

Maybe so, but you compleatly forgot that just because you don't see people doing it, it means not one will, and thats wrong, inaccurate. This is off-topic so am going to stop, have a good day!

Yeah...the word most completely went over your head. 

I never said no one would. Don't put lies in my mouth. Especially not when you quoted the post. 

I said *most* wouldn't. Which is the case. You decided to get all defensive and point out something I never said. I'm well aware that some people will throw themselves in fires to protect complete strangers, there are people who will take a bullet for someone they don't know, there are people who are heroes and are extraordinary. The sad fact is however those people aren't most people. A great deal people will watch someone being beaten to death and do nothing. That's the kind of world we live in. Most people will call the cops but not go down to help, a few brave souls might go down and try to stop it. The existance of the latter doesn't stop the former from existing. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 16 juin 2011 - 04:14 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I'd like to point out that it isn't genocide, and that Polaris, no matter how bad he wants it to be right, is wrong. It is not genocide, and it will never become genocide. It would be if it was done under the correct motive, however since the motive isn't in order with the genocide's requirement, the entire argument that it is genocide falls to pieces.

Of course this will fall on deaf ears, since genocide is such a powerful term and the pro-mages are usually desperate to cling to such words, no matter if it is incorrect.

Motivation is irrelevant.  Read the statutes on Genocide again.  That fact that the Templars are trying to eredicate a specific phyisically identifiable group (mages) makes the act one of genocide.

-Polari

No, it really doesn't. If the mages during a Right of Annulment were being killed for simply being mages, then yes. However, they are being collectively punished for some percieved crime, which makes it a collective punishment, and not genocide.
The Circle system as a whole is a lot closer to genocide, but even that is in a grey area, since the Circles don't exist to eradicate mages.
The Annulment Meredith calls could be considered genocide however. She calls for the annulemnt of the Circle well knowing that the mages within didn't commit it. So you could argue that the mages in this case were being killed for simply being mages.
So in conclusion: The Right of Annulment can in some cases be similar to, or actually be genocide. But to say that all annulments everywhere have always been genocide is wrong.

[KnightofPhoenix]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
However, they are being collectively punished for some percieved crime, which makes it a collective punishment, and not genocide.

You do realize that genocides are almost always justified as collective punishment, right?

[Ryzaki]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
However, they are being collectively punished for some percieved crime, which makes it a collective punishment, and not genocide.

You do realize that genocides are almost always justified as collective punishment, right?

Yeah. 

My personal issue with calling the RoA genocide is when you compare it to actual genocide that happened throughout history to me it's just...it's not remotely on the same level. The Hitler comparisons just make it worse. But that's just a personal issue with me. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 16 juin 2011 - 05:04 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
However, they are being collectively punished for some percieved crime, which makes it a collective punishment, and not genocide.

You do realize that genocides are almost always justified as collective punishment, right?

Yeah, for their crime of being born. The annulment is a punishment for an actual crime. Well usually.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ryzaki wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
However, they are being collectively punished for some percieved crime, which makes it a collective punishment, and not genocide.

You do realize that genocides are almost always justified as collective punishment, right?

Yeah. 

My personal issue with calling the RoA genocide is when you compare it to actual genocide that happened throughout histor to me it's just...it's not remotely on the same level. But that's just a personal issue with me. 

I like to use the word as objectively as possible, with no baggage.

And while annulments do not have nearly the same body count as major ones that happened in our own history, I think there is an argument to be made that they, and the system in general, is at least close to being genocidal.

Which in my view has little to do with whether the system is necessary, or "good", or whatever. I'd use other arguments for that. 

[Deztyn]

Oh. Here we go again...

Question, does the number of dead mage babies actually change if you use the word 'genocide' to describe the annulment?

[KnightofPhoenix]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
However, they are being collectively punished for some percieved crime, which makes it a collective punishment, and not genocide.

You do realize that genocides are almost always justified as collective punishment, right?

Yeah, for their crime of being born. The annulment is a punishment for an actual crime. Well usually.

No. They generally argue based on crimes members of the group committed (whether accurate or not).  

[KnightofPhoenix]

Deztyn wrote...

Oh. Here we go again...

Question, does the number of dead mage babies actually change if you use the word 'genocide' to describe the annulment?

No, and for me it makes little difference. But I do think there is a strong case to be made that it is a genocide or close to being one.

[EmperorSahlertz]

An individual annulment CAN be a genocide. The one Meredith calls for, for example, could be considered one. To claim that ALL annulements are genocide by definition, is just plain wrong.

[Ryzaki]

Deztyn wrote...

Oh. Here we go again...

Question, does the number of dead mage babies actually change if you use the word 'genocide' to describe the annulment?

Nope. 

But...are their dead babies? I thought mages didn't start showing their powers until like toddler stage? Why would their be babies in the circle? (I consider anyone under 2 a baby older than that and it's a toddler/child to me). Mages don't necessarily have mage kids and seeing as how the whole sex thing was discouraged in the Kirkwall Circle I don't see them liable to have babies there. 

(taken out lest I get accused of being a monster again) ...Though why would a demon take on a small and pretty much helpless form? Even Conner was capable of fleeing. Only thing a baby could do would be cry. (assuming it's not old enough to crawl). 

...Do we have any evidence a baby can turn into an abomination? I know a kid like Conner could but he wasn't...well a baby. 

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I like to use the word as objectively as possible, with no baggage.

And while annulments do not have nearly the same body count as major ones that happened in our own history, I think there is an argument to be made that they, and the system in general, is at least close to being genocidal.

Which in my view has little to do with whether the system is necessary, or "good", or whatever. I'd use other arguments for that. 

Yeah my issue comes with the Hitler comparisons when someone uses that word. The RoA isn't anything like the Holocaust. 

My issue with the Circle system being called genocidal is that we have no real evidence the Chantry is trying to eliminate the mages. At all. The RoA is supposed to be called when the Circle's gone to hell in a handbasket and is for defensive purposes. Plus at that point...many of them are not really human anymore. 

Meredith calling the RoA was for genocidal purposes. But my Hawke certainly spared everyone he could. I guess he's not a very good genocidist then? I dunno. 

Oh I know *you* wouldn't. Ah well. I'll just debate the word and not the act. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 16 juin 2011 - 05:14 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Not only is the annulment supposed to be a last resort, it also serves as a deterrent. A mage thinking about doing something highly illegal, will be forced to think about the lives of his friends as well, and come to terms with himself wether or not his own thirst for power, warrants the lives of his friends.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ryzaki wrote...
Yeah my issue comes with the Hitler comparisons when someone uses that word. The RoA isn't anything like the Holocaust. 

My issue with the Circle system being called genocidal is that we have no real evidence the Chantry is trying to eliminate the mages. At all. The RoA is supposed to be called when the Circle's gone to hell in a handbasket and is for defensive purposes. Plus at that point...many of them are not really human anymore. 

A genocide does not necessarily need to be the complete eradication of a group. It could be imposing on them living conditions deliberately designed to keep their numbers down, which I think is the case (like taking Wynne's child). Inflicting serious pain to a people, mental and physical, is also close to being that and beign watched 24/7 by faceless fanatics is psychologically painful.

So if the system as a whole is at least close to being genocidal, it stands to reason that any mechanism that is designed to preserve it is by implication also genocidal, or contributing to that status quo.

[KnightofPhoenix]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Not only is the annulment supposed to be a last resort, it also serves as a deterrent. A mage thinking about doing something highly illegal, will be forced to think about the lives of his friends as well, and come to terms with himself wether or not his own thirst for power, warrants the lives of his friends.

Which has nothing to do with it being genocidal or not.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Circle system isn't designed from the ground up however to eradicate mages. Intention is key when it comes to the definition of genocide. True that the Circle system as a whole shares alot of aspects with the definition of genocide, but that doesn't make the annulments genocidal by association.