1008 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
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.

 

Taking Wynne's child could be seen as removing temptation for demons to exploit. (she already was torn up enough about losing her students and some parents will do anything for a child. The kid getting a illness would be something a parent would probably turn to a demon if nothing else helped.)  

That said I see what you mean. Ah well. I always wanted to play on the side of the regime and have justified genocide. 

[Deztyn]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

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.

I won't dispute that. But certain posters keep tossing the word out there purely to make a moral judgment. Calling the Annulment  'Mass slaughter' or 'genocide' doesn't change the actions, the motivations or it's validity as a course of action. It's purely a tactic to guilt players into changing their position despite offering no additional reasoning. It's obnoxious. And fallacious.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ryzaki wrote...
Taking Wynne's child could be seen as removing temptation for demons to exploit. (she already was torn up enough about losing her students and some parents will do anything for a child. The kid getting a illness would be something a parent would probably turn to a demon if nothing else helped.) 

I'd think taking a child from his mother by force is an even better way to tempt that mother to resort to demons to retrieve her child.

The Chantry is not (entirely) stupid. Of course they don't want mages to multiply like bunnies in small circles. 

...remind me why they thought that overcrowding the Kirkwall Circle was a good idea? Idiots

That said I see what you mean. Ah well. I always wanted to play on the side of the regime and have justified genocide. 

It's fun isn't it

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 juin 2011 - 05:28 .

[LobselVith8]

David Gaider wrote...

LobselVith8 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.

Plenty of people on the pro-mage side particularly liked Ser Thrask, and Origins had some cool templars who were acting for the benefit of the people, from Ser Bryant to Ser Otto, but the quotes don't seem to be a response to posters who saw templars as evil. The former thread seemed to debate the depiction of mages in Dragon Age 2 at the time your quote was made, while the latter addressed Meredith's use of the Right of Annulment against the Circle of Kirkwall. I didn't see anyone at the time claiming all templars should be cardboard cutout caricatures, but addressing their opinion on the presentation of mages in a storyline that addressed the dichotomy between the mages and the templars, with the latter thread dealing with Meredith's use of the Right of Annulment for an action committed by the apostate Anders.

David Gaider wrote...

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.

But people have been making an opinion on the issue based on the information that's presented within the lore, not merely on their own experiences. In the Magi Origin and throughout Origins, the mage protagonist can address that the Chantry controlled Circle is a prison and an "oppressive place," the latter view is one that Wynne agrees with and even says he can change. Clearly, the first storyline that welcomed us into Thedas allowed us to view what the Chantry and the Order of Templars do as something that's wrong.

I don't think people deny that the issue is complex, but even the sequel to Origins invites us to make a choice between the mages and the templars at the height of Act III. If some people disagree with the Chantry controlled Circles, while others agree with what the Chantry does, isn't that the entire point? Isn't the premise of Act III for Hawke, the Champion of Kirkwall, to make a choice between the two factions after Anders destroys the Kirkwall Chantry and Meredith invokes the Right of Annulment? If the issue was merely meant to be complex with no choice to be made, shouldn't the Qunari have remained the antagonists throughout the entire storyline instead of inviting us to make a choice between mages or templars?

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.

I personally did not see Meredith's edict for Hawke to chose to side with her or against her as morally ambiguous, and I've read that many people sided with Meredith because of what Quentin did, what Orsino did, or what Anders did; doesn't this simply mean that those particular people are siding with templars "by default" for what a particular mage did, rather than making a choice that's based on the Circle of Kirkwall?

Wouldn't it have been better to give us some insight to life as an apostate Hawke, to show us what the Circle mages were actually like in the Gallows, instead of making a leap of faith on the issue? Can we really make an informed choice when we, an apostate Hawke, are never given the opportunity to see what life is like as an illegal mage and everyone is blind to Hawke's ability to use magic, and even blood magic?

[EmperorSahlertz]

If taking away a mage's child constitutes genocide on its own, then we are also waging genocide against all mentally ill, which happen to get their children taken away (depending on the severity of the case).
There are many pressing reasons to take away the child of a mage, none of them are spite. It even seems, judging by Wynne's child, that they are simply moved to another chantry, raised, taken care of, and if they show magical talent, sent back to the circle (another than the parents').

[Ryzaki]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I'd think taking a child from his mother by force is an even better way to tempt that mother to resort to demons to retrieve her child.

And then what? She and her child do...what? Run from the templars until they're hunted down and slaughtered because the mother's phaloartwhatever wasn't destroyed? That'd just be stupid. Especially if the child turns out to not be a mage. She's putting her child in more danger that way not less. 

The Chantry is not stupid. Of course they don't want mages to multiply like bunnies in small circles. 

...remind me why they thought that overcrowding the Kirkwall Circle was a good idea? Idiots

Which would probably be why they'd encourage birth control. *almost got into a rant not suited for this forum. Nevermind* 

...because Kirkwall's torn veil makes you lose about half your IQ points. 

It's fun isn't it 

 

It is. I hope I can do it in DA3 too. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 16 juin 2011 - 05:33 .

[Deztyn]

Ryzaki wrote...

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. 

Oh.

You don't know?

The Gallows was actually a mage baby orphanage. When you Annul the circle you're killing thousands of innocent infants. I know you don't actually see any of them in game, but trust me. They're there. :innocent:

[EmperorSahlertz]

And who said you were supposed to make an informed decision at the end of DA2?

[Ryzaki]

Deztyn wrote...
Oh. 

You don't know?

The Gallows was actually a mage baby orphanage. When you Annul the circle you're killing thousands of innocent infants. I know you don't actually see any of them in game, but trust me. They're there. :innocent:

 

Oooooh. Poor invisible infants. May they rest in peace. 

[EmperorSahlertz]

Deztyn wrote...

Oh.

You don't know?

The Gallows was actually a mage baby orphanage. When you Annul the circle you're killing thousands of innocent infants. I know you don't actually see any of them in game, but trust me. They're there. :innocent:

You forgot to mention the mage kittens aswell.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 16 juin 2011 - 05:35 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

If taking away a mage's child constitutes genocide on its own, then we are also waging genocide against all mentally ill, which happen to get their children taken away (depending on the severity of the case).

Not sure if the mentally ill can be considered a seperate group, unlike mages that, in addition to genetic differences, are forcefully seperated from the rest of society. But there is a case to be made for that, sure.

But I am not arguing based on solely one thing. It's rather the system seen as a whole.

Ryzaki wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I'd
think taking a child from his mother by force is an even better way to
tempt that mother to resort to demons to retrieve her child.

And
then what? She and her child do...what? Run from the templars until
they're hunted down and slaughtered because the mother's
phaloartwhatever wasn't destroyed? That'd just be stupid. Especially if
the child turns out to not be a mage. 

Seeing how mages behaved in DA2, do they really need to think ahead when they are being idiots? That's not the point.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And who said you were supposed to make an informed decision at the end of DA2?

Considering that Orsino and Meredith are imbeciles, you may have a point.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ryzaki wrote...

Deztyn wrote...
Oh. 

You don't know?

The Gallows was actually a mage baby orphanage. When you Annul the circle you're killing thousands of innocent infants. I know you don't actually see any of them in game, but trust me. They're there. :innocent:

 

Oooooh. Poor invisible infants. May they rest in peace. 

Um, they take mages to Circles as children. Of course there was going to be children in there, but the game for some reason never thought it important to make us see inside the gallows.

[Persephone]

Playest wrote...

Dave of Canada
wrote...



it does if it establishes who your Hawke is supporting.

And that accomplishes what? Do you honestly believe that which side you come
down on will affect the outcome of the conflict?

 

Yes, I honestly believe that.

[KnightofPhoenix]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And who said you were supposed to make an informed decision at the end of DA2?

Considering that Orsino and Meredith are imbeciles, you may have a point.

It ends up being a contest between Meredith, Orsino, Anders and Hawke on who can outdoe the rest in idiocy.

If we want to include the epilogue, I'd nominate Cassandra as well in the contest.

[LobselVith8]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Um, they take mages to Circles as children. Of course there was going to be children in there, but the game for some reason never thought it important to make us see inside the gallows.

Bethany mentions teaching children in her letter to Hawke in Act II if she becomes a Circle mage, and even refers to Ella as one of the children (although I assume the possibility of Anders killing her in cold blood is the reason why she isn't depicted as one).

[Persephone]

Ryzaki wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

They wanted siding with the Templars to be a reasonable choice, rather than having supporting the mages be a no brainer.

The problem is that they did this by having mages act randomly evil all the time, instead of having the Templars act with some semblance of rationality.

This pretty much. 

There was so many crazies on both sides I kind of wanted to nuke them all and be done with it. 

To expand on this. 

The only sane mages you know are Bethany (assuming she's alive), that orange haired dude, Merrill and Alain. 2 of them are bloodmages, one was involved in the kidnapping of Hawke's sibling/LI/Friend the other may have gotten herself nearly possessed and may have ended turning her clan against her or killing them in self defense. 

The only sane templars you know well are Thrask, Cullen (who matures and develops from completely mage fearing to reasonable), I forgot that other dude's name. 

On the other side the crazy (or powerhungry) mages you know are Grace, Decimus, Gascard, Tarohne, Idunna, Huon, that chick, serial killer dude, Orsino.

The crazy (or powerhungry) templars you know are Alrik, Meredith and...that's it.   

That chick? 

What about Ella? She surely was completely sane.

And what of Ser Karras? (Loathe the bastard!)

[Ryzaki]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...Seeing how mages behaved in DA2, do they really need to think ahead when they are being idiots? That's not the point. 

Kirkwall's the exception not the rule. 

I'd see the mother trying to go after her child being seen as pointless. The child won't know who she is, dealing with a demon means she can no longer be a human and may even turn on her child, the templars have a heat seeking missle on her. To me it doesn't make much sense. Unless she was gonna hand the child over to someone else to raise it seems...foolish and pointless. 

I'd see maybe a few mothers trying and the templars letting them go out of control and killing the children they were trying to keep, (or just punish them and take the child away anyway) to teach the other mage parents a lesson. Enough examples and I don't see many seeing it as worthwhile. 

Plus the mother has no way of knowing where her child is (wasn't Wynne's child taken away before she could even hold it?) some might not even know how the baby looks. All you know is they won't be in the Circle and I could see many circle mages seeing this as a good thing even if their child wasn't with them. 

[ddv.rsa]

Persephone wrote...

Yes, I honestly believe that.

You really think this will have a significant effect on the war in DA3?

Modifié par ddv.rsa, 16 juin 2011 - 05:42 .

[Ryzaki]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Deztyn wrote...
Oh. 

You don't know?

The Gallows was actually a mage baby orphanage. When you Annul the circle you're killing thousands of innocent infants. I know you don't actually see any of them in game, but trust me. They're there. :innocent:

 

Oooooh. Poor invisible infants. May they rest in peace. 

Um, they take mages to Circles as children. Of course there was going to be children in there, but the game for some reason never thought it important to make us see inside the gallows.

 

I was talking about babies. How are they gonna know a mage is a baby when every example we have (not every mage but every mage we know who went into the circle Wynne, Anders) is of some 4-5 year old having a magic "accident" and the templars being called. Mages aren't born with a sign on their head that says "ho there! I am a mage!" Thus I find the slaughtering infants thing to be head tilt worthy. 

I'm of the mind Ella's about 12 - 14 personally. I call 14 year olds children all the time (they get pissed but they're chilluns to me ). 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 16 juin 2011 - 05:47 .

[Ryzaki]

Persephone wrote..
That chick? 

What about Ella? She surely was completely sane.

And what of Ser Karras? (Loathe the bastard!)

 

The...the one who stupidly went to the circle asking for money.  

Yeah forgot about her. 

And ugh forgot about him. 

Still balances out in the end. 

[Deztyn]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Um, they take mages to Circles as children. Of course there was going to be children in there, but the game for some reason never thought it important to make us see inside the gallows.

Boo!

You're no fun KoP.

(Hmmm. . . Do you think they make staves in infant sizes? I think a mini Malcolm's Honor would be quite popular with the baby mages. )

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ryzaki wrote...
I'd see the mother trying to go after her child being seen as pointless. 

It might be pointless, and that's besides the point. Demons don't exactly try to convince their prey with phenomenal reasoning and logic, they appeal to rage, desire and pride. I'd be surprised if demons never managed to exploit that.

And I'd be even more surprised if Tevinter Magisters were not allowed to have children in the old days. And they did quite well when it came to demons.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ryzaki wrote...
I was talking about babies. How are they gonna know a mage is a baby when every example we have (not every mage but every mage we know who went into the circle Wynne, Anders) is of some 4-5 year old having a magic "accident" and the templars being called. Mages aren't born with a sign on their head that says "ho there! I am a mage!" 

Ignoring their incredible incompetence in DA2, I thought Templars are able to sense magic.

[kaiki01]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
I was talking about babies. How are they gonna know a mage is a baby when every example we have (not every mage but every mage we know who went into the circle Wynne, Anders) is of some 4-5 year old having a magic "accident" and the templars being called. Mages aren't born with a sign on their head that says "ho there! I am a mage!" 

Ignoring their incredible incompetence in DA2, I thought Templars are able to sense magic.

That was never a power Templars had. They could track mages if Templars had the mage's phylactery.