443 réponses à ce sujet

[GavrielKay]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Nice argument. And what do you think about the Divine who about called an Exalted March on her own cathedral because the mages were peacefully protesting the Chantry by not using magic to light candles.

The problem with religious zealots is that they feel they are infallible.  Any defiance is defiance against their god and they must fight it to defend their souls.  That mentality doesn't really allow for compromise.  The Divine couldn't just say, "oops, we were wrong."

I personally don't think there is any right of the populace to subjugate mages because of potential danger.  So as far as I'm concerned the circles are wrong, killing the mages for defying Meredith is wrong and saying a mage can't peacefully practice whatever sort of magic he likes is also wrong...  right up until they actually cause harm to someone else.  They have a right to be who they were born to be, but not to harm anyone else in doing so.  Just as my Hawke was free to become deadly with a pair of daggers so long as she doesn't kill innocents.

Quentin, Tarohne and Grace were all justly killed as far as my personal ethics go.  Hawke knew they were guilty of crimes and punished them for it.  However, I don't think they were extra special guilty because they were mages and used magic in their crimes.  My Hawke executed any number of slavers and carta smugglers as well.  Personally I hated the slavers more than the maleficar.

[jlb524]

It's not 'Mage vs. Templar'.

It's 'Supporting Meredith's genocide vs. not supporting it'.

[DKJaigen]

jlb524 wrote...

It's not 'Mage vs. Templar'.

It's 'Supporting Meredith's genocide vs. not supporting it'.

Yeah thats the problem of the entire ending. their is black and white and no shades of gray in this ending. Anybody saying that it is a good thing to kill hundreds men woman and childeren because of the act of 1 person is a damn nutcase.

[IanPolaris]

DKJaigen wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

It's not 'Mage vs. Templar'.

It's 'Supporting Meredith's genocide vs. not supporting it'.

Yeah thats the problem of the entire ending. their is black and white and no shades of gray in this ending. Anybody saying that it is a good thing to kill hundreds men woman and childeren because of the act of 1 person is a damn nutcase.

....unless it's genocide against exploding kittens in which case it's OK.....  (snark)

-Polaris

[DPSSOC]

DKJaigen wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

It's not 'Mage vs. Templar'.

It's 'Supporting Meredith's genocide vs. not supporting it'.

Yeah thats the problem of the entire ending. their is black and white and no shades of gray in this ending. Anybody saying that it is a good thing to kill hundreds men woman and childeren because of the act of 1 person is a damn nutcase.

So we're just going to ignore the 6 years of insane mages?  Completely disregard all the people who've been murdered or offerred to demons and say it all comes down to Anders?  Now I've said before in that particular instance Meredith was acting on shakey reasoning, but considering we've been dealing with similar nonsense for at least 6 years I don't think it's a far stretch for someone to say, "You know what, the innocent ones aren't worth the trouble the guilty ones cause."

[dragonflight288]

So we're just going to ignore the 6 years of insane mages? Completely disregard all the people who've been murdered or offerred to demons and say it all comes down to Anders? Now I've said before in that particular instance Meredith was acting on shakey reasoning, but considering we've been dealing with similar nonsense for at least 6 years I don't think it's a far stretch for someone to say, "You know what, the innocent ones aren't worth the trouble the guilty ones cause."

The Right of Annullment is meant specifically if the Circle is irredeemable. Six years of apostates causing problems is one thing. And it was an apostate who blew up the Chantry.

Legally, Meredith had every right to call the right, but it was a very stretched logic to condemn hundreds when there's no evidence of any wrong-doing while the criminal guilty of it is right there in front of her face and confessing, in addition to doing it right in front of her.

Modifié par dragonflight288, 17 août 2011 - 11:08 .

[Urzon]

The Right of Annullment is meant specifically if the Circle is irredeemable. Six years of apostates causing problems is one thing. And it was an apostate who blew up the Chantry.

Legally, Meredith had every right to call the right, but it was a very stretched logic to condemn hundreds when there's no evidence of any wrong-doing while the criminal guilty of it is right there in front of her face and confessing, in addition to doing it right in front of her.

I didn't understand her reasoning either. Hell, i would have taken a step back for Meredith to take a couple of test swings before she killed Anders, if that meant she would have spared the Circle.

While it was reasonable to use the RoA at the Ferelden Circle. Uldred did basically shut down the tower, and he was forcing mages to turn into abomination threw torture. Even if the Kirkwall mages were thinking of rebelling, only a select few (usually apostates {technically now outside the circle} and mages from other towers) actually did anything.

Meredith had to the absolutely worst thing possible in the situation. She called for the RoT, and she forced the mages to defend themselves and rebel. She may have had the right to do it, but that didn't mean it was the right thing to do though.

Modifié par Urzon, 17 août 2011 - 11:48 .

[Sepewrath]

^Agreed she had plenty of opportunities to call for the Annulment, one big one being Best Served Cold, especially if a Templar Carver was taken. But it just comes down to she was punishing the innocent with the guilty and couldn't abide by that.

[GavrielKay]

DPSSOC wrote...
So we're just going to ignore the 6 years of insane mages?

In short, Yes.

Completely disregard all the people who've been murdered or offerred to demons and say it all comes down to Anders?  Now I've said before in that particular instance Meredith was acting on shakey reasoning, but considering we've been dealing with similar nonsense for at least 6 years I don't think it's a far stretch for someone to say, "You know what, the innocent ones aren't worth the trouble the guilty ones cause."

The long answer?  None of those mages that Hawke encountered and killed were in the circle at the time Meredith called the annulment.  So their guilt can't weigh on the circle itself.  So, no, you shoudn't annul the circle because of other mages who've already met their fate.

Saying "the innocent ones aren't worth the trouble" is just lunacy.  That's like saying we should destroy Orazammar because nearly every dwarf we encounter is a Carta smuggler who tries to kill us.  Or Bartrand, yeah, lets nuke Orazammar because Bartrand is a greedy bastard.

The innocent ones should always be worth the trouble...  well, unless you're just role playing an ambitious or evil Hawke.  Role playing aside though, deciding that hundreds of mages deserve to die due to the actions of any number of OTHER mages just isn't right by any objective standard.

[Morroian]

DPSSOC wrote...

So we're just going to ignore the 6 years of insane mages?  

What 6 years of insane mages? There are only a lot of blood mages in Act 3 and thats clearly a situation thats been built up over the preceding 3 years to get to that point, so its more like between 1 and 3 years.

[DPSSOC]

[quote]GavrielKay wrote...
[quote]DPSSOC wrote...
So we're just going to ignore the 6 years of insane mages?
[/quote]
Completely disregard all the people who've been murdered or offerred to demons and say it all comes down to Anders?  Now I've said before in that particular instance Meredith was acting on shakey reasoning, but considering we've been dealing with similar nonsense for at least 6 years I don't think it's a far stretch for someone to say, "You know what, the innocent ones aren't worth the trouble the guilty ones cause."
[/quote]

The long answer?  None of those mages that Hawke encountered and killed were in the circle at the time Meredith called the annulment.  So their guilt can't weigh on the circle itself.  So, no, you shoudn't annul the circle because of other mages who've already met their fate.[/quote]

On it's own no but it's a contributing factor.  The mages over the 6 years are indicative of the Circle's failure to contain and control the mages unless you believe that all the mages we encounter are like Morrigan, Hawke, or Merril rather than Anders (raised free vs escaped).  We know mages escape the Circle and apostates are posing a danger to the public (Idunna, Tarohne, Act 3 Hightown gangs, etc.).  If the Circle can't contain the mages, and the mages that get out are endangering people, the Circle has failed, and at this point it can't be fixed.  Slackening the Templars hold on the Circle will only mean those who want to escape now will have an easier time of it; it won't be until the next generation of mages that the desire to escape will be reduced.  That just means more trouble for the city.  Anders was the straw that broke the bronto's back but every apostate that did harm over those 6 years was a tick on the list of Circle failures.

[quote]GavrielKay wrote...
Saying "the innocent ones aren't worth the trouble" is just lunacy.[/quote]

In a world gone mad lunacy is your only option; and Kirkwall's so full of crazy they're stuffing mattresses with it.

[quote]GavrielKay wrote...
That's like saying we should destroy Orazammar because nearly every dwarf we encounter is a Carta smuggler who tries to kill us.  Or Bartrand, yeah, lets nuke Orazammar because Bartrand is a greedy bastard.[/quote]

A closer analogy would be slaughtering every Dwarf in Kirkwall for the actions of the Carta, and the Carta are just criminals they don't pose a genuine threat to the city just yet.  If it reached to the point that the Guard could no longer do anything to stop the Carta and they were posing a danger to the general populace then yeah I'd say kill the Dwarves (except Varric, Bohdan, and Sandal but Hawke's friends get a pass on the kill the mages too).

[quote]GavrielKay wrote...
The innocent ones should always be worth the trouble...[/quote]

No.  The innocent victims of action are only worth the trouble of avoiding it in so far as they outnumber the innocent victims of inaction.

[quote]GavrielKay wrote...
Role playing aside though, deciding that hundreds of mages deserve to die due to the actions of any number of OTHER mages just isn't right by any objective standard.
[/quote]

There are two options; annull the Circle or continue with business as usual where more mages will escape and more people will die.  It's hundreds of mages vs the thousands of people in Kirkwall; guess who wins out.  That's what it boils down to; the number of innocent mages in the Circle vs the number of innocent victims of the guilty ones.  Going on an assumption of 500 mages, 9 in 10 being completely innocent now and forever, with a 3 kill average per apostate (being real generous on that one) it takes 150 crazed mages to render the innocent mages forfeit.  I haven't taken the time to count but I'm confident I've killed at least that many.

Modifié par DPSSOC, 18 août 2011 - 02:01 .

[DPSSOC]

Morroian wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

So we're just going to ignore the 6 years of insane mages?  

What 6 years of insane mages? There are only a lot of blood mages in Act 3 and thats clearly a situation thats been built up over the preceding 3 years to get to that point, so its more like between 1 and 3 years.

Idunna, Tarohne, and Decimus in Act 1

Quentin in Acts 1 and 2

They don't become an epidemic until Act 3 but they're a problem from beginning to end.

Edit: And those are just off the top of my head.

Modifié par DPSSOC, 18 août 2011 - 02:04 .

[IanPolaris]

DPSSOC wrote...

Morroian wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

So we're just going to ignore the 6 years of insane mages?  

What 6 years of insane mages? There are only a lot of blood mages in Act 3 and thats clearly a situation thats been built up over the preceding 3 years to get to that point, so its more like between 1 and 3 years.

Idunna, Tarohne, and Decimus in Act 1

Decimus is a rebel leader/outlaw/escapee that turned to bloodmagic and was in the Starkhaven (not Kirkwall) tower to start with.  It's grossly unfair to blame the circle mages in Kirkwall for Decimus.  As for that group, you sort of expect outlaw mages to use outlawed magic.  It's one of the few things I tend to think Meredith is right about.

As for Tarohne and Idunna, they are outside cultists (likely resolutionists) and open apostates which again is hardly the fault of the circle or mages in general.  Take any group of people, and you'll have a few bad apples.

Quentin in Acts 1 and 2

Actually Quentin in Acts 1 and 2 wasn't a real big problem (other than the occassional murder but what's a murder or two between friends) and certainly didn't threaten the stability of the city.  He was a "Dalmer" or "Hannible Lector" type and you don't need to be a mage to be that sort of evil.

They don't become an epidemic until Act 3 but they're a problem from beginning to end.

Edit: And those are just off the top of my head.

It was Act III where it really became overdone and bad, but even then they were either almost all apostates or mages already condemned to death (which means all bets are off).

-Polaris

[Morroian]

DPSSOC wrote...

Morroian wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

So we're just going to ignore the 6 years of insane mages?  

What 6 years of insane mages? There are only a lot of blood mages in Act 3 and thats clearly a situation thats been built up over the preceding 3 years to get to that point, so its more like between 1 and 3 years.

Idunna, Tarohne, and Decimus in Act 1

Quentin in Acts 1 and 2

All isolated incidents, not a general break out of blood mages like your comment implies.

[Big I]

DPSSOC wrote...

"You know what, the innocent ones aren't worth the trouble the guilty ones cause."

Under that logic Bethany's murder would be justified because of the existence of Grace. In fact under that logic ALL mages should be killed because of the existence of Anders. The problems are that that logic assumes 1) Annulment is the only option, and 2) innocent people should be killed for the crimes of others.

[nuclearpengu1nn]

Both sides will try to kill you in the end anyway
So flip a coin

[Shadow Fox]

GreyWarden36 wrote...

Both sides will try to kill you in the end anyway
So flip a coin

Yup the final "showdown" pretty much came down to what ending I prefered you fight both sides regardless.


I just think accusing someone of being morally unsound because of a choice they made in a video game is ridiculous.

[Xilizhra]

There are two options; annull the Circle or continue with business as usual where more mages will escape and more people will die. It's hundreds of mages vs the thousands of people in Kirkwall; guess who wins out. That's what it boils down to; the number of innocent mages in the Circle vs the number of innocent victims of the guilty ones. Going on an assumption of 500 mages, 9 in 10 being completely innocent now and forever, with a 3 kill average per apostate (being real generous on that one) it takes 150 crazed mages to render the innocent mages forfeit. I haven't taken the time to count but I'm confident I've killed at least that many.

Your math is off. If 9 out of 10 Circle mages are innocent, that leaves only 50 non-innocent ones. If they kill 3 each that's... well, a total casualty count of 150, which is far smaller than the initial 500.

[GavrielKay]

DPSSOC wrote...
On it's own no but it's a contributing factor.  The mages over the 6 years are indicative of the Circle's failure to contain and control the mages unless you believe that all the mages we encounter are like Morrigan, Hawke, or Merril rather than Anders (raised free vs escaped).

It was Meredith and the Templars' job to ensure the security of the circle, not the imprisoned mages.  So, Meredith gets a huge fail for gripping so tight that everything squeezed out through her fingers.  You can't possibly fault the mages for wanting to escape the Kirkwall circle.  Being raped, whipped, beaten and Tranquiled on the whim of a bunch of sadistic Templars would make even the most devoted Andrastian consider running away.

Also, there is no way to know where most of the rogue mages are from.  Kirkwall is full of refugees, remember?

We know mages escape the Circle and apostates are posing a danger to the public (Idunna, Tarohne, Act 3 Hightown gangs, etc.).

We know there are criminals who happen to be mages running around Kirkwall.  People who share a trait do not share guilt.  And not all apostates are a danger to anyone, and not all circle escapees stick around Kirkwall.

If the Circle can't contain the mages, and the mages that get out are endangering people, the Circle has failed, and at this point it can't be fixed.

The circle didn't fail, Meredith did.  If she'd paid more attention to the actual madmen running around loose in Kirkwall rather than looking for monsters in the tower, things might have been better.  It isn't the circle's responsibility to take care of apostates and maleficar, it's the Templar's. 

The circle can't be fixed because Meredith is a mad zealot who steals power she shouldn't have rather than focus on the responsibilities she should.  She doesn't want to fix it.  She wants to kill them all. 

Anders was the straw that broke the bronto's back but every apostate that did harm over those 6 years was a tick on the list of Circle failures.

I think you mean Meredith's failures again.  And this is the woman you want to trust to tell you that the mages need to be wipted out?  She's probably just trying to cover up her mistakes.

A closer analogy would be slaughtering every Dwarf in Kirkwall for the actions of the Carta, and the Carta are just criminals they don't pose a genuine threat to the city just yet.  If it reached to the point that the Guard could no longer do anything to stop the Carta and they were posing a danger to the general populace then yeah I'd say kill the Dwarves (except Varric, Bohdan, and Sandal but Hawke's friends get a pass on the kill the mages too).

So to paraphrase Rifneno, guilt is determined not by actions but by potential actions?  Criminal is criminal, victims are unlikely to feel better that it was a dagger in the back rather than a fireball that killed them.

The city guard doesn't seem to be taking care of the thugs very well at all, given they enlist Hawke's help.

It's hundreds of mages vs the thousands of people in Kirkwall; guess who wins out.

The trouble is, before the RoA was called, the circle mages were not attacking thousands of people in Kirkwall.  They were frustrating Meredith, but they weren't on a rampage.  There weren't abominations running around killing everyone.  The circle mages hadn't declared open rebellion.  It was Meredith and Orsino fighting about whether the mages should have any rights to privacy basciallly.  Then "boom" and Meredith's only obstacle to calling the RoA is gone.

The circle mages weren't a danger to the populace until Meredith made them all run or fight for their lives.