1253 réponses à ce sujet

[GavrielKay]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
I doubt the use of leeches and hensbane qualify you as a surgeon..

In a sufficiently backwards society, knowing how to stop bleeding and a few herbs to address fevers and aches could be enough to be considered a surgeon.  The definition of surgeon hasn't always been a specialist in opening the body and making adjustment.

[phaonica]

GavrielKay wrote...

In order for me to support an RoA I would have to feel it was truly being called in a no-win situation.  Meredith wanting to appease her blood lust and satisfy a mob just doesn't come close.  As another poster mentioned, in DAO they could have had something about not doing the RoA backfire on the Warden.  A saved mage kills a few people before being put down or something like that.  Something to make the point that you can't tell who's been compromised.  ... It's a matter of somehow considering a circle truly iredeeamable. 

I'm not convinced this could be portrayed to some people. One might still argue that if there is a chance that so much as one mage in the circle is innocent, then killing them all is unjustified.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...


Chantry priests apparently also double as surgeons in some instances. So there are "medical staff" outside the Circles. Wether or not they are as effective as a Circle mage couldprobably be argued.

From the sounds of it, it seems mostly leeches and henbane stuff. Pretty limited in effectiveness. It also seems that wealthy people and nobles keep mages around for healing, and given it's likely due to them being able to afford more effective treatment than commoners.

I doubt the use of leeches and hensbane qualify you as a surgeon..

In a medieval society? Hell, that's exactly what used to qualify one as a surgeon. In fact, barbers used to double as surgeons, often amputating limbs with the same tools they cut hair with. Thedas does not strike me as a society technologically developed enough that their forms of non-magical, mundane medicine would be anything but primitive.

[EmperorSahlertz]

No it really wasn't. A surgeon would be the one who stood for amputations and wound cleaning. An apothecary would stand for the leeches and hensbane.

[GavrielKay]

phaonica wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

In order for me to support an RoA I would have to feel it was truly being called in a no-win situation.  Meredith wanting to appease her blood lust and satisfy a mob just doesn't come close.  As another poster mentioned, in DAO they could have had something about not doing the RoA backfire on the Warden.  A saved mage kills a few people before being put down or something like that.  Something to make the point that you can't tell who's been compromised.  ... It's a matter of somehow considering a circle truly iredeeamable. 

I'm not convinced this could be portrayed to some people. One might still argue that if there is a chance that so much as one mage in the circle is innocent, then killing them all is unjustified.

And I'd agree with those people if they continue to show that everyone who attacks us is evil and everyone who doesn't is ok.  They'd have to show that you really can't tell and that even if the mage seems ok when you think you're just "culling" the circle they might later prove to have been an abomination all along. 

So, say you do the Broken Circle quest in DAO and then a few days later get an urgent Chantry Board quest to help them put down several abominations that were set free as a result of not having just annuled the whole circle.  Those abominations wipe out a village or two before the Warden arrives, thus proving that sometimes you just have to kill a few innocents in order to save more. 

As presented so far though, game play just doesn't support the idea that you can't tell who's compromised.  And I do believe that if you can tell the difference, the moral choice is to spare the innocents.

[LobselVith8]

Ryzaki wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Skadi,

I think you're onto something.

Now Hawke's behavior is finally starting to make sense. I was wondering what he was doing all these years.

So this is Hawke's theme song then?  

Exactly! Silent Bob is The Warden and Jay is Hawke.

[phaonica]

GavrielKay wrote...

I'm not convinced this could be portrayed to some people. One might still argue that if there is a chance that so much as one mage in the circle is innocent, then killing them all is unjustified.

As presented so far though, game play just doesn't support the idea that you can't tell who's compromised.  And I do believe that if you can tell the difference, the moral choice is to spare the innocents.

Ok, I think I see where you are coming from. If the game convinced you that you really couldn't tell the difference, then you might be inclined to sacrifice some innocents. Instead, the "bad" mages are not subtle at all, and we are given at least one way to detect the compromised mages, such as Merrill or Anders being able to confirm no possession in Keran (ignoring that the detection method itself requires blood magic or possession). Fair enough.

Modifié par phaonica, 31 août 2011 - 05:37 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

No it really wasn't. A surgeon would be the one who stood for amputations and wound cleaning. An apothecary would stand for the leeches and hensbane.

And as I said, they were primitive methods. Hensbane and leeches is used as a sort of metaphor for primitive, crude medical methods of often questionable effectiveness. Not an exact description of methods used.  Medieval surgery was a very crude practice, at least in medieval Europe, which is what Thedas is supposed to resemble.

Surgery that is likely practiced by chantry members is likely similar in practice and crudeness. A chantry sister might be able to amputate a limb, but a mage could very well save a limb as well as stop an infection completely. Not just through spells, but likely advanced alchemy/chemistry applications as well, since it seems many of the Circle's experiments seem to often have some sort of scientific approach or application.

I doubt Chantry sisters spend much time studying alchemy and chemistry, and it's unlikely they study the human body as extensively as the Circles most likely have.

[GavrielKay]

phaonica wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

I'm not convinced this could be portrayed to some people. One might still argue that if there is a chance that so much as one mage in the circle is innocent, then killing them all is unjustified.

As presented so far though, game play just doesn't support the idea that you can't tell who's compromised.  And I do believe that if you can tell the difference, the moral choice is to spare the innocents.

Ok, I think I see where you are coming from. If the game convinced you that you really couldn't tell the difference, then you might be inclined to sacrifice some innocents. Instead, the "bad" mages are not subtle at all, and we are given at least one way to detect the compromised mages, such as Merrill or Anders being able to confirm no possession in Keran (ignoring that the detection method itself requires blood magic or possession). Fair enough.

Actually it seemed to me that Anders/Merrill/Bethany were telling you that if you attack an abomination in any way, they will automatically defend themselves.  They don't possess the guile necessary to take a hit and not respond in order to maintain their cover.  So long as that continues to be the canon (and game play certainly supports that) then I think it's hard to say an annulment is the only option.

[KnightofPhoenix]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Follow Me on Twitter wrote...

www.youtube.com/watch 

And if you do this quest you gain an understanding of why its so dangerous to help the mages out.

All "Faith" showed me was that (Sister Nightingale) Leliana was blaming the unrest in Kirkwall on the mages, despite the fact that Meredith becoming a dictator for three years has caused mages and templars to ally with one another to depose her rule, and a pro-mage Hawke can publicly condemn her dictatorship following agreement among the common people and the nobles. This showed me how dangerous it was to allow an incompetent person like Leliana to have any level of responsibility over the lives of others.

What that showed me is how idiotic and incompetent the Divine is.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 31 août 2011 - 05:57 .

[phaonica]

GavrielKay wrote...

Actually it seemed to me that Anders/Merrill/Bethany were telling you that if you attack an abomination in any way, they will automatically defend themselves.  They don't possess the guile necessary to take a hit and not respond in order to maintain their cover.  So long as that continues to be the canon (and game play certainly supports that) then I think it's hard to say an annulment is the only option.

Well I suppose that could be used to justify frequent beatings in the circle....

jk (mostly)

Actually, if that's established lore, I think it's a shame, if only because it arguably makes detection too easy, and imo subtlety is more interesting. Either way, if they wanted to have demons with unprecedented guile (ie, if they wanted to retcon that), I'd be fine with it.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

No it really wasn't. A surgeon would be the one who stood for amputations and wound cleaning. An apothecary would stand for the leeches and hensbane.

And as I said, they were primitive methods. Hensbane and leeches is used as a sort of metaphor for primitive, crude medical methods of often questionable effectiveness. Not an exact description of methods used.  Medieval surgery was a very crude practice, at least in medieval Europe, which is what Thedas is supposed to resemble.

Surgery that is likely practiced by chantry members is likely similar in practice and crudeness. A chantry sister might be able to amputate a limb, but a mage could very well save a limb as well as stop an infection completely. Not just through spells, but likely advanced alchemy/chemistry applications as well, since it seems many of the Circle's experiments seem to often have some sort of scientific approach or application.

I doubt Chantry sisters spend much time studying alchemy and chemistry, and it's unlikely they study the human body as extensively as the Circles most likely have.

The Circle mages most certainly havn't had any anatomical research, since such research is banned, due to fear of blood magic. Far more likely that the Chantry scholars have much more experience within the field of surgery than any mage. And while the first instances of surgery was brutal and crude, it is from such starts that our worlds modern medicine developed. Magic would prevent such development.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Chantry shcolars were also learned in the field of chemistry, and even alchemy. Since such fields were developed in our world, even with the distinct lack of magic.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Circle mages most certainly havn't had any anatomical research, since such research is banned, due to fear of blood magic. Far more likely that the Chantry scholars have much more experience within the field of surgery than any mage. And while the first instances of surgery was brutal and crude, it is from such starts that our worlds modern medicine developed. Magic would prevent such development.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Chantry shcolars were also learned in the field of chemistry, and even alchemy. Since such fields were developed in our world, even with the distinct lack of magic.

Actually medicine in Europe until nearly the age of enlightment was incredibly dangerous and backwards even by the standards of other civilizations (such as the Chinese and Arabs) precisely because cutting edge medical researches were often subject to witch hunts and the inquisition. [Yes, until relatively recently, the church and Chantry position on human disection were the same:  against canon law.  Even later during the Age of Enlightenment, it was only canonically permitted on the bodies of the condemned.]

Edit: Given that Chantry dogma on this point is almost the same as the midaeval RCC, I don't see non-magical medicine being any better and possibly worse.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 31 août 2011 - 06:18 .

[GavrielKay]

phaonica wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

Actually it seemed to me that Anders/Merrill/Bethany were telling you that if you attack an abomination in any way, they will automatically defend themselves.  They don't possess the guile necessary to take a hit and not respond in order to maintain their cover.  So long as that continues to be the canon (and game play certainly supports that) then I think it's hard to say an annulment is the only option.

Well I suppose that could be used to justify frequent beatings in the circle....

jk (mostly)

Actually, if that's established lore, I think it's a shame, if only because it arguably makes detection too easy, and imo subtlety is more interesting. Either way, if they wanted to have demons with unprecedented guile (ie, if they wanted to retcon that), I'd be fine with it.

I do think it would be more interesting if abominations had something more than animal cunning.  It would also help make more sense of certain Chantry positions.  If only DA2 had invested more in actually telling a compelling story rather than tossing out enemies who happened to have "blood mage" over their heads.  There were several ways they could have made the final decision actually gray rather than just frustrating.  Making abominations more subtle and dangerous could have been a big part of that.

[phaonica]

GavrielKay wrote...
 If only DA2 had invested more in actually telling a compelling story rather than tossing out enemies who happened to have "blood mage" over their heads.  There were several ways they could have made the final decision actually gray rather than just frustrating.  Making abominations more subtle and dangerous could have been a big part of that.

Understood. I was just exploring whether this issue of finding some justification in killing innocents could be made more morally ambiguous with different/better writing (which you seem to be agreeing with), or if the issue is inherently black and white, in which case no amount of fair and balanced depiction, no number of sane or reasonable characters, is going to make the issue morally ambiguous.

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

Edit: Given that Chantry dogma on this point is almost the same as the midaeval RCC, I don't see non-magical medicine being any better and possibly worse.

-Polaris

What exactly is the Chantry's dogma on medicine research? They don't like mages doing anatomical research for obvious reasons, but we got no knowledge of what their stances are on medicinal and surgical research. Especially such research done by non-mages.

[GavrielKay]

phaonica wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...
 If only DA2 had invested more in actually telling a compelling story rather than tossing out enemies who happened to have "blood mage" over their heads.  There were several ways they could have made the final decision actually gray rather than just frustrating.  Making abominations more subtle and dangerous could have been a big part of that.

Understood. I was just exploring whether this issue of finding some justification in killing innocents could be made more morally ambiguous with different/better writing (which you seem to be agreeing with), or if the issue is inherently black and white, in which case no amount of fair and balanced depiction, no number of sane or reasonable characters, is going to make the issue morally ambiguous.

I understand.  I'm not morally absolutist enough to think there would never be any way to justify something like an RoA.  But I do think DA2 fails to even come close to jusitrying it.  In fact, DAO came closer, as a few other posters have also said.  But having been through DAO and seeing that you can cleanse the circle with no ill effects just makes it that much more difficult to justify an RoA going forward.  I've said before I think the RoA as presented should be considered a crime against humanity.  There has been no evidence that mass slaughter is required rather than selective weeding out.

DA2 would have had to provide much more information about blood magic, abominations and the circle itself before they could really have convinced me.  Some serious changes would be required in the lore and game play before I would stop seeing mages as individuals who should be judged by their own actions vs. judged collectively by the actions of any of their group.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Circle mages most certainly havn't had any anatomical research, since such research is banned, due to fear of blood magic. Far more likely that the Chantry scholars have much more experience within the field of surgery than any mage. And while the first instances of surgery was brutal and crude, it is from such starts that our worlds modern medicine developed. Magic would prevent such development.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Chantry shcolars were also learned in the field of chemistry, and even alchemy. Since such fields were developed in our world, even with the distinct lack of magic.

A circle mage would certainly have to learn some form of anatomy. They might prohibit dissections and tampering with corpses, but this is more than likely due to Andrastian prohibitions of violating bodies. In which case, would certainly prevent actual devout clerics from doing the same. However, the Tevinter most certainly studied anatomy in detail, and even if much of their research has been banned, we do know some study of tevinter lore and practice is allowed.

So yeah, it's likely that a Circle mage might have some sort of understanding of anatomy, at least in theorhetical sense, than a Chantry sister would. I honestly don't see devout clerics of the White divine sitting around reading Tevinter scripts for research and advancement purposes. Nor do I see any Chantry sister screwing around with something so closely linked to magic like alchemy or chemistry. The Chantry is not an institution that encourages scholarship and knowledge beyond a very limited, controlled spectrum, one that must never contradict the party line, else its branded as heresy.

Chemistry and its more mystical predecessor did indeed develop without "real" magic in our world, though they were wideley believed to be a form of magic. However, these sciences did not develop or in the climate of medieval Europe, but in the eastern empires of the Muslims, the Indians, and the Chinese. These were societies that, whatever their religous persuission, prefered to promote the growth of knowledge and study. Alchemical practices that were believed to be witch craft or sorcery in medieval times were openly pursued and catalogued bu the Chinese, Indians, and Muslims. It was only when the Rennisance and it's religous cousin, the Reformation, weakened the Church and its control over doctrine and popular thought, that these practices became more common and advanced in Europe. This is because the political and social climate of Europe was changing from its dark ages embraceing of ignorance (where even half the nobility at one time couldn't even read or write, something that would have been unthinkable in Eastern societies) to one where freedom of exploration and scholarship were nurtured.

The current system more resembles Medieval Europe. In otherwords, as Alistair put it: Ignorance is Bliss. The Chantry does not foster the type of system and climate that encourages the expansion of knowledge. They are basically a bunch of dogmatic idiots who see reason as an offense to faith, or something similar.

[dragonflight288]

What exactly is the Chantry's dogma on medicine research? They don't like mages doing anatomical research for obvious reasons, but we got no knowledge of what their stances are on medicinal and surgical research. Especially such research done by non-mages.

As far as I understand from ingame evidence, the chantry views any and all anatomical research as a form of blood magic, irregardless of whether the researcher is a mage or not. Templars don't stop to ask questions.

[Rifneno]

phaonica wrote...

I'm not convinced this could be portrayed to some people. One might still argue that if there is a chance that so much as one mage in the circle is innocent, then killing them all is unjustified.

And the same can't be said for the templar supporters?

[Torax]

phaonica wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...
 If only DA2 had invested more in actually telling a compelling story rather than tossing out enemies who happened to have "blood mage" over their heads.  There were several ways they could have made the final decision actually gray rather than just frustrating.  Making abominations more subtle and dangerous could have been a big part of that.

Understood. I was just exploring whether this issue of finding some justification in killing innocents could be made more morally ambiguous with different/better writing (which you seem to be agreeing with), or if the issue is inherently black and white, in which case no amount of fair and balanced depiction, no number of sane or reasonable characters, is going to make the issue morally ambiguous.

I think those of a sympathetic nature would just see it as killing people who are innocent of the action which provoked the final decision. Even despite the evils that either side may be portrayed to the players they would see the faces of the innocents instead. I just don't understand how things polarize beyond that. I see both sides as having thier villains and their heroes. Granted to me the greater villain is the one I murder knifed in all games but my first.

[IanPolaris]

Rifneno wrote...

phaonica wrote...

I'm not convinced this could be portrayed to some people. One might still argue that if there is a chance that so much as one mage in the circle is innocent, then killing them all is unjustified.

And the same can't be said for the templar supporters?

No.  You can choose to be (and stop being) a Templar.  You can't choose to be a mage.  That one difference makes all the moral difference.

-Polaris

[phaonica]

Rifneno wrote...

phaonica wrote...

I'm not convinced this could be portrayed to some people. One might still argue that if there is a chance that so much as one mage in the circle is innocent, then killing them all is unjustified.

And the same can't be said for the templar supporters?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're asking.

[GavrielKay]

Torax wrote...

phaonica wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...
 If only DA2 had invested more in actually telling a compelling story rather than tossing out enemies who happened to have "blood mage" over their heads.  There were several ways they could have made the final decision actually gray rather than just frustrating.  Making abominations more subtle and dangerous could have been a big part of that.

Understood. I was just exploring whether this issue of finding some justification in killing innocents could be made more morally ambiguous with different/better writing (which you seem to be agreeing with), or if the issue is inherently black and white, in which case no amount of fair and balanced depiction, no number of sane or reasonable characters, is going to make the issue morally ambiguous.

I think those of a sympathetic nature would just see it as killing people who are innocent of the action which provoked the final decision. Even despite the evils that either side may be portrayed to the players they would see the faces of the innocents instead. I just don't understand how things polarize beyond that. I see both sides as having thier villains and their heroes. Granted to me the greater villain is the one I murder knifed in all games but my first.

Polarize? 

Mage supporters don't want all mages tarred with the same brush and don't think Meredith's blood lust should be satisfied by helping her slaughter circle mages. 

Templar supporters seem to fall into two groups:  1) those who are persuaded by the barrage of mage foes in the game and decide they represent the state of the circle or 2) those who believe they are going with the lesser loss of life due to the damage escaped mages and/or an Exalted March might entail.

I suppose it boils down to which is the more compelling argument for any given player.

For me, as presented, I just can't hold the circle mages accountable for the nonsense the apostate mages are up to.  Meredith is a zealot and I don't trust anything she says.  If the Divine feels an Exalted March is called for then that's on her conscience.  If such a thing happened, it would only serve to cement my notion that the Chantry ought to be brought down wholesale.

There is no reason presented to believe the Kirkwall cirlce itself is irredeemable and must be annuled.  If anything, the game presents evidence that Kirkwall should be abandoned by everyone and then the empty shell should be burned to the ground.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Circle mages most certainly havn't had any anatomical research, since such research is banned, due to fear of blood magic. Far more likely that the Chantry scholars have much more experience within the field of surgery than any mage. And while the first instances of surgery was brutal and crude, it is from such starts that our worlds modern medicine developed. Magic would prevent such development.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Chantry shcolars were also learned in the field of chemistry, and even alchemy. Since such fields were developed in our world, even with the distinct lack of magic.

A circle mage would certainly have to learn some form of anatomy. They might prohibit dissections and tampering with corpses, but this is more than likely due to Andrastian prohibitions of violating bodies. In which case, would certainly prevent actual devout clerics from doing the same. However, the Tevinter most certainly studied anatomy in detail, and even if much of their research has been banned, we do know some study of tevinter lore and practice is allowed.

So yeah, it's likely that a Circle mage might have some sort of understanding of anatomy, at least in theorhetical sense, than a Chantry sister would. I honestly don't see devout clerics of the White divine sitting around reading Tevinter scripts for research and advancement purposes. Nor do I see any Chantry sister screwing around with something so closely linked to magic like alchemy or chemistry. The Chantry is not an institution that encourages scholarship and knowledge beyond a very limited, controlled spectrum, one that must never contradict the party line, else its branded as heresy.

Chemistry and its more mystical predecessor did indeed develop without "real" magic in our world, though they were wideley believed to be a form of magic. However, these sciences did not develop or in the climate of medieval Europe, but in the eastern empires of the Muslims, the Indians, and the Chinese. These were societies that, whatever their religous persuission, prefered to promote the growth of knowledge and study. Alchemical practices that were believed to be witch craft or sorcery in medieval times were openly pursued and catalogued bu the Chinese, Indians, and Muslims. It was only when the Rennisance and it's religous cousin, the Reformation, weakened the Church and its control over doctrine and popular thought, that these practices became more common and advanced in Europe. This is because the political and social climate of Europe was changing from its dark ages embraceing of ignorance (where even half the nobility at one time couldn't even read or write, something that would have been unthinkable in Eastern societies) to one where freedom of exploration and scholarship were nurtured.

The current system more resembles Medieval Europe. In otherwords, as Alistair put it: Ignorance is Bliss. The Chantry does not foster the type of system and climate that encourages the expansion of knowledge. They are basically a bunch of dogmatic idiots who see reason as an offense to faith, or something similar.

What on earth makes you think that the Chantry is against scientific development? That they are mistrusting of anatomical research is completely understandable, within the parameters of their world. But there seems to be no indication at all, that the Chantry is against any sort of research other than that. Nor do the Chantry seem to scoff at any technological advancements, or any advancement at all really. Only the theological studies seems to be disrupted. Though not even close to the extend that the Churc of the Dark Ages did. Only the book which suggests that Andraste was a mage seems to be discarded (though no one knows the reasons for the books current condition), and even the Canticle of Shartan, which is heresy, is openly studied by the Chanty's own scholars.