472 réponses à ce sujet

[Killjoy Cutter]

IanPolaris wrote...

Read your own post. Confinement for the purposes of destruction is in fact genocide. Those that run concentration camps just to hold those of a certain ethnicity for example and restrict marriage etc are in fact guilty of genocide. This fits the circle system to a tee. At least the UN has always ruled that putting a national, ethnic, religious, or racial group in confinment just for being that group is an act of Genocide.

Because the intent in those cases has always been to continue on with steps towards destruction. 

The US internment of Japanese Americans in WW2, while repugnant, wasn't an act of genocide -- there was no intent to wipe out the Japanese ethnic group inside the US, and no attempt was made to do so. 

Similarly, the mere confinement of mages in the DA setting, in the Circles, is not with the intent of wiping mages out or killing all of those mages that have been confined.  There are still good arguments to be made that the way in which mages are treated by the Chantry is deeply wrong, but it is not in and of itself genocide.   

(Meredith was a madwoman whom many other Templars began to oppose, in a city that seems to ooze strife and extremism from its very pores.  See, in contrast, the situation at the Circle in Ferelden, which was much more immediate and dire, and yet the Templar commander grabbed at the slightest chance to avoid following through with Annulment even after sending for permission.)

[IanPolaris]

Wulfram wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

A true hardened Templar would insist on killing Conner no matter what.  Alistair does not.  Alistair loaths Morrigan, but Morrigan is a pretty unlikeable person.  Certainly in the Fereldan tower, Alistair does not exhibit the Templar attitude towards annulment and is willing to take risks to show the mages mercy...not typical Templar traits.  The one character in DAO that has the typical Templar attitude is Sten.

-Polaris

His attitude towards annullment is pretty similar to those shown by Greagoir in Origins, who initially believes Annullment is necessary, but gladly accepts that it is not after Irving is rescued, and Cullen in DA2, who is willing to accept the surrender of mages during an annullment.  Greagoir presumably authorises the attempt to save Connor in Origins, too.
And while a lot of Alistair's problem with Morrigan is personal, his comment to Duncan indicates hostility to Apostates, with Duncan feeling the need to remind him that "Chantry business is not ours".

Gregoire has the sense to be guided by his First Enchanter when it comes to Conner, but if you talk with Gregoire before, he's quite clear that be believes death is the only solution.  It's also worth noting that Gregoire is a flaming liberal by Templar standards.  I stand by what I said.  In the game, Sten (of all people) in DAO seems to have the most typical Templar type attitude not Alistair.

-Polaris

[Killjoy Cutter]

So in other words, you're going to choose which templars you feel are representative of your own conception of the templars and their beliefs and attitudes, and jsut dismiss as outliers those who you think are not.

[IanPolaris]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Read your own post. Confinement for the purposes of destruction is in fact genocide. Those that run concentration camps just to hold those of a certain ethnicity for example and restrict marriage etc are in fact guilty of genocide. This fits the circle system to a tee. At least the UN has always ruled that putting a national, ethnic, religious, or racial group in confinment just for being that group is an act of Genocide.

Because the intent in those cases has always been to continue on with steps towards destruction.

Targeted confinement and collective punishments are both considered genocide these days.

 

The US internment of Japanese Americans in WW2, while repugnant, wasn't an act of genocide -- there was no intent to wipe out the Japanese ethnic group inside the US, and no attempt was made to do so. 

Actually there was, just not by mass murder.  It was designed to remove "Japanese Influence" in the US and deport as many Japanese as possible.  The implementation was expressly racist and expressly designed to cull any Japanese culture (review the literature at the time and you will see I'm right).  As such, and by modern UN standards, it most certainly was an act of Genocide.

Similarly, the mere confinement of mages in the DA setting, in the Circles, is not with the intent of wiping mages out or killing all of those mages that have been confined.  There are still good arguments to be made that the way in which mages are treated by the Chantry is deeply wrong, but it is not in and of itself genocide.   

Confining a group and controlling how they reproduce (ie. forbidding marriages, taking away offspring, etc) are all considered genocidal.   Genocide is not JUST mass murder.

-Polaris

[InfinitePaths]

TastesLikeTNT wrote...

It always gets so hot in these mage/templar threads.

 It Does indeed .Personaly im for helping mages and for FREEDOM!.But if somewone is possesed im like DIE DEMON DIE!.

[IanPolaris]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

So in other words, you're going to choose which templars you feel are representative of your own conception of the templars and their beliefs and attitudes, and jsut dismiss as outliers those who you think are not.

Not at all.  You can talk with many templars both in DAO and DA2 and you can read the codex entries especially those that tell how the Chantry selects its templar recruits.  What I am saying as a firm basis in game lore.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

HeriocGreyWarden wrote...

TastesLikeTNT wrote...

It always gets so hot in these mage/templar threads.

 It Does indeed .Personaly im for helping mages and for FREEDOM!.But if somewone is possesed im like DIE DEMON DIE!.

I agree actually.  I think that mages themselves should take the point in elmimating their own abominations and spirit possessions (including Anders).  Unless mages show a willingness to police their own (even brutally so), others will not trust them and for good reason.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
(Meredith was a madwoman whom many other Templars began to oppose, in a city that seems to ooze strife and extremism from its very pores.  See, in contrast, the situation at the Circle in Ferelden, which was much more immediate and dire, and yet the Templar commander grabbed at the slightest chance to avoid following through with Annulment even after sending for permission.)

How many Templars protested when Meredith made a clearly unnecessary (even K-Capt Cullen says this) call for a right of annulment over somthing the circle clearly did not do?

Zero.

There's your Templar Morality for you.

-Polaris

[Wulfram]

Alistair agrees with Greagoir at the time, he only changes his mind when he learns things the KC didn't know. And there's no indication that I can see that Greagoir is a flaming liberal except perhaps by comparison with Meredith, who is frequently called out as a particularly harsh Knight Commander.

Modifié par Wulfram, 30 septembre 2011 - 02:07 .

[IanPolaris]

Wulfram wrote...

Alistair agrees with Greagoir at the time, he only changes his mind when he learns things the KC didn't know. And there's no indication that I can see that Greagoir is a flaming liberal except perhaps by comparison with Meredith, who is frequently called out as a particularly harsh Knight Commander.

Gregoire is willing to capture a Bloodmage Grey Warden and plead for clemency.  For a Templar that's pretty DAMNED liberal.  Compare what Gregoire says and does with other Templars and you find that for a Templar he's pretty cutting edge liberal (only Thrask approaches this). 

-Polaris

Edit PS: Also a Right of Annulment is a Right of Annulment and if Alistair agrees there is no choice (and he does) then he should be the first to insist on doing the stabbity-stab with Wynne.  Sten does but Alistair does not.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 30 septembre 2011 - 02:11 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

You know, never mind. Some people are just determined to make their judgement, and stand by it, no matter what. No use arguing endlessly with someone who insists on using the most extreme word possible even if it doesn't fit.  I guess we're at the point where some people feel that hyperboly is the best means of discourse.  Oh well. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 30 septembre 2011 - 02:34 .

[teenparty]

When I play as a mage I always save the circle. It would be dangerous not to.

When I play as a rogue or warrior I still save the circle, because ...

1) I could never go to war againts my sister, not even my fictional in-game sister.
2) It makes for a much more heroic and dramatic ending. Murdering defenseless people just isn't my thing.

P.S. It could however be aruged that one should always stand by the templars since the mages all die anyway.

[Wulfram]

Even in Kirkwall, Alain and other members of the conspiracy may be spared. Idunna isn't killed either.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Wulfram wrote...

Even in Kirkwall, Alain and other members of the conspiracy may be spared. Idunna isn't killed either.

Obviously all Templars are homocidal maniacs beyond the virtue of mercy...

[dragonflight288]

Many mages live to tell the tale. If all the Circles got word from a biased Chantry source about Kirkwall's Annulment, they wouldn't have heard any other reasons for why it happened. But when some mages live and tell others that it happened for a crime no mage in the circle committed, that raises more than a few eyebrows.

Even if we side with the templars, i doubt they kill EVERY mage. I'm sure there were a couple who had assignments and just happened to not be there at the time....or maybe a few apostates who stayed well away from the fighting.

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...
It's not "my" argument. Whether you like it or not, the Right of Annulment fits the definition of genocide to a tee, and there is no evidence that it's justified whatsoever.  In fact the "right" didn't even exist until a couple of centuries after the modern Chantry was formed, but somehow societies managed just fine....

Look, I'm not being stubborn just for the sake of being stubborn. I am being stubborn because I think a lot of people are putting on their moral blinders and advocating things that really are monstrous and one of those is the slaughter of an entire group of people simple for what they are (and especially if they had no role in what caused the crisis).  Words have meanings.  The Right of Annulment is genocide.  Wake up and accpet what that means and then ask yourself how you can support the Chantry or Templars in light of this.  I don't think a moral person that fully understands the issue can and remain a moral person.

-Polaris

This is an esoteric discussion.  We're dealing with a fantasy realm, not a United Nations forum.   I really DGAF whether the Right of Annulment fits some made-up word.  People's choices in a game are, for one thing, roleplay choices, not reflections on their character.  Your insistence otherwise is insulting.

But as long as we're dealing with abstract moral principles, once again- you're neglecting a primary one, and that is the right to self defense.  You acknowledge it for mages as individuals and as a group, but not for Thedas societies in protecting themselves against the extraordinary supernatural powers mages possess.  A power, incidentally, that doesn't exist in the real world, so your arch moral condemnations of player choices don't apply.

Modifié par Addai67, 30 septembre 2011 - 04:05 .

[Xilizhra]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Even in Kirkwall, Alain and other members of the conspiracy may be spared. Idunna isn't killed either.

Obviously all Templars are homocidal maniacs beyond the virtue of mercy...

Cullen's little crisis of faith is actually helpful in this instance, as opposed to the final battle where he's simply Captain Useless.

But as long as we're dealing with abstract moral principles, once again- you're neglecting a primary one, and that is the right to self defense. You acknowledge it for mages as individuals and as a group, but not for Thedas societies in protecting themselves against the extraordinary supernatural powers mages possess. A power, incidentally, that doesn't exist in the real world, so your arch moral condemnations of player choices don't apply.

This is irrelevant when tyrannical means are applied to people who haven't done anything.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 30 septembre 2011 - 04:34 .

[LobselVith8]

zazally wrote...

HOLY JESUS! this thread has became quite popular thank you everyone!!! you made me happy!

It happens when people discuss mages and templars, because people have strong views on both sides of the argument that exists. People strongly disagree on what should be done regarding the Chantry controlled Circles and the Order of Templars, and I don't think it's ever going to change. Even Dragon Age 2, which seems to strongly lean pro-templar in it's narrative and even with the Legacy DLC, hasn't dissuaded the arguments between pro-mages and pro-templars in disagreement over what should be done.

Part of the issue is that the narrative has insane and stupid mage antagonists that make little sense, lore-breaking examples of mages turning into abominations that contradict how mages are supposed to enter the Fade and not remain conscious or aware in the real world (i.e. Aeonar), and the Knight-Commander became a dictator who decided to try to wipe out an entire population of people who were innocent of Anders' actions, and she argued to Hawke she was doing so because she wanted to appease a hypothetical mob she felt would demand blood.

It even happens in threads where no one is discussing mages and templars originally. Pro-templar fans even brought up mages and the Chantry controlled Circles when I made a thread about Leliana and the Exalted March, in which I thought killing 'Sister Nightingale' might save the lives of people living in Kirkwall since she seemed to endorse the Exalted March even if Hawke argues her not to encourage the Divine to pursue that course of action. Despite focusing on Kirkwall and its denizens, discussion veered towards the mages even though the OP had nothing to do with Leliana's views on mages or magic (which some now view to be anti-mage, given her dialogue in "Faith") or even the Chantry's views on magic, but rather her apparent support for the Exalted March.

[IanPolaris]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

You know, never mind. Some people are just determined to make their judgement, and stand by it, no matter what. No use arguing endlessly with someone who insists on using the most extreme word possible even if it doesn't fit.  I guess we're at the point where some people feel that hyperboly is the best means of discourse.  Oh well. 

Actually you admitted yourself that the Right of Annulment was genocide by your own linked definition and that was my original contention.  Some people just don't like having the Right of Annulmnet called by it's proper name.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...

But as long as we're dealing with abstract moral principles, once again- you're neglecting a primary one, and that is the right to self defense.  You acknowledge it for mages as individuals and as a group, but not for Thedas societies in protecting themselves against the extraordinary supernatural powers mages possess.  A power, incidentally, that doesn't exist in the real world, so your arch moral condemnations of player choices don't apply.

Evidence would be nice.  No one has yet shown that mages as a group pose an ongoing dire danger to society, only that untrained and unregulated mages do, and no one is suggesting that magic be unregulated or that mages be permitted to exist without training.  The Chantry views with alarm, but when you really come down to it and look at the evidence, the argument of self defense falls apart.  Being fearful of a group is not a valid moral excuse to confine that group let alone commit acts of genocide, but that is what DG would have you believe apparently (or at least argue it might be justifiable).

-Polaris

[Killjoy Cutter]

IanPolaris wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

You know, never mind. Some people are just determined to make their judgement, and stand by it, no matter what. No use arguing endlessly with someone who insists on using the most extreme word possible even if it doesn't fit.  I guess we're at the point where some people feel that hyperboly is the best means of discourse.  Oh well. 

Actually you admitted yourself that the Right of Annulment was genocide by your own linked definition and that was my original contention.  Some people just don't like having the Right of Annulmnet called by it's proper name.

Not an admission -- an outright statement, that Annulment can fairly be called an act of genocide.  We agree on that. 

Where I draw the line, where the term "genocide" is being bent beyond utility, is at calling the Circles, in and of themselves, an act of genocide. 

[EmperorSahlertz]

Oh sweet jesus... The genocide discussion again?... No, the Annulment isn't genocide, anymore than any battle, city sacking, or general mass murder has ever been genocide. Sure, if you twist and bend the terms of genocide, and ignore a lot of others, then it could probably be called genocide... It would be wrong to do so, but taht doesn't seem to be an issue.

[Killjoy Cutter]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Oh sweet jesus... The genocide discussion again?... No, the Annulment isn't genocide, anymore than any battle, city sacking, or general mass murder has ever been genocide. Sure, if you twist and bend the terms of genocide, and ignore a lot of others, then it could probably be called genocide... It would be wrong to do so, but taht doesn't seem to be an issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group",[1] though what constitutes enough of a "part" to qualify as genocide has been subject to much debate by legal scholars.[2] While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[3]

It's not that much of a stretch. 

[IanPolaris]

imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[3]

I am quoting the last part of the definition of genocide and it's something the circles do all the time, so by that standard the definition fits.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

Ironically, the intention of the annulments are not to destroy all mages, but to protect the world. The most important factor of genocide, is the "intent to destroy". The Templars do not kill all the mages in the Circle during an annulment just because they are mages. But because the Circle has been deemed irredeemable, and the mages must be killed to be safe.

Or do you claim that if I burn down a house where a known criminal is hiding, who happens to be chinese, who is hidng amongst some other chinese, is an act of genocide because all the killed happened to be of the same race? (not saying the act isn't a terrible one, but using a term that does not fit, is quite shallow rhethoric)

As I have said many times before. The Circles themselves are much closer to actual genocide than the annulmetns will ever be. However, the Circles are not formed with the "intent to destroy", but with the intent to educate, and protect (both the public and the mages themselves).

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 30 septembre 2011 - 07:28 .