2008 réponses à ce sujet

[MichaelFinnegan]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

This is a straw man argument.

I'm wondering what exactly you consider as a straw man argument, since your post is not directly addressing anything or anyone in particular.

You can no more say "citizens who pay taxes and don't 'question' (whatever that is supposed to mean) are considered part of the army and are therefore fine to be killed as such."

If this is directed at me, I've not used a conclusion of that nature. So you must necessarily be addressing someone else. Although I doubt it.

Nearly every government in the world has some form of standing army or military that have commited acts for which people could seek retribution. NATO's involvement in the former Yugoslavia, North America's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, the myriad of countries in the Middle East which enforce fundamentalist rule, China's own human rights violations against its citizens, India's feud with Pakistan, Russia's treatment of Georgian revolutionaries, African countries corruption problems that allow warlords to steal donated food and medicine and charge 5 times its worth to starving people, Latin America's silent endorsement of the drug trade to pad government spending accounts... the only area I can't readily come with an example is maybe Australia. And I'm sure they did something to the Aboriginees that could warrant some kind of retribution.

A long list of things... Well, I'm not suggesting that there is some mechanism for providing punishment, or even what that punishment ought to be. I could think of something like economic sanctions (that affects everyone within that country) when the army of a country develops nuclear weapons, for instance. Your argument of "death" or "nothing" makes no practical sense to me.

Point is, every government has done SOMETHING to wrong another group. To say the citizens who "fund" the government's actions are just as culpable and deserving to die as those who carry out the misdeeds themselves is an argument that is easily knocked down. If it was true, you could kill nearly anyone in the world and say you have justification. And we know that is not true.

Well, I've not detailed any kind of punishment - not wholesale bombing of the citizens of a country, not killing anyone in particular. I think perhaps you failed to understand the significance of what I wrote previously, particularly this: "I think of it as a case of everything working with everything else, creating a sense of general balance, or what behaviors to adopt so that others might resort to similar behaviors, therefore resulting in a general sense of general peace."

EDIT: Formatting corrections.

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 28 janvier 2012 - 06:26 .

[Camenae]

But what about those who do speak out against wars and still continue to pay taxes? I see the reasoning behind your endorsement argument, but I think I'm not understanding what you think the average citizen should do then. Not pay taxes? If they speak out/vote according to their beliefs, what else can they do before we say, okay maybe YOU GUYS aren't to blame for XXX action?

There will always be things the government will spend tax dollars on that I don't like, but the next person will wholeheartedly support and donate money on top of the taxes to the cause. Vice versa is also true. I do believe some level of taxation is necessary (purely personal opinon!) if I want the government to still be running (purely personal opinion!), but does that mean I support everything the government does?

[MichaelFinnegan]

Camenae wrote...

But what about those who do speak out against wars and still continue to pay taxes? I see the reasoning behind your endorsement argument, but I think I'm not understanding what you think the average citizen should do then. Not pay taxes?

If I know something obviously unjust is being perpetrated by my elected officials, probably I'd think about not paying taxes - that's something I consider as a non-violent approach to things (which'd reflect my personality, I think). But would I overcome the fear of authority? Who knows? Maybe. I've never been in such a situation...

If they speak out/vote according to their beliefs, what else can they do before we say, okay maybe YOU GUYS aren't to blame for XXX action?

I'm not sure I understood what you meant by this.

There will always be things the government will spend tax dollars on that I don't like, but the next person will wholeheartedly support and donate money on top of the taxes to the cause. Vice versa is also true. I do believe some level of taxation is necessary (purely personal opinon!) if I want the government to still be running (purely personal opinion!), but does that mean I support everything the government does?

If I were to ask myself that question, I'd say, yes, I think I'd hold myself responsible for all actions (esp. the atrocious ones) of those I participating in electing to office, my nation's army, and so on. But that is just me. I think that the way democracy works makes things a bit more complicated, in that whover gets elected to office does so as a result of averaging of opinions, and only the averaging of those who chose to exercise their votes. So, yes, that might mean whoever I voted for might not end up in any worthwhile position at all. Sometimes, it makes me wonder at all of this, to be frank.

Regardless, I think there needs to be breathing room, as you're suggesting. We all do mistakes. I think the underlying assumption of democracy is that an elected official can only serve for a limited term, and can be replaced in the next elections, so that people might judge him/her, and see if he/she's worthwhile to re-elect. This is a safeguard that we, as citizens, possess. The armed forces are just a bit more removed from the actions of the general public, in that the policies of the government would decide their budget and so on, but still I hold that we are in some manner, indirectly even, responsible.

In short, I don't know how exactly to answer your questions. I just thought that there is a logically defensible argument that the citizenry are accountable at some level for the actions of those in authority.

[DKJaigen]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Are you seriously suggesting that the citizens of a nation can be held responsible for the actions of the nation's army abroad?

Yes. And i can hold the chantry followers responsible for the actions of the chantry and the templars.

So in essence, Meredith was actually right to hold all mages responsible for the action of a single mage? Great that you cleared that up...

Only if Anders was part of the circle. And he clearly was not. But even so war should be decisive and with as minimal collateral damage as possible.What Meredith did was beyond stupid as it caused massive collateral damage for no gain. In war the objective is to destroy facilities and targets that supplies and trains new armies. These are usually civilian in nature. While unfortunate every single priest of the chantry is therefore a target.

[Fast Jimmy]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
 Unless there is a clear case of some kind of coercision of the citizenry, in which case the citizen is also a victim of the oppression. The citizen paying a tax for something is actually a case for direct action (not inaction), because the payment is actually a recurring phenomenon.

Uh... yeah. You get thrown in prison if you do not pay your taxes, where you will have no freedom, no possessions and no chance to provide care for your family who lives outside the prison walls.

Is that not "coercion"? 

In a democratic society, 49% of the population could be against a war or military action, but since the 51% outnumber them, they are bound, by law, to pay taxes or face dire legal consequences. So even if you say "citizens pay taxes and they voted for their leaders, they are guilty by association" you STILL could run a 49% chance of killing someone who did not vote for the current action and only pays taxes under duress. So that still makes the killing of civilians from a hostile government a 49% chance that you are killing a truly innocent victim.

So, again, your argument is a straw man. Only holds up at a distance, easily pushed down upon inspection.

[Fast Jimmy]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

If this is directed at me, I've not used a conclusion of that nature. So you must necessarily be addressing someone else. Although I doubt it.

Your point that all citizenry share a sense of guilt for the actions of the government or organization they pay said tribute towards is in the context of Anders and Meredith, specifically if Anders is the same as Meredith, who kills mages indiscriminately. Since Anders killed those in the Chantry building indiscriminately, your argument that all who pay tribute share guilt is, in context, absolving Anders of wrongdoing, since he was killing the "guilty."

If you did not intend your indication of guilt in relation to the topic at hand, then maybe we should be having this conversation in the Off Topic forums.

But in light of the topic here, the concept of being guilty by paying tribute to an organizaiton is directly tied to everyone in the Chantry building being "guilty" on some level, therefore able to be killed by Anders without him being an indiscriminate killer, like Meredith.

[DPSSOC]

DKJaigen wrote...
 In war the objective is to destroy facilities and targets that supplies and trains new armies. These are usually civilian in nature. While unfortunate every single priest of the chantry is therefore a target.

The Chantry building accomplishes neither of those objectives.  Supply targets would be lyrium caravans since lyrium mines and refineries aren't viable (Dwarves), or warehouses most likely located in the docks if not the Gallows; you may have eliminated a middle man but in no way hampered supply.  As for training that would be the barracks since the Chantry only provides basic education and it's the Templars, in the Gallows, that train them to be soldiers.  It'd be like attacking a highschool as opposed to a military academy or boot camp.

[EmperorSahlertz]

DKJaigen wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Are you seriously suggesting that the citizens of a nation can be held responsible for the actions of the nation's army abroad?

Yes. And i can hold the chantry followers responsible for the actions of the chantry and the templars.

So in essence, Meredith was actually right to hold all mages responsible for the action of a single mage? Great that you cleared that up...

Only if Anders was part of the circle. And he clearly was not. But even so war should be decisive and with as minimal collateral damage as possible.What Meredith did was beyond stupid as it caused massive collateral damage for no gain. In war the objective is to destroy facilities and targets that supplies and trains new armies. These are usually civilian in nature. While unfortunate every single priest of the chantry is therefore a target.

So a civilian who isn't part of the armed forces are to be held responsible for an army's actions. But the Circle can't be held responsible for the actions of a mage? You have a very selective sense of justice...

And by the way, the Chantry did neither house, nor train or even supply any sort of military forces, so it didn't even qualify for your own justification.

[Xilizhra]

So a civilian who isn't part of the armed forces are to be held responsible for an army's actions. But the Circle can't be held responsible for the actions of a mage? You have a very selective sense of justice...

I don't subscribe to that thing about civilians, but blaming the Circle for Anders is like blaming an American black guy for Rwandan massacres.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xilizhra wrote...

So a civilian who isn't part of the armed forces are to be held responsible for an army's actions. But the Circle can't be held responsible for the actions of a mage? You have a very selective sense of justice...

I don't subscribe to that thing about civilians, but blaming the Circle for Anders is like blaming an American black guy for Rwandan massacres.

Indeed.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
 Unless there is a clear case of some kind of coercision of the citizenry, in which case the citizen is also a victim of the oppression. The citizen paying a tax for something is actually a case for direct action (not inaction), because the payment is actually a recurring phenomenon.

Uh... yeah. You get thrown in prison if you do not pay your taxes, where you will have no freedom, no possessions and no chance to provide care for your family who lives outside the prison walls.

Is that not "coercion"?

I could, for example, quit my job. There would then be no legal basis for "coercing" me. Still there are others who'd not mind going to prison, willing to take a morally high ground. There are all sorts of cases to consider. But, yeah, refusal to pay taxes could probably elicit a response such as you've stated above.

In a democratic society, 49% of the population could be against a war or military action, but since the 51% outnumber them, they are bound, by law, to pay taxes or face dire legal consequences. So even if you say "citizens pay taxes and they voted for their leaders, they are guilty by association" you STILL could run a 49% chance of killing someone who did not vote for the current action and only pays taxes under duress.

You know you could twist the numbers around further in your favor by considering those who don't vote at all? I think it will do us no good, though, because I think we all tacitly agree with the democratic process, which means even if those we voted for never come to office, ever, we still understand the risks of that happening simply by exercising the voting rights. More importantly I think we understand those risks are lesser by far than accepting a theocratic or an autocratic form of government, for example.

And who said anything about killing? Did I say anything about it? Why do you keep bringing it up?

So that still makes the killing of civilians from a hostile government a 49% chance that you are killing a truly innocent victim.

Geez, more about killings...

So, again, your argument is a straw man. Only holds up at a distance, easily pushed down upon inspection.

Did it ever occur to you that I might be debating from a sense/meaning of responsibility that is not strictly qualified by the legal aspects? And even within that legal framework, I've been very careful to highlight a recurring phenonenon and not a one-off case? My point was that the general tendencies show over the longer run, something like the stock prices reflecting the actual health of a company.

EDIT: Too many typos...

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 29 janvier 2012 - 06:20 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

If this is directed at me, I've not used a conclusion of that nature. So you must necessarily be addressing someone else. Although I doubt it.

Your point that all citizenry share a sense of guilt for the actions of the government or organization they pay said tribute towards is in the context of Anders and Meredith, specifically if Anders is the same as Meredith, who kills mages indiscriminately. Since Anders killed those in the Chantry building indiscriminately, your argument that all who pay tribute share guilt is, in context, absolving Anders of wrongdoing, since he was killing the "guilty."

I have carefully avoided using Anders or the Chantry or the happenings of DA2 throughout my arguments. Even if, for argument's sake, I did think that the people who might have been in the Kirkwall Chantry at that time were somehow responsible for the overall plight of the mages, it'd still be a stretch to accuse me of supporing Anders or his killings. Do you see anything in my arguments indicating a passing of judgment (such as killing someone) of some sort?

If you did not intend your indication of guilt in relation to the topic at hand, then maybe we should be having this conversation in the Off Topic forums.

If we all reached some concurrence with regard to the "responsibility" argument, then perhaps I was hoping to back-apply this argument in the context of DA2 and see where it would go. I did not mean it to be completely off-topic - somebody raised interesting questions a few pages back, which at that time I thought were worth my time to pursue further.

But in light of the topic here, the concept of being guilty by paying tribute to an organizaiton is directly tied to everyone in the Chantry building being "guilty" on some level, therefore able to be killed by Anders without him being an indiscriminate killer, like Meredith.

If you do wish me to debate about the Chantry at this point in time, I'd say the comparison with the government doesn't apply, at least as far as I can see it. The Chantry sustains itself monitarily - it doesn't seem to rely on taxes, for example. And the taxes levied from the farmers or workers of Kirkwall probably go to the landowners or nobles, maybe it's a kind of feudal system - at least I don't see any direct link.

[MichaelFinnegan]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

So a civilian who isn't part of the armed forces are to be held responsible for an army's actions. But the Circle can't be held responsible for the actions of a mage? You have a very selective sense of justice...

I was thinking of letting this one go, but...

At this point in time I think you're just playing with words. Taken the latter part of your argument, and doing a back-analogy, one'd get at a statement like, "but the 'army' can't be held responsible for the actions of a 'civilian'?" I don't think anybody has made such a statement. And, in any case, what are your reasons for supposing that the relationship that holds between a civilan (nay, a citizen) and his armed forces, also holds between any mage and the Circle?

[EmperorSahlertz]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

So a civilian who isn't part of the armed forces are to be held responsible for an army's actions. But the Circle can't be held responsible for the actions of a mage? You have a very selective sense of justice...

I was thinking of letting this one go, but...

At this point in time I think you're just playing with words. Taken the latter part of your argument, and doing a back-analogy, one'd get at a statement like, "but the 'army' can't be held responsible for the actions of a 'civilian'?" I don't think anybody has made such a statement. And, in any case, what are your reasons for supposing that the relationship that holds between a civilan (nay, a citizen) and his armed forces, also holds between any mage and the Circle?

My entire point is that there ISN'T any sort of responsibility between a citizen and an army. Likewise, holding the Circle responsible for the actions of an individual, who was once part of the Circle (which I'd say is close enough to serve as an antithesis), is equally stupid.
Yet, some hypocrites continue to deny the Circle's responsibility, abd in the same breath claim that every single Chantry member, from the lowliest initiate to the Divine herself, is responsible for the blight of the mages, and deserve death.
Bottomline: If it is stupid to hold the Circle responsible for a mage's actions, then it is equally stupid to hold the Chantry responsible for a rogue Templar's action. Especially since 99.99% of the Chantry personnel in Thedas, probably had absolutely no idea what Meredith was up to.

[Xilizhra]

Bottomline: If it is stupid to hold the Circle responsible for a mage's actions, then it is equally stupid to hold the Chantry responsible for a rogue Templar's action. Especially since 99.99% of the Chantry personnel in Thedas, probably had absolutely no idea what Meredith was up to.

We can hold Elthina responsible, as being in charge of Meredith was her job and she was basically asleep at the wheel.

[Fast Jimmy]

Elthina's inaction does not condone destroying one of the largest public buildings in all of Kirkwall.

[Xilizhra]

Not alone, but if such a thing is necessary to kickstart mages getting their freedom...

[DPSSOC]

Xilizhra wrote...

Not alone, but if such a thing is necessary to kickstart mages getting their freedom...

It's not though.  Killing Elthina may have been necessary but he could have kidnapped and executed her in fron of Meredith to the same effect.  Meredith would not have waited for people to sort out who's in charge she would have jumped right on the Annulment.

[Gervaise]

I think the arguement is getting off the original proposition, which is that Anders and Meredith are morally equal. It doesn't matter to this arguement whether you think either of them was justified in what they did, or whether the Chantry was a legitimate military target. The point is that both were prepared to take an action that could potentially involve killing people who were in no way to blame for the situation.

So Meredith is prepared to call a Right of Anulment against all the Circle mages, despite the fact that she has admitted that she knows that at least some of those mages (specifically Bethany) are exemplary mages who do as they are told, don't practise any form of illegal magic and have given no indication of being either in favour of rebellion or possessed. She has done this on the basis that some within the Circle may be indulging in forbidden magic and a former Circle mage (Anders) has blown up the Chantry. On no level was the Right of Anulment justified and the innocent majority were being punished for the actions of a guilty few. However, Meredith is making a political statement to the outside world as to how the templars will deal with rebel mages. Outside of Kirkwall it is reported that there was a mage rebellion but the truth is this was entirely the result of the actions of apostates outside the Circle. It is hardly fair accusing Circle mages of rebellion when the alternative was to lie down and let the templars kill them.

Anders blows up the Chantry to make a political statement and to create a situation where the Circle mages will be forced to fight. He knows this will be the result of his action, otherwise he would not have said that he removed Elthina to ensure a confrontation would take place. If you support Meredith in Act 3, conversation will reveal that Meredith feels Elthina is supporting Orsino and preventing her from acting as she would like. This is why Elthina will not leave - because she knows that as long as she is there she can stop the conflict becoming an all out war. Blowing her up ensures that this is what happens. When Orsino says to Anders that he has killed them all, his response is better a quick death now than a slow one later. There is no sense of apology or remorse for the fact that he has not only killed Elthina and any one else who happened to be in the Chantry at the time, probably a fair few people in the surrounding streets and houses, but also is directly responsible for the death sentence that has been placed on the Circle mages. So leaving aside his justification for blowing up the Chantry, Anders condemned to death a group of people by committing them to a war that on the face of it they could not win and totally removed their freedom of choice in the matter. Strangely enough freedom is what he claimed he was doing it for. It seems to me that he wanted a massacre to take place because of the outrage this would cause in other Circles.

In terms of their lack of respect for the life and rights of those they killed or condemned to death for the sake of their "cause", how are Meredith and Anders so different?

[MichaelFinnegan]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

My entire point is that there ISN'T any sort of responsibility between a citizen and an army.

Let's just agree to disagree on this one. It seems to me that this subject is making some unconfortable to even consider it. And anyway I don't really need to debate this particular subject on these forums, despite my thinking that it is indeed relevant to what's being discussed here.

My entire point is that there ISN'T any sort of responsibility between a citizen and an army. Likewise, holding the Circle responsible for the actions of an individual, who was once part of the Circle (which I'd say is close enough to serve as an antithesis), is equally stupid.

Non sequitur.

Yet, some hypocrites continue to deny the Circle's responsibility, abd in the same breath claim that every single Chantry member, from the lowliest initiate to the Divine herself, is responsible for the blight of the mages, and deserve death.

I do not really see how the two relationships (between mages in general and the Circle on one hand, and between the members of the Chantry and the templars on the other hand) are equal, so I doubt arguments that might be made for one set would automatically apply to the other set.

Bottomline: If it is stupid to hold the Circle responsible for a mage's actions, then it is equally stupid to hold the Chantry responsible for a rogue Templar's action. Especially since 99.99% of the Chantry personnel in Thedas, probably had absolutely no idea what Meredith was up to.

An apostate or a Grey Warden is not a member of a Circle of Magi, so it would indeed be absurd to say that they are accountable to one another. One could make an argument that every mage is accountable for the actions of every other mage in Thedas, but that'd just boil down toward absurdity at some point. So it would indeed seem stupid to hold the Circle accountable for the actions of an apostate/Grey Warden.

The Chantry, on the other hand, is an entity that mediates between the Circle of Magi and the templars. I'm not entirely clear on who all within the Chantry are responsible toward this duty of mediation - indeed a case like Sister Petrice ought to raise our eyebrows, but we might err even there since it could well be that that patricular Sister and that particular templar only were in cahoots. But we do know that the Grand Cleric and the Divine have a more direct responsibility - in that they both fit somewhere within the templar line of command. So some level of accountability would be attributable to both the Grand Clearic and to the Divine if any templar fails in his duties. So really,  it'd not be so stupid to hold the Chantry accountable for the actions of one rogue templar (I think you meant Meredith) depending on whom exactly you associate with the term "Chantry."

And, as I've said many times before, holding someone responsible toward something doesn't automatically mean passing a judgment for it - especially an ill-conceived and extreme judgment such as killing him/her.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Anders was once a Circle mage, so with your twisted sense of justice, the Circle must be in some sick way accountable for his eventual insanity.

[GavrielKay]

It is a bit silly to think that citizens of a democratically elected government have absolutely zero responsibility for the actions of their elected representatives. How much responsibility and what can or should be done to a citizen in response to the actions of their gov't is a separate issue. But you can't really think that if a country has a long history of bad behavior of its elected officials that no burden of guilt at all falls on the citizens who elected them.

In the modern world, we tend to use economic sanctions against countries who continuously behave in ways contrary to peace in the international community. It is mostly the citizens who are affected by such sanctions I think, as corrupt gov't officials are pretty good at getting what they want regardless of how the citizenry is faring. It is a sort of non-violent terrorism where the hope is that put upon citizens will try to do something to fix their gov't and make everyone's life better.

A long history of bad behavior indicates a systemic problem - a complete lack of willingness or motivation to change something that is wretched. Blame for allowing an oppressive regime to continue for 900 years falls on a lot of people. It goes from the top of the Chantry where policy is set to the lowliest believer who sings along with the prayer. They do not share responsibility equally of course, but they do share it.

That is not at all the same as saying that the blame for the actions of one individual at one time should be shared by anyone else. If a mage blew up a Chantry every year for 900 years and the rest of the mages never spoke against it, or tried to ferret out the guilty party and punish them, then you'd have a much closer analogy.

[Xilizhra]

I think the arguement is getting off the original proposition, which is that Anders and Meredith are morally equal.

That's completely not true. I think the original argument was that their methods and personalities were similar, but while Anders fights to overthrow an evil and corrupt status quo, Meredith fights to maintain one. Anders is far Meredith's superior in causes.

[General User]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

A dangerous zealot who likes to
punish innocent people for his ideals who is driven bonkers by a
powerful entity.(Meredith = Idol, Anders = Justice)

Tis' true! Anders and Meredith are very much two sides of the same coin!

One of the overarching themes of Dragon Age II was how even noble and legitimate aspirations and goals can lead to madness and atrocity when taken to extremes. In Meredith's hands the desire for safety and security becomes a brutal tyranny, and in Anders we can see how the desire for freedom can turn to callous murder.

The fact that both Anders and Meredith are possessed highlights this theme. Each is a funhouse mirror-image of the other.

Modifié par General User, 29 janvier 2012 - 11:06 .

[DPSSOC]

Xilizhra wrote...

I think the arguement is getting off the original proposition, which is that Anders and Meredith are morally equal.

That's completely not true. I think the original argument was that their methods and personalities were similar, but while Anders fights to overthrow an evil and corrupt status quo, Meredith fights to maintain one. Anders is far Meredith's superior in causes.

I love how you say this like the only reason for her actions is mustache twirling villainy.  Misguided and insane though she may be Meredith is working to protect the non-mages (you know the majority of people) from blood mages and abominations (which are rampant) as well as the reason for the initial set up of the Circle which was in response to 1,000 plus years of Magister tyranny, which is continually shown to be necessary by the on going Magister tyranny in present day Tevinter.

However poorly she does her job Meredith is trying to protect people from powers they can't stand up against.  She's not just oppressing the mages for the sake of oppressing them she's oppressing them because they insist on regularly demonstrating that they're dangerous.  It's not like we ever get this scene.

Hawke: Why don't you lighten up on the mages?
Meredith: Why?  Why?  EVIL of course!  MUAHAHAHAHA!

GavrielKay wrote...
That is not at all the same as saying that the blame for the actions of one individual at one time should be shared by anyone else. If a mage blew up a Chantry every year for 900 years and the rest of the mages never spoke against it, or tried to ferret out the guilty party and punish them, then you'd have a much closer analogy.

How about around a decade of blood mages and abominations killing people with no one in the Circle speaking or stepping up? How about a First Enchanter who actively campaigns to have the Knight Commander deposed, and is, at the time of the incident, refusing to allow a search of the Circle?

Kerras actually makes a comment about this if you're a mage and you turn Grace in and get Varric to explain what's going on. He comments that it's odd for the mages to offer assistance in rounding up blood mages, runaways, and apostates. So you have the Circle refusing to assist in the capture of people who regularly pose a danger to the public, actively campaigning against the Templars, and refusing a search of the Circle. You then have a mage, an abomination no less blowing up the Chantry and claiming to act for all mages, but we're not supposed to lump the Circle in with him?