[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
Moreover, if abominations were really as common as Kirkwall/Authors would like us to think, there wouldn't have been any civilizations at all. [/quote]
Teh game is not an acurate representation of abominations. Neither in terms of numbers nor in terms of power.
And no, abominations happening often does not mean the world would get destroyed any more than frequent natural disasters destroyed the world.
[/quote]
We can only judge by the game data and the codex. An abomination is going to occure in the middle of a civilization (almost by definition). If an abomination really were the unstoppable force of sheer destruction the Chantry paints AND they happened as often as the Chantry would have you believe, then even a small tribe should see one every generation...and that would mean for a primitive people no survivors.
The fact that hasn't happened strongly suggests that abominations aren't nearly as common as the Chantry wants you to think.
[quote]
[quote]
We have answers to that question and the answer is NO. You know this. At most and only IF there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence can you detain a person, but even that is strictly temporarily. You do not get to convict a person of a crime for what they are rather than what they have done. Your examples willfully overlook this essential difference.[/quote]
Technicly you can as a precaution if the danger is big enough.
Quarantene is one example.
Or shoting down a terrorist-hihjacked plane.
It's clear there's plenty of innocents that will die in both cases, yet both actions are accepted.
[/quote]
The Quarantine example was shot down years ago. In the other examples, you are dealinjg with differing ROE (Rules of Engagement) based on what others have ACTUALLY done. So no your examples don't fit and don't count.
[quote]
[quote]
Wrong. Making a bomb requires a willful act. Being a mage does not. Please learn the difference. Even if you are making a bomb, the prosecutor has to show that you are going to use it for an act of terrorism for that charge to stick. Otherwise you just get the charge of illegal use of explosives/controlled substances. See the difference here.[/quote]
The possesion of a bomb is still illegal and still gets you locked up.
Mage = bomb. So mages get locked up.
[/quote]
A bomb has to be made (or aquired) and that requires a willful act, being a mage does not. There is a difference. It is funadamenally immoral to criminalize a person for what they are rather than what they've done.
[quote]
[quote]
If it not only invalid but reprehensible. You are equating an entire group of people to the worst criminal elements in our society for being what they are rather than what they have done. It's slander of the worst sort.[/quote]
Mages aren't real.
Slandering of fictional characters? .....
[/quote]
It is called "Painting with a Broad Brush". By making the comparison "Mage" == "Sex Offender", the person is attempting to slander those that defend mages. It's an obvious corellary to the ad hominem.
[quote]
[quote]
If a single abomination were as common as the chantry wants you to think (and as the authors did too based on DA2...unless you carefully read the hidden codex entries), then there wouldn't be any civilization. The first abomination would wipe out any primitive tribe...yet we KNOW this is not true. In fact primitive tribes live alongside mages with few apparently negative consequences.[/quote]
No we don't. Quit lying your ass off.
Unless the dissaperance of an enitre tribe is "no negative consequence"
[/quote]
I haven't lied at all. You may disagree with me, but that doesn't mean you know the truth and all others don't.
[quote]
[quote]
In DA2 most of that evidence was badly and horribly slanted (Kirkwall is a Helmouth). If you go by the lore and the more reasonable example of DAO, you find that the evidence doesn't prove what you think it does.
-Polaris[/quote]
Well, it doesn't prove what YOU think it does either.
[/quote]
Actually it pretty much does. Even DG has admitted that Mages have to choose to be an abomination (although that choice can be made by trickery).
-Polaris
Who here sides with the Templars and why?
Débuté par
Treacherous J Slither
, juin 17 2012 09:21
Retour en haut
#377
Posté 11 juillet 2012 - 07:09
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
sickserb wrote...
Feynriel also sends a note saying how bad the chaos and fighting is in Tevinter without proper regulation, if there were to be no circle people would go wild, its definitely necessary.
No he doesn't. He says that his master was involved in a magical duel. Duels are generally very regulated either by law or custom (or both). There is no reason to think that it would be any different in Tevinter. In fact Feynriel seems very happy in Tevinter.
-Polaris
#378
Posté 11 juillet 2012 - 08:58
Xilizhra
-
- Members
- 30 873 messages
I personally would remove this "service to the crown" business, as while most governments lack the inherently xenophobic nature of the Chantry, they're still selfish and exploitative almost by nature, considering the pre-democracy nature of this world. I would instead have the Circle consist of its own political entry, with the templars being simply an arm of that. I'd also allow some further freedom with blood magic, to decrease the allure of the forbidden some and simply to allow for further access to greater knowledge. I would also prefer to abolish the Rite of Tranquility altogether, possibly replacing them with surface dwarves if enough of them can be found. Apart from that, I'll tentatively agree with Dragonflight's idea.
#379
Posté 11 juillet 2012 - 10:19
Daerog
-
- Members
- 4 857 messages
While most governments lack the inherently xenophobic nature of the Chantry? What?
It's the governments that set up the alienages, ignore the plight of the elves, and treat the elves as second class citizens. Its humans who are the xenophobes, not the Chantry, not what it stands for. Yes, xenophobes in the Chantry just like the governments, but the Chantry would not disapprove of a government raising and actively helping the elf citizens, but a government would not approve of the Chantry interfering with how they deal out justice or criticizing its rulers. The chantry disapproving other faiths is not xenophobic. An exalted march being declared on the Dales *after* the Dales invaded Orlais and was close to its capital is no xenophobic, its just reacting to danger. Removing Shartan's part in the Chant is messed up, but that seems more political than xenophobic...
A bit ranty, but that comment just made no sense. Whatever inherent xenophobia the Chantry may have, it is not lacking in any of the governments in Thedas (excluding the qunari).
Anyway... Siding with the Templars in DA2 seems a bit off in my mind, although siding with either overall in the greater conflict is a bit off imo as well. I support the third side, wait, that is the qunari... I support the dwarves in Kal-Sharok.
Edit: Only because when the choice is to be made, it is the templars being the aggressor, if it was set up differently, like Orsino equally threatening the lives of the templars, would have had me question my choice more.
It's the governments that set up the alienages, ignore the plight of the elves, and treat the elves as second class citizens. Its humans who are the xenophobes, not the Chantry, not what it stands for. Yes, xenophobes in the Chantry just like the governments, but the Chantry would not disapprove of a government raising and actively helping the elf citizens, but a government would not approve of the Chantry interfering with how they deal out justice or criticizing its rulers. The chantry disapproving other faiths is not xenophobic. An exalted march being declared on the Dales *after* the Dales invaded Orlais and was close to its capital is no xenophobic, its just reacting to danger. Removing Shartan's part in the Chant is messed up, but that seems more political than xenophobic...
A bit ranty, but that comment just made no sense. Whatever inherent xenophobia the Chantry may have, it is not lacking in any of the governments in Thedas (excluding the qunari).
Anyway... Siding with the Templars in DA2 seems a bit off in my mind, although siding with either overall in the greater conflict is a bit off imo as well. I support the third side, wait, that is the qunari... I support the dwarves in Kal-Sharok.
Edit: Only because when the choice is to be made, it is the templars being the aggressor, if it was set up differently, like Orsino equally threatening the lives of the templars, would have had me question my choice more.
Modifié par DaerogTheDhampir, 11 juillet 2012 - 10:22 .
#380
Posté 11 juillet 2012 - 10:29
Xilizhra
-
- Members
- 30 873 messages
Elven issues are a separate form of xenophobia, one that the various governments and the Chantry are equally complicit in. The religion of the Chantry itself is inherently magophobic and can never be trusted to manage the Circle.
#381
Posté 11 juillet 2012 - 10:48
Daerog
-
- Members
- 4 857 messages
Xilizhra wrote...
Elven issues are a separate form of xenophobia, one that the various governments and the Chantry are equally complicit in. The religion of the Chantry itself is inherently magophobic and can never be trusted to manage the Circle.
Ahhh... magophobic, now that makes much more sense. Carry on!
While I think Circles should have oversight, having a third group of non mages may be nice. Although, hard to think of how it would be set up, there is really only one international group with the resources to help manage the Circles, and that is the Chantry. Other magophobes may not want to donate to a party solely about taking care of the Circles, while the Chantry would use a magophobes donation to supply Circles with Lyrium, bedding, food, clothes, books, etc.
Just have to wait til DA3 I suppose.
#382
Posté 11 juillet 2012 - 11:08
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
Teh game is not an acurate representation of abominations. Neither in terms of numbers nor in terms of power.
And no, abominations happening often does not mean the world would get destroyed any more than frequent natural disasters destroyed the world.
[/quote]
We can only judge by the game data and the codex. An abomination is going to occure in the middle of a civilization (almost by definition). If an abomination really were the unstoppable force of sheer destruction the Chantry paints AND they happened as often as the Chantry would have you believe, then even a small tribe should see one every generation...and that would mean for a primitive people no survivors.
The fact that hasn't happened strongly suggests that abominations aren't nearly as common as the Chantry wants you to think.[/quote]
No it doesn't.
1) you have no way to prove that an abomintio nwoudl destroy civlizations. Obviously abominations CAN be stopped - usually at a great cost.
2) We have no idea when magic started to appear in the world or among humans. For all we know, there were no mages at all among the earliest civilizations.
3) Frequent natural disasters did not destroy early humanity and they cannot be stopped at all. Humantiy is more resiliant then you give it credit to.
[quote][quote]
Technicly you can as a precaution if the danger is big enough.
Quarantene is one example.
Or shoting down a terrorist-hihjacked plane.
It's clear there's plenty of innocents that will die in both cases, yet both actions are accepted.
[/quote]
The Quarantine example was shot down years ago. In the other examples, you are dealinjg with differing ROE (Rules of Engagement) based on what others have ACTUALLY done. So no your examples don't fit and don't count.[/quote]
Shot down by whom? The international commitie of You?
I shot down your shooting down Sir!
And yes. Both examples DO fit.
It's a simple calculation on the level of danger and the acceptable price to pay.
[quote][quote]
The possesion of a bomb is still illegal and still gets you locked up.
Mage = bomb. So mages get locked up.
[/quote]
A bomb has to be made (or aquired) and that requires a willful act, being a mage does not. There is a difference. It is funadamenally immoral to criminalize a person for what they are rather than what they've done.[/quote]
And it doesn't matter. Applying rigid morals of today to a situation in a completely differetn context and circumstances is folly.
We dont' have mages today. And it doesnt' matter if they will ot or not. They remain a danger.
You focus on the "free will" part (and even that is on wobbly feet) and completely ignore the danger part.
[quote]
It is called "Painting with a Broad Brush". By making the comparison "Mage" == "Sex Offender", the person is attempting to slander those that defend mages. It's an obvious corellary to the ad hominem.[/quote]
Erm...not really. The comparison was made in a different context.... but whatever.
[quote][quote]
No we don't. Quit lying your ass off.
Unless the dissaperance of an enitre tribe is "no negative consequence"
[/quote]
I haven't lied at all. You may disagree with me, but that doesn't mean you know the truth and all others don't.[/quote]
That applies to you too, you do realise that?
[quote]
Actually it pretty much does. Even DG has admitted that Mages have to choose to be an abomination (although that choice can be made by trickery).
[/quote]
It pretty much doesn't. Forcefull possesion.
Of course, you can try to twist DG's words or use them out of context, but it doesn't work on those who know the context.
Teh game is not an acurate representation of abominations. Neither in terms of numbers nor in terms of power.
And no, abominations happening often does not mean the world would get destroyed any more than frequent natural disasters destroyed the world.
[/quote]
We can only judge by the game data and the codex. An abomination is going to occure in the middle of a civilization (almost by definition). If an abomination really were the unstoppable force of sheer destruction the Chantry paints AND they happened as often as the Chantry would have you believe, then even a small tribe should see one every generation...and that would mean for a primitive people no survivors.
The fact that hasn't happened strongly suggests that abominations aren't nearly as common as the Chantry wants you to think.[/quote]
No it doesn't.
1) you have no way to prove that an abomintio nwoudl destroy civlizations. Obviously abominations CAN be stopped - usually at a great cost.
2) We have no idea when magic started to appear in the world or among humans. For all we know, there were no mages at all among the earliest civilizations.
3) Frequent natural disasters did not destroy early humanity and they cannot be stopped at all. Humantiy is more resiliant then you give it credit to.
[quote][quote]
Technicly you can as a precaution if the danger is big enough.
Quarantene is one example.
Or shoting down a terrorist-hihjacked plane.
It's clear there's plenty of innocents that will die in both cases, yet both actions are accepted.
[/quote]
The Quarantine example was shot down years ago. In the other examples, you are dealinjg with differing ROE (Rules of Engagement) based on what others have ACTUALLY done. So no your examples don't fit and don't count.[/quote]
Shot down by whom? The international commitie of You?
I shot down your shooting down Sir!
And yes. Both examples DO fit.
It's a simple calculation on the level of danger and the acceptable price to pay.
[quote][quote]
The possesion of a bomb is still illegal and still gets you locked up.
Mage = bomb. So mages get locked up.
[/quote]
A bomb has to be made (or aquired) and that requires a willful act, being a mage does not. There is a difference. It is funadamenally immoral to criminalize a person for what they are rather than what they've done.[/quote]
And it doesn't matter. Applying rigid morals of today to a situation in a completely differetn context and circumstances is folly.
We dont' have mages today. And it doesnt' matter if they will ot or not. They remain a danger.
You focus on the "free will" part (and even that is on wobbly feet) and completely ignore the danger part.
[quote]
It is called "Painting with a Broad Brush". By making the comparison "Mage" == "Sex Offender", the person is attempting to slander those that defend mages. It's an obvious corellary to the ad hominem.[/quote]
Erm...not really. The comparison was made in a different context.... but whatever.
[quote][quote]
No we don't. Quit lying your ass off.
Unless the dissaperance of an enitre tribe is "no negative consequence"
[/quote]
I haven't lied at all. You may disagree with me, but that doesn't mean you know the truth and all others don't.[/quote]
That applies to you too, you do realise that?
[quote]
Actually it pretty much does. Even DG has admitted that Mages have to choose to be an abomination (although that choice can be made by trickery).
[/quote]
It pretty much doesn't. Forcefull possesion.
Of course, you can try to twist DG's words or use them out of context, but it doesn't work on those who know the context.
#383
Posté 11 juillet 2012 - 11:13
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
Xilizhra wrote...
The Chantry and templars have no one to blame for this but themselves, really. There'd be no need to rebel so fervently if there wasn't something so evil to rebel against.Removing the chantry might do more evil than good. Besides, if not for mages like Adrian and Anders, relations could already be going in a more hopeful direction with a Divine like Justinia in power.
What, you think people only rebel against something "evil"?
Hm..seems to me if a prison riot ensues, then the prison system is obviously evil and all prisons must be abolioshed...because obviously it must be evil..right?
#384
Posté 11 juillet 2012 - 12:02
Dave of Canada
-
- Members
- 17 484 messages
Xil only sees the world in black and white, no gray.
#385
Posté 11 juillet 2012 - 12:18
LobselVith8
-
- Members
- 16 993 messages
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Wait, you think people only rebel against something "evil"?
We both know that wasn't the intent of the statement. The poster views what the Chantry has done as evil - it's a system that some characters have outright called out as slavery, from the co-founder of Ferelden, Aldenon the Great, to Anders and a pro-mage Hawke. Some people certainly view slavery as evil.
#386
Posté 11 juillet 2012 - 01:53
TEWR
-
- Members
- 16 988 messages
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Your'e walking a thin line there...
Don't post crap like that if you don't want to start a flame war.
I'm a Christian. Not devoutly so, but a Christian nevertheless. I think I'm allowed to be facetious in regards to the religion itself.
It was meant as a harmless joke. No more, no less. Not as a topic of discussion or as an offensive statement to the followers of the religion -- because I'd then be offending myself.
Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 11 juillet 2012 - 02:07 .
#387
Posté 11 juillet 2012 - 01:54
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
LobselVith8 wrote...
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Wait, you think people only rebel against something "evil"?
We both know that wasn't the intent of the statement. The poster views what the Chantry has done as evil - it's a system that some characters have outright called out as slavery, from the co-founder of Ferelden, Aldenon the Great, to Anders and a pro-mage Hawke. Some people certainly view slavery as evil.
Actually, it is.
If the idea is that people only rebel if they are in the right, then that idea is horribly flawed.
#388
Posté 11 juillet 2012 - 01:59
LobselVith8
-
- Members
- 16 993 messages
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
LobselVith8 wrote...
We both know that wasn't the intent of the statement. The poster views what the Chantry has done as evil - it's a system that some characters have outright called out as slavery, from the co-founder of Ferelden, Aldenon the Great, to Anders and a pro-mage Hawke. Some people certainly view slavery as evil.
Actually, it is.
If the idea is that people only rebel if they are in the right, then that idea is horribly flawed.
People fight for what they believe in - for what they think is right. Does that really come as a surprise to you?
#389
Posté 11 juillet 2012 - 01:59
dragonflight288
-
- Members
- 8 852 messages
Your'e walking a thin line there...
Don't post crap like that if you don't want to start a flame war.
I'm a Christian. Not devoutly so, but a Christian nevertheless. I think I'm allowed to be facetious in regards to the religion itself.
I too am religious, and quite devout in my faith. But I don't see any reason why we can't question things. I'm not a fan of following the teachings of someone or some organization blindly.
If everyone in Thedas followed the very principles the chant of light teachers, and not add any spin to justify themselves and their actions, the world would be a much more peaceful place. Same as any real religion. All it takes is practicing what is preached.
The Chantry does not. I'll leave real religions out of the internet forum as this isn't the place to discuss them.
#390
Posté 11 juillet 2012 - 02:06
TEWR
-
- Members
- 16 988 messages
dragonflight288 wrote...
I'll leave real religions out of the internet forum as this isn't the place to discuss them.
True enough. My intention wasn't to discuss it, but merely to poke fun at it.
At any rate.... Mages! Templars! MAGES!!!
#391
Posté 11 juillet 2012 - 02:07
Captain Cornhole
-
- Members
- 336 messages
The entire comparison is INVALID and designed to equate mages with the worst of humanity. I have every right to call you out on this. It's a vile debating technique. It is true that sex offenders are generally irrredeemable, but they aren't treated as a 'criminal class' UNTIL they do something wrong. That's the difference you are willfully overlooking.
I'm using sex offenders as an example because it is blunt and directly too the point, not to equate humanity's worst with mages. Here is the thing, you can't cure sex offenders, they will always hurt others again. And you can't cure mages either, the comparsion was origninally with rehabilitation. Once a mage is demon possessed or is addicted to blood magic there is little that can be done w/o help them, either the willingly enjoy blood magic or they are victim do demon possession.
We have answers to that question and the answer is NO. You know this. At most and only IF there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence can you detain a person, but even that is strictly temporarily. You do not get to convict a person of a crime for what they are rather than what they have done. Your examples willfully overlook this essential difference.
Strictly temporarily, are you kidding me? Have you taken a law class in your life? Of course can hold a person once charges are brought against them. And you gracefully overlook all my examples detailed our would be criminal takeing deliberate steps to act on an intent. There are crimes for that, granted in some cases it might not give you sex offender status but there are other serious charges.
Wrong. Making a bomb requires a willful act. Being a mage does not. Please learn the difference. Even if you are making a bomb, the prosecutor has to show that you are going to use it for an act of terrorism for that charge to stick. Otherwise you just get the charge of illegal use of explosives/controlled substances. See the difference here.
Lol, you are ignoreing what I am saying. I did not equate being a mage with makeing a bomb, I eqated deliberate acts a mage can take that would lead them to demon possession or blood magic to that of making a bomb. I am dumb founded by your stupidity, in my example I clearly states it was this person's intention to blow someone up, that is an act of terrorism. Prooving it legally is another issue, but it is what it is. You can't sugar coat that. With blood magic, there can be different motives involved, just like there can be for making a bomb or raping a child, but with that said if there is likely evidence that this person is a blood mage or demon possessed and is going to hurt someone, I say make an arrest and hopefully due process will work out any ill doings.
If it not only invalid but reprehensible. You are equating an entire group of people to the worst criminal elements in our society for being what they are rather than what they have done. It's slander of the worst sort.
Quit the act, I hardly doubt that your so terribly offended and taken back over a statement made about a fictional group of people. Again read my original comparison, it was with rahab. Look you obviously sympathize with the mages and nothing I say is going to change that, you are close minded and not willing to listen to reason and common sense. You are simply willing to overlook any evidence that might paint some mages poorly, while grasping on to any non-related or relevent slivers in the codex that even remotely mention the word mage. The comparison is what it is, don't try to sugar coat that with your political correctness. It is a blunt, accurate, yet unfortuneate truth. Some might call me a racist for saying most serial killers are white, yet it is a simple fact of life, a simple fact that you need to learn to accept.
If a single abomination were as common as the chantry wants you to think (and as the authors did too based on DA2...unless you carefully read the hidden codex entries), then there wouldn't be any civilization. The first abomination would wipe out any primitive tribe...yet we KNOW this is not true. In fact primitive tribes live alongside mages with few apparently negative consequences.
Exactly the authors wanted you to think that, because they wanted it to be a truth in the game. Quit trying to white wash things. You keep repeating yourself, answer my argument directly instead of ignoring them. You keep saying an abomination would wipe out any primitive tribe, how do you know this show some actual evidence where this is clearly stated. And by careful reading do you mean taking entries out of contex and stitching them together?
In DA2 most of that evidence was badly and horribly slanted (Kirkwall is a Helmouth). If you go by the lore and the more reasonable example of DAO, you find that the evidence doesn't prove what you think it does.
How do you horribly slant the crimes and attrocities commited by mages in Dragon Age 2, I think they speak for themselve, you have to be some blind or opinionated to ignore the evidence.
Again I doubt I will change your mind, as it is already made up. Thing is deep down you know I'm right and you ignore my arugements because you can't reasonably counter them. Your so obviously bias that in your mind mages can do no wrong, its a evil templar and religious conspiracy to opress and carry out genocide; based on your opinion of the chantry you probably have some hate complex against any realworld religion. I wash my hands of this redicuous argument.
Bottom line is there are valid differences and comparison between sex offenders and mages, that is a fact. Judging my this exchange I wouldn't be supprised if infact you turned out to be a holocaust denyer. Anyhow, no hard feelings, I suggest replaying dragon age, and reading the DA wiki.
I'm using sex offenders as an example because it is blunt and directly too the point, not to equate humanity's worst with mages. Here is the thing, you can't cure sex offenders, they will always hurt others again. And you can't cure mages either, the comparsion was origninally with rehabilitation. Once a mage is demon possessed or is addicted to blood magic there is little that can be done w/o help them, either the willingly enjoy blood magic or they are victim do demon possession.
We have answers to that question and the answer is NO. You know this. At most and only IF there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence can you detain a person, but even that is strictly temporarily. You do not get to convict a person of a crime for what they are rather than what they have done. Your examples willfully overlook this essential difference.
Strictly temporarily, are you kidding me? Have you taken a law class in your life? Of course can hold a person once charges are brought against them. And you gracefully overlook all my examples detailed our would be criminal takeing deliberate steps to act on an intent. There are crimes for that, granted in some cases it might not give you sex offender status but there are other serious charges.
Wrong. Making a bomb requires a willful act. Being a mage does not. Please learn the difference. Even if you are making a bomb, the prosecutor has to show that you are going to use it for an act of terrorism for that charge to stick. Otherwise you just get the charge of illegal use of explosives/controlled substances. See the difference here.
Lol, you are ignoreing what I am saying. I did not equate being a mage with makeing a bomb, I eqated deliberate acts a mage can take that would lead them to demon possession or blood magic to that of making a bomb. I am dumb founded by your stupidity, in my example I clearly states it was this person's intention to blow someone up, that is an act of terrorism. Prooving it legally is another issue, but it is what it is. You can't sugar coat that. With blood magic, there can be different motives involved, just like there can be for making a bomb or raping a child, but with that said if there is likely evidence that this person is a blood mage or demon possessed and is going to hurt someone, I say make an arrest and hopefully due process will work out any ill doings.
If it not only invalid but reprehensible. You are equating an entire group of people to the worst criminal elements in our society for being what they are rather than what they have done. It's slander of the worst sort.
Quit the act, I hardly doubt that your so terribly offended and taken back over a statement made about a fictional group of people. Again read my original comparison, it was with rahab. Look you obviously sympathize with the mages and nothing I say is going to change that, you are close minded and not willing to listen to reason and common sense. You are simply willing to overlook any evidence that might paint some mages poorly, while grasping on to any non-related or relevent slivers in the codex that even remotely mention the word mage. The comparison is what it is, don't try to sugar coat that with your political correctness. It is a blunt, accurate, yet unfortuneate truth. Some might call me a racist for saying most serial killers are white, yet it is a simple fact of life, a simple fact that you need to learn to accept.
If a single abomination were as common as the chantry wants you to think (and as the authors did too based on DA2...unless you carefully read the hidden codex entries), then there wouldn't be any civilization. The first abomination would wipe out any primitive tribe...yet we KNOW this is not true. In fact primitive tribes live alongside mages with few apparently negative consequences.
Exactly the authors wanted you to think that, because they wanted it to be a truth in the game. Quit trying to white wash things. You keep repeating yourself, answer my argument directly instead of ignoring them. You keep saying an abomination would wipe out any primitive tribe, how do you know this show some actual evidence where this is clearly stated. And by careful reading do you mean taking entries out of contex and stitching them together?
In DA2 most of that evidence was badly and horribly slanted (Kirkwall is a Helmouth). If you go by the lore and the more reasonable example of DAO, you find that the evidence doesn't prove what you think it does.
How do you horribly slant the crimes and attrocities commited by mages in Dragon Age 2, I think they speak for themselve, you have to be some blind or opinionated to ignore the evidence.
Again I doubt I will change your mind, as it is already made up. Thing is deep down you know I'm right and you ignore my arugements because you can't reasonably counter them. Your so obviously bias that in your mind mages can do no wrong, its a evil templar and religious conspiracy to opress and carry out genocide; based on your opinion of the chantry you probably have some hate complex against any realworld religion. I wash my hands of this redicuous argument.
Bottom line is there are valid differences and comparison between sex offenders and mages, that is a fact. Judging my this exchange I wouldn't be supprised if infact you turned out to be a holocaust denyer. Anyhow, no hard feelings, I suggest replaying dragon age, and reading the DA wiki.
Modifié par Captain Cornhole, 11 juillet 2012 - 02:20 .
#392
Posté 11 juillet 2012 - 02:16
dragonflight288
-
- Members
- 8 852 messages
True enough. My intention wasn't to discuss it, but merely to poke fun at it.
At any rate.... Mages! Templars! MAGES!!!
hahahaha. And occasionally elves, casteless, dumb nobles, funny orlesian accents, cool antivan ones, and Merrill.
#393
Posté 11 juillet 2012 - 02:22
Arch1eviathan
-
- Members
- 1 100 messages
I don't think it is so cut and dry on the matter of who has the moral high. I sided with the mages but I can see things from the Templars perspective. Mages can be dangerous and not everyone can handle the power they were born with. Just look at all of the abominations in kirkwall. Hawkes mother is a sterling example of what happens when you don't keep mages in check. The templars are oppressive and they could have handle it better but I think the security is necessary when dealing with potentially dangerous people.
#394
Posté 11 juillet 2012 - 02:25
LobselVith8
-
- Members
- 16 993 messages
Captain Cornhole wrote...
I'm using sex offenders as an example because it is blunt and directly too the point, not to equate humanity's worst with mages. Here is the thing, you can't cure sex offenders, they will always hurt others again. And you can't cure mages either, the comparsion was origninally with rehabilitation. Once a mage is demon possessed or is addicted to blood magic there is little that can be done w/o help them, either the willingly enjoy blood magic or they are victim do demon possession.
Considering the templars Kerras and Alrik are rapists, and one of Alrik's intended victims is a child mage (Ella - as we know from Bethany's letter to Hawke in Act II), your analogy is a little off.
Captain Cornhole wrote...
Strictly temporarily, are you kidding me? Have you taken a law class in your life? Of course can hold a person once charges are brought against them. And you gracefully overlook all my examples detailed our would be criminal takeing deliberate steps to act on an intent. There are crimes for that, granted in some cases it might not give you sex offender status but there are other serious charges.
What charges are brought against mages - being born with magical ability? Being different than most Andrastians? Their religion saying that mages are "cursed" and that templars have "domination over mages by divine right"? Mages are imprisoned in Circle Towers for being born with magical ability - essentially, because they are mages. If you are so eager to bring real world examples into this discussion, we have plenty of examples of groups of people being imprisoned for being "different" - just look at WWII.
Captain Cornhole wrote...
Lol, you are ignoreing what I am saying. I did not equate being a mage with makeing a bomb, I eqated deliberate acts a mage can take that would lead them to demon possession or blood magic to that of making a bomb. I am dumb founded by your stupidity, in my example I clearly states it was this person's intention to blow someone up, that is an act of terrorism. Prooving it legally is another issue, but it is what it is. You can't sugar coat that. With blood magic, there can be different motives involved, just like there can be for making a bomb or raping a child, but with that said if there is likely evidence that this person is a blood mage or demon possessed and is going to hurt someone, I say make an arrest and hopefully due process will work out any ill doings.
Ian isn't stupid for having a different point of view than you. I honestly think your analogy is lacking and baiting, to be quite frank.
Also, not all blood mages are the same, and some Grey Wardens use blood magic, as Duncan notes in the Magi Origin. They use it against the darkspawn, because it gives them an edge against the greatest threat to Thedas. The Joining and the phylacteries are also two examples of blood magic. It's noted in the lore for Dragon Age II that there is some discussion about well-intended mages turning to blood magic as a reaction against the templars, strictly to keep themselves from getting imprisoned or killed. Blood magic allows mages to use magic without templars nullifying their abilities, so I don't see why all blood mages should be villified for the actions of some.
Captain Cornhole wrote...
Quit the act, I hardly doubt that your so terribly offended and taken back over a statement made about a fictional group of people. Again read my original comparison, it was with rahab. Look you obviously sympathize with the mages and nothing I say is going to change that, you are close minded and not willing to listen to reason and common sense. You are simply willing to overlook any evidence that might make mages look like the best people, while grasping on to any non-related or relevent slivers in the codex that even remotely mention the word mage. The comparison is what it is, don't try to sugar coat that with your political correctness. It is a blunt, accurate, yet unfortuneate truth. Some might call me a racist for saying most serial killers are white, yet it is a simple fact of life, a simple fact that you need to learn to accept.
Your statement was disingenious - which was part of the problem. No one doubts that magic is dangerous and that mages can cross the line, but whether the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars are the solution is debated by many. In my eyes, it isn't the right solution to put mages under the control of an anti-mage religious organization that preaches hatred and intolerance towards them across the continent.
Captain Cornhole wrote...
Exactly the authors wanted you to think that, because they wanted it to be a truth in the game. Quit trying to white wash things. You keep repeating yourself, answer my argument directly instead of ignoring them. You keep saying an abomination would wipe out any primitive tribe, how do you know this show some actual evidence where this is clearly stated. And by careful reading do you mean taking entries out of contex and stitching them together?
How is Ian white-washing anything by addressing that there are societies where mages co-exist with non-mages, without Chantry or templar control?
Captain Cornhole wrote...
How do you horribly slant the crimes and attrocities commited by mages in Dragon Age 2, I think they speak for themselve, you have to be some blind or opinionated to ignore the evidence.
The Band of Three addresses that Kirkwall is a proverbial Hellmouth. It's why virtually all the mage antagonists are insane and stupid, apparently.
Captain Cornhole wrote...
Again I doubt I will change your mind, as it is already made up. Thing is deep down you know I'm write and you ignore my arugements because you can't reasonably counter them. Your so obviously bias that in your mind mages can do no wrong, its a evil templar and religious conspiracy to opress and carry out genocide; based on your opinion of the chantry you probably have some hate complex against any realworld religion. I wash my hands of this redicuous argument.
Bottom line is there are valid differences and comparison between sex offenders and mages, that is a fact. Just like how Hitler murdered six million jew, gays and gypsies is indeed a fact. So until you start acknologing the equivlent of the holocaust really did happen I wash my hands of this stupid argument with you. I suggest replaying dragon age, and reading the DA wiki.
Mages can commit wrong actions and cross the line - no one doubts that. Simply because some people don't agree with the tactics of the Chantry or the templars doesn't mean that they whitewash anything - they simply don't think that allowing an anti-mage religious organization to have "domination over mages by divine right" is the right idea. Just look at what happened in Kirkwall - the Knight-Commander ordered the genocide of an entire population of men, women, and children to appease a hypothetical mob only because these people were mages.
#395
Posté 11 juillet 2012 - 02:58
Fallstar
-
- Members
- 1 519 messages
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
DuskWarden wrote...
It isn't necessarily the worst circle. Take for example the circle in Asunder, the White Spire in Orlais, where Cole (a young mage) is brought in by the Templars and thrown in jail. That's bad enough, but what do they then do? They proceed to forget about him and let him starve to death. When they realize what happened they simply erase all record of his existence.
How many times could this have happened? How many times have the Templars utterly failed in their duty? How many instances of assault, torture, even rape have occurred that the Templars have just erased from the records to preserve their image?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.
I don't know how many times. Neither do you.
Again - what's so surprising about a case of abuse or negligence?
Given the middle age setting, such things are to be expected to happen occasionaly.
Such things happen TODAY again and again.
You don't think there's cops today who done illigal stuff, and it's been covered up by some of their collegeus?
How many soldiers have failed in their duty? Just look at all the S*** that has been going on in Afghanistan and Iraq. And the same holds true for any army.
There isn't a perfect oversight. Never has been nor will there be. Especially not in Thedas.
And we don't even know how it works internally for hte templars. We simply don't.
There's one question for Gaider that might help clear this up a bit.
Allowing someone to starve to death is more 'gross negligence' but I see what you mean, such things do indeed happen today. When they do, and when such cases aren't covered up, they are met with outrage and disgust by the vast majority if not all of those who hear about them. And there are all sorts of investigations into it to make the public think that whatever government is in control is doing their best to ensure it doesn't happen again.
So, I would assume Cole's case would elicit the same response of outrage and disgust. Obviously Thedas at large has no idea what happened there, but as players and readers we do. The problem with the Templars is who do they answer to? Who is there that can carry out such an investigation, should a case such as Cole's come to light? Certainly not the seekers, based on Lord Seeker Lambert's willingness to order the Templars to kill a bunch of first enchanters for holding a conclave. (The tenacity of the mages these days eh)
In modern society there are punishments for those who allow such things to happen. The problem is that the people the Templars answer to appear to condone and even order such actions.
Edit: and my original point was Templars don't just commit terrible crimes against the mages in Kirkwall, the example of Cole was to show that it is a far more prevalent problem.
Modifié par DuskWarden, 11 juillet 2012 - 03:03 .
#396
Posté 11 juillet 2012 - 03:31
Captain Cornhole
-
- Members
- 336 messages
Considering the templars Kerras and Alrik are rapists, and one of Alrik's intended victims is a child mage (Ella - as we know from Bethany's letter to Hawke in Act II), your analogy is a little off.
I'm not saying the Templars and Chantry are saints here, there are obviously problems and issues that need to be fixed. There are incendents of ill treatment that need to be corrected, thing is Templars exist for the reason of keeping society safe from bad mages. Not all mages are bad, I hoped people would understand this, but apparently not. The ones that are bad, there is little that can be done to help them apart form locking them up, at the very least make sure they are comfortable while locked up.
What charges are brought against mages - being born with magical ability? Being different than most Andrastians? Their religion saying that mages are "cursed" and that templars have "domination over mages by divine right"? Mages are imprisoned in Circle Towers for being born with magical ability - essentially, because they are mages. If you are so eager to bring real world examples into this discussion, we have plenty of examples of groups of people being imprisoned for being "different" - just look at WWII.
Did I say being a mage is a crime, and that they should be locked up for being different? No, so please reread what I said, before pulling the **** card again. Look I'm not hear to defend the Chantry's beliefs, but the Templars (despite the things bad about them) exist for a reason, keeping inocents safe from bad mages. I'm not saying Templars should act like gestapo and arrest every single mage, what I am saying is there is an obvious need for having a police force of sorts that is there to protect innocents from abominations and blood magic let alone the mages themselves.
Ian isn't stupid for having a different point of view than you. I honestly think your analogy is lacking and baiting, to be quite frank.
No hard feelings against Ian here, I understand people have different views but when you ignore all my counter arguments and what have you that kinda speaks for it's self. And fair enough your entitled to feel how ever you would like about my anology.
Also, not all blood mages are the same, and some Grey Wardens use blood magic, as Duncan notes in the Magi Origin. They use it against the darkspawn, because it gives them an edge against the greatest threat to Thedas. The Joining and the phylacteries are also two examples of blood magic. It's noted in the lore for Dragon Age II that there is some discussion about well-intended mages turning to blood magic as a reaction against the templars, strictly to keep themselves from getting imprisoned or killed. Blood magic allows mages to use magic without templars nullifying their abilities, so I don't see why all blood mages should be villified for the actions of some.
And do the Wardens not police themselves if one of them falls victim to corruption or demon influence? There is do denying blood magic has it's advantages, but when you resort to blood magic there is a greater chance that one will become addicted to it. Look at Orisino, can you justify using blood magic to fight templars, sure. But can you justify sacrificing all those other mages in the process? No, that's what blood magic is at times. People can have well intentions, but their well intentions don't mean anything if ultimately what they are doing ends up harming an innocent party, which happens far to often.
Your statement was disingenious - which was part of the problem. No one doubts that magic is dangerous and that mages can cross the line, but whether the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars are the solution is debated by many. In my eyes, it isn't the right solution to put mages under the control of an anti-mage religious organization that preaches hatred and intolerance towards them across the continent.
And that's what I've been saying, Templars and Chantry have their flaws. And changes need to be made within the Templar Order to make things more friendly and hospitable to mages. But what are we to do, disband the templars all together? If we were to do that, local police forces would be over whelmed, Wardens could barely handle the darkspawn, nor Kirkwall the Qunari. Have an instituation that sets criminal and potential criminal mages apart from society I think is in everyone's best interest. Sorta like what the Asari doe with ardatyachi, minus the whole being set apart just for being born with it.
How is Ian white-washing anything by addressing that there are societies where mages co-exist with non-mages, without Chantry or templar control?
Not nessicarly what you just stated being the white washing, what I mean by that is he is willingly over looking that an abomination would not have wiped out early civilization. We know that there are less mages comapred to regular people so say there is ratio one mage to ever 300 peoples. When things start off there wouldn't be that many peoples, so by math it would be until a little while that you end up with an mage based off the math. As population increases you will get more mages and eventually an abomination. I think a few hundred peeps can handle an abomination on a good day. That isn't to say abominations aren't dangerous as they have wiped out tribes before, but to say what Ian is saying is silly. He is pretending that there would be no civilization, and that only until when the Chantry and Templars came around did we have conflict. This is not true.
The Band of Three addresses that Kirkwall is a proverbial Hellmouth. It's why virtually all the mage antagonists are insane and stupid, apparently.
Then is what I have been saying not accurate? It's a Hellmouth, thats why there is a need to protect mages from themselves and innocents from them. Other places are probably not as bad, others are probably worse, but my point still stand.
Mages can commit wrong actions and cross the line - no one doubts that. Simply because some people don't agree with the tactics of the Chantry or the templars doesn't mean that they whitewash anything - they simply don't think that allowing an anti-mage religious organization to have "domination over mages by divine right" is the right idea. Just look at what happened in Kirkwall - the Knight-Commander ordered the genocide of an entire population of men, women, and children to appease a hypothetical mob only because these people were mages.
Listen, I'm not saying he is white washing based on disagreeing with the Templars or Chantry, even I disagree with them. Like you stated if you don't think the Chantry or Templars should have authority over mages, that is fine too. Based off the evidence in codex and in the three games I would say there is a need for a police force of sorts to make sure mages don't go crazy, it doesn't have to be templars, maybe create another religious free oranization to police, because you cannon deny there is a need for something like the templars.
With that said I think the Knight Commander is a bad example, she was already paranoid and slightly bigoted from the start, getting her hands on Bartrand idol only made her worse. I wouldn't call what she did, genocide, but it clearly was wrong. Even her own templars turn on her in the end, if you pay attention to the diolouge there is anti knight commander sentiment stirring withing Kirkwall's Templar order.
Again all I'm saying here is there needs to be some organization to police the mages, Templars (despite their flaws) are the best we got right now. People say you can teach a mage not to use blood magic, my original point was that statement is not true, using sex offenders as an analogy. Looking at statistics you cannot teach a person not to be a sex offender, same with mages, they will always be connect to the fade unless you envoke tranquillity (which lets be honest should the very very last resort) even then that would not rid a person of demon possession. And once addicted to blood magic there is little stopping, look at Merril and the whole issue with her demon mirror.
I'm not saying the Templars and Chantry are saints here, there are obviously problems and issues that need to be fixed. There are incendents of ill treatment that need to be corrected, thing is Templars exist for the reason of keeping society safe from bad mages. Not all mages are bad, I hoped people would understand this, but apparently not. The ones that are bad, there is little that can be done to help them apart form locking them up, at the very least make sure they are comfortable while locked up.
What charges are brought against mages - being born with magical ability? Being different than most Andrastians? Their religion saying that mages are "cursed" and that templars have "domination over mages by divine right"? Mages are imprisoned in Circle Towers for being born with magical ability - essentially, because they are mages. If you are so eager to bring real world examples into this discussion, we have plenty of examples of groups of people being imprisoned for being "different" - just look at WWII.
Did I say being a mage is a crime, and that they should be locked up for being different? No, so please reread what I said, before pulling the **** card again. Look I'm not hear to defend the Chantry's beliefs, but the Templars (despite the things bad about them) exist for a reason, keeping inocents safe from bad mages. I'm not saying Templars should act like gestapo and arrest every single mage, what I am saying is there is an obvious need for having a police force of sorts that is there to protect innocents from abominations and blood magic let alone the mages themselves.
Ian isn't stupid for having a different point of view than you. I honestly think your analogy is lacking and baiting, to be quite frank.
No hard feelings against Ian here, I understand people have different views but when you ignore all my counter arguments and what have you that kinda speaks for it's self. And fair enough your entitled to feel how ever you would like about my anology.
Also, not all blood mages are the same, and some Grey Wardens use blood magic, as Duncan notes in the Magi Origin. They use it against the darkspawn, because it gives them an edge against the greatest threat to Thedas. The Joining and the phylacteries are also two examples of blood magic. It's noted in the lore for Dragon Age II that there is some discussion about well-intended mages turning to blood magic as a reaction against the templars, strictly to keep themselves from getting imprisoned or killed. Blood magic allows mages to use magic without templars nullifying their abilities, so I don't see why all blood mages should be villified for the actions of some.
And do the Wardens not police themselves if one of them falls victim to corruption or demon influence? There is do denying blood magic has it's advantages, but when you resort to blood magic there is a greater chance that one will become addicted to it. Look at Orisino, can you justify using blood magic to fight templars, sure. But can you justify sacrificing all those other mages in the process? No, that's what blood magic is at times. People can have well intentions, but their well intentions don't mean anything if ultimately what they are doing ends up harming an innocent party, which happens far to often.
Your statement was disingenious - which was part of the problem. No one doubts that magic is dangerous and that mages can cross the line, but whether the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars are the solution is debated by many. In my eyes, it isn't the right solution to put mages under the control of an anti-mage religious organization that preaches hatred and intolerance towards them across the continent.
And that's what I've been saying, Templars and Chantry have their flaws. And changes need to be made within the Templar Order to make things more friendly and hospitable to mages. But what are we to do, disband the templars all together? If we were to do that, local police forces would be over whelmed, Wardens could barely handle the darkspawn, nor Kirkwall the Qunari. Have an instituation that sets criminal and potential criminal mages apart from society I think is in everyone's best interest. Sorta like what the Asari doe with ardatyachi, minus the whole being set apart just for being born with it.
How is Ian white-washing anything by addressing that there are societies where mages co-exist with non-mages, without Chantry or templar control?
Not nessicarly what you just stated being the white washing, what I mean by that is he is willingly over looking that an abomination would not have wiped out early civilization. We know that there are less mages comapred to regular people so say there is ratio one mage to ever 300 peoples. When things start off there wouldn't be that many peoples, so by math it would be until a little while that you end up with an mage based off the math. As population increases you will get more mages and eventually an abomination. I think a few hundred peeps can handle an abomination on a good day. That isn't to say abominations aren't dangerous as they have wiped out tribes before, but to say what Ian is saying is silly. He is pretending that there would be no civilization, and that only until when the Chantry and Templars came around did we have conflict. This is not true.
The Band of Three addresses that Kirkwall is a proverbial Hellmouth. It's why virtually all the mage antagonists are insane and stupid, apparently.
Then is what I have been saying not accurate? It's a Hellmouth, thats why there is a need to protect mages from themselves and innocents from them. Other places are probably not as bad, others are probably worse, but my point still stand.
Mages can commit wrong actions and cross the line - no one doubts that. Simply because some people don't agree with the tactics of the Chantry or the templars doesn't mean that they whitewash anything - they simply don't think that allowing an anti-mage religious organization to have "domination over mages by divine right" is the right idea. Just look at what happened in Kirkwall - the Knight-Commander ordered the genocide of an entire population of men, women, and children to appease a hypothetical mob only because these people were mages.
Listen, I'm not saying he is white washing based on disagreeing with the Templars or Chantry, even I disagree with them. Like you stated if you don't think the Chantry or Templars should have authority over mages, that is fine too. Based off the evidence in codex and in the three games I would say there is a need for a police force of sorts to make sure mages don't go crazy, it doesn't have to be templars, maybe create another religious free oranization to police, because you cannon deny there is a need for something like the templars.
With that said I think the Knight Commander is a bad example, she was already paranoid and slightly bigoted from the start, getting her hands on Bartrand idol only made her worse. I wouldn't call what she did, genocide, but it clearly was wrong. Even her own templars turn on her in the end, if you pay attention to the diolouge there is anti knight commander sentiment stirring withing Kirkwall's Templar order.
Again all I'm saying here is there needs to be some organization to police the mages, Templars (despite their flaws) are the best we got right now. People say you can teach a mage not to use blood magic, my original point was that statement is not true, using sex offenders as an analogy. Looking at statistics you cannot teach a person not to be a sex offender, same with mages, they will always be connect to the fade unless you envoke tranquillity (which lets be honest should the very very last resort) even then that would not rid a person of demon possession. And once addicted to blood magic there is little stopping, look at Merril and the whole issue with her demon mirror.
Modifié par Captain Cornhole, 11 juillet 2012 - 03:40 .
#397
Posté 11 juillet 2012 - 05:33
DKJaigen
-
- Members
- 1 647 messages
The whole concept of security is pointless. if you need 17 annulments to keep things in order then you are doing it wrong. furthermore you are also doing it wrong if the mages suddenly say : **** this **** and manage to destroy a good chunk of thedas.
#398
Posté 11 juillet 2012 - 05:46
EricHVela
-
- Members
- 3 980 messages
It's far easier to say what isn't the solution than what is the solution.DKJaigen wrote...
The whole concept of security is pointless. if you need 17 annulments to keep things in order then you are doing it wrong. furthermore you are also doing it wrong if the mages suddenly say : **** this **** and manage to destroy a good chunk of thedas.
Suggestions on how to do it right?
#399
Posté 11 juillet 2012 - 05:51
Fallstar
-
- Members
- 1 519 messages
ReggarBlane wrote...
It's far easier to say what isn't the solution than what is the solution.DKJaigen wrote...
The whole concept of security is pointless. if you need 17 annulments to keep things in order then you are doing it wrong. furthermore you are also doing it wrong if the mages suddenly say : **** this **** and manage to destroy a good chunk of thedas.
Suggestions on how to do it right?
Let the mages watch themselves. Make them subject to the rule of the king/queen like every other citizen of the country. Allow them to live with their families if they want to/can, otherwise give them separate lodgings, rather than cramping them all up together in a prison tower. Effectively remove the Templars as an organisation and have matters of state be decided by the state. IE have a secular government. That should also minimise the occasional
Modifié par DuskWarden, 11 juillet 2012 - 05:52 .
#400
Posté 11 juillet 2012 - 07:07
Sylvius the Mad
-
- Members
- 24 112 messages
I don't recall the bomb ever having an opinion.Lotion Soronnar wrote...
The possesion of a bomb is still illegal and still gets you locked up.
Mage = bomb. So mages get locked up.
There's no reason at all for the mages to view themselves as anything other than superior beings. Locking them up because you fear them doesn't change that - it just makes them angry.
