546 réponses à ce sujet

[DPSSOC]

I'm pretty sure he's got you on trespassing alone. Not to mention the whole, "Holy **** a demon!" thing. Hawke might not strike first, but Anders does.

[IanPolaris]

DPSSOC wrote...

I'm pretty sure he's got you on trespassing alone. Not to mention the whole, "Holy **** a demon!" thing. Hawke might not strike first, but Anders does.

Actually Anders doesn't and you aren't actually in the gallows.  You are in the tunnels within the gallows where the Templars aren't supposed to be either (they are SMUGGLING tunnels).

The Templars go aggro and start attacking first.  Play it again.  I don't think trespassing holds water either.

The point is that Ser Alrik never attempted to use his legal powers (probably because he was not supposed to be doing what he was doing either).  At this point, you are allowed to defend yourself and others.

-Polaris

[dragonflight288]

I think you're both right and wrong.

Anders goes all demony justice on them, then the fight starts, and Alrik is going 'Who's there?' while in the process of doing something illegal himself.

Hawke was certainly breaking the law by breaking into the Gallows, Alrik was breaking Chantry law by illegally tranquilizing mages, and showing himself to be a morally reprehensible being who barely can be considered human for what he was planning on doing to Ella.

In the end, the only witnesses are Ella (if she lives) and Hawke's companions. No one has evidence on who killed Alrik or why he was killed....well Hawke has evidence on why he was killed and what he was up to. Elthina and Cullen both refuse to look at it.

[MisterJB]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Alrik implied he would rape her by making her tranquil, which he has done to other female mages. Given how the Grand Cleric and the Knight-Captain don't seem to care in the least about what Alrik was doing, I suppose you're right - Andrastian society might not care that Hawke was protecting a child mage (per Bethany's letter) from being raped by a templar. Perhaps they might make the argument that interfering in a templar's duty is an offense against the Maker, which was a similar argument used against Loghain at the Landsmeet.

I'm reminded of why I dislike Andrastian society so much...

Tone down the self rigtheousness for a second and give the matter some tought, will you?
This has nothing to do with perceived discrimination and everything to do with there being nothing in that scene that justified the use of violence by Hawke.
For one, they are trespassing, then it's Anders who attacks first with clearly murderous intent "You fiends will never touch a mage again" while all Alrik was doing was capturing a fugitive and threatening her with Tranquility. He didn't even have the Sun Brand in hand so, you can't even accuse him of attempting an illegal Tranquilization. No one is naked, no one is being hed down to the floor against her will.
At most, an inquiry would be open which might lead to the illegal Tranquilization and people would whisper "Good riddance" but the legal system can't absolve people on the basis that the murderer suspected the deceased was going to break the law regardless of how right he was. Like it or not, Alrik was not being violent at all until Anders the "Friendly" Abomination started burning with Fade Fire.

And for the record, if you send Elia back to the Circle, she sends Hawke a letter in Act 3 that reads that the other Templars are actually glad Alrik is gone and no more Tranquils are appearing seemingly out of nowhere.

Modifié par MisterJB, 31 janvier 2013 - 04:59 .

[TEWR]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Hawke was certainly breaking the law by breaking into the Gallows,

He never really stepped foot in the Gallows, as it's made clear those tunnels are used by smugglers and that they run underneath the Gallows. They lead to the Gallows, but they're not an actual part of them.

[IanPolaris]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Hawke was certainly breaking the law by breaking into the Gallows,

He never really stepped foot in the Gallows, as it's made clear those tunnels are used by smugglers and that they run underneath the Gallows. They lead to the Gallows, but they're not an actual part of them.

As such a priori neither Alrik nor Hawke were supposed to be there.  However, if Hawke is smart enough to come with the Captain of the Guard, then Hawke is in the legal right since the Captain of the Guard has every right to investigate smuggling.

-Polaris

[dragonflight288]

IanPolaris wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Hawke was certainly breaking the law by breaking into the Gallows,

He never really stepped foot in the Gallows, as it's made clear those tunnels are used by smugglers and that they run underneath the Gallows. They lead to the Gallows, but they're not an actual part of them.

As such a priori neither Alrik nor Hawke were supposed to be there.  However, if Hawke is smart enough to come with the Captain of the Guard, then Hawke is in the legal right since the Captain of the Guard has every right to investigate smuggling.

-Polaris

Quite possible. But that would also mean that legally, they should've been arresting Alrik, and not killing him. The guy had it coming, but it was still murder.

[TEWR]

Quite possible. But that would also mean that legally, they should've been arresting Alrik, and not killing him. The guy had it coming, but it was still murder.

Arguable. Justice/Vengeance never actually initiated the conflict, though given time he certainly would've. Alrik seemed like he was the one that started the fight, mainly because there were witnesses to what he and his little pleasure crew were about to do to Ella.

So I'd say this was a case of self-defense. And Aveline's not shedding many tears over it.

[MisterJB]

dragonflight288 wrote...
While I agree that legality and morality don't always work together, Lambert was not in a moral position and the mages didn't decide on World War. The templars and Lambert forced that one.

From a moral standpoint, it was Lambert, not Fiona, who had attempted cold blooded murder to cover up evidence for something he didn't agree with. It was Lambert, not Fiona, who called for punishing an entire people, creating a genocidal mindset that- (and this will be sensitive, but the mindset is exactly the same, so bear in mind I mean no offense by mentioning this)-was shared by people like Hitler and Pol Pot.

It was Lambert, not Fiona, who went over the chain of command to enforce his own will because he was upset he wasn't getting his way.

Fiona is a brash and fiery mage, but she has ALWAYS gone along with what the College of Cumberland has agreed upon. She is very vocal about her point of view and works hard to ensure she gets her way, but she respects the chain of command and has not done attempted murder, destruction of evidence, or even started the fighting...she provoked the templars certainly, but she did not cast the first spell or swing the first sword as it were.

If anyone is to blame for forcing the war, it would be Lambert. I think the war would've happened anyway given the climate and how the system pretty much is a failure in what it's supposed to stand for, and how much the Chantry as a whole merely tolerates magic.

Obeying your superiors is not, by definition, a good or evil act, it depends on the orders being given. I'm certain the templars of Tevinter obey their Black Divine while he orders them to stand aside while magisters magically remove a little boy's blood to entertain themselves but that doesn't make it right.
Likewise, Lambert deserves no reprimand simply for acting outside of the chain of command, his actions should be judged on their worth alone. Killing Adrian would have likely allowed Wynne and Justinia to reach soome agreement.
Fiona knew very well what she was asking for when she called for separation. She wanted a war because she deemed unnaceptable the system mundanes had devised to mitigate the threat mages pose. Lambert wanted no war; unlike Meredith; but he will fight in it because he has deemed it unnaceptable for mages to be allowed to live where they can hurt others.
Regardless of what side you support, if one side doesn't trust the other to act the manner which can ensure the freedom and safety of the other, then the other has the same right to distrust as well.

And "genocide" is a huge exageration. Lambert did not kill a single First Enchanter outside of the heat of battle, he contained them. Likewise, his own toughts in the very last chapter make no mention of killing mages, only of "crushing this rebellion" so, I seriously doubt the templars have any intention of killing every mage in Southern Thedas which would be unthinkable anyway. Because mages are a valuable resource, if nothing else.

Lastly, how exactly do expect the Chantry to feel? Do you want them to rejoice over the fact some are born with the ability to control minds, shoot fire from their fingertips, make others explode from the inside out with a tap on the head while others aren't? Do you think mages would not destroy the Templar abilities if given half a chance?

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...
Lastly, how exactly do expect the Chantry to feel? Do you want them to rejoice over the fact some are born with the ability to control minds, shoot fire from their fingertips, make others explode from the inside out with a tap on the head while others aren't? Do you think mages would not destroy the Templar abilities if given half a chance?

All this proves is the Andrastian Chantry is strongly anti-mage probably bacause it was founded when the wounds of the Ancient Tevinter Imperium were still raw.  The fact is that for many thousands upon thousands of years humans and elves were born with this ability, and there was no great need to act against them because of it (and indeed quite the contrary).  Even during the early Exalted Ages mages weren't treated as prisoners.  That happened later.

As for mages destroying Templar abilities, some would, but others likely wouldn't care.  In fact the best Templars (if you define "Templar" as "Magical Law Enforcement") would likely be spirit mages.  When there is an entire fraternity that supports the Templars, I think you are grossly overstating your case.

-Polaris

[MisterJB]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Arguable. Justice/Vengeance never actually initiated the conflict, though given time he certainly would've. Alrik seemed like he was the one that started the fight, mainly because there were witnesses to what he and his little pleasure crew were about to do to Ella.

So I'd say this was a case of self-defense. And Aveline's not shedding many tears over it.

Before the Abomination started burning with Demon Fire and delcaring how he would kill them all, Alrik showed no signs of violence either to Hawke or Elia. Pick the sarcastic option and he will even ask who you are.
As I said before, he wasn't really doing anything wrong at that moment, just capturing a fugitive. Sure, we know that he deserves to die but certainly not because of anything he did at that particular moment. We don't even have any evidence that he was about to rape, he did specifically say "Once you are Tranquil" and he didn't have the Sun Brand with him at the moment. More likely than not, he was just going to take her back to the Gallows and pay her a visit afterwards.

Well, Aveline also doesn't arrest Hawke for knifing an innocent dwarf because he "bothered" Hawke.

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

Obeying your superiors is not, by definition, a good or evil act, it depends on the orders being given. I'm certain the templars of Tevinter obey their Black Divine while he orders them to stand aside while magisters magically remove a little boy's blood to entertain themselves but that doesn't make it right.

That defense didn't fly during the Nuremburg trials and it cuts no ice here.  Only following orders is not a valid defense.

Likewise, Lambert deserves no reprimand simply for acting outside of the chain of command, his actions should be judged on their worth alone. Killing Adrian would have likely allowed Wynne and Justinia to reach soome agreement.

False.  Lambert is a Military Officer in a well defined chain of command.  Failure to honor the chain of command and acting outside the wishes of the LAWFUL orders and wishes of your superiors (whether you agree with them or not) is a criminal offense in any military and can be considered grounds for the death penalty in many military traditions (esp in times of war/emergency).

Fiona knew very well what she was asking for when she called for separation. She wanted a war because she deemed unnaceptable the system mundanes had devised to mitigate the threat mages pose. Lambert wanted no war; unlike Meredith; but he will fight in it because he has deemed it unnaceptable for mages to be allowed to live where they can hurt others.

Fiona was still acting within her legal rights unlike Lambert.  That makes all the difference.  There was no guarantee she would have won that vote had Lambert not intervened.

Regardless of what side you support, if one side doesn't trust the other to act the manner which can ensure the freedom and safety of the other, then the other has the same right to distrust as well.

Except one side is following the rules (albeit to the very edge I grant) and the other is not.  Who then is more trustworthy?  I would say the side that at least is paying lip service to the rules.

And "genocide" is a huge exageration. Lambert did not kill a single First Enchanter outside of the heat of battle, he contained them. Likewise, his own toughts in the very last chapter make no mention of killing mages, only of "crushing this rebellion" so, I seriously doubt the templars have any intention of killing every mage in Southern Thedas which would be unthinkable anyway. Because mages are a valuable resource, if nothing else.

If you look up the legal definition of Genocide, the entire circle system is genocidal.  Hate to break it to you.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Arguable. Justice/Vengeance never actually initiated the conflict, though given time he certainly would've. Alrik seemed like he was the one that started the fight, mainly because there were witnesses to what he and his little pleasure crew were about to do to Ella.

So I'd say this was a case of self-defense. And Aveline's not shedding many tears over it.

Before the Abomination started burning with Demon Fire and delcaring how he would kill them all, Alrik showed no signs of violence either to Hawke or Elia. Pick the sarcastic option and he will even ask who you are.
As I said before, he wasn't really doing anything wrong at that moment, just capturing a fugitive. Sure, we know that he deserves to die but certainly not because of anything he did at that particular moment. We don't even have any evidence that he was about to rape, he did specifically say "Once you are Tranquil" and he didn't have the Sun Brand with him at the moment. More likely than not, he was just going to take her back to the Gallows and pay her a visit afterwards.

Well, Aveline also doesn't arrest Hawke for knifing an innocent dwarf because he "bothered" Hawke.

If you play that scene again, yes Anders go "demon" but the Templars do attack and go aggro first. 

-Polaris

[MisterJB]

IanPolaris wrote...
All this proves is the Andrastian Chantry is strongly anti-mage probably bacause it was founded when the wounds of the Ancient Tevinter Imperium were still raw.  The fact is that for many thousands upon thousands of years humans and elves were born with this ability, and there was no great need to act against them because of it (and indeed quite the contrary).  Even during the early Exalted Ages mages weren't treated as prisoners.  That happened later.

As for mages destroying Templar abilities, some would, but others likely wouldn't care.  In fact the best Templars (if you define "Templar" as "Magical Law Enforcement") would likely be spirit mages.  When there is an entire fraternity that supports the Templars, I think you are grossly overstating your case.

-Polaris

Fearing people who can make you explode with a touch is being anti-mage? I would call that common sense.
Tevinter is still there, still subjugating all those born without magical abilities and they would spread if given but half a change. It's not ancient history. It's an omnipresent threat.


Mages policing other mages would work just as well as human policing other humans has worked out for the elves. Which basically means a great number of mages would ignore crimes commited by other mages against mundanes.
And of course the mages would care about templar abilities. They are, afterall, the best weapon mundanes have against their kind. The Loyalists you speak of fear mages which leads to them supporting the Chantry so as to avoid repercussions. If given but half a chance to destroy the templars and have mages rule, the great majority of Loyalists and Aequitarians would take it.

[IanPolaris]

dragonflight288 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Hawke was certainly breaking the law by breaking into the Gallows,

He never really stepped foot in the Gallows, as it's made clear those tunnels are used by smugglers and that they run underneath the Gallows. They lead to the Gallows, but they're not an actual part of them.

As such a priori neither Alrik nor Hawke were supposed to be there.  However, if Hawke is smart enough to come with the Captain of the Guard, then Hawke is in the legal right since the Captain of the Guard has every right to investigate smuggling.

-Polaris

Quite possible. But that would also mean that legally, they should've been arresting Alrik, and not killing him. The guy had it coming, but it was still murder.

Hawke was outnumbered by at least five to one and the Templars were using deadly force and attacked first (although admittedly Anders-Vengeance would have done so a split second later).  I'll agree that legal hairs could be split, but by this time Hawke is a noble and unless he (or she) is a mage and expecially if the Captain of the Guard is there, would certainly get a public trial.

The Chantry and Templars clearly don't want a public trial....for what should be obvious reasons.

-Polaris

[MisterJB]

IanPolaris wrote...
False.  Lambert is a Military Officer in a well defined chain of command.  Failure to honor the chain of command and acting outside the wishes of the LAWFUL orders and wishes of your superiors (whether you agree with them or not) is a criminal offense in any military and can be considered grounds for the death penalty in many military traditions (esp in times of war/emergency).

Allow me to make it perfectly clear. I'm tired of argung about technicalities. I couldn't care less about rules or the chain of command or lawful actions in this matter.
Lambert acted outside of the wishes of the Divine. Killing Wynne, Rhys and Adrian would still have helped prevent this conflict which is something I'm more concerned with.

Modifié par MisterJB, 31 janvier 2013 - 06:31 .

[MisterJB]

IanPolaris wrote...
If you play that scene again, yes Anders go "demon" but the Templars do attack and go aggro first. 

-Polaris

I did just that. Maybe you should try. The combat starts imedatelly after Anders turns into a demon, you can even have Alrik speak before that happens by picking the sarcastic choice.

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
All this proves is the Andrastian Chantry is strongly anti-mage probably bacause it was founded when the wounds of the Ancient Tevinter Imperium were still raw.  The fact is that for many thousands upon thousands of years humans and elves were born with this ability, and there was no great need to act against them because of it (and indeed quite the contrary).  Even during the early Exalted Ages mages weren't treated as prisoners.  That happened later.

As for mages destroying Templar abilities, some would, but others likely wouldn't care.  In fact the best Templars (if you define "Templar" as "Magical Law Enforcement") would likely be spirit mages.  When there is an entire fraternity that supports the Templars, I think you are grossly overstating your case.

-Polaris

Fearing people who can make you explode with a touch is being anti-mage? I would call that common sense.
Tevinter is still there, still subjugating all those born without magical abilities and they would spread if given but half a change. It's not ancient history. It's an omnipresent threat.

That is not why mages are feared.  Mages are feared because they supposedly can 'go demon' by having a bad hair day.  Who propogates this belief?  The chantry.

The fact is we see plenty of examples both historically and concurrently in Thedas where mages are not feared.  You, however, ignore all of this because of "common sense".

Mages policing other mages would work just as well as human policing other humans has worked out for the elves. Which basically means a great number of mages would ignore crimes commited by other mages against mundanes.
And of course the mages would care about templar abilities. They are, afterall, the best weapon mundanes have against their kind. The Loyalists you speak of fear mages which leads to them supporting the Chantry so as to avoid repercussions. If given but half a chance to destroy the templars and have mages rule, the great majority of Loyalists and Aequitarians would take it.

You are wrong.  For starters I never said that mages should solely police other mages only that mages should play a role (and the best way to contain a mage is with another mage).  As for mages caring about templar abilities, honestly the reverse seems more true.  In fact many (in fact most, i.e. Loyalists + Aequitarians) agree that there is a place for the Templars as part of magical protection and law enforcement.  The problem is the Chantry has abused this sacred trust (and thus should no longer have it).  That does not mean there should not be templar-like warriors ideally working with mages to regulate and police magic.

You paint mages with one brush and that isn't fair nor accurate.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
If you play that scene again, yes Anders go "demon" but the Templars do attack and go aggro first. 

-Polaris

I did just that. Maybe you should try. The combat starts imedatelly after Anders turns into a demon, you can even have Alrik speak before that happens by picking the sarcastic choice.

The templars attack you before Anders does anything other than 'go demon'.  I have played that scene many times.  The Templars do attack first...hate to break it to you.

-Polaris

[MisterJB]

IanPolaris wrote...
Fiona was still acting within her legal rights unlike Lambert.  That makes all the difference.

I place zero value in it. The "legal right" to start a world war is not right.

 There was no guarantee she would have won that vote had Lambert not intervened.

That I find more worthy of discussion and yes, it's probrably true which is why I've censured that particular action.

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
False.  Lambert is a Military Officer in a well defined chain of command.  Failure to honor the chain of command and acting outside the wishes of the LAWFUL orders and wishes of your superiors (whether you agree with them or not) is a criminal offense in any military and can be considered grounds for the death penalty in many military traditions (esp in times of war/emergency).

Allow me to make it perfectly clear. I'm tired of argung about technicalities. I couldn't care less about rules or the chain of command or lawful actions in this matter.
Lambert acted outside of the wishes of the Divine. Killing Wynne, Rhys and Adrian would still have helped prevent this conflict which is something I'm more concerned with.

By acting outside the wishes of his legal superior in time of emergency, by traditional military standards up to (and including much of) the 20th century, Lambert should be hung.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Fiona was still acting within her legal rights unlike Lambert.  That makes all the difference.

I place zero value in it. The "legal right" to start a world war is not right.

Sure it is.  Countries have the legal right to declare war or make peace.  Fiona was acting within her legal rights...and was not doing so on a lark.  If the Chantry didn't like what she did, the Chantry (and the Divine) should have worked harder to keep their Templars in line sooner and with more force.

Too little.  Too late.

-Polaris

[MisterJB]

IanPolaris wrote...
That is not why mages are feared.  Mages are feared because they supposedly can 'go demon' by having a bad hair day.  Who propogates this belief?  The chantry.

Of course it is why mages are feared. Any mundane with half the intelligence the Maker granted a sheep would fear them because of that.
The possibility that they might be possessed is simply another danger.

The fact is we see plenty of examples both historically and concurrently in Thedas where mages are not feared.  You, however, ignore all of this because of "common sense".

The Dalish, a mage supremacist society that has brainwashed their mundanes. Bravo.

You are wrong.  For starters I never said that mages should solely police other mages only that mages should play a role (and the best way to contain a mage is with another mage).  As for mages caring about templar abilities, honestly the reverse seems more true.  In fact many (in fact most, i.e. Loyalists + Aequitarians) agree that there is a place for the Templars as part of magical protection and law enforcement.  The problem is the Chantry has abused this sacred trust (and thus should no longer have it).  That does not mean there should not be templar-like warriors ideally working with mages to regulate and police magic.

Except mages can't be trusted to police other mages and the superior abilties of mages pretty much ensures that they will take over the infastructure of society eventually as it happened in Tevinter if they are granted the same rights and freedoms of normal people.
As you said, the best way to contain a mage is with another mage so, we do just that. We let the mages help. Everything works fine for the first couple of generations because these mages would still fear mundane retaliation. And as we see the system working, we begi to rely upon mages more and more.
Suddenly, it's five generations later, the highest ranks of the police are filled with mages who are ignoring crimes commited by other mages.

The Chantry is doing just a fine job keeping mages where they can't hurt others while at the same time, providing them with food, education, clothes, healthcare, a luxurious tower to live in.
The mages protest far too much.

You paint mages with one brush and that isn't fair nor accurate.

No, you do that with templars. I simply acknowledge the faults of mankind.
Any mundane would do the same as the mages if given their power.

Modifié par MisterJB, 31 janvier 2013 - 06:48 .

[MisterJB]

IanPolaris wrote...
Sure it is.  Countries have the legal right to declare war or make peace.  Fiona was acting within her legal rights...and was not doing so on a lark.  If the Chantry didn't like what she did, the Chantry (and the Divine) should have worked harder to keep their Templars in line sooner and with more force.

Too little.  Too late.

-Polaris

And as we all know, the legal system is flawless.

Too late, why? Is magic going somewhere I don't know about? Hopefully.
Maybe the Chantry should have worked harder to keep the mages in line.

Modifié par MisterJB, 31 janvier 2013 - 06:47 .

[MisterJB]

IanPolaris wrote...
The templars attack you before Anders does anything other than 'go demon'.  I have played that scene many times.  The Templars do attack first...hate to break it to you.

-Polaris

No, they don't. Anders becomes a demon, threatens to kill everyone and the combat starts implying his actions caused.
Pausing your part so the templars move first is not an argument, hate to break it to you.