1082 réponses à ce sujet

[Ianamus]

IanPolaris wrote...

EJ107 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Are mages treated as a seperate group by both themselves and others?  Yes.  Under the UN definition they'd qualify.  
-Polaris

So women and men are both ethnic groups?

For the purposes of genocide yes.  If a person were to round up and kill all men (or women) in a certain geographic area, then it would qualify as genocide.  Same if it was 'blue eyed people".  The Hague has been very clear about this because a lot of Serbian defendants tried much the same dodge.

-Polaris

That's actually quite interesting. And odd, although I can definitely see why such a definition would be needed. 

I'm still unconvinced about the genocide and prison claims though. Do said definitons still apply if the people being taken are considered "armed and dangerous?" because considering mage abilities one could consider them for all intents and purposes in possesion of a loaded firearm 24/7, which I'm sure would change the legal situation in the real world. 

Modifié par EJ107, 01 juin 2013 - 12:27 .

[LobselVith8]

EJ107 wrote...

The closest real-world parallel I think of is a mental institution.

I'm not sure where you'll pulling 'mental asylum' from when mages aren't insane for having magical ability, and they are imprisoned for being mages.

[Ianamus]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EJ107 wrote...

The closest real-world parallel I think of is a mental institution.

I'm not sure where you'll pulling 'mental asylum' from when mages aren't insane for having magical ability, and they are imprisoned for being mages.

They are sent to circles not because they have done anything wrong per se but because they pose a constant risk to themselves and others, and have at any moment the chance of turning into a mindless monster and slaughtering people. 

The closest parallel I could think of in the real world is a mental institution. 

[MisterJB]

IanPolaris wrote...
Yes it does.  Mages follow different laws, and self identify as mages (and others identify themselves that way as well).  That is enough to qualify them as a distinct group for the purposes of the crime of genocide.  You don't get to evade this on an attempted technicality.

I'm abbiding by the definition of "genocide" provided by the U.N and it simply doesn't fit.
Accepting that mages belong to a different group; which I did, mind you; the definition still reads:
"Forcibly transferring children of one group to the other group."

Are mage children forcibly transferred from one group to another group? No, they are taken to a Circle where they will live amongst fellow mages and absorb their culture. There was a period where they were not amongst mages but there are many legal reasons that can lead to children being away from their parents for some period of time and we don't call it genocide.
If I really wanted to get technical, I could say that until magical abilities manifest, a mage is, technically, a non-mage and therefore doesn't belong with the magi group.

Do mages who gave birth to non-mage children belong to the same group as their children? No, then taking them away can't be considered genocide against the magi group.
It' sad, certainly, but that's not the same as genocide.

Modifié par MisterJB, 01 juin 2013 - 12:33 .

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Yes it does.  Mages follow different laws, and self identify as mages (and others identify themselves that way as well).  That is enough to qualify them as a distinct group for the purposes of the crime of genocide.  You don't get to evade this on an attempted technicality.

I'm abbiding by the definition of "genocide" provided by the U.N and it simply doesn't fit.
Accepting that mages belong to a different group; which I did, mind you; the definition still reads:
"Forcibly transferring children of one group to the other group."

Are mage children forcibly transferred from one group to another group? No, they are taken to a Circle where they will live amongst fellow mages and absorb their culture. There was a period where they were not amongst mages but there are many legal reasons that can lead to children being away from their parents for some period of time and we don't call it genocide.
If I really wanted to get technical, I could say that until magical abilities manifest, a mage is, technically, a non-mage and therefore doesn't belong with the magi group.

Do mages who gave birth to non-mage children belong to the same group as their children? No, then taking them away can't be considered genocide against the magi group.
It' sad, certainly, but that's not the same as genocide.

Do mage mothers have the option of raising their own children?  NO.

Then it's forcible and it's genocide.  Period.

-Polaris

[Bleachrude]

IanPolaris wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

The Litany is a spell and apparently is a dead easy spell to use.  If so, then every important person and his entourage should have a copy and any threat of mindcontrol would be effectively over since once the Litany is used, the subject remains immune from any futher mindcontrol magic.  Heck, just have a mage cast a mind-control spell (a weak one) while someone else has the Litany ready.  Done.  Subject is now immune.  Move on to next subject.

-Polaris

Wait, are they? I thought it just blocked the one spell. Yes, Uldred only uses it once per mage, I got the impression that was just gameplay mechanics.

Going by what Wynne tells us in the circle tower mission, once used the Litany makes you immune from blood magic possession, apparently universally.  It would be pretty worthless if it only made you immune from one spell from one bloodmage.  We are told it would give the party a chance because it would stop the bloodmages from controlling their minds. 

That isn't how the gameplay worked out, but this was the justification for going after the Litany.

-Polaris

Since when did the Litany actually PERMANENTLY protect against mind control...reading the lore, it only works AT THE TIME of the casting of the mind control spell so you can't get immunized by simply using it beforehand.

[IanPolaris]

EJ107 wrote...

They are sent to circles not because they have done anything wrong per se but because they pose a constant risk to themselves and others, and have at any moment the chance of turning into a mindless monster and slaughtering people. 

The closest parallel I could think of in the real world is a mental institution. 

Except mental institutions don't work that way anymore and they don't becaues of the inherent abuses and ethical problems inherent in imprisoning people for what they are rather than what they have done.

To get locked away in a mental institution against your will, requires that you've done something or you've actually showed an inability to function or be treated in any other way.  It didn't used to be that way, but it is now. 

-Polaris

[MisterJB]

IanPolaris wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Yes it does.  Mages follow different laws, and self identify as mages (and others identify themselves that way as well).  That is enough to qualify them as a distinct group for the purposes of the crime of genocide.  You don't get to evade this on an attempted technicality.

I'm abbiding by the definition of "genocide" provided by the U.N and it simply doesn't fit.
Accepting that mages belong to a different group; which I did, mind you; the definition still reads:
"Forcibly transferring children of one group to the other group."

Are mage children forcibly transferred from one group to another group? No, they are taken to a Circle where they will live amongst fellow mages and absorb their culture. There was a period where they were not amongst mages but there are many legal reasons that can lead to children being away from their parents for some period of time and we don't call it genocide.
If I really wanted to get technical, I could say that until magical abilities manifest, a mage is, technically, a non-mage and therefore doesn't belong with the magi group.

Do mages who gave birth to non-mage children belong to the same group as their children? No, then taking them away can't be considered genocide against the magi group.
It' sad, certainly, but that's not the same as genocide.

Do mage mothers have the option of raising their own children?  NO.

Then it's forcible and it's genocide.  Period.

No, it's not! The word used is "group". A mother is not a group. Period.
You are allowing your emotions to distort the facts. Call it sad, call it cruel, I may even agree. But it's NOT genocide.

[IanPolaris]

Bleachrude wrote...

Since when did the Litany actually PERMANENTLY protect against mind control...reading the lore, it only works AT THE TIME of the casting of the mind control spell so you can't get immunized by simply using it beforehand.

The Litany is only effective when used when bloodmagic possession is attempted.  This much is true, but we are ALSO told that it prevents all future attempts and the game play backs this up.

Otherwise the Litany would be nearly worthless.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

No, it's not! The word used is "group". A mother is not a group. Period.
You are allowing your emotions to distort the facts. Call it sad, call it cruel, I may even agree. But it's NOT genocide.

Yes it is.  You can look up the relevant UN law yourself.  If the child is taken away because the mother belongs to "group X" and for no other reason, then it's genocide.  Period.  If the breaking of the family bond is due solely to the group that any family member belongs to, then it's genocide.

-Polaris

[GodWood]

Genocide or not (it's not) that doesn't stop the templar position from being justified.

All you're doing is throwing around cheap, emotionally-loaded words instead of actually applying logical reasoning to the issue at hand.

[Ianamus]

IanPolaris wrote...

EJ107 wrote...

They are sent to circles not because they have done anything wrong per se but because they pose a constant risk to themselves and others, and have at any moment the chance of turning into a mindless monster and slaughtering people. 

The closest parallel I could think of in the real world is a mental institution. 

Except mental institutions don't work that way anymore and they don't becaues of the inherent abuses and ethical problems inherent in imprisoning people for what they are rather than what they have done.

To get locked away in a mental institution against your will, requires that you've done something or you've actually showed an inability to function or be treated in any other way.  It didn't used to be that way, but it is now.  

-Polaris

I agree that modern mental instituations are very different, I was thinking of the older ones when I made the comparison. I'm not trying to say that the two are equal, just that I think it fits better than "prison", because the situation is a lot more complicated than that. 

I think generally that these debates over the definition of genocide/imprisonment and whether it applies to the DA world mean little. What matters is whether or not commiting the act, whatever it is called, is justified or not. While it is definitely a very ethical issue I don't think it would be ever be possible to treat mages and non-mages equally, so at least some discrimination will always be required. Whether or not to the extents shown at the moment in Thedas is definately debateable though. The problem is that unlike real-world discrimination there is a very real reason to discriminate against mages.  

I do love the fact that Thedas is one of the few settings where people with magic ability are handled realistically. We had witch hunts in a world where magic doesn't even exist, imagine the prejudice and hatred there would have been if it did.

Modifié par EJ107, 01 juin 2013 - 12:53 .

[MisterJB]

IanPolaris wrote...
Yes it is.  You can look up the relevant UN law yourself.  If the child is taken away because the mother belongs to "group X" and for no other reason, then it's genocide.  Period.  If the breaking of the family bond is due solely to the group that any family member belongs to, then it's genocide.

I quoted it.
"Family" is not the subject of genocide. "Group" is. And the groups in question are "mages and non-mages."
Likewise, to simply take a child away is only half of must happen for it to be genocide. The other half is that the child must be transfered to a different group. However, mages children are not transfered to the group of non-mages. Rather, they are returned to the group of mages. Therefore, it's not genocide.

Non-mages children don't belong to the group of their mages parents and thus taking them away; "breaking of the family bond"; also doesn't make it an act of genocide just because a family is torn part.

[IanPolaris]

GodWood wrote...

Genocide or not (it's not) that doesn't stop the templar position from being justified.

All you're doing is throwing around cheap, emotionally-loaded words instead of actually applying logical reasoning to the issue at hand.

Actually both DAA and DA2 are rife with Halocaust references, so I feel pefectly justified calling the circle system what it is:

Genocide

-Polaris

[BlueMagitek]

Wait, where is it stated that Ferelden (and in particular, the Tower) is the most liberal of the Circle?

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Yes it is.  You can look up the relevant UN law yourself.  If the child is taken away because the mother belongs to "group X" and for no other reason, then it's genocide.  Period.  If the breaking of the family bond is due solely to the group that any family member belongs to, then it's genocide.

I quoted it.
"Family" is not the subject of genocide. "Group" is. And the groups in question are "mages and non-mages."
Likewise, to simply take a child away is only half of must happen for it to be genocide. The other half is that the child must be transfered to a different group. However, mages children are not transfered to the group of non-mages. Rather, they are returned to the group of mages. Therefore, it's not genocide.

Non-mages children don't belong to the group of their mages parents and thus taking them away; "breaking of the family bond"; also doesn't make it an act of genocide just because a family is torn part.

Taking a child away from it's family (mother) solely because of the group that the mother (or child) belongs to is considered to be a form of genocide! Look it up.

-Polaris

[Bleachrude]

LobselVith8 wrote...

People have stated in the past that Finn's fancy garments would suggest that his family is doing well financially.

Being noble and having the necessary connections to see your family seems to be what those few examples indicate, in contrast to the lack of these privileges for mages like Ella. We also know that some Circles prohibit relationships, and even the right to marry.

No..you're using KIRKWALL's circle as the example of what is "normal" and nobody considers that normal...

Again, people are bringing their modern day viewpoints into this. Ferelden is supposed to be at least as big as England and I've seen many a logical argument that it is at least DOUBLE the size of England.

In medieval times, the common people (serfs) did NOT visit places a la our modern day vacations. Merchants and nobles could afford (both in terms of money and time) to take a couple of week to visit London if they were located in Liverpool but the vast majority of people living in Bristol at the time never saw London. and that city is half the distance.

Hell, even in Ferelden, it's implied that only during the annual landsmeet do nobles visit the city. It's implied for example that the HN has never visited Denerim before or met the king until Ostagar.

Enchanter Illana is also another noble (Orlesian this time and only 150 years ago) whose family took an active interest in her well-being and the codex entry implies that it is mostly the family's decision whether or not to stay involved with their mage children.

Nobles and merchants simply have more of an opportunity to do this but that's more due to the fact that in medieval times, being a noble did offer many benefits.

[IanPolaris]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Wait, where is it stated that Ferelden (and in particular, the Tower) is the most liberal of the Circle?

I believe Anders has stated this, and IIRC I even think it's been implied by most of the Devs as well.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  I do know that pre-fifth blight the Fereldan circle had the reputation of being the "kissing circle" athough 'kissing' was a euphamism.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 01 juin 2013 - 12:59 .

[IanPolaris]

Bleachrude wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

People have stated in the past that Finn's fancy garments would suggest that his family is doing well financially.

Being noble and having the necessary connections to see your family seems to be what those few examples indicate, in contrast to the lack of these privileges for mages like Ella. We also know that some Circles prohibit relationships, and even the right to marry.

No..you're using KIRKWALL's circle as the example of what is "normal" and nobody considers that normal...

Again, people are bringing their modern day viewpoints into this. Ferelden is supposed to be at least as big as England and I've seen many a logical argument that it is at least DOUBLE the size of England.

In medieval times, the common people (serfs) did NOT visit places a la our modern day vacations. Merchants and nobles could afford (both in terms of money and time) to take a couple of week to visit London if they were located in Liverpool but the vast majority of people living in Bristol at the time never saw London. and that city is half the distance.

Hell, even in Ferelden, it's implied that only during the annual landsmeet do nobles visit the city. It's implied for example that the HN has never visited Denerim before or met the king until Ostagar.

Enchanter Illana is also another noble (Orlesian this time and only 150 years ago) whose family took an active interest in her well-being and the codex entry implies that it is mostly the family's decision whether or not to stay involved with their mage children.

Nobles and merchants simply have more of an opportunity to do this but that's more due to the fact that in medieval times, being a noble did offer many benefits.

None of that changes the fact that mages have no rights or intrinsic ability at all to be with their families or vice versa.    Being able to see and be with family is not a priveledge, it's a human right.  It's not something that can or should be taken away without a crime being committed. 

-Polaris

Edit PS:  I am not even refering to physical visits but contact of any kind is denied to mages unless the local KC decides otherwise.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 01 juin 2013 - 01:02 .

[MisterJB]

IanPolaris wrote...
Taking a child away from it's family (mother) solely because of the group that the mother (or child) belongs to is considered to be a form of genocide! Look it up.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html

Article 2 (e) "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Just taking a child is not enough for it to be considered genocide.

[LobselVith8]

It was stated a while ago by the developers that the Circle of Ferelden was the most 'liberal' of the Circles of Magi, although I'm not sure how much that really means when you consider the negative things the mage protagonist can say about the Circle of Ferelden. I certainly wouldn't want to live in one of the Chantry controlled Circles.

[BlueMagitek]

IanPolaris wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

Wait, where is it stated that Ferelden (and in particular, the Tower) is the most liberal of the Circle?

I believe Anders has stated this, and IIRC I even think it's been implied by most of the Devs as well.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  I do know that pre-fifth blight the Fereldan circle had the reputation of being the "kissing circle" athough 'kissing' was a euphamism.

Yes, but where was it stated definately in the lore?

And considering that one of the Circles in Orlais had field trips to the Capitol, what are you judging your claim on?  I would like some metrics.

[GodWood]

IanPolaris wrote...
Actually both DAA and DA2 are rife with Halocaust references, so I feel pefectly justified calling the circle system what it is:

Genocide

-Polaris

Completely missed the point.

Assuming it does meet the U.N's definition of genocide (which it is very debatable it does not), so what? At best all this argument proves is that taking away mages is genocide. It doesn't offer a safer alternative and it doesn't gurantee safety, security and happiness for the majority (i.e. non-mages).

Your point is worthless.

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Taking a child away from it's family (mother) solely because of the group that the mother (or child) belongs to is considered to be a form of genocide! Look it up.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html

Article 2 (e) "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Just taking a child is not enough for it to be considered genocide.

The child is being taken away from a mage group to (presumably) a non-mage group.  That's genocide.  For that matter the practice of taking away children as young as six away from their families (generally non-mages) to be with the mages is also genocide.

-Polaris