1081 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

So you're saying that the execution of hundreds of men, women, and children for something they didn't do was justified in the eyes of the Andrastian Chantry?

No. I'm trying to explain to people, exactly what Gaider did say, and what he didn't say.

And do please try and update your rethoric.... It is getting a little old. 

Meredith had the guilty person right in front of her, and she killed an entire population of people for something that this specific man did and proceeded to handwave the existance of the man who actually destroyed the Kirkwall Chantry and killed Granc Cleric Elthina. Her only justification is that she was going to appease a hypothetical mob. She doesn't seem to have much of an excuse if she was brought before the proper authorities and she had to explain her actions.

And this changes what DG said word for word, how exactly? All DG said, was what Cullen's complaint would have been about. He did not presume to pass judgement on the people siding with the Templars.

[dragonflight288]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

So you're saying that the execution of hundreds of men, women, and children for something they didn't do was justified in the eyes of the Andrastian Chantry?

No. I'm trying to explain to people, exactly what Gaider did say, and what he didn't say.

And do please try and update your rethoric.... It is getting a little old. 

Meredith had the guilty person right in front of her, and she killed an entire population of people for something that this specific man did and proceeded to handwave the existance of the man who actually destroyed the Kirkwall Chantry and killed Granc Cleric Elthina. Her only justification is that she was going to appease a hypothetical mob. She doesn't seem to have much of an excuse if she was brought before the proper authorities and she had to explain her actions.

And this changes what DG said word for word, how exactly? All DG said, was what Cullen's complaint would have been about. He did not presume to pass judgement on the people siding with the Templars.

You're deliberately taking Gaider out of context because it means that the templars were in the wrong here. There are bad mages, no one questions that, but the templars are guilty of their fair share of crimes here. You are deliberately obfuscating and misleading. We've posted Gaider's comments. IanPolaris provided a link to the very thread Gaider said it, so you can check the full context of the conversation yourself.

Gaider specifically was referring to Meredith's Rite of Annulment, because that was what was being discussed, and he went on to expand that Cullen argued the same thing. The Rite of Annulment in Kirkwall was completely unjustified, both in the eyes of the Chantry and according to the word of Gaider.

Deal with it.

PS: I normally try to be more courteous, but your deliberate obtuseness and misdirection is getting pretty annoying. Please take things in context, and if you have no evidence in the form of the word of a developer, in-game lore, or evidence from the novels, then all it is is hot air without substance. If you wish to take Gaider's comments out of context in this case, point out exactly where the contradiction lies, in the form of in-game, novel evidence. And if Gaider or another developer said something contrary, provide a link.

If you cannot point out the contradiction or where we err specifically, and then prove it with evidence, then you have no legitimate argument.

EDIT: Oops. Sorry, thought you were Lotion. Didn't look closely at the name.

Modifié par dragonflight288, 16 juin 2013 - 03:50 .

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Funny. That's exactly what I'd say you are doing. Especically since he in no way shape or form is saying what you claim he is. While I don't doubt that anyone would mean the Annulment was immoral, that isn't what Gaider was saying.

I posted DG's comment directly and in context.  It's pretty damned clear that he is referring to Meredith's specific annulment as being morally wrong (especially since the passage he's responding to...written my me...is extremely specific to Meredith's annulment).

Meredith did nasty things to the pooch.  Just admit this and move on.

-Polaris

Im not disputing wether or not Meredith's actions were immoral. I'm saying that DG didn't say what you are claiming he did. While i'm sure he personally agrees, that it was an immoral action, that is not what he was specifically saying in that sentence. Since if he did, it could be used as evidence that one action was morally superior to the other. Kind of like what you are attempting to do right now.

You are wrong.  I quoted not only DG's post but the context in which is was written (as a reply to one of my posts).  DG is quite plainly refering to the one special case of Kirkwall because I did.

-Polaris

[Sir JK]

IanPolaris wrote...

Yes, but both the canon and WoG are clear.  If the mages are allowed to live after a declaired RoA, they must be made tranquil and that's very much the exception.  Actually DA2 cheated a lot (by not having mage children to kill although Bethany clearly says they exist) and by allowing you to side with the Templars and not kill your own sister.

-POlaris

I'm assuming that they did not show mage children to kill because that'd be quite a significant thing. One that would not slip past the radar idly. Very few games allow you to kill children... for good reason.

But yes, Bethany and the apprentice-trio seems possible to spare. Clearly this is going against how RoA's work. That does not mean it did not happen however. WoG does not say that these four mages were killed or tranquilised. It only discusses how RoA's work as a rule.
It is your interpretation of this that says that these three (and/or Bethany) died/were tranquilised. Given Cullen's words specifically and that he ended up being highest ranking Templar once he deposes Meredith, I see no reason to believe they were.

If this means the RoA was incomplete and that Cullen technically violated his orders... well then... I guess it was and that he did.

[Dave of Canada]

I have Bethany executed at the end of DA2 because she did claim she'd rather die than be made tranquil, I'm sparing her that fate.

[Plaintiff]

Sir JK wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Yes, but both the canon and WoG are clear.  If the mages are allowed to live after a declaired RoA, they must be made tranquil and that's very much the exception.  Actually DA2 cheated a lot (by not having mage children to kill although Bethany clearly says they exist) and by allowing you to side with the Templars and not kill your own sister.

-POlaris

I'm assuming that they did not show mage children to kill because that'd be quite a significant thing. One that would not slip past the radar idly. Very few games allow you to kill children... for good reason.

What is this good reason?

DA:O showed Connor's death, if that was the player's choice. If going through with Annulment means killing children, then that should be shown. If people find those images distressing then, well, they should've thought about that earlier.

[Dave of Canada]

You don't see Connor die, you see the character doing an animation to something off-screen. The only thing which made Connor's death brutal was Isolde's reaction, Connor resigned himself to his fate.

[Sir JK]

Plaintiff wrote...

What is this good reason?

DA:O showed Connor's death, if that was the player's choice. If going through with Annulment means killing children, then that should be shown. If people find those images distressing then, well, they should've thought about that earlier.

It's a thing that's very socially pariah to do. It adds very little and it is not entirely unlikely to raise a hell noone wants. I think it just might be illegal in some countries too... all in all... probably best to avoid it explicitely. Allowing the direct and indirect excplicit killing of children on screen is well... thin ice.

That said, I sort of agree with the sentiment. If you didn't think children would be affected, you did not think through the implications of the RoA properly.

[Lotion Soronarr]

TCBC_Freak wrote...

I think you're reading into what he is saying, if the RoA is revoked then the paramiters no longer apply, those mages wouldn't need to be killed, it hinges on the RoA being applyed, after all in DAO Gregor sends for the RoA because he can't see any other option, but then the Warden solves the problem and he doesn't need it anymore. So just asking for it, or even starting to prepare for it doesn't mean you can't turn and stop it. So if the person who gave the order is found to be crazy and corrupted and shouldn't have give the order it is possible that any mages found alive are kept alive because the RoA wasn't fully in acted and was revoked. What he is talking about is a fully acted RoA, and how it would work, because we've never seen it in game so he's explaining what the real RoA would be like and result in, he isn't speaking about what happens in the games because we've never seen a real justified RoA.

Good point.

Asking for RoA is asking for the right to fully anull the circle. It doesn't mean that one HAS to do it. I would guess it depends on the circumstances.
RoA is usually called only in extreeme circumstances (see Broken Circle), when killing all mages seems like a safer option than the corruption spreading. Death of a hunderd mages vs. death of thousands of civilians?

So even if the RoA is given, the Knight Commander or the templars don't HAVE to kill everyone..they don't even have to tranqualize.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Meredith had the guilty person right in front of her, and she killed an entire population of people for something that this specific man did and proceeded to handwave the existance of the man who actually destroyed the Kirkwall Chantry and killed Granc Cleric Elthina. Her only justification is that she was going to appease a hypothetical mob. She doesn't seem to have much of an excuse if she was brought before the proper authorities and she had to explain her actions.

And blood mages in the Circle and abominations on the streets are NOT an excuse?

Again, you seem to look at this only trough the prism of Anderses actions. Many could argue that the Cirlce was rife for a RoA before Anders.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 16 juin 2013 - 10:50 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

dragonflight288 wrote...
Gaider specifically was referring to Meredith's Rite of Annulment, because that was what was being discussed, and he went on to expand that Cullen argued the same thing. The Rite of Annulment in Kirkwall was completely unjustified, both in the eyes of the Chantry and according to the word of Gaider.

Deal with it.

Nope.
If anyone is obtuse here (and insulting) it would be you two.
I read that entire thread.

ALL that Gaider said that Cullen would object that the RoA was unjustified - and that is a valid position. However, wether something is justified or not is largely SUBJECTIVE. Just because Cullen disagrees doesn't mean the Chantry would too, or that Meredith couldnt' make a convincing case for herself.

Yes, she would have to answer - because such devastation and measures would require investigation.
Not to mention Merediths position, while TECHNICLY legal, was really pushing it, and frankly I think the Chantry would be more interested in that over the Circle being anulled.

[CrazyRah]

I would absolutely love if we got to see a more human side to the templars. That they're family members, brothers and sisters and in some cases wives and husbands and not just cold hearted mage hunters that see blood magic in every corner.

[EmperorSahlertz]

dragonflight288 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

So you're saying that the execution of hundreds of men, women, and children for something they didn't do was justified in the eyes of the Andrastian Chantry?

No. I'm trying to explain to people, exactly what Gaider did say, and what he didn't say.

And do please try and update your rethoric.... It is getting a little old. 

Meredith had the guilty person right in front of her, and she killed an entire population of people for something that this specific man did and proceeded to handwave the existance of the man who actually destroyed the Kirkwall Chantry and killed Granc Cleric Elthina. Her only justification is that she was going to appease a hypothetical mob. She doesn't seem to have much of an excuse if she was brought before the proper authorities and she had to explain her actions.

And this changes what DG said word for word, how exactly? All DG said, was what Cullen's complaint would have been about. He did not presume to pass judgement on the people siding with the Templars.

You're deliberately taking Gaider out of context because it means that the templars were in the wrong here. There are bad mages, no one questions that, but the templars are guilty of their fair share of crimes here. You are deliberately obfuscating and misleading. We've posted Gaider's comments. IanPolaris provided a link to the very thread Gaider said it, so you can check the full context of the conversation yourself.

Gaider specifically was referring to Meredith's Rite of Annulment, because that was what was being discussed, and he went on to expand that Cullen argued the same thing. The Rite of Annulment in Kirkwall was completely unjustified, both in the eyes of the Chantry and according to the word of Gaider.

Deal with it.

PS: I normally try to be more courteous, but your deliberate obtuseness and misdirection is getting pretty annoying. Please take things in context, and if you have no evidence in the form of the word of a developer, in-game lore, or evidence from the novels, then all it is is hot air without substance. If you wish to take Gaider's comments out of context in this case, point out exactly where the contradiction lies, in the form of in-game, novel evidence. And if Gaider or another developer said something contrary, provide a link.

If you cannot point out the contradiction or where we err specifically, and then prove it with evidence, then you have no legitimate argument.

EDIT: Oops. Sorry, thought you were Lotion. Didn't look closely at the name.

If DG was saying waht you guys are saying, then he would be implying that one of the choices were the morally correct and superior choice. The right choice. DG would NEVER do that. You are putting words in his mouth, if you think that he is saying that supporting the Templars in the Annulment, is immoral.
All DG is doing, is clarifying what Cullen's complains would be about, and that Cullen's complains are valid.

And don't worry about the confusion. It isn't the first time, and probably wont be the last time, it has happened.

[Qyla]

Tthe only person whom can speak for DG is DG.

[IanPolaris]

Qyla wrote...

Tthe only person whom can speak for DG is DG.

Which is why I quoted him in full context and on this very thread.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

So even if the RoA is given, the Knight Commander or the templars don't HAVE to kill everyone..they don't even have to tranqualize.

Actually under Chantry law they do.  When a right has been declared, that circle is considered irreemable, and that means that no possible 'corruption' is to be allowed to continue....down to the last child.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Sir JK wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Yes, but both the canon and WoG are clear.  If the mages are allowed to live after a declaired RoA, they must be made tranquil and that's very much the exception.  Actually DA2 cheated a lot (by not having mage children to kill although Bethany clearly says they exist) and by allowing you to side with the Templars and not kill your own sister.

-POlaris

I'm assuming that they did not show mage children to kill because that'd be quite a significant thing. One that would not slip past the radar idly. Very few games allow you to kill children... for good reason.

But yes, Bethany and the apprentice-trio seems possible to spare. Clearly this is going against how RoA's work. That does not mean it did not happen however. WoG does not say that these four mages were killed or tranquilised. It only discusses how RoA's work as a rule.
It is your interpretation of this that says that these three (and/or Bethany) died/were tranquilised. Given Cullen's words specifically and that he ended up being highest ranking Templar once he deposes Meredith, I see no reason to believe they were.

If this means the RoA was incomplete and that Cullen technically violated his orders... well then... I guess it was and that he did.

I'll tell you why they did it.  They did not want the player to face the full reality of supporting a Right of Annulment.  That's why.  This way you could support the templars but keep your hands clean.  IMHO it was blatent writer dishonesty.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  I notice that Cullen never rescinds the Right of Annulment at any time.  Under Chantry Law that means that Beth and the apprentices die (or maybe are tranquilized) no matter what.  Both WOG and the Lore are very clear on this point.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 16 juin 2013 - 12:20 .

[Sir JK]

IanPolaris wrote...

I'll tell you why they did it.  They did not want the player to face the full reality of supporting a Right of Annulment.  That's why.  This way you could support the templars but keep your hands clean.  IMHO it was blatent writer dishonesty.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  I notice that Cullen never rescinds the Right of Annulment at any time.  Under Chantry Law that means that Beth and the apprentices die (or maybe are tranquilized) no matter what.  Both WOG and the Lore are very clear on this point.

Or maybe the templars aren't universally the absolute monsters you imagine them to be, that they are in fact capable of mercy even during a RoA (even if it's not supposed to happen that way). That you can in fact have all four of them executed does not support your theory of protecting the player either, since facing the full reality of a RoA is very much one outcome of that quest.

If that does not fit your idea of the lore, well I don't know what to tell you. Sorry to hear you aren't getting what you wanted.  Until any of the writers flat out states that Cullen lied through his teeth and had them all executed/tranquilised I'll keep my view on the whole matter. And if that is an unacceptable interpretation to you, well then we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

[Xilizhra]

Sir JK wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I'll tell you why they did it.  They did not want the player to face the full reality of supporting a Right of Annulment.  That's why.  This way you could support the templars but keep your hands clean.  IMHO it was blatent writer dishonesty.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  I notice that Cullen never rescinds the Right of Annulment at any time.  Under Chantry Law that means that Beth and the apprentices die (or maybe are tranquilized) no matter what.  Both WOG and the Lore are very clear on this point.

Or maybe the templars aren't universally the absolute monsters you imagine them to be, that they are in fact capable of mercy even during a RoA (even if it's not supposed to happen that way). That you can in fact have all four of them executed does not support your theory of protecting the player either, since facing the full reality of a RoA is very much one outcome of that quest.

If that does not fit your idea of the lore, well I don't know what to tell you. Sorry to hear you aren't getting what you wanted.  Until any of the writers flat out states that Cullen lied through his teeth and had them all executed/tranquilised I'll keep my view on the whole matter. And if that is an unacceptable interpretation to you, well then we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

There's no contradiction. Cullen considers Tranquility to be a mercy compared to death.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

So even if the RoA is given, the Knight Commander or the templars don't HAVE to kill everyone..they don't even have to tranqualize.

Actually under Chantry law they do.  When a right has been declared, that circle is considered irreemable, and that means that no possible 'corruption' is to be allowed to continue....down to the last child.

-Polaris

Actually they don't.

That is not a law, it is a Right. An allowance to use any means necessary.
Like going to Defcon 5 and being authorized to launch every nuke you have if deemed necessary. That doesn't mean you MUST do it.

[Sir JK]

Xilizhra wrote...

There's no contradiction. Cullen considers Tranquility to be a mercy compared to death.

He does. But the context suggests to me that this is not the fate he had in mind: Meredith asks him whether he'll allow these mages to live and risk them revealing themselves to be a threat later. He answers that he believes it is a templars duty to do so.
Tranquil are no threat, that's the very idea. This is what suggests to me that they'll live untranquilised, assuming Hawke decides to allow them to.

That's my interpretation of the whole issue, anyways. That this is not how RoA's are supposed to end does snot change that interpretation. Your counterargument is better than Ian's I admit, but I still take Cullen's own words seriously until being shown a reason to doubt them.

[Xilizhra]

He does. But the context suggests to me that this is not the fate he had in mind: Meredith asks him whether he'll allow these mages to live and risk them revealing themselves to be a threat later. He answers that he believes it is a templars duty to do so.
Tranquil are no threat, that's the very idea. This is what suggests to me that they'll live untranquilised, assuming Hawke decides to allow them to.

A threat in the context of the current battle, where they might go abomination or something before the templars can perform the Rite on them. There's nothing there to indicate that they'd be allowed to live intact. I mean, maybe Cullen would like it if they weren't made Tranquil, but I doubt he'd make a fuss about it. He doesn't think they can be treated like people, after all.

[Sir JK]

Xilizhra wrote...

A threat in the context of the current battle, where they might go abomination or something before the templars can perform the Rite on them. There's nothing there to indicate that they'd be allowed to live intact. I mean, maybe Cullen would like it if they weren't made Tranquil, but I doubt he'd make a fuss about it. He doesn't think they can be treated like people, after all.

Haha. Perhaps. But now the argument has turned full circle. I'm using his actions as an argument to sustain my belief that he does not really believe what he says. You're using his words to support your belief that his actions mean little. We'll just argue in circles if we keep going on. I guell we'll both see more of what kind of a man he is when we meet him next. Regardless I hope it's a scenario we both can enjoy.

Back to the topic instead methinks... Let's see...
We've discussed the value of letters showing their human side, what kind of man Cullen is and that he'd be a good source of templar perspective...

Oh... I know!
What kind of scenario's would we like to see the templars in? That could be an interesting discussion.

[Qyla]

IanPolaris wrote...

Qyla wrote...

Tthe only person whom can speak for DG is DG.

Which is why I quoted him in full context and on this very thread.

-Polaris

What I meant was "Stop discussing using his words, instead write your own thoughts and impression, accusing each other to misquoting/understanding him will lead nowhere