1656 réponses à ce sujet

[Medhia Nox]

@Ieldra2: I did state that mages havemore power... but not more morality.

That's a huge problem to me that cannot be ignored by any mage who wants to live free among non-mages.

I thought the "Greater power, greater responsiblity." thing was cliche by now? Evidently not.

All those mages have shown greater power - and no responsibility.

If people must be amoral self-serving psychos... I'd prefer they have no magic.

[Ieldra]

Medhia Nox wrote...
@Ieldra2: I did state that mages havemore power... but not more morality.

That's a huge problem to me that cannot be ignored by any mage who wants to live free among non-mages.

I thought the "Greater power, greater responsiblity." thing was cliche by now? Evidently not.

All those mages have shown greater power - and no responsibility.

If people must be amoral self-serving psychos... I'd prefer they have no magic.

So take their magic away and make them Tranquil - after they've proven they're amoral self-serving psychos. We usually don't derive the way all people are treated from the worst cases.

I'm fine with holding mages to higher standards because of their power. However, they first have to break those standards before I can justify imprisonment, and redemption should remain a possibility for all but the worst cases. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 27 juin 2013 - 02:03 .

[Medhia Nox]

@Ieldra2: Not entirely true - we have laws specifically because of 'the worst cases'.

Again - I'm not stating that mages shouldn't see their families. Though I'm not sure that's completely supported - I recall at least one mage stating that he/she got to see their family.

You know - there's a lot of boarding and military schools were children aren't allow to leave or see their families either (in the real world). It's different of course - because we haven't been shown families visiting or mages being allow to go home on holidays.

If a mage were allowed to go visit their family under Templar supervision - would you be okay with that?

The Templar would be there "just in case" something went wrong - we are told, by the games, that a mage might be tempted at any time.  This cannot be refuted by player wishful thinking or "couldn't happen to me" arrogance.  The games state that this can and does happen - it is an irrefutable reality of the game universe (and we're shown it)

What if this mage meets her unrequited love - sees he's happily married - and then a desire demon tempts her?

The Templar would be there solely to safeguard all the people in the town.

Are you alright with that?

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 27 juin 2013 - 02:06 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xilizhra wrote...

And where praytell do you get the idea that templars go around slitting mothers throats?

Where do you get the idea that they wouldn't if there was any resistance?

Because that would severely hurt the Templar reputation, and sicne they can easily just detain the mother, while taking the child, killing her would be extremely excessive, and uneccesary. Also, since Templars are regarded as guardians and heroes by the common man, they obviously don't go on rampaging killing sprees, whenever tehy collect the mage children.

Xilizhra wrote...

A mage will be killed ONLY IF NECESSARY - only if he breaks certain laws.
Keeping in mind that death penalty still exist, even you, a normal, free citizen, can be lawfully killed.

And I believe that's wrong too, and certainly a slavery-like element that exists within our own society. It's just not combined with a lot of other things.

The death penalty is not something you can pin on the Templars and Circle though, since the entirety of Thedas have the death penalty (except for maybe Orzammar, but they force people into the Legion of the Dead). It does however seem, that the mage would have to have commited a far more extreme crime to be executed, than any peasant.

[Xilizhra]

Because that would severely hurt the Templar reputation, and sicne they can easily just detain the mother, while taking the child, killing her would be extremely excessive, and uneccesary. Also, since Templars are regarded as guardians and heroes by the common man, they obviously don't go on rampaging killing sprees, whenever tehy collect the mage children.

Cullen mentions that their reputation has grown tarnished as of late; templars are no longer viewed only as heroes. And as mentioned previously, I think someone was killed in the Dragon Age comic.

The death penalty is not something you can pin on the Templars and Circle though, since the entirety of Thedas have the death penalty (except for maybe Orzammar, but they force people into the Legion of the Dead). It does however seem, that the mage would have to have commited a far more extreme crime to be executed, than any peasant.

We can only reform one thing at a time. And since mages can have their souls torn asunder to be reduced to a zombielike state, explicitly as apprentices who aren't considered wholly adult yet, this is really no improvement.

[MisterJB]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Connor doesn't justify the Circles. He justifies mandatory education at a shielded facility, yes, but not isolation from his family, not even during his apprenticeship. 

Quentin was educated and all that accomplished was stopping him from killing anyone except his chosen victims. Education, by itself, may help prevent magical accidents but it has little effect if the mage truly wishes to abuse his power. Educating Connor would have no effect on his emotional state once he sees his father is going to die and would not, necessarely, prevent him from summoning a demon to save him.
In fact, if I recall correctly, Connor knowingly summoned a demon and he learned how to do so through one of Jowan's books that the idiot just left laying around.

As for the scope of the damage, may I remind you of the quest "Blackpowder Courtesy"? A whole city block got poisoned, completely without the involvement of any magic. Even apart from that, almost all "abuses of magic" are well within the scope achievable by non-magical means.

That incident require several especial conditions such as a qunari dreadnought being destroyed, the Arishok being willing to let it be stolen and a Mother of the Chantry being willing to support the elven radicals.
Not mention it must be difficult to produce qar-samek in enough quantities; it doesn't grow on people's veins like magic.
Certainly, with the exception of some (breaking into the Golden City, for instance), non-mages can cause as much destruction as mages. It simply takes a lot more of effort meaning, not everyone can do it whereas almost every mage is capable of burning cities to the ground.

Modifié par MisterJB, 27 juin 2013 - 02:32 .

[Ieldra]

Medhia Nox wrote...
@Ieldra2: Not entirely true - we have laws specifically because of 'the worst cases'.

Again - I'm not stating that mages shouldn't see their families. Though I'm not sure that's completely supported - I recall at least one mage stating that he/she got to see their family.

You know - there's a lot of boarding and military schools were children aren't allow to leave or see their families either (in the real world). It's different of course - because we haven't been shown families visiting or mages being allow to go home on holidays.

If a mage were allowed to go visit their family under Templar supervision - would you be okay with that?

The Templar would be there "just in case" something went wrong - we are told, by the games, that a mage might be tempted at any time.  This cannot be refuted by player wishful thinking or "couldn't happen to me" arrogance.  The games state that this can and does happen - it is an irrefutable reality of the game universe (and we're shown it)

What if this mage meets her unrequited love - sees he's happily married - and then a desire demon tempts her?

The Templar would be there solely to safeguard all the people in the town.

Are you alright with that?

I'm in principle ok with the idea of a mage having a permanent non-mage companion as a safeguard. I think it was an idea brought up abovethread I agreed with. I am not, however, ok with this person being a member of an organization predisposed to revile magic and mages, and if this person is regarded as a keeper rather than a friend, it's almost as bad as if nothing had changed. Apart from that, If it *is* a friend, then in it's in both parties' best interest to keep the bad stuff from happening, it's a part of social integration, and there's no dehumanizing. It would need a significant culture change to make that happen though.  

Apart from that, we are questioning established wisdom at the moment, and I'll leave no piece of that unquestioned. Is there no means to avoid possession disasters? What is our relation to the spirit world? What can and can't a mage do? It's possible that we'll end up with a Circle-like system with little adaptations again in the end, but after a thousand years of mage oppression it should be a moral obligation to look for alternatives. Very hard.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 27 juin 2013 - 02:34 .

[MisterJB]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I am not, however, ok with this person being a member of an organization predisposed to revile magic and mages, and if this person is regarded as a keeper rather than a friend, it's almost as bad as if nothing had changed. Apart from that, If it *is* a friend, then in it's in both parties' best interest to keep the bad stuff from happening, it's a part of social integration, and there's no dehumanizing. It would need a significant culture change to make that happen though.  

Lambert tried that in Tevinter. It didn't work.
Yes, yes, Culture. Or maybe friendly relationships lead to people being easily duped. Afterall, would you believe your friend has just used a innocent family in a blood magic experiment?

[GodWood]

Ieldra2 wrote...
The mages don't want a violent war.

Woop dee ****ing do.

Few people want a violent war. If the mages didn't want a violent war they shouldn't have started a revolution that attacks the safety of the majority and only has the support of a minority.

It is also monstrously stupid to expect that the people you've oppressed for a thousand years will back down and trust your goodwill again after those thousand years of oppression.

And by 'thousands of years of oppression' we refer to them living privileged luxurious lifestyles with comforts that exceed that of what 99% of the population can even imagine.

****, they're even better off than populations in modern first world countries.

The "don't rock the boat" argument is used by reactionaries all the time. That doesn't make it more valid.

"This isn't a don't rock the boat" argument this is pointing out the obvious.

When you support a radical revolution you must be prepared for mass amounts of bloodshed. This is something all revolutionaries must accept. 

It's perfectly possible the violence will be mostly restricted to the fighting parties.

History begs to differ.

Revolutions are violent, chaotic and affect all walks of life. It's cause may be one specific issue but other completely unrelated groups will capitalize on this chaos to further their own ends be they radical political goals or simple petty vendettas.

Modifié par GodWood, 27 juin 2013 - 03:22 .

[dragonflight288]

MisterJB wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
I am not, however, ok with this person being a member of an organization predisposed to revile magic and mages, and if this person is regarded as a keeper rather than a friend, it's almost as bad as if nothing had changed. Apart from that, If it *is* a friend, then in it's in both parties' best interest to keep the bad stuff from happening, it's a part of social integration, and there's no dehumanizing. It would need a significant culture change to make that happen though.  

Lambert tried that in Tevinter. It didn't work.
Yes, yes, Culture. Or maybe friendly relationships lead to people being easily duped. Afterall, would you believe your friend has just used a innocent family in a blood magic experiment?

Tevinter's entire culture is completely different from everywhere outside of it. Even before Andrastianism was on the rise, they went out fo their way to foster magical talent. And when they surrendered and accepted the Chant of Light, it was done on their terms and the entire culture revolves around magic.

The difference between Tevinter and the Andrastian nations is that Tevinter celebrates magic and has for milennia, and the Andrastian nations revile it and only barely tolerate its very existence.

Besides, the change she's (or at least I think Ieldra is a she) could take longer than one person's life-time, or longer than lambert is willing to give....giving that Lambert is quite extreme and is not above attempted-murder to hide evidence of things like tranquility now curable (Pharamond.) 

Orlais, Ferelden, the Anderfels, the Free Marches, Nevarra....all of these countries have a completely different outlook and culture when it comes to magic. I didn't mention Rivain because we know about the Seers, and I want to know more about how much the Seers are involved with everyday life before I consider putting them on the same scale as Tevinter, and we also know how the templars committed genocide on every man, woman and child there because some mages kept in contact with their families.

The change that comes would take a committed effort of templars, or non-mages in general, willing to give magic a chance and mages the opportunity to prove themselves, and the mages in turn would have to also commit to try and live up to those standards, and be willing to punish their own who break it.

However, it is my belief that as long as the templars believe they have authority over mages by divine right, and as long as they remain separated by the Chantry because they are on a quest of genocide to kill the mages for having the audacity to declare themselves independent, I don't think this peaceful change is even possible. No matter what the mages may do, the templars will always force their hand into violence at this point in Thedas history so long as they maintain their self-righteous belief they have over mages.

And the friend thing is almost a misdirection. Using a family in blood magic would leave very tangible evidence. Evidence that could then be used to charge them with a crime.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xilizhra wrote...

Because that would severely hurt the Templar reputation, and sicne they can easily just detain the mother, while taking the child, killing her would be extremely excessive, and uneccesary. Also, since Templars are regarded as guardians and heroes by the common man, they obviously don't go on rampaging killing sprees, whenever tehy collect the mage children.

Cullen mentions that their reputation has grown tarnished as of late; templars are no longer viewed only as heroes. And as mentioned previously, I think someone was killed in the Dragon Age comic.

That is likely becasue people have lost touch with the dangers of magic, due to the Circles' effectiveness of shutting magic out of day-to-day life. This have lead to people focusing more on the mages than the magic. And since the people don't udnerstand magic anymore, they only see an "oppressed" mage.
It could of course also just be the massive amount of propaganda the mage-supporters of Thedas spill out, like Anders.
It is most likely a combination of the above, and also of the increasingly extreme measures the Templars have used to keep the mages in the Circles.

Xilizhra wrote...

The death penalty is not something you can pin on the Templars and Circle though, since the entirety of Thedas have the death penalty (except for maybe Orzammar, but they force people into the Legion of the Dead). It does however seem, that the mage would have to have commited a far more extreme crime to be executed, than any peasant.

We can only reform one thing at a time. And since mages can have their souls torn asunder to be reduced to a zombielike state, explicitly as apprentices who aren't considered wholly adult yet, this is really no improvement.

The Rite of Tranquility is viewed as a mercy, since the only likely other outcome for the apprentice in question, would be possession.

[MisterJB]

dragonflight288 wrote...
Tevinter's entire culture is completely different from everywhere outside of it. Even before Andrastianism was on the rise, they went out fo their way to foster magical talent. And when they surrendered and accepted the Chant of Light, it was done on their terms and the entire culture revolves around magic.

The difference between Tevinter and the Andrastian nations is that Tevinter celebrates magic and has for milennia, and the Andrastian nations revile it and only barely tolerate its very existence.

But people are people everywhere in the world and the megalomania and egomania that magic helps fuels is present in mages outside of Tevinter as well. Cultures themselves are not immutable things and it's not outside of the realm of possibilty for southern Thedas to devolve into a system similar; if the not the same as; to Tevinter if given the chance.
I daresay that mages fighting against the supposed "opressor" as they are doing now is a step in exactly that direction. It is how non-magical Thedas extablished itself, after all.

Keeping in touch with Ieldra's suggestion, it is not impossible for a mage to manipulate his friendly watcher just like the current Black Divine did with Lambert.

Besides, the change she's (or at least I think Ieldra is a she) could take longer than one person's life-time, or longer than lambert is willing to give....giving that Lambert is quite extreme and is not above attempted-murder to hide evidence of things like tranquility now curable (Pharamond.) 

Ieldra is a he.
And Lambert became "extreme"; I don't see anything truly extreme about him, but whatever: exactly because as he attempted to make things better in Tevinter, he was betrayed by the mages at every turn.
As he said, not Templar ever joins the Order believing mages can't be trusted.

we also know how the templars committed genocide on every man, woman and child there because some mages kept in contact with their families.

Or because there was an entire subgroup of mages being willingly possessed; which, after a man willingly possessed by a spirit commonly considered less dangerous than a demon started a massacre is probrably not seen with good eyes; and when the Templars demanded they abide by the laws of the Chantry, the mages answered with violence.

The change that comes would take a committed effort of templars, or non-mages in general, willing to give magic a chance and mages the opportunity to prove themselves, and the mages in turn would have to also commit to try and live up to those standards, and be willing to punish their own who break it.

However, it is my belief that as long as the templars believe they have authority over mages by divine right, and as long as they remain separated by the Chantry because they are on a quest of genocide to kill the mages for having the audacity to declare themselves independent, I don't think this peaceful change is even possible. No matter what the mages may do, the templars will always force their hand into violence at this point in Thedas history so long as they maintain their self-righteous belief they have over mages.

And the friend thing is almost a misdirection. Using a family in blood magic would leave very tangible evidence. Evidence that could then be used to charge them with a crime.

First, this idea that Lambert's group is commited to genocide has no basis whatsoever in "Asunder" or any other media. Even in Lambert's own thoughts, all he talks is re-extablishing the Circle.

Second, the mages are not exempt of guilty. In recent years, it was the increasing number of attacks by mages that lead to the current tensions from the Resolutionists to Anders. Even when the Chantry attempts to talk to the mages, they respond with violence or sabotage (See Fiona, Adrian and Jeannot) all on the basis the non-mages are untrustworthy fiends you can't speak to. So, maybe the mages should look at themselves for once rather than refuse any accountability.

Honestly, it's nice to talk about trust and the like but it's just not likely to go anywhere. Neither group trusts the other for reasons both ancient and current. In fact, the very nature of the templars, regardless of how they act, will always anger the mages. The templars are, after all, a police force designed specifically to deal with mages and they will always resent this.
Starting a war is bad enough but the  people will also blame the Rift on mages and magic, deservedly so or not. There's just no real way for mages and non-mages to co-exist, specially after this.

Oh, and since blood magic is even capable of erasing memories, it would be nearly impossible to prove a crime ocurred. Let alone that a mage did it. All I'm pointing out is that even friendly relations between mages and templars is something open to abuse.

[Plaintiff]

GodWood wrote...
Few people want a violent war. If the mages didn't want a violent war they shouldn't have started a revolution that attacks the safety of the majority and only has the support of a minority.

They did nothing of the sort.

They declared their intention to separate peacefully from the Chantry, and the Chantry allowed them to do so.

Lambert broke away from the Chantry to pursue the mages. He is the instigator of violence.

[MisterJB]

Plaintiff wrote...
They did nothing of the sort.

They declared their intention to separate peacefully from the Chantry, and the Chantry allowed them to do so.

Lambert broke away from the Chantry to pursue the mages. He is the instigator of violence.

See, this is exactly the kind of refusal of accountability I was talking about. This exact sentiment is emulated by irresponsible mage leaders like Fiona and Adrian.

Actions do not occur in a vaccum. The mages knew very well that if they attempted to break from the Chantry, many templars would feel they have only one possible response left and that this would lead to much bloodshed. The mages just said "We don't care."
Worse, some elements deliberatelly provoked the templars in order to cause a war.

[Plaintiff]

MisterJB wrote...
See, this is exactly the kind of refusal of accountability I was talking about. This exact sentiment is emulated by irresponsible mage leaders like Fiona and Adrian.

If someone blamed me for something I didn't do, I would refuse accountability also.

Actions do not occur in a vaccum. The mages knew very well that if they attempted to break from the Chantry, many templars would feel they have only one possible response left and that this would lead to much bloodshed. The mages just said "We don't care."

'Jimmy knew that if he stood up to the school bullies and refused to give them his lunch money that they would feel they only have one possible response, which was to push him over and kick him repeatedly. Jimmy just said "I don't care". Ergo, it's Jimmy's own fault that he has a black eye and a bleeding nose.'

'Doris knew that if she attempted to leave her husband that he would feel there was only one possible response; to track her down to her sister's house and give her a savage beating. Doris just said "I don't care". Doris has to accept accountability for the injuries her husband inflicted on her.'

I could do these all day.

Worse, some elements deliberatelly provoked the templars in order to cause a war.

You know, when I was in school, I was taught not to respond to provocation.

When I respond to provocation on these forums, I get a temporary ban.

If someone provokes me into assaulting them, I am the one that goes to jail.

Provocation is not an excuse for bad behaviour.

[Ieldra]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
The Rite of Tranquility is viewed as a mercy, since the only likely other outcome for the apprentice in question, would be possession.

May I mention Jowan? OK, he dabbled in blood magic, but he didn't harm anyone, nor is there any indication he would have had they not decided to make him Tranquil. The threat of Tranquility is one reason why mages are desperate to escape.  

[Ieldra]

Plaintiff wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
See, this is exactly the kind of refusal of accountability I was talking about. This exact sentiment is emulated by irresponsible mage leaders like Fiona and Adrian.

If someone blamed me for something I didn't do, I would refuse accountability also.

Actions do not occur in a vaccum. The mages knew very well that if they attempted to break from the Chantry, many templars would feel they have only one possible response left and that this would lead to much bloodshed. The mages just said "We don't care."

'Jimmy knew that if he stood up to the school bullies and refused to give them his lunch money that they would feel they only have one possible response, which was to push him over and kick him repeatedly. Jimmy just said "I don't care". Ergo, it's Jimmy's own fault that he has a black eye and a bleeding nose.'

'Doris knew that if she attempted to leave her husband that he would feel there was only one possible response; to track her down to her sister's house and give her a savage beating. Doris just said "I don't care". Doris has to accept accountability for the injuries her husband inflicted on her.'

I could do these all day.

This deserves to be quoted. WIth your permission, I'll save these and put them into my library of standard responses to those who blame the victim.

[Plaintiff]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
The Rite of Tranquility is viewed as a mercy

PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT

By who?

[MisterJB]

Plaintiff wrote...
If someone blamed me for something I didn't do, I would refuse accountability also.

Ah, so the mages did not take an action they knew would lead to war?
They were absolutely ignorant of the fact their actions will set the continent on fire?

I could do these all day.

Good for you. I only need one.
"Jimmy knew that he was innocent but all evidence pointed to the contrary. So, he knew that if he attempted to ignore his arrest, the police officers would be forced to stop him because it's their job to abide by the system extablished to protect the people from dangerous criminals.
Even so, Jimmy decided to not just escape but kill one of the witnesses that was going to be heard at his trial where he had the opportunity to prove his innocence thereby making the police officers more than justified in pursuing him."

Mine at least portrays the two sides with some justice rather than just pretending mages are harmless victims being persecuted for no reason at all.

You know, when I was in school, I was taught not to respond to provocation.

When I respond to provocation on these forums, I get a temporary ban.

If someone provokes me into assaulting them, I am the one that goes to jail.

Provocation is not an excuse for bad behaviour.

And the person who provoked you is punished as well. Just as Adrian must be punished for deliberatelly sabotaging everyone's best attempts to avoid a conflict that will cost thousand of lives.

Modifié par MisterJB, 27 juin 2013 - 04:47 .

[IceHawk-181]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Which is still irrelevant as they still have to get educated.

Indeed, I have already agreed with this point.
 
An uneducated Mage is inherently dangerous therefore mandatory education should be retained.
 
The fundamental difference is that a secular law passed under the aegis and legislative authority of the Landsmeet inherently authorizes each Bann to voice the concerns of his Freeholder population and provide them a voice.
 
It would also establish a system of Magical Jurisprudence that recognizes Freeholder-status and opens the door for secular oversight and moderation. Items that to the best of our knowledge do not exist within the doctrinarian confines of Chantry domination.
 

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And where praytell do you get the idea that templars go around slitting mothers throats?

This has been answered in the canon.
 

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
The freedom to move ir irrelevant.
For every freedom you have, there is one you don't.
Having a theoretical/technical freedom, but not real one.

Actually, the freedom to move is of fundamental importance and one that every major international organization based in the ideals of freedom recognizes as both sovereign and international law.
 
Also, your viewpoint on the "fallacy of freedoms" is rather teenage-angsty.
 
The compact of civilization (let us build of off Hobbes' more pragmatic sensibilities, considering you seem to accept his basic tenant about individual nature) necessarily requires humanity to concede specific freedoms.
 
Primarily, the freedom to commit harm.
 
Civilization is built upon the concept that governments wield a Legitimate Monopoly of Power.
 
Free societies are unique in that the state is directly responsible to the citizenry, in basic parlance the state is a servant of the people, and that it exists only for their collective protection and the retention of their freedoms.
 
While there is a spectrum of Freedom versus Security one can notice a qualitative difference between states such as America, Britain, or France and those of Iran, North Korea, or China.
 
Free society is severely restricted in its employment of violence, especially when directed at its own citizenry, and must actually legitimate its actions before violence is committed.
 
And a free state is subject to popular oversight if the legitimation offered is found wanting and the individuals responsible can and often are held personally responsible.
 
The point here is that in a free state the citizenry are the state and must consent to its functioning.
 

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
The US government find out a terrorist highjacked a plane and is carrying a virus he plan to release over the city. They shoot the plane down. Everoyne else on the plane was innocent.
The government just excercised absolute power over life and death. Is it slavery?

Your hypothetical is the plot to a Monday evening action-drama, not a real world situation.
 
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
 
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
Do you recognize either of these paragraphs?
 

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
A mage will be killed ONLY IF NECESSARY - only if he breaks certain laws.

Or if he happens to be in a Circle while the Rite of Annulment is granted.
 
A Mage need violate no law to be put to the sword.
 

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Keeping in mind that death penalty still exist, even you, a normal, free citizen, can be lawfully killed.

Do you seriously not see the distinction between actively committing a crime and merely existing? Or do you not recognize that in order to be put to death the government actually has to prove, to your peers (ie, the citizenry) both that you are guilty and that your guilt warrants the death penalty?
 
Whereas if you are a 12-year old Mage who can barely light a candle with Magic and happen to be in a Circle when the Rite of Annulment is granted every Templar now has the right to sever your head from your body just because you are there.
 
 
 

[IceHawk-181]

Plaintiff wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
The Rite of Tranquility is viewed as a mercy

PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT

By who?

By the individuals who advocate it, so they can better deal with the fact that they just psychologically raped an individual and effectively killed their humanity.
 

[Medhia Nox]

Them - and Owain, he states clearly he chose it.

Of course - now everyone's going to whine about how he was under duress.

Only - that's not what he says.

Also - that barmy mage in the Chantry of the tower circle.

Of course - those same people will say: "She was misguided by religion!"

Or... just maybe it was the demons that haunted her dreams.

Of course it couldn't be that - wouldn't support the mage utopia concept that's being held back by all the oppressive Templars.

@Plaintiff: Yet, you say constantly that the mages OF COURSE act the way they do because they were provoked.

But - special dispensation for the pet cause I suppose.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 27 juin 2013 - 04:53 .

[IceHawk-181]

The Rite of Tranquility fundamentally alters the psychological state of an individual who has undergone the process.

It would be intellectually dishonest to argue that a Tranquil's comments can accurately portray the pre-Tranquility Mage.

Karl in the Kirkwall Chantry is an apropos example.
When freed momentarily from the effects of Tranquility the man literally begs for death. However, the moment Anders' intervention lapses and he becomes Tranquil again he loses every hint of his humanity.

The degree to which the Tranquil have Free Will is...messy.

And one must wonder at the degree of psychological abuse that leads an individual to delve so deep into a state of self-loathing that they would rather rip the very core of their humanity from themselves.

[Ieldra]

Medhia Nox wrote...
Them - and Owain, he states clearly he chose it.

Counterexample: Karl. And that mage in Asunder. It is very clearly not generally viewed as a mercy. Also, Owain wasn't asked before they made him Tranquil, and without his emotions he's hardly the same person he'd been.

@Plaintiff: Yet, you say constantly that the mages OF COURSE act the way they do because they were provoked.

So oppression is mere provocation now? Great. Blaming the victim again.

But - special dispensation for the pet cause I suppose.

It appears you're not immune to have a pet cause of your own after all.

[Plaintiff]

MisterJB wrote...
Ah, so the mages did not take an action they knew would lead to war?
They were absolutely ignorant of the fact their actions will set the continent on fire?

Of course they knew what the result would be. That is utterly irrelevent. Knowing the Templars would be dicks about it does not make them culpable for the Templars being dicks. The Templars, and only the Templars, are to blame for their own complete dickery.

If I flee from an abusive partner, knowing that they will pursue me and "punish" me with violence, this does not make me culpable in the violence visited upon me.

Good for you. I only need one.
"Jimmy knew that he was innocent but all evidence pointed to the contrary. So, he knew that if he attempted to ignore his arrest, the police officers would be forced to stop him because it's their job to abide by the system extablished to protect the people from dangerous criminals.
Even so, Jimmy decided to not just escape but kill one of the witnesses that was going to be heard at his trial where he had the opportunity to prove his innocence thereby making the police officers more than justified in pursuing him."

Jimmy knows that the trial is a complete sham and that the witness is in the pocket of his enemies. The justice system has absolutely failed him and he has every right to take any actions necessary to preserve his own life and freedom, up to and including the murder of those trying to frame him.

By your logic, the police and the people trying to frame Jimmy only have themselves to blame if Jimmy murders them, because they provoked it by trying to take away his freedom unjustly.

And the person who provoked you is punished as well.

Ha. Not in my personal experience.

Just as Adrian must be punished for deliberatelly sabotaging everyone's best attempts to avoid a conflict that will cost thousand of lives.

Adrian killed a man who wanted to die. That is not a wrong action.

She framed Rhys for the deed, which is a wrong action. But only Rhys has the right to be mad about that, because it only affects him.

You keep carrying on about how the mages are to blame for "provoking" the Templars, but completely ignore every single instance where Lambert provoked the mages. You paint him as some sort of tragic peacekeeper when he clearly ****ing wasn't.

You know what a man trying to keep the peace does? He doesn't try suppress or destroy important scientific research that is being done to foster goodwill between the two negotiating factions, and he doesn't barge into an international mage summit when tensions are already high, just to arrest one person. If he was genuinely interested in preventing war, it could have ****ing waited.

Either Lambert is a deliberate warmonger, or he's the biggest freaking idiot to blight Thedas to date. And that's saying something in a universe that contains Loghain.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 27 juin 2013 - 05:10 .