MisterJB wrote...
I daresay that if we were to ask this to people in third world countries who eat their own waste because they have nothing else would disagree.
MisterJB wrote...
Kindly refrain from presuming to know what my goal is, thank you very much.
MisterJB wrote...
I daresay that if we were to ask this to people in third world countries who eat their own waste because they have nothing else would disagree.
Modifié par Silfren, 27 juin 2013 - 11:25 .
It could be that I am mistaken but the fact that IceHawk was responding to MWI who was responding to me seemed to indicate I was the one being referred.dragonflight288 wrote...
MisterJB wrote...
Kindly refrain from presuming to know what my goal is, thank you very much.
They are not talking about your goal, but of the stated goal of the templars and the seekers.
The CIRCLES does not allow for too deep research into demons and anti-possession spells, because magical research in itself is perilous, and these fields in particular so. The Templars doesn't hold any influence over what the Circles themselves research, but if the research becomes too dangerous, and the Circle refuse to stop, the Templars can call for the Right of Annulment. Templars advise and supervise (ideally), however, recent tensions in the Circle system, have forced Templars and mages alike into increasingly drastic efforts. Neither part is innocent in the deterioration of the system.IceHawk-181 wrote...
You misunderstand.
The goal here is not to control Magic but to dominate and subjugate Mages.
If it were the former the emphasis of these posts would be upon advocating for low-tension, intelligent alliances that allow for research into abilities to prevent Possession and strip magic without destroying the soul.
That is not the goal.
Perspective is useful. Complaints regarding the "opression" of one group lose much strenght; in my view, at the least; when we think about the fact there are many millions of people in our world today who would think mages are living in luxury.Silfren wrote...
You keep making this kind of comparison like it magically trumps all arguments in favor of mage freedom. Because SOME people in the world might be happy to live their lives locked up in a tower in return for food and clothing, it must mean that if mages had any sense they'd be grateful. But really, at what point did it become a valid argument to compare one group's suck with another person's suck?
Modifié par MisterJB, 27 juin 2013 - 11:34 .
MisterJB wrote...
Silfren wrote...
You keep making this kind of comparison like it magically trumps all arguments in favor of mage freedom. Because SOME people in the world might be happy to live their lives locked up in a tower in return for food and clothing, it must mean that if mages had any sense they'd be grateful. But really, at what point did it become a valid argument to compare one group's suck with another person's suck?
Perspective is useful. Complaints regarding the "opression" of one group lose much strenght; in my view, at the least; when we think about the fact there are many millions of people in our world today who would think mages are living in luxury.
In DA2, I was far more concerned about finding jobs and homes for the people living in Darktown than I was about the mages.
Define freedom.LobselVith8 wrote...
MisterJB wrote...
Silfren wrote...
You keep making this kind of comparison like it magically trumps all arguments in favor of mage freedom. Because SOME people in the world might be happy to live their lives locked up in a tower in return for food and clothing, it must mean that if mages had any sense they'd be grateful. But really, at what point did it become a valid argument to compare one group's suck with another person's suck?
Perspective is useful. Complaints regarding the "opression" of one group lose much strenght; in my view, at the least; when we think about the fact there are many millions of people in our world today who would think mages are living in luxury.
In DA2, I was far more concerned about finding jobs and homes for the people living in Darktown than I was about the mages.
You think that luxury is a valid substitute for freedom?
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
LobselVith8 wrote...
You think that luxury is a valid substitute for freedom?
Define freedom.
MisterJB wrote...
Perspective is useful. Complaints regarding the "opression" of one group lose much strenght; in my view, at the least; when we think about the fact there are many millions of people in our world today who would think mages are living in luxury.Silfren wrote...
You keep making this kind of comparison like it magically trumps all arguments in favor of mage freedom. Because SOME people in the world might be happy to live their lives locked up in a tower in return for food and clothing, it must mean that if mages had any sense they'd be grateful. But really, at what point did it become a valid argument to compare one group's suck with another person's suck?
In DA2, I was far more concerned about finding jobs and homes for the people living in Darktown than I was about the mages.
That's got nothing to do with freedom......LobselVith8 wrote...
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
LobselVith8 wrote...
You think that luxury is a valid substitute for freedom?
Define freedom.
A society where mages aren't beholden to living under the rule of a fantatical religion that demonizes them, or dealing with the threat of being made tranquil or killed en mass.
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
That's got nothing to do with freedom......LobselVith8 wrote...
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
LobselVith8 wrote...
You think that luxury is a valid substitute for freedom?
Define freedom.
A society where mages aren't beholden to living under the rule of a fantatical religion that demonizes them, or dealing with the threat of being made tranquil or killed en mass.
And mages are not under any threat of being amde tranquil out of hand. They will have to be of such a magical talent that it can't be ignored, but weak enough for them to be unable to defend themselves. And it isn't the religion that demonizes them. It is the historical fact of magical tyranny that is ruining the mages' reputation at the moment. The canon of the Andrastian Chantry, does not demonize the mages. On the contrary, it claims that they hold an important part in the Maker's plan. And lastly the mages aren't under threat of being killed en masse out of hand either.... The Circles are only ever annulled if the mages within are all actively working against the law and/or the demons are running rampant through the Circle, and there is no hope left of saving them all.
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
The Circles are only ever annulled if the mages within are all actively working against the law and/or the demons are running rampant through the Circle, and there is no hope left of saving them all.
Modifié par MisterJB, 28 juin 2013 - 12:06 .
An annulment wouldn't and aren't called unless things are truly grim. Firstly a Knihgt-Commander can't just call it on a whim, he needs to recieve it from the Grand Cleric, secondly he needs to want to exercise his right. And the reason that the innocents are kileld, is because there is no way of knowing if they truly are innocent. They could all be carriers of demons, by the time the annulment is called.Silfren wrote...
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
That's got nothing to do with freedom......LobselVith8 wrote...
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
LobselVith8 wrote...
You think that luxury is a valid substitute for freedom?
Define freedom.
A society where mages aren't beholden to living under the rule of a fantatical religion that demonizes them, or dealing with the threat of being made tranquil or killed en mass.
And mages are not under any threat of being amde tranquil out of hand. They will have to be of such a magical talent that it can't be ignored, but weak enough for them to be unable to defend themselves. And it isn't the religion that demonizes them. It is the historical fact of magical tyranny that is ruining the mages' reputation at the moment. The canon of the Andrastian Chantry, does not demonize the mages. On the contrary, it claims that they hold an important part in the Maker's plan. And lastly the mages aren't under threat of being killed en masse out of hand either.... The Circles are only ever annulled if the mages within are all actively working against the law and/or the demons are running rampant through the Circle, and there is no hope left of saving them all.
Yes, they are. The mere fact that Annulment is an option means that all mages in Circles live with it as a threat. They DON'T all have to be corrupt. If the Knight Commander decides that all the mages are irredeemable, then the innocence of any given individual is irrelevant. And somehow I don't think that the decision for Annulment is made by interviewing every individual mage to make a determination.
Whether it's necessary or not is a separate question. The fact is that Annulment DOES involve the slaughter of people who are guilty of nothing more than association.
Ironically Wynne is exactly the kind of danger a Circle without Annulments would face. She WAS possessed, she was a carrier of a spirit, and she kept it secret from the Circle for many years. Like Anders, this spirit had the potential to corrupt Wynne, and make for another incident causing even more death. Giving the mages in the tower the benefit of the doubt, might cause even more death down the road.MisterJB wrote...
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
The Circles are only ever annulled if the mages within are all actively working against the law and/or the demons are running rampant through the Circle, and there is no hope left of saving them all.
You know, I'm going to play Devil's advocate for a sec and confess that I really don't see much point for the Right of Annulment.
Take the situation in Ferelden, for instance. Well, that was certainly a worst case scenario and definitively justified calling for templar reinforcements. But what is the point of killing the mages like Wynne who are resisting the demons? For once, the mages and templars should be completely on the same page. Demons, Abominations and Blood Mages = bad. Kill them all.
I understand that there is always the risk of it being a trap and there being demons lying dormant in these surviving mages but that justifies increased security until we can be resonably certain they are clean. The mages are already in the Circle because they might be possessed. Are we really going to kill them because there's an increased danger?
It's contra-productive. Mages who would be perfectly willing to assist in dealing with demons and blood mages; because they fear the templars coming in force if nothing else; might just throw their lot in with the blood mages rampaging through the Circle if they are just going to be guilty by association.
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
An annulment wouldn't and aren't called unless things are truly grim. Firstly a Knihgt-Commander can't just call it on a whim, he needs to recieve it from the Grand Cleric, secondly he needs to want to exercise his right. And the reason that the innocents are kileld, is because there is no way of knowing if they truly are innocent. They could all be carriers of demons, by the time the annulment is called.Silfren wrote...
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
That's got nothing to do with freedom......LobselVith8 wrote...
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
LobselVith8 wrote...
You think that luxury is a valid substitute for freedom?
Define freedom.
A society where mages aren't beholden to living under the rule of a fantatical religion that demonizes them, or dealing with the threat of being made tranquil or killed en mass.
And mages are not under any threat of being amde tranquil out of hand. They will have to be of such a magical talent that it can't be ignored, but weak enough for them to be unable to defend themselves. And it isn't the religion that demonizes them. It is the historical fact of magical tyranny that is ruining the mages' reputation at the moment. The canon of the Andrastian Chantry, does not demonize the mages. On the contrary, it claims that they hold an important part in the Maker's plan. And lastly the mages aren't under threat of being killed en masse out of hand either.... The Circles are only ever annulled if the mages within are all actively working against the law and/or the demons are running rampant through the Circle, and there is no hope left of saving them all.
Yes, they are. The mere fact that Annulment is an option means that all mages in Circles live with it as a threat. They DON'T all have to be corrupt. If the Knight Commander decides that all the mages are irredeemable, then the innocence of any given individual is irrelevant. And somehow I don't think that the decision for Annulment is made by interviewing every individual mage to make a determination.
Whether it's necessary or not is a separate question. The fact is that Annulment DOES involve the slaughter of people who are guilty of nothing more than association.
Theoretically a Grand Cleric can also grant a Knight-Commander the right of Annulment, but have the Knight-Commander unwilling to exercise the right, because he believes the situation can still be salvaged.Silfren wrote...
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
An annulment wouldn't and aren't called unless things are truly grim. Firstly a Knihgt-Commander can't just call it on a whim, he needs to recieve it from the Grand Cleric, secondly he needs to want to exercise his right. And the reason that the innocents are kileld, is because there is no way of knowing if they truly are innocent. They could all be carriers of demons, by the time the annulment is called.Silfren wrote...
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
That's got nothing to do with freedom......LobselVith8 wrote...
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
LobselVith8 wrote...
You think that luxury is a valid substitute for freedom?
Define freedom.
A society where mages aren't beholden to living under the rule of a fantatical religion that demonizes them, or dealing with the threat of being made tranquil or killed en mass.
And mages are not under any threat of being amde tranquil out of hand. They will have to be of such a magical talent that it can't be ignored, but weak enough for them to be unable to defend themselves. And it isn't the religion that demonizes them. It is the historical fact of magical tyranny that is ruining the mages' reputation at the moment. The canon of the Andrastian Chantry, does not demonize the mages. On the contrary, it claims that they hold an important part in the Maker's plan. And lastly the mages aren't under threat of being killed en masse out of hand either.... The Circles are only ever annulled if the mages within are all actively working against the law and/or the demons are running rampant through the Circle, and there is no hope left of saving them all.
Yes, they are. The mere fact that Annulment is an option means that all mages in Circles live with it as a threat. They DON'T all have to be corrupt. If the Knight Commander decides that all the mages are irredeemable, then the innocence of any given individual is irrelevant. And somehow I don't think that the decision for Annulment is made by interviewing every individual mage to make a determination.
Whether it's necessary or not is a separate question. The fact is that Annulment DOES involve the slaughter of people who are guilty of nothing more than association.
Given that Grand Clerics don't authorize the Right until the Knight Commander petitions them for it, obvious a Knight Commander already wants to carry it out when one is authorized.
Secondly, I already pointed out that whether there is a justifiable reason for killing innocents is IRRELEVANT. The reason does not change the fact that the Right does indeed authorize the killing of innocent people. Call it a necessasry evil if you like, but don't pretend that it means that none of the victims of the Annulment were innocent bystanders.
Such was not the case in Kirkwall. Fortunately, none of the templars were innocent.Innocents die all the time. I don't think that just because that they were mages, that it is somehow more tragic. When an annulment is called, then usually **** has already hit the fan in such a degree, that innocent and guilty becomes meaningless terms, and the only agenda worth pursuing for the Templars, is containment. The loss of innocent lives are always regretable, but sometimes they are unavoidable. As a soldier I know this.
Guest_Morocco Mole_*
Riiiiight, for instance take a look at Margitte, a young woman who, upon witnessing Keran's family go through difficult times, wants to pay off their debts herself. Clearly, she is a monster who deserves to die.Xilizhra wrote...
Such was not the case in Kirkwall. Fortunately, none of the templars were innocent.
Large parts of Kirkwall was set aflame after the explosions. Many innocents died that day, but since they weren't mages, they apparently aren't worth shedding a tear for, or even worth mentioning.Morocco Mole wrote...
Pretty sure an explosion like that is going to cause some collateral damage
Conduct regarding own prisoners unclear; assessment incomplete. In any case, it scarcely matters; she was an enemy combatant in an aggressive force and is not innocent by definition.Riiiiight, for instance take a look at Margitte, a young woman who, upon witnessing Keran's family go through difficult times, wants to pay off their debts herself. Clearly, she is a monster who deserves to die.
Perhaps she deserted and tried to only fight the demons during The Last Straw; that, I would appreciate.Or how about Ser Agatha, that dastardly woman who fought off Ser Mettin when he tried to kill the families of blood mages. Another unforgivable monster.
Or, apparently, worth putting on the screen, despite the fact that the designers had no problem strewing corpses all over the place in Demands of the Qun.Large parts of Kirkwall was set aflame after the explosions. Many
innocents died that day, but since they weren't mages, they apparently
aren't worth shedding a tear for, or even worth mentioning.
Modifié par Xilizhra, 28 juin 2013 - 01:00 .
Retour en haut