1656 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
And the Annulment aren't always called when the Circle are being rebellious. The Annulment of the Rivain Circle, is ironically a good example of that. Only by the end of that conflict was the Annulment called. Previous to that, the Templars had attempted to actually contain the situation with minimal loss of life. But once it became clear that the Circle could not be salvaged, the Annulment was called.

By "could not be salvaged" you mean "refused to be oppressed any longer", right? Yeah, that totally justifies killing everyone...

Modifié par Ieldra2, 28 juin 2013 - 04:30 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

I mean, that the Circle could no longer remain under Chantry control. And yes, in the global politcal power plays, that would totally justify the destruction of the Rivaini Circle.

[Ieldra]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
I know how much you pro-mages would just love for the Annulments to be actually genocide. However, no matter how many times you try to hammer this loaded term onto it, does not make it so. There is no doubt that the Annulment is a terrible action, and morally questionable in every aspect. It still isn't genocide. So kindly stop trying to delude peoples' perception of what genocide is and isn't.

What do you call it if you reserve the right to kill a group of people because of what they are if they don't do what you want? Magical talent is an attribute as distinctive and intrinsic as those which define "genocide-apt" groups in the real world, and partial destruction is the goal if Annulment is called, regardless of what individuals did, only because they're mages. I say calling the Right of Annulment the "Right of Genocide" is applicable.  

[Ieldra]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
I mean, that the Circle could no longer remain under Chantry control. And yes, in the global politcal power plays, that would totally justify the destruction of the Rivaini Circle.

In the real world, such things have resulted in world-wide protests and even military interventions by third parties exactly because we do not consider it acceptable. The relevant actions have long-term repercussions for the perpetrators.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Ieldra2 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
I know how much you pro-mages would just love for the Annulments to be actually genocide. However, no matter how many times you try to hammer this loaded term onto it, does not make it so. There is no doubt that the Annulment is a terrible action, and morally questionable in every aspect. It still isn't genocide. So kindly stop trying to delude peoples' perception of what genocide is and isn't.

What do you call it if you reserve the right to kill a group of people because of what they are if they don't do what you want? Magical talent is an attribute as distinctive and intrinsic as those which define "genocide-apt" groups in the real world, and partial destruction is the goal if Annulment is called, regardless of what individuals did, only because they're mages. I say calling the Right of Annulment the "Right of Genocide" is applicable.  

A gross misrepresentation of the Right of Annulment. The Right of Annulment, dispite what you pro-mages try to pin it as, is not a right exercised jsut becasue the Knight-Commander had a bad day, and it certainly isn't called just becasue a few mages were acting up. The Annulment is called when all hope of containment is lost, and the situation cannot be salvaged.
It is no more genocide, than the firebombing of a quarentine area is. If a quarentine zone filled with an extremely virulent and deadly virus is breaking apart, and the threat of contamination rises, you can bet your ass, that the nations of the world would carpet bomb the area, and destroy any strain of the virus in the area, even if there were uninfected in the zone. It still wouldn't be genocide. It would be a purge. Morally questionable, but defendable.

[TTTX]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I know how much you pro-mages would just love for the Annulments to be actually genocide. However, no matter how many times you try to hammer this loaded term onto it, does not make it so. There is no doubt that the Annulment is a terrible action, and morally questionable in every aspect. It still isn't genocide. So kindly stop trying to delude peoples' perception of what genocide is and isn't.

And the Annulment aren't always called when the Circle are being rebellious. The Annulment of the Rivain Circle, is ironically a good example of that. Only by the end of that conflict was the Annulment called. Previous to that, the Templars had attempted to actually contain the situation with minimal loss of life. But once it became clear that the Circle could not be salvaged, the Annulment was called.

RoA isn't when a circle is rebellious it's for when a circle become a threat to the public and by time Meredith call it she had pretty become the Dictator of Kirkwall, she was basically all "Do as I say."
Also the Grand cleric actually tells us Orsino isn't an unreasonble man, but Meredith has very narrow view on mages and see them all in the same color, so my guess she just want him to shut up and let her do as she pleases even though it's illegal at least some of the things she does.

And if the Kirkwall circle was rebellious it's because of Meredith, Varric tells us this by saying "She squzzed the mages harder, the more she squezzed the more they resisted, the more they resisted the harder she squezed." a never ending cirlce of evil in the making. 

She should have backed down and be more resonable instead of letting her past cloud her judgement, but she can't in the third act of DA2 because of the idiol, it was only a matter of time before she pushed the circle to far and killed them all.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Orsino's job was to work in tandem with the Knight-Commander, to root out rebellious elements in the Circle. However, Orsino refused to allowe Meredith access to the living quarters of the mages, thus actively preventing her from doing her job, and allowing the rebellion within the Circle to grow. Orsino and Meredith were both terrible at their jobs.

[Plaintiff]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Orsino's job was to work in tandem with the Knight-Commander, to root out rebellious elements in the Circle. However, Orsino refused to allowe Meredith access to the living quarters of the mages, thus actively preventing her from doing her job, and allowing the rebellion within the Circle to grow. Orsino and Meredith were both terrible at their jobs.

If Meredith is terrible at her job, and you say she is, then why would Orsino aid and abet her?

By that logic, Orsino was in fact taking the correct course of action: going over Meredith's head to her superior, to try and have Meredith brought back in line.

[Ieldra]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
I know how much you pro-mages would just love for the Annulments to be actually genocide. However, no matter how many times you try to hammer this loaded term onto it, does not make it so. There is no doubt that the Annulment is a terrible action, and morally questionable in every aspect. It still isn't genocide. So kindly stop trying to delude peoples' perception of what genocide is and isn't.

What do you call it if you reserve the right to kill a group of people because of what they are if they don't do what you want? Magical talent is an attribute as distinctive and intrinsic as those which define "genocide-apt" groups in the real world, and partial destruction is the goal if Annulment is called, regardless of what individuals did, only because they're mages. I say calling the Right of Annulment the "Right of Genocide" is applicable.  

A gross misrepresentation of the Right of Annulment. The Right of Annulment, dispite what you pro-mages try to pin it as, is not a right exercised jsut becasue the Knight-Commander had a bad day, and it certainly isn't called just becasue a few mages were acting up. The Annulment is called when all hope of containment is lost, and the situation cannot be salvaged.
It is no more genocide, than the firebombing of a quarentine area is. If a quarentine zone filled with an extremely virulent and deadly virus is breaking apart, and the threat of contamination rises, you can bet your ass, that the nations of the world would carpet bomb the area, and destroy any strain of the virus in the area, even if there were uninfected in the zone. It still wouldn't be genocide. It would be a purge. Morally questionable, but defendable.

I like how you equate magical talent with a "deadly and virulent virus". It illustrates the mindset we're dealing with here nicely. There have been groups equated with microbes before in human history. It has usually resulted in similar actions, and those were usually called genocide by history. No matter how much you think you're justified, you usually aren't, and - not to put a too fine point on it - possession and blood magic aren't contagious.

(I could also reject your assertion on epidemiological grounds, but that would be too much OT text)

Modifié par Ieldra2, 28 juin 2013 - 05:12 .

[TTTX]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Orsino's job was to work in tandem with the Knight-Commander, to root out rebellious elements in the Circle. However, Orsino refused to allowe Meredith access to the living quarters of the mages, thus actively preventing her from doing her job, and allowing the rebellion within the Circle to grow. Orsino and Meredith were both terrible at their jobs.

I think you have misunderstood something, the Kirkwall circle didn't want to break away from the Chantry they just wanted Meredith gone (sent away or locked up) or at least stop hounding them the way she and her loyale followers did and they weren't the only ones the nobles wanted to rule their city again, not to mention some her own templars who believes she went to far.

[jtav]

Ideally, though, by the time RoA is called for, the virus parallel should fit. Because demons and violent blood mages are running loose and pose a threat to the surrounding area that cannot be contained otherwise.

[Ieldra]

jtav wrote...
Ideally, though, by the time RoA is called for, the virus parallel should fit. Because demons and violent blood mages are running loose and pose a threat to the surrounding area that cannot be contained otherwise.

Except that has never happened as far as we know. In all cases where we know details about Annulments, it was either a means of subjugation and/or punishment in the first place (Kirkwall and Dairsmuid) or we know it could've been contained by less drastic means (Ferelden). Heck, in the first two cases, there wasn't even a single case of abominations running amok confirmed within the Circle when Annulment was called.

I say a measure used as a tool of oppression in almost all known cases should be regarded as a tool of oppression.

[jtav]

Ferelden is a special case, though, because if the Hero hadn't come along, Annulment would look like a viable option. Cullen (in DA2) also talks about some mages being saved as if it were a good thing. I will give you the other two, however. Perhaps what's needed is a mechanism that allows a knight-commander/first enchanter to declare a state of emergency when demons really are running loose.

[Ieldra]

I'm not saying templars in general don't want to save mages if they can. I do, however, think that there is a faction of templars who wouldn't mind wiping out all mages, and that the Right of Annulment gives those the perfect excuse because it essentially reserves the right of genocide.

I don't know if there is a faction I'd trust with such an instrument. Perhaps there is. Certainly if a First Enchanter agreed that his circle was lost I'd be inclined to believe it. But a faction led by the Chantry's ideology isn't one. And all that still doesn't change the fact that living under a constant threat of "if someone in my circle gets possessed, we might all die" is not acceptable. BTW, the internment of mages actually exacerbates the effects of accidents and actions of madmen as well as the ethical problems with Annulment. One mage like Uldred, without having other mages around, can kill a lot of people. But within a Circle, he can create more possessed mages who will each kill a lot of people.

[vpacheco1984]

I think the majority want to kill mages with a very small fraction do want to save mages if they can.

Modifié par vpacheco1984, 28 juin 2013 - 06:57 .

[Ieldra]

vpacheco1984 wrote...
I think the majority want to kill mages with a very small fraction do want to save mages if they can.

I'm not so sure about that. Humans are naturally empathic. It'd take a lot of indoctrination to make them all think that. 

[Garden of Heaven]

Ieldra2 wrote...

vpacheco1984 wrote...
I think the majority want to kill mages with a very small fraction do want to save mages if they can.

I'm not so sure about that. Humans are naturally empathic. It'd take a lot of indoctrination to make them all think that. 

From what I have seen, pro-mages far outnumber pro-templars.
But I believe that both sides have problems they need to change in order to co-exist peacefully.

[vpacheco1984]

Ieldra2 wrote...

vpacheco1984 wrote...
I think the majority want to kill mages with a very small fraction do want to save mages if they can.

I'm not so sure about that. Humans are naturally empathic. It'd take a lot of indoctrination to make them all think that. 

You are right. My response was mostly because of the codex entry about the templars that stated that many templars are recurited for their religious zeal rather then their morals. 

[KainD]

KainD wrote...
Everybody who supports the circle system is an enemy to the mages. 
It's like in Spartacus where they killed citizens of Rome, simply 
because those citizens were ok with slavery as a society, that's a legit
reason, they are no less enemy than armed templars, they are just more 
passive.

Sutamina wrote...
is this sarcasm ?

No it's not.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
KainD is a known mage-supremacist with a Magneto complex. You learn to filter it out, and only listen when he actually have something useful to say.

Nobody really has anything ''useful'' to say, we are just all sharing our opinions. 


The thing is, I only see 2 solutions:

1) Everybody stops being a selfish b*tch and start caring for each other and start striving for equality and freedom. 
No circles, no slavery, no forced Qun, Elves are equals, democratic or anarchic countries over kingdoms. 
( This solution is very utopic and unrealistic, but it's a video game, so it's not impossible. )

2) This is war and the strongest annihilates/inslaves the weak and sets own rules. 

And see I don't really have to deal with half-as*ed compromises in a video game as I do in real life, because usually protagonist has a lot of influance and has the ability to change things on a grand scale. 

As a protagonist I propose to NPC's that I meet in the game to try and strive for care, equality and freedom.
If they don't agree and don't want equality and freedom then war starts, and I just pick a side.
When I pick a side I side with mages, just because they are cooler, they have shiny spells and supernatural abilities, and I usually roleplay a mage, simple as that. 

Ieldra2 wrote...
By that logic, none of the mages in the Circle are innocent because they didn't prevent their fellow mages from using blood magic and become possessed. You can see where that would lead.  

I see that blood magic and deals with demons ( when done right ) are very useful tools to fight the templars, nothing wrong there.  

Modifié par KainD, 28 juin 2013 - 09:51 .

[MWImexico]

Well, I would like to add one thing or two, because I'm not sure about what you meant Ieldra2 when you said (in the second letter of your Warden) that the goal of the mages is autonomy, not isolation.

I guess we can safely say now that there is a direct link between how mages are treated and their chances of becoming abominations (or to use blood magic).

During the attempt to cancel the circle of Kirkwall, many mages have turned into abominations. However, during the battle against the Archdemon in Denerim, no mage did. They were free to fight on the Warden side, as if it was the most natural thing in the world, without Templars to watch over them.

So why is there a difference? Is it the fault of blood magic or moral? Hawk's father was a blood mage, Merrill and Alain also. I guess that, indeed, blood magic increases the chances of becoming an abomination but doesn't guaranty it.

However, since mages are sensitive to their environment and subject to tempations (like everyone else), I do not think it would be prudent to let them mingle with the population too early before their training is compleat, in the same way that we do not trust a gun to anybody (children most specifically). And since the characters tend to evolve, the idea of ​​them retest regularly seems rather good.

The reform of the circle could be entrusted entirely to the mages, or be done in cooperation with them (genuine cooperation). For the moment, I do not see why such a thing would not be possible, as far as the circle meets the local laws of the state in which it is located (plus some new laws adapted specifically to the mages.). Also, the blessing of the Divine could be very useful since the population of Thedas respect a lot her words, that's well seen.

I also think that the ideal would be to improve the living conditions of the mages, so that a Uldred 2.0 could never pop again.

[Ieldra]

vpacheco1984 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

vpacheco1984 wrote...
I think the majority want to kill mages with a very small fraction do want to save mages if they can.

I'm not so sure about that. Humans are naturally empathic. It'd take a lot of indoctrination to make them all think that. 

You are right. My response was mostly because of the codex entry about the templars that stated that many templars are recurited for their religious zeal rather then their morals. 

Yes. That's one reason why I think the templar order as guardians of mages must go. Still, it's some way from believing "all mages are dangerous and need to be watched" to "all mages need to die". The Chantry's ideology may be strongly anti-magic, but it's not deliberately genocidal.

[Ieldra]

MWImexico wrote...
Well, I would like to add one thing or two, because I'm not sure about what you meant Ieldra2 when you said (in the second letter of your Warden) that the goal of the mages is autonomy, not isolation.

I guess we can safely say now that there is a direct link between how mages are treated and their chances of becoming abominations (or to use blood magic).

During the attempt to cancel the circle of Kirkwall, many mages have turned into abominations. However, during the battle against the Archdemon in Denerim, no mage did. They were free to fight on the Warden side, as if it was the most natural thing in the world, without Templars to watch over them.

So why is there a difference? Is it the fault of blood magic or moral? Hawk's father was a blood mage, Merrill and Alain also. I guess that, indeed, blood magic increases the chances of becoming an abomination but doesn't guaranty it.

However, since mages are sensitive to their environment and subject to tempations (like everyone else), I do not think it would be prudent to let them mingle with the population too early before their training is compleat, in the same way that we do not trust a gun to anybody (children most specifically). And since the characters tend to evolve, the idea of ​​them retest regularly seems rather good.

The reform of the circle could be entrusted entirely to the mages, or be done in cooperation with them (genuine cooperation). For the moment, I do not see why such a thing would not be possible, as far as the circle meets the local laws of the state in which it is located (plus some new laws adapted specifically to the mages.). Also, the blessing of the Divine could be very useful since the population of Thedas respect a lot her words, that's well seen.

I also think that the ideal would be to improve the living conditions of the mages, so that a Uldred 2.0 could never pop again.

I think we are mostly in agreement. I meant that mages should become autonomous individuals with the same rights and responsibilities as regular citizens after they've ended their apprenticeship and proved that they can control their powers through an appropriate test. A rule to repeat that test at regular intervals may be acceptable. No system could ever guarantee that someone like Uldred doesn't happen again, but conditions can be created to lower the probability of one appearing in the first place, rather than creating conditions that do everything to ensure one appears but make it easier to contain the effects. The current CIrcle system acts like a self-fulfilling prophecy: it creates the conditions it is created to contain.

[masster blaster]

What do I think. I believe neither of them have a point. Both of them are forced, and have a choice to do what ever they want. For the Mages no not if they are in the circle, but I can see why the Chantry, and the Templars and many people want to keep the mages in lock down.

It was a group of mages that created the whole blight, and not to mention mages are very powerful. However what the Chantry does is inhuman to the mages, and the most Templars are very rude to the mages. Over all if it came down to it, I will either make them both have peace, or let them fight to the death. Also this whole slave thing it not the right term, more like suppressed, but not slaves. If they are slaves, then they would be serving nobals, and conman folk like, IF you want to know what slavery is like, ask the elves.

[IceHawk-181]

If your definition of slavery requires ownership and work then the Elves do not count...they work for pay.
 
 
The rather narrow definitions of slavery bandied about in this thread have actually convinced me to alter my Slavery in the United States lectures...so congrats on that. I will be torturing Freshmen and Sophomores with an extra lecture on slavery come September thanks to you guys.
 

[masster blaster]

IceHawk-181 wrote...

If your definition of slavery requires ownership and work then the Elves do not count...they work for pay.
 
 
The rather narrow definitions of slavery bandied about in this thread have actually convinced me to alter my Slavery in the United States lectures...so congrats on that. I will be torturing Freshmen and Sophomores with an extra lecture on slavery come September thanks to you guys.
 

Talking about the Elves when the Humans took over their lands.


They didn't work for pay, nor did they get proper treatment as the mages are getting. that's slavery.  The mages are simply being confined inside of a prison. Not slaves, but like they are criminals. Suppressed is the morel likely term than slaves.


Also umm do realize that if you want to talk about slavery in America, well you do know that some slaves we PAYED right. To beat other slaves up, even though they were still slaves too. Not only that, but some slaves that became free OWNED slaves. Why would they I will never know, but that's sometimes how it came down to.

Modifié par masster blaster, 28 juin 2013 - 11:02 .