786 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

MisterJB wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Guess why we put them down when they attack humans?

We don't, actually. Wild animals aren't treated with the same laws as pets. If some drunk **** climbs into a lion enclosure, he's on his own.

If a lion escapes a zoo and walks into a public space filled with citizens, I can ensure you, we would shoot the bugger down.

I was just studying this yesterday. My country's civil code clearly states that, if a ferocious animal escapes enclosure, any one citizen can put it down for any reason.
I can cite the article if there are disbelievers.

Your country's civil code is wrong, then.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Plaintiff wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Guess why we put them down when they attack humans?

We don't, actually. Wild animals aren't treated with the same laws as pets. If some drunk **** climbs into a lion enclosure, he's on his own.

If a lion escapes a zoo and walks into a public space filled with citizens, I can ensure you, we would shoot the bugger down.

First port of call is actually to have the trainers coax the animals back into their enclosures. No zoo or wildlife facility will kill an endangered animal except as a very, very last resort.

Kind of like how it is with mages.

[Plaintiff]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Guess why we put them down when they attack humans?

We don't, actually. Wild animals aren't treated with the same laws as pets. If some drunk **** climbs into a lion enclosure, he's on his own.

If a lion escapes a zoo and walks into a public space filled with citizens, I can ensure you, we would shoot the bugger down.

First port of call is actually to have the trainers coax the animals back into their enclosures. No zoo or wildlife facility will kill an endangered animal except as a very, very last resort.

Kind of like how it is with mages.

Obviously not true, since templars tried to kill Aneirin.

And in any case, whether the Templars kill mages often or rarely is beside the point. Core practices of the organization are just wrong. The attitude they take towards mages is wrong. Giving a religion control over basic human rights is wrong.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 03 décembre 2013 - 11:02 .

[The Elder King]

Plaintiff, I doubt that you'll be fine with if the Thedosian states were the one controlling the Circles instead of the Chantry.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Plaintiff wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Guess why we put them down when they attack humans?

We don't, actually. Wild animals aren't treated with the same laws as pets. If some drunk **** climbs into a lion enclosure, he's on his own.

If a lion escapes a zoo and walks into a public space filled with citizens, I can ensure you, we would shoot the bugger down.

First port of call is actually to have the trainers coax the animals back into their enclosures. No zoo or wildlife facility will kill an endangered animal except as a very, very last resort.

Kind of like how it is with mages.

Obviously not true, since templars tried to kill Aneirin.

And in any case, whether the Templars kill mages often or rarely is beside the point. Core practices of the organization are just wrong. The attitude they take towards mages is wrong. Giving a religion control over basic human rights is wrong.

Oh, I suppose you know the specifics of the Templars encoounter with Aenerin. I mean something more detailed than just them trying to kill him. Like for isntance, if he tried to resist or anything? Oh, you mean you don't? Then why are you using that as an example if you don't know anyhting about it?

[Lord Raijin]

Plaintiff wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I love that you ignore the exsistence of Thrask and Carver just to make your discrimination easier to swallow.

Thrask was a Templar before he ever found out his daughter was a mage. If she hadn't been, then he wouldn't have ever questioned his path.

Carver joined the Templars deliberately to hurt his family. Just because he stops short of selling you out specifically doesn't mean he was 'protecting' you in any way.

I agree with the Carver incident. Carver joined the Templars to be an assh@ole to Hawke, for not taking him in the deep roads.It was his way of telling you "You see what you made me do!" He used the Templar Order to get back at Mage Hawke.



On the positive notion he could of very well collect a group of templars storming into Lowtown to snag up his mage brother, but he did not. In fact he didn't even mention his dirty family secrets to even his own boss, Meredith. In that respects he specifically used his title as a templar to protect his mage brother. He didn't ratted you out to the templars.

Modifié par Lord Raijin, 03 décembre 2013 - 11:56 .

[Plaintiff]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Guess why we put them down when they attack humans?

We don't, actually. Wild animals aren't treated with the same laws as pets. If some drunk **** climbs into a lion enclosure, he's on his own.

If a lion escapes a zoo and walks into a public space filled with citizens, I can ensure you, we would shoot the bugger down.

First port of call is actually to have the trainers coax the animals back into their enclosures. No zoo or wildlife facility will kill an endangered animal except as a very, very last resort.

Kind of like how it is with mages.

Obviously not true, since templars tried to kill Aneirin.

And in any case, whether the Templars kill mages often or rarely is beside the point. Core practices of the organization are just wrong. The attitude they take towards mages is wrong. Giving a religion control over basic human rights is wrong.

Oh, I suppose you know the specifics of the Templars encoounter with Aenerin. I mean something more detailed than just them trying to kill him. Like for isntance, if he tried to resist or anything? Oh, you mean you don't? Then why are you using that as an example if you don't know anyhting about it?

I know that he was fourteen years old, and they were grown men with weapons, that any advantage he might have had was negated by their templar training, I know that they ran him through and left him for dead.

"Resisting" my ass. It was murder, George Zimmerman-style.

[Plaintiff]

hhh89 wrote...

Plaintiff, I doubt that you'll be fine with if the Thedosian states were the one controlling the Circles instead of the Chantry.

That depends entirely on how they're run. I won't make presumptions. If I find fault with their individual systems, then I'll fight to see them changed.

"Things could be worse" is the excuse of the lazy and cowardly.

[Zazzerka]

Lord Raijin wrote...

Just what the hell was so bad about Leandra's vanilla hairstyle?

Modifié par Zazzerka, 03 décembre 2013 - 01:05 .

[Br3admax]

I would like to know that too, because the one she has in that picture is plain wrong.

[TEWR]

I know that he was fourteen years old, and they were grown men with weapons, that any advantage he might have had was negated by their templar training, I know that they ran him through and left him for dead.

"Resisting" my ass. It was murder, George Zimmerman-style.

Zimmerman analogy notwithstanding (don't want to open up THAT can of worms.) there's also the fact that he could barely cast a spell because Wynne -- at the time a very inexperienced mentor who cared more about results then progress -- pretty much scared him from being comfortable with magic.

Advantage, Templars.

[Hellion Rex]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I know that he was fourteen years old, and they were grown men with weapons, that any advantage he might have had was negated by their templar training, I know that they ran him through and left him for dead.

"Resisting" my ass. It was murder, George Zimmerman-style.

Zimmerman analogy notwithstanding (don't want to open up THAT can of worms.) there's also the fact that he could barely cast a spell because Wynne -- at the time a very inexperienced mentor who cared more about results then progress -- pretty much scared him from being comfortable with magic.

Advantage, Templars.

Aneirin was Wynne's first apprentice right? The one we had to find in the Brecilian Forest?
Edit: Yes, let us leave Zimmerman out of this debate. It will only get ugly.

Modifié par eluvianix, 03 décembre 2013 - 02:08 .

[TEWR]

Correct. He managed to learn magic from the Dalish, and though he was offered a place amongst them he elected to live with the trees and the animals.

Like the Mad Hermit. Only minus the mad.

[Iakus]

Youth4Ever wrote...

If the if the hints/rumors of their importance to the plot are true, they will be a major enemy mook faction in DA3. I have no idea how or why the red templar army is created, but, assuming it would make a worthwhile difference, if your inquisitor could stop the creation, or the potential creation, of more red templars by killing regular templars encountered, or has the opportunity to neutralize the entire order with the same goal in mind, would s/he do it?

No, I'm not killing certain people for the crimes of certain others.

Or for what they might do in the future 

[Medhia Nox]

@Iakus: It's only wrong if you were born a potentially psychotic demoniac.

Because self-pity says so.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Plaintiff wrote...
Obviously not true, since templars tried to kill Aneirin.

How does that event (which you know nothing about) prove anything?

And in any case, whether the Templars kill mages often or rarely is beside the point. Core practices of the organization are just wrong. The attitude they take towards mages is wrong. Giving a religion control over basic human rights is wrong.

No, it is not.
The practices aren't wrong, they are PERFECTLY SANE AND LOGICAL, even moreso given the development of the world of Thedas.

I know that he was fourteen years old, and they were grown men with
weapons, that any advantage he might have had was negated by their
templar training, I know that they ran him through and left him for
dead.

And Connor was even younger.
Being 14 years old might mean something for a mundane, but a mage is no less dangerous when he's young. Actually, he'd probably be more dangerous given he's probably be more emotionally unstable.

But, wether or not the templars were justified in stabing him is beside the point. The point is - if it was someone else, some other organization, and not the templars, what would it change? Do those templars even represent the order?
We know the standing order is to bring in mages alive.

So the Aneirin situation being used as some kind of proof agaisnt tempalrs makes even LESS sense then me using the raping policement as proof agaisnt the police. At least the police have more advanced oversight and communication methods, so they have A LOT less wiggle room to get away with it.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Plaintiff wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Guess why we put them down when they attack humans?

We don't, actually. Wild animals aren't treated with the same laws as pets. If some drunk **** climbs into a lion enclosure, he's on his own.

If a lion escapes a zoo and walks into a public space filled with citizens, I can ensure you, we would shoot the bugger down.

First port of call is actually to have the trainers coax the animals back into their enclosures. No zoo or wildlife facility will kill an endangered animal except as a very, very last resort.

Kind of like how it is with mages.

Obviously not true, since templars tried to kill Aneirin.

And in any case, whether the Templars kill mages often or rarely is beside the point. Core practices of the organization are just wrong. The attitude they take towards mages is wrong. Giving a religion control over basic human rights is wrong.

Oh, I suppose you know the specifics of the Templars encoounter with Aenerin. I mean something more detailed than just them trying to kill him. Like for isntance, if he tried to resist or anything? Oh, you mean you don't? Then why are you using that as an example if you don't know anyhting about it?

I know that he was fourteen years old, and they were grown men with weapons, that any advantage he might have had was negated by their templar training, I know that they ran him through and left him for dead.

"Resisting" my ass. It was murder, George Zimmerman-style.

Oooooh look, he played the george zimmerman card! Has he already played the Hitler card? He could get some sick combo-plays up in this thread if he keeps going like that....

But seriously, your pathetic attempt at bringing in real life cases in a poor excuse for pathos is sickening.

First of all, this 14 year old boy was NOT unarmed. He was a mage. This means that he is never unarmed, and always dangerous. The Templars are of coruse trained to handle such matters, but contrary to popular beleif it is NOT a surefire thign for the Templars. Of course your abject hatred for Templars prevent you from realizing that you know NOTHING of what happened, and you simply assume the worst, becausde it fits your sick little idea of Templars, but the rest of us know, that your baseless claims are created out of nothing...

[The Elder King]

Plaintiff wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

Plaintiff, I doubt that you'll be fine with if the Thedosian states were the one controlling the Circles instead of the Chantry.

That depends entirely on how they're run. I won't make presumptions. If I find fault with their individual systems, then I'll fight to see them changed.

"Things could be worse" is the excuse of the lazy and cowardly.

I was talking about an hypothetical Circle system run by stated in the same way as the Chantry did.
I don't  think the situation might have been different in the circles if the Thedosian stated assumed control of them back when they were formed.  The only difference would've been that mages would've been used more often in wars.
The situation now might be different, but I woudn't get my hopes up.

Modifié par hhh89, 03 décembre 2013 - 02:47 .

[lil yonce]

iakus wrote...
No, I'm not killing certain people for the crimes of certain others.Or for what they might do in the future

What if you know a large section of templar rebels are using or had been using red lyrium. They aren't savage, but they aren't completely sane either, and you know that a descent into madness is an inevitability i.e. Bartrand. These templars don't seem much of a threat at present-- their helping a village or something-- but you know they will threaten the Inquisition's principle mission if left to their own devices. What do you do with sort of group? Or perhaps you don't know for certain that they're using red lyrium, but they're believed to be exhibiting some signs. What's to done about them? Its been rumored that the red templars are going to impactful beyond the mage-templar war, that their existence is a threat to all of thedas and not restricted to mages or their allies. That's why I've asked this question. I don't want to write what those rumors here are because they're treading in possible spoiler territory, but in the context of the possible plot, this question may make more sense. I wouldn't think it an easy choice, and would say there is potential for discussion to be had on it, but this thread has been derailed, so I may request a mod lock it. This may just be a better topic after the game's release.

[Trolldrool]

On some characters I'll kill every mage I come across (except of course in cases where I can't because they're crucial to a quest or the plot) and on some I'll kill every templar I come across (except of course in cases where I can't because they're crucial to a quest or the plot). I've been stuck in too many templar vs mage arguments on BSN to care about either side anymore.

[MisterJB]

Plaintiff wrote...
Your country's civil code is wrong, then.

870 years of history vs Plaintiff.
 Please, come on over. Teach us the way.

[EmperorSahlertz]

MisterJB wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
Your country's civil code is wrong, then.

870 years of history vs Plaintiff.
 Please, come on over. Teach us the way.

Obviously you should let the tiger eat your family, just like doctor Bombay. I mean it is the only reasonable thing to do, right?

[leaguer of one]

Plaintiff wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Guess why we put them down when they attack humans?

We don't, actually. Wild animals aren't treated with the same laws as pets. If some drunk **** climbs into a lion enclosure, he's on his own.

If a lion escapes a zoo and walks into a public space filled with citizens, I can ensure you, we would shoot the bugger down.

I was just studying this yesterday. My country's civil code clearly states that, if a ferocious animal escapes enclosure, any one citizen can put it down for any reason.
I can cite the article if there are disbelievers.

Your country's civil code is wrong, then.

But that's common sense.

[Hellion Rex]

MisterJB wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
Your country's civil code is wrong, then.

870 years of history vs Plaintiff.
 Please, come on over. Teach us the way.

Out of professional curiosity where are you from?

[EmperorSahlertz]

leaguer of one wrote...
But that's common sense.

Common sense is obviously wrong.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 03 décembre 2013 - 04:51 .