1858 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
That's not entirely true. Quentin killed a non-mage woman, and we all know what the Magisters are up to. I agree with you that this isn't enough justification for the idea of a mandatory Circle on it's own, but it's not all the Circle has to recommend it. It also means that abominations form in a hardened target, and thus die in shorter order than would otherwise be possible.

No, MisterJB is saying that, by defecting from the Chantry, the Circle has imposed a state of fear on all non-mages. This is categorically false, declaring your emancipation is not inherently an atagonistic act, unless you're already prejudiced against mage emancipation, in which case you deserve to be antagonized.

The problem is that moral restrictions aren't always sufficient. A mage could go insane, a mage could just be a bad person from the start, or a mage could find him/herself in a situation where it's crime or starvation. (I agree that there's massive flaws in the Circle system, but except in Cole's case I've never heard of a mage starving in the Circle.) And that's discounting the possibility of a mage going abomination, which they don't always do by choice.

All of that applies to non-mages too, including the possibility of becoming possessed. Moral restrictions aren't sufficient for the non-mage populace, they aren't sufficient for our own world, but we just have to deal with it because the alternative is unconscienable tyranny.

The problems with this analogy are that A; As I've noted, a mage can be dangerous whether or not they choose to be. B: Making a bomb that kills dozens of people isn't quite the same scale as an abomination, the dangers of which are the only reason I believe the Circle system is justifiable. (It has other benefits, but even all of these put together wouldn't be enough for me to sign off.) We have from the Chantry that entire cities have falled to abominations, and while I agree there's reason to doubt their objectivity we see at Redcliffe that this can potentially happen.

Which is grounds for establishing a better response system, but not for pre-emptively locking up all mages.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Lord Raijin wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
Why is it that the freedoms of mages matter so much more than the lives of normals? Why is it that we should pay more attentions to the mages who didn't become Abominations than we should to those who did?

Why do people like you automatically assume that mages who are given their freedom will go off and start a massive genocide against the mundanes? That free mages of the south will fallow their magisters brothers and sisters up north and start rounding up the "normals" and enslaved them?


I believe in fairness. Mages and the mundanes are both equal in my eyes. They both should be given the same rights, and both should be free.

I believe in skepticism, and I find the optomistic view of mages living in utopic peace with mundanes to be flawed. Why? Because mages are human beings, with wants, desires, and the ability to flex and bend their moral code into whatever shape they need to justify whatever they do, as any person would. Not every mage will do that mind you, I'm sure a few will stick to the moral way of life.

But a lot of them, now with the freedom to use their powers in whatever way they see fit, and no orginization around capable of stopping them? That's a lot of absolutist power you've just given a small group of people, and expecting no abuses to happen is foolish. And whatever abuses mage do to mundanes, it's going to be big, because that is just the nature of the kind of magic they use.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 03 décembre 2013 - 10:46 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

Lord Raijin wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Anyone can be a rapist, so what exactly is the point you're trying to make with that statement? Other then blatent fear mongering of course.

Probably that if Alrik tried something, she would not only have physical trouble defending herself (Templar vs. Mage) but Alrik could have her Tranquilized or even executed under color of law.

I can't see Alrik executing poor Beth.... unless if he enjoys a cold stiff.

So the reason she couldn't go to the fereldan circle was because there exsisted a bad templar in a different circle all together? And if alrik didn't exist or was dealt with, what exactly would be the problem here?

Using anecdotal hindsight to justify not going to any circles seems like a massive strech of logic, if not a completely illogical break of reasoning.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Lord Raijin wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Anyone can be a rapist, so what exactly is the point you're trying to make with that statement? Other then blatent fear mongering of course.

Probably that if Alrik tried something, she would not only have physical trouble defending herself (Templar vs. Mage) but Alrik could have her Tranquilized or even executed under color of law.

I can't see Alrik executing poor Beth.... unless if he enjoys a cold stiff.

He already enjoys Tranquil. Besides, the point is that he could execute her under color of law for resisting him, especially if he gets her into a position where she needs magic to do so.

[Silfren]

Lord Raijin wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
Why is it that the freedoms of mages matter so much more than the lives of normals? Why is it that we should pay more attentions to the mages who didn't become Abominations than we should to those who did?

Why do people like you automatically assume that mages who are given their freedom will go off and start a massive genocide against the mundanes? That free mages of the south will fallow their magisters brothers and sisters up north and start rounding up the "normals" and enslaved them?


I believe in fairness. Mages and the mundanes are both equal in my eyes. They both should be given the same rights, and both should be free.

Good question, since MisterJB is so determined that people should leave their personal ideologies out of the equation despite the fact that all of his assertions are based on his own extremely negative ideology of the world.

[Medhia Nox]

Question, would a mage rapist indict all mages?

[Silfren]

ScarMK wrote...

Silfren wrote...

I think, actually, that Malcom was Circle-educated.  Isn't part of his story that he had escaped from Ferelden's Circle?

He's saying not to forget that Malcolm was circle-educated.  Not that he wasn't.

Point.  I completely misread that.

[Plaintiff]

Darth Brotarian wrote...
Anyone can be a rapist, so what exactly is the point you're trying to make with that statement? Other then blatent fear mongering of course.

A rapist who can, with a thought, strip away her only means of self-defense, since mages are forbidden from being trained in any sort of martial art.

Yes, anyone can be a rapist, but would you be alright with deliberately moving to a place where you know rape is prevalent? And it is prevalent in the Kirkwall Circle, you can figure that out just from spending five minutes in the Gallows Courtyard.

Not to mention the whipping and screaming you can hear, and testimonials like the one from the Tranquil shopkeeper who is beaten when other people steal from her stall.

There are a dozen reasons to want to stay right the **** out of the Circle.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Question, would a mage rapist indict all mages?

If the people crying alrik had any sense of fairness or commitment to morals, it would.

[Plaintiff]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Question, would a mage rapist indict all mages?

Nobody is saying that Alrik or Karras are indicative of all Templars.

Templars are already indicted because of the vile nature of their work.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Plaintiff wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...
Anyone can be a rapist, so what exactly is the point you're trying to make with that statement? Other then blatent fear mongering of course.

A rapist who can, with a thought, strip away her only means of self-defense, since mages are forbidden from being trained in any sort of martial art.

Yes, anyone can be a rapist, but would you be alright with deliberately moving to a place where you know rape is prevalent? And it is prevalent in the Kirkwall Circle, you can figure that out just from spending five minutes in the Gallows Courtyard.

Not to mention the whipping and screaming you can hear, and testimonials like the one from the Tranquil shopkeeper who is beaten when other people steal from her stall.

There are a dozen reasons to want to stay right the **** out of the Circle.

Bethany could have gone to the fereldan circle at any time, where the stuff you're talking about doesn't apply. Additionally, there is more then 1 circle, and kirkwall is the extremist, not the norm, for circles. And again, all you're doing here is fearmongering by implying that all circles are like kirkwall, and doing so in a disgusting way as well if I might add.

And it isn't like mages can't leave people defenseless and rape them, hell in DA2 we see a mage try to use blood magic and  mind control people into having sex with her before going and being used as containers for demons. And to be aware of it all while it's happening to them and even make them betray people or stand helpless as they're murdered. It happened in kirkwall, so I wouldn't use it as an example of all mages, but if I used your logic I would have to since that is exactly what you're doing in your post.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 03 décembre 2013 - 10:57 .

[Plaintiff]

Darth Brotarian wrote...
So the reason she couldn't go to the fereldan circle was because there exsisted a bad templar in a different circle all together?

No, the reason Bethany can't go to the Ferelden Circle is because there are known child murderers on staff.

And if alrik didn't exist or was dealt with, what exactly would be the problem here?

There would be others. The Circle system cultivated by the Chantry is, at base, ridiculously open to abuse, if not inherently abusive by nature.

Using anecdotal hindsight to justify not going to any circles seems like a massive strech of logic, if not a completely illogical break of reasoning.

There's also the abusive practices that the Templars openly engage in as part of their official work.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 03 décembre 2013 - 10:57 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Plaintiff wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
That's not entirely true. Quentin killed a non-mage woman, and we all know what the Magisters are up to. I agree with you that this isn't enough justification for the idea of a mandatory Circle on it's own, but it's not all the Circle has to recommend it. It also means that abominations form in a hardened target, and thus die in shorter order than would otherwise be possible.

No, MisterJB is saying that, by defecting from the Chantry, the Circle has imposed a state of fear on all non-mages. This is categorically false, declaring your emancipation is not inherently an atagonistic act, unless you're already prejudiced against mage emancipation, in which case you deserve to be antagonized.

Oh, if that's the point, then yeah. That's fair.

The problem is that moral restrictions aren't always sufficient. A mage could go insane, a mage could just be a bad person from the start, or a mage could find him/herself in a situation where it's crime or starvation. (I agree that there's massive flaws in the Circle system, but except in Cole's case I've never heard of a mage starving in the Circle.) And that's discounting the possibility of a mage going abomination, which they don't always do by choice.

All of that applies to non-mages too, including the possibility of becoming possessed. Moral restrictions aren't sufficient for the non-mage populace, they aren't sufficient for our own world, but we just have to deal with it because the alternative is unconscienable tyranny.

I agree with the latter point. The problem is that what a mage might choose to do is not the main reason I'm reluctantly signing off on the Circle. My response to that would be hiring mages or templars to the city watch. As for the former point, we have from Gaider that while a demon can inhabit a non-mage, the result isn't as dangerous as an abomination due to the host not having magic.

The problems with this analogy are that A; As I've noted, a mage can be dangerous whether or not they choose to be. B: Making a bomb that kills dozens of people isn't quite the same scale as an abomination, the dangers of which are the only reason I believe the Circle system is justifiable. (It has other benefits, but even all of these put together wouldn't be enough for me to sign off.) We have from the Chantry that entire cities have falled to abominations, and while I agree there's reason to doubt their objectivity we see at Redcliffe that this can potentially happen.

Which is grounds for establishing a better response system, but not for pre-emptively locking up all mages.

What response system would you recommend to save Redcliffe, in the context of telegraphs not existing*, any responding Templars/mages limited to the speed a horse can give them, and the problem starting in the equivalent of City Hall? (Seriously, if it were not for the Warden, that place would have been screwed.) Furthermore, can whatever you come up with be practically applied to an area less important than the seat of a relatively high-ranking noble?

* The Circle's Seeing Stones might be an answer to this problem, but I don't know how easy they are to make. For all I know the Circle could be capable of pumping them out fast enough to invent the internet, or they might be a lost technology the Circle understands just well enough to use.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 03 décembre 2013 - 11:01 .

[MisterJB]

Lord Raijin wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
Why is it that the freedoms of mages matter so much more than the lives of normals? Why is it that we should pay more attentions to the mages who didn't become Abominations than we should to those who did?

Why do people like you automatically assume that mages who are given their freedom will go off and start a massive genocide against the mundanes? That free mages of the south will fallow their magisters brothers and sisters up north and start rounding up the "normals" and enslaved them?


I believe in fairness. Mages and the mundanes are both equal in my eyes. They both should be given the same rights, and both should be free.

That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that "evil" mages as well as mages who fall to demons and become Abominations will exist. It is statistically impossible for them not to. And they will kill normal people.
Will this be caused by a collective effort from mages? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it will happen multiple times.
Therefore, the question remains. If a mage is taken to the Circle, all that we can be certain will happen is that that mage will live in seclusion. But if a mage becomes an Abomination, what we can be certain will happen is that a great number of people will die.
Therefore, why are the freedoms of those mages more important than the lives those Abominations will kill?

[Silfren]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Lord Raijin wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Anyone can be a rapist, so what exactly is the point you're trying to make with that statement? Other then blatent fear mongering of course.

Probably that if Alrik tried something, she would not only have physical trouble defending herself (Templar vs. Mage) but Alrik could have her Tranquilized or even executed under color of law.

I can't see Alrik executing poor Beth.... unless if he enjoys a cold stiff.

So the reason she couldn't go to the fereldan circle was because there exsisted a bad templar in a different circle all together? And if alrik didn't exist or was dealt with, what exactly would be the problem here?

Using anecdotal hindsight to justify not going to any circles seems like a massive strech of logic, if not a completely illogical break of reasoning.

Malcolm was a part of a Circle at one point and clearly believed it was bad enough he wanted no part of it for his children.  That's why she "couldn't" go to the Circle--he was of the opinion that a Circle education was not worth the price of losing his daughter, or she her freedom.

[Silfren]

Darth Brotarian wrote...
Anyone can be a rapist, so what exactly is the point you're trying to make with that statement? Other then blatent fear mongering of course.

Think that through for a minute.  Sure, anyone can potentially be a rapist, just like they can potentially be a murderer or a thief.  But nobody in their right mind would use that reasoning to be okay with sending someone to a school where people already known to commit those acts is permitted to be in charge of students.

[Cheylus]

Whatever. Circles don't exist anymore.

[Silfren]

Cheylus wrote...

Whatever. Circles don't exist anymore.

Such a cogent and delightful addition to the conversation!  Thank you for enlightening us all.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Silfren wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...
Anyone can be a rapist, so what exactly is the point you're trying to make with that statement? Other then blatent fear mongering of course.

Think that through for a minute.  Sure, anyone can potentially be a rapist, just like they can potentially be a murderer or a thief.  But nobody in their right mind would use that reasoning to be okay with sending someone to a school where people already known to commit those acts is permitted to be in charge of students.

So what you're saying is nobody should go to anywhere where a bad thing happened once? Well then, nobody should go to any major cities, be educated in any schools, or walk down any main streets ever again for the rest of life.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...
Anyone can be a rapist, so what exactly is the point you're trying to make with that statement? Other then blatent fear mongering of course.

Think that through for a minute.  Sure, anyone can potentially be a rapist, just like they can potentially be a murderer or a thief.  But nobody in their right mind would use that reasoning to be okay with sending someone to a school where people already known to commit those acts is permitted to be in charge of students.

So what you're saying is nobody should go to anywhere where a bad thing happened once? Well then, nobody should go to any major cities, be educated in any schools, or walk down any main streets ever again for the rest of life.

A better analogy for her argument would be that it's smart to avoid neighborhoods with a high rape/robbery/murder rate.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 03 décembre 2013 - 11:17 .

[Br3admax]

I feel like a lot of issues would be resolved if mages simply had to check in every now and then instead of having to live in Towers. They weaken the Veil anyway.

[MisterJB]

Plaintiff wrote...
They're doing no such thing. The mages have done nothing to antagonize the non-mage population.

Fearing an entire group of people just because they're capable of xyz makes you a prejudiced idiot. Moral restrictions are perfectly adequate, unless you erroneously believe that all mages are amoral psychopaths. And, again, anyone who believes that is a prejudiced idiot.

In the real world, anyone can make a bomb that will kill dozens of people, and the only thing preventing them from doing so is moral restrictions, because the law can't respond to a crime that hasn't happened yet. So let's all just be afraid and hateful towards each other, that's sure to work out.

They do not need to have done something to antagonize the normal population in order for them to be terrified of mages. This fear steams from a long history of mages using their advantages to harm normals.
Does that mean the threat will always materialize? Maybe, maybe not.

However, the same applies to the Circle. The OP claimed that, even if no abuses ocur, the Circle should be opposed because mages fear Templars who can harm them and there are not many ways in which mages can defend themselves. Therefore, if you intended to use your argument about how being a Templar is inherently harmful to mages, let me stop you right there. The OP's argument was not that being in a Circle was the problem; the problem, according to the OP, was that there is a state of fear of what Templars can do. Not of what they do as part of their job which includes reducing some freedoms. The problem is what the Templars CAN do, according to the OP's argument.

Well, mages can harm normals and there are not many ways in which they can defend themselves. The very same state the OP claims should be opposed is what the mages are currently forcing onto the normal population.

Is there an history of Templars harming mages in the Circles? Yes.
But there is also an even longer history of mages harming normals.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Silfren wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Lord Raijin wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Anyone can be a rapist, so what exactly is the point you're trying to make with that statement? Other then blatent fear mongering of course.

Probably that if Alrik tried something, she would not only have physical trouble defending herself (Templar vs. Mage) but Alrik could have her Tranquilized or even executed under color of law.

I can't see Alrik executing poor Beth.... unless if he enjoys a cold stiff.

So the reason she couldn't go to the fereldan circle was because there exsisted a bad templar in a different circle all together? And if alrik didn't exist or was dealt with, what exactly would be the problem here?

Using anecdotal hindsight to justify not going to any circles seems like a massive strech of logic, if not a completely illogical break of reasoning.

Malcolm was a part of a Circle at one point and clearly believed it was bad enough he wanted no part of it for his children.  That's why she "couldn't" go to the Circle--he was of the opinion that a Circle education was not worth the price of losing his daughter, or she her freedom.

That was his choice to make, and if he was fine with living as a crinimal and rogue then that's his business. But he never gave his daughter the choice, never gave his two sons choices either. He forced them into the life of constant fear and anonymity for his own ideological values.

I dont' see why I should treat malcom as some great figure when he was just a scared old man who forced his children to follow his same path out of fear and selfishness.

[Br3admax]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...
Anyone can be a rapist, so what exactly is the point you're trying to make with that statement? Other then blatent fear mongering of course.

Think that through for a minute.  Sure, anyone can potentially be a rapist, just like they can potentially be a murderer or a thief.  But nobody in their right mind would use that reasoning to be okay with sending someone to a school where people already known to commit those acts is permitted to be in charge of students.

So what you're saying is nobody should go to anywhere where a bad thing happened once? Well then, nobody should go to any major cities, be educated in any schools, or walk down any main streets ever again for the rest of life.

A better analogy for her argument would be that it's smart to avoid neighborhoods with a high rape/robbery/murder rate.

>Implying that the rape rate is high with no proof.