1537 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

So it makes for an equal race, which you just last page said was ALWAYS fair, and now it isn't fair? You are horribly inconsistent.

I said "equal treatment is always fair".  Making one horse carry more weight is the opposite of equal treatment.

[Rotward]

But what if that horse has white splotches? You know you can't trust them white-splotched horses.

Modifié par Rotward, 10 janvier 2014 - 05:09 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

The conflcit most definitely won't end in DAI and probably won't end ever in any game. The addition of this conflict with free amges, allow for mages to be included in far more scenarios than previously, and they wouldn't even be breaking their own lore for it to happen. It is also a good centerpiece conflict, which keeps the universe going.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

So it makes for an equal race, which you just last page said was ALWAYS fair, and now it isn't fair? You are horribly inconsistent.

I said "equal treatment is always fair".  Making one horse carry more weight is the opposite of equal treatment.

It makes the RACE fair.

[Rotward]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It makes the RACE fair.

That really is just racism. Sorry bud. 

[EmperorSahlertz]

Rotward wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It makes the RACE fair.

That really is just racism. Sorry bud. 

......... A race as in horse race... Jesus ****ing christ...

[Sylvius the Mad]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

So it makes for an equal race, which you just last page said was ALWAYS fair, and now it isn't fair? You are horribly inconsistent.

I said "equal treatment is always fair".  Making one horse carry more weight is the opposite of equal treatment.

It makes the RACE fair.

By treating the horses unequally.

Again, no, that's the opposite of what I said.  It makes the race even, not fair.  In a fair race, the faster horse should always win.  Adding ballast negates that speed advantage, though, giving the slower horses an equal chance to win.

That's not fair treatment, because that's not equal treatment.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

So it makes for an equal race, which you just last page said was ALWAYS fair, and now it isn't fair? You are horribly inconsistent.

I said "equal treatment is always fair".  Making one horse carry more weight is the opposite of equal treatment.

It makes the RACE fair.

By treating the horses unequally.

Again, no, that's the opposite of what I said.  It makes the race even, not fair.  In a fair race, the faster horse should always win.  Adding ballast negates that speed advantage, though, giving the slower horses an equal chance to win.

That's not fair treatment, because that's not equal treatment.

The horses aren't equal to begin with, for the purpose of racing. Therefore inequal treatment concludes in a FAIR race, disproving your claim that equal treatment always leads to fairness.

[cjones91]

I thought this was about solving the problems between mages and templars?Anyway I would go for a revised Templar Order and Circle system where the templars are more fair minded instead of being extremist,anyone who is caught abusing mages will be dealt with and any sigh of over zealousness is removed.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The horses aren't equal to begin with, for the purpose of racing.

Of course they aren't.  No two beings are completely equal.

The point of racing is to see which is fastest on that day.

Therefore inequal treatment concludes in a FAIR race, disproving your claim that equal treatment always leads to fairness.

And I completely disagree.  What you've done is create an even race through a grossly unfair application to handicaps.  Even does not equal fair.  Equal treatment does.

If equal treatment leads to unbalanced outcomes, then those unbalanced outcomes are fair.

Why would we ever look at the outcomes alone to determine whether the process that produced those outcomes was fair?

[Magdalena11]

hhh89 wrote...

Jaison1986 wrote...

Nope. The fight will be kept in permanent stalemate until the Inquisitor does something about it. Or did you actually thought someone other then the PC could actually get the job done?

Why do you think the Inquisitor will resolve the war? The game will not be around the mage-templar war, and we don't know if there'll be multiple solution to it due to the save imports. I'd say that at the best the Inquisitor could support one side and make them take an advantage, but I doubt the war will end in DAI.

I agree with Jaison that this is something the inquisitor has to fix or allow to run its course to destruction.  I think it might work something like DAO where you will have allies to help you against the big bad at the end.  For instance if you don't step in you'll have neither ally.  If you choose one side or another you'll have that one.  If you find a way to save both sides you can have both or maybe a mix of each.

Modifié par Magdalena11, 10 janvier 2014 - 06:43 .

[The Elder King]

Magdalena11 wrote...


I agree with Jaison that this is something the inquisitor has to fix or allow to run its course to destruction.  I think it might work something like DAO where you will have allies to help you against the big bad at the end.  For instance if you don't step in you'll have neither ally.  If you choose one side or another you'll have that one.  If you find a way to save both sides you can have both or maybe pick which.

I'm not questioning that there'll be a plot about mages and tempars that would involve making  one (or both) of them our allies. I'm questioning that the Inquisitor's involvement would end the war.

[Beerfish]

There will be no permanent solution but the Inquisitor will show both sides that they have to cooperate or a bigger threat will destroy all.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...
Well, Conner had an army too. He didn't personally go out and slaughter all those in Redcliffe. As such, I see no difference in comparing those characters to him since they all were the same: the leader of the force that did the deeds.

So you don't see a difference between a man with an army of humans - who can at any point decide to NOT obey, and turn against him, thus he has to convince them to follow him.
AND
A demon who can create an army of perfectly obedient undead by summining more weak spirits, and tear open the veil to bring in more of his kind, and mind control people todo his bidding?


Yup...no difference.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Inprea wrote...
It isn't the templars aren't doing their job because the mages want to stay. If that's the case I'd say the templars were doing mage templar relationships right at least. They did however fumble the ball when it comes to security. Templars should after all be educated on magic theory at least so they can recognize or better recognize when their charge is having an idiot moment.

You can't have a cake and eat it too.

No matter what rules you come from, there will have to be some restrictions. And you will ALWAYS have people who will complain about restrictions, no matter what they are. You will also have people who will complain about not enough security no matter what you do.

Templars are ironicly, the caretakers, supervisers, jailers and executioners of mages. And those roles are rather conflicting and practicly impossible to balance.

The very nature of mages, magic, the Circles and templars means that the problem will NEVER be solved to anyones satisfaction.

[ianvillan]

helo89 wrote...

IMO, the only way to solve the Mage/Templar conflict is to revise the cicle system.

1) Seperate the Templars from chantry supervision, and make it so that the individual governments are in charge of the welfare of their own citzens (as it should be imo).

Allowing for a religious, foreign institution that may or may not be loyal to the host nation to have life or death power over that nation's ctizens is a recipe for disaster IMO.

2) Retire the harrowing. The harrowing, is a barbaric ritual, but more importantly it is ineffective. As it doesn't prove if a mage is particularly suceptible to possession (e.g. Uldred was a senior enchanter), it only proves ignorance and possibly soft-heartedness on the mage's part (mouse in the harrowing tries to persuade the PC to help him out of pity). Or at least, make it so that all mages must be harrowed, in Origins we are shown that not all mages go through the harrowing, only if you are seen to have enough power magically are you put through

Hardly capital crimes in my estimation, but more importantly can be remedied through greater education and practice. So in fact, failing doesn't really mean weakness on the mage's part as he or she is not prepared merely thrown in the deep end.

A compromise could be that all mages must be harrowed, in Origins we are shown that not all mages go through the harrowing, only if you are seen to have enough power magically are you put through it, otherwise you are made tranquil.

And frankly, the suspicion that many a First enchanter has had a few weak mages made tranquil merely for the purpose of maintaining the circles's wealth makes a pragmatic, if evil sense. As we know that the circles would not get by on charity.

3) Retire the rite of Tranquility or severely restrict how it is used . In the game Tranquility is put forward as alternative for those mages who fear the Harrowing and as punishment for those who break the circles rules. But at the same time we see that the tranquilled can be abused as we have seen in DA2.

One issue I have is that the agency that the tranquil have is inconsistent in DA:O Owain chooses to stay in the stockroom, because he 'feels' comfortable there, while in DA2 Karl deliberately lures Anders into trap even though they were 'close' simply on the command of the templars. So how much free will do the tranquil have?

It seems that the tranquil don't have any free will, the females who were made tranquil by the Templars were kept as sex slaves, if they were free to leave when ever they wanted and if they had free will then they would not of stayed in the position to be abused.

One of the tranquil you meet outside the gallows says that she belongs to Alrik.  It also seems that the abuse of the tranquil is tolerated by the Templars, because the other Templars knew what was happening and turned a blind eye to it.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Inprea wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Now for the templar supporter. What do you do for the abused or raped mage? Do you expect her to trust the system to protect her after it already failed so horribly? How do you compensate her for the injustice done to her or for forcing her to fight for her life against a demon?

There's not much you can do, other than investigate and hope to punish the guilty one. I say hope, because it's kinda difficult to prove rape, even today. Let lone in the middle ages.
From the POW of hte wronged party, the system has failed if the guilty isn't punished. But from the POW of the judge he CANNOT condemn someone without evidence, and he DOES NOT know the truth.
No system is perfect and systems will fail occasionally. When it does, it becomes hard to trust that system again, but that still doesn't mean the system doesnt' work.

So you want to punish all mages for the actions of others but you expectt he mages to understand that you can't just punish every templar when a few go bad? Seems like a double standard to me. Plus your ethics and mine are clearly very different. You talk about punishing the guilty party. For me punishing the guilty part is not justice. Justice also requires the person who was wrong to be compensated and made whole once again.

Punish all mages? Who said that?
Are you reffering to the Annulment? Annulment isn't a punishment for a crime. It's a quarantene.

And how do you propose to "make the person whole again"?

It was the system that stripped the mage of her freedom after all in return for protecton and it was the system that failed her.

So if the police fail to catch a robber or a criminal, they failed you and are never to be trusted again? Not a single police officer? Ever?

Mind you, the difference between templars and mages is that being a templar is a duty/job. Being a mage is a state.

Would you apply the, it's hard to prove rule, if the mage acted in self defense and flash fried the offending templar? Unless there were witnesses all you know is the mage said the templar tried to rape her and you have a crispy corpse.I hope you don't expect someone to hold back when defending themselves from assault.

In that case all you have if the mages word (again).
Let's say your friend tried to rape a girl and she stabbed him (or that's what she sez). Forensic evidence is inconclusive. What do you do?

I understand what you're saiyng, but I aks you to try to understand what I'm saying. It's easy to make judgment with hindsight. You make that example knowing the absolute truth. You already know if the templar is guilty or not. A hypothetical judge does not.

So you can let her go scott free - in which case you're doing an injustice towards the dead templar. His name is tarnished and his family shamed.
Or you can do an injustice to the mage. She WAS attacked. One cna argue that deadly force wasn't necessary, and indeed, today the courts WILL sentance you if you killed in defense. the punishment won't be heavy, but still.

I won't pretend I know the perfect answer, for there isn't one.

[Hellion Rex]

ianvillan wrote...
It seems that the tranquil don't have any free will, the females who were made tranquil by the Templars were kept as sex slaves, if they were free to leave when ever they wanted and if they had free will then they would not of stayed in the position to be abused.

One of the tranquil you meet outside the gallows says that she belongs to Alrik.  It also seems that the abuse of the tranquil is tolerated by the Templars, because the other Templars knew what was happening and turned a blind eye to it.

I have to disagree. Tranquil do indeed have free will, as evidenced by the Tranquil in the White Spire in Asunder. She let Wynne and the other mages escape without raising the alarm in the Circle. Also, in regards to Alrik, I don't think that was a well advertised occurence, considering Meredith shot it down, and plenty of people would think that he wouldn't disobey his boss.

[ianvillan]

eluvianix wrote...

ianvillan wrote...
It seems that the tranquil don't have any free will, the females who were made tranquil by the Templars were kept as sex slaves, if they were free to leave when ever they wanted and if they had free will then they would not of stayed in the position to be abused.

One of the tranquil you meet outside the gallows says that she belongs to Alrik.  It also seems that the abuse of the tranquil is tolerated by the Templars, because the other Templars knew what was happening and turned a blind eye to it.

I have to disagree. Tranquil do indeed have free will, as evidenced by the Tranquil in the White Spire in Asunder. She let Wynne and the other mages escape without raising the alarm in the Circle. Also, in regards to Alrik, I don't think that was a well advertised occurence, considering Meredith shot it down, and plenty of people would think that he wouldn't disobey his boss.

Then why did the tranquil stay and let themselves be abused, We also then have to believe that the tranquil said nothing about the abuse to anyone because they were told not too, or they did tell Cullen or Meredith and the abuse was accepted.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Inprea wrote...
Now you mention punishing. What about compensating? Even if you burned the templar alive and let the mages watch his suffering wouldn't heal the damage done to the wronged mage. What about looking into the other templars performance and finding out why they weren't there to protect the mage? After all that is their job as well.

So you want to burn a man alive (which is a horrible death I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy), and then punish everyone else for the crime of "not being there".

You do realise poeple can't be everywhere and know everything, right?

[Magdalena11]

hhh89 wrote...

Magdalena11 wrote...


I agree with Jaison that this is something the inquisitor has to fix or allow to run its course to destruction.  I think it might work something like DAO where you will have allies to help you against the big bad at the end.  For instance if you don't step in you'll have neither ally.  If you choose one side or another you'll have that one.  If you find a way to save both sides you can have both or maybe pick which.

I'm not questioning that there'll be a plot about mages and tempars that would involve making  one (or both) of them our allies. I'm questioning that the Inquisitor's involvement would end the war.

Sorry I misunderstood.  I doubt the inquisitor will be able to make a lasting change except in this crisis. DAO - the darkspawn will always be a threat.  None of the boons made a lasting change.  The stage was set for DAI's mage/templar conflict and the dissolution of the NA.  I assume no matter how the inquisitor resolves the matter it will go back to chaos eventually.  In terms of whether the inquisitor will be able to resolve it in this game I think it's possible.

[PinkysPain]

- Fix the universe ... strengthen the veil so demonic posession becomes (nearly) impossible, invent some way to prevent/detect blood mage control for the muggles

- Final solution ... remove all mages from the world.

[Inprea]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]Inprea wrote...
It isn't the templars aren't doing their job because the mages want to stay. If that's the case I'd say the templars were doing mage templar relationships right at least. They did however fumble the ball when it comes to security. Templars should after all be educated on magic theory at least so they can recognize or better recognize when their charge is having an idiot moment.
[/quote]

You can't have a cake and eat it too.

No matter what rules you come from, there will have to be some restrictions. And you will ALWAYS have people who will complain about restrictions, no matter what they are. You will also have people who will complain about not enough security no matter what you do.

Templars are ironicly, the caretakers, supervisers, jailers and executioners of mages. And those roles are rather conflicting and practicly impossible to balance.

The very nature of mages, magic, the Circles and templars means that the problem will NEVER be solved to anyones satisfaction.

[/quote]

My statement said nothing about rules or restrictions. Seriously how does your comment have anything to do with what I said? I wasn't even talking about rules or restrictions.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]Inprea wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Now for the templar supporter. What do you do for the abused or raped mage? Do you expect her to trust the system to protect her after it already failed so horribly? How do you compensate her for the injustice done to her or for forcing her to fight for her life against a demon?

There's not much you can do, other than investigate and hope to punish the guilty one. I say hope, because it's kinda difficult to prove rape, even today. Let lone in the middle ages.
From the POW of hte wronged party, the system has failed if the guilty isn't punished. But from the POW of the judge he CANNOT condemn someone without evidence, and he DOES NOT know the truth.
No system is perfect and systems will fail occasionally. When it does, it becomes hard to trust that system again, but that still doesn't mean the system doesnt' work. [/quote]

So you want to punish all mages for the actions of others but you expectt he mages to understand that you can't just punish every templar when a few go bad? Seems like a double standard to me. Plus your ethics and mine are clearly very different. You talk about punishing the guilty party. For me punishing the guilty part is not justice. Justice also requires the person who was wrong to be compensated and made whole once again. [/quote]

Punish all mages? Who said that?
Are you reffering to the Annulment? Annulment isn't a punishment for a crime. It's a quarantene.

And how do you propose to "make the person whole again"? [/quote]

Being locked away for the rest of your life and deprived of many freedoms others value because of what you were born as is indeed a unjust punishment for something you had no control over. Having your child stolen from you because you happen to be a mage is a unjust punishment for just being a mage. Having to participate in a life or death battle because of being born a mage is an unjust punishment.

As for how to make a person whole. That's a tough one. I typically believe that monetary compensation is a nice beginning as well as medical treatment for the trauma. The mage should also be removed from the environment where the abuse was allowed to happen. The ultimate goal must always be to restore the mage to such a state that she feels safe and comfortable in her environment. At least as safe and comfortable before with no lingering suffering. 

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]
It was the system that stripped the mage of her freedom after all in return for protecton and it was the system that failed her.[/quote]

So if the police fail to catch a robber or a criminal, they failed you and are never to be trusted again? Not a single police officer? Ever?

Mind you, the difference between templars and mages is that being a templar is a duty/job. Being a mage is a state. [/quote]

There is a huge difference between me and a mage and a police officer and a templar. The police officer has no where near the authority that a templar does and the police officer isn't living in my home or even right next door to me. I on the other hand have far more freedom then a mage does which means I also have more responsibility for my own safety.
I can take self defense classes, get a license for a concealed weapon and learn what type of areas I should avoid. I can buy sturdy windows and doors while being sure to lock them. Mages on the other hand aren't allowed to learn to defend themselves from steel. As it was shown in the notes from the mage's tower whenever an enchanter tried to give such a self defense class they were blocked.
If there was a police officer standing on my door steps telling me where I can and can't go then heck yes I would hold them responsible for someone breaking into my home. I'd also expect them to repair the damages and pay for whatever was stolen.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]
Would you apply the, it's hard to prove rule, if the mage acted in self defense and flash fried the offending templar? Unless there were witnesses all you know is the mage said the templar tried to rape her and you have a crispy corpse.I hope you don't expect someone to hold back when defending themselves from assault.
[/quote]

In that case all you have if the mages word (again).
Let's say your friend tried to rape a girl and she stabbed him (or that's what she sez). Forensic evidence is inconclusive. What do you do? [/quote]

So you would be prepared to exonerate a templar on his word but you wouldn't exonerate a mage on the mage's word? That or at least not prosecute. If I use the standard you put forward with the templar and needing evidence of rape then if the only evidence is her word then there isn't enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she's lieing. She goes free.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
In  understand what you're saiyng, but I aks you to try to understand what I'm saying. It's easy to make judgment with hindsight. You make that example knowing the absolute truth. You already know if the templar is guilty or not. A hypothetical judge does not. [/quote]

Yet you were willing to let the templar go when the mage accused him of raping her.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
So you can let her go scott free - in which case you're doing an injustice towards the dead templar. His name is tarnished and his family shamed.
Or you can do an injustice to the mage. She WAS attacked. One cna argue that deadly force wasn't necessary, and indeed, today the courts WILL sentance you if you killed in defense. the punishment won't be heavy, but still.

I won't pretend I know the perfect answer, for there isn't one.
[/quote]

That depends on if you believed your life was in danger. All templars are armed with deadly weapons, swords, and trained in techniques to neutralize a mage. She has a brief period of time to defend herself. Effectively she had a shotgun and an intruder advanced on her with a knife so she fired. That is not excessive force especially if she wasn't trained in hand to hand combat. Which she wasn't trained in hand to hand combat because the templars won't allow it.

If the only thing you leave a mage with is a blow torch can you blame them if they use it?

[Inprea]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Inprea wrote...
Now you mention punishing. What about compensating? Even if you burned the templar alive and let the mages watch his suffering wouldn't heal the damage done to the wronged mage. What about looking into the other templars performance and finding out why they weren't there to protect the mage? After all that is their job as well.

So you want to burn a man alive (which is a horrible death I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy), and then punish everyone else for the crime of "not being there".

You do realise poeple can't be everywhere and know everything, right?

No. I was saying that punishing the criminal, no matter how horrible the punishment, does not fix the crime. Compensation must be paid to the victim by those responsible for the crime. As it was the templars that forced the mage into the circle system, which she didn't want to be part of, and didn't allow her to leave it they are in part responsible. Protecting the mage is also one of their responsibilies.

Besides I didn't say punish the other templars. I said look into their performance and find why they failed to protect the mage. They could have indeed had a valid reason. "I was at my post three floors down with 8 feet of stone between me and them." Works a lot better then. "I was buying illegally smuggled lyrium, possibly from a mage, ten rooms over when I should have been at my station."

[Rotward]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Rotward wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It makes the RACE fair.

That really is just racism. Sorry bud. 

......... A race as in horse race... Jesus ****ing christ...

Pfthahaha whoops, misread. Well then, I have no idea why we're talking about horse races.