746 réponses à ce sujet

[Cobra's_back]

Nothing is sick, everything depends. I'm sure there's hundreds of thousands of people who would. 

 

Murder is sick and a crime.

[KainD]

Murder is sick and a crime.

 

Depends. 

[Cobra's_back]

Depends. 

 

Killing an innocent child is a crime where i live.

[renfrees]

Dean the Young I don't know anyone who would kill another person's child ever. I don't believe our society is that sick.

Oh, you would be surprised how many.

[KainD]

Killing an innocent child is a crime where i live.

 

Crime is something that goes against the law, laws are made according to morals, morals are subjective and vary from culture to culture, from person to person. What does it matter what means what where you live? 

[Dean_the_Young]

Dean the Young I don't know anyone who would kill another person's child ever.

 

Everyone is another person's child.

 

 

I don't believe our society is that sick.

 

You'd be surprised. You don't always feel you have a choice in the matter. In Afghanistan, for example, they will sometimes use children as human shields when conducting attacks, when the children themselves aren't attacks. Minor suicide bombers and child soldiers is totally a thing. When your life or the life of others is at stake, the child's life can easily lose out.

 

But, as I said before, there is (fortunately) very little reason to do it. Morality is free to (generally) triumph: threats from children are rare, and there is very little to gain to doing it. Unlike a general point of, say, killing in general, we fortunately have very little reason to challenge or oppose a taboo on child-killing.

 

 

 

 

Edit:

 

As a disclaimer that should hopefully be unnecessary: I am not advocating, condoning, or pardoning the killing of innocent children, or children at all. I am simply arguing that it can happen, it does happen, and will happen if people are put into positions in which it makes sense to do so. I am not saying this is good- only that it is.

[MisterJB]

What I'm saying is templars can't look after the mages properly. All I have to do to prove it is give  single example of where things went wrong. For instance Alric. Therefore, it is proven. 

It will be much harder to prove that templars can fulfill their duties properly. 

I said "familial ties will not always be a good influence". The keyword here is "always"; in order to prove that something does not ALWAYS happen, I only have to present a case in which that something did not happen. Because "always" means in 100% of the cases

 

Therefore, if you said that "templars can't ALWAYS look after the mages properly", then yes, Alrik alone would prove that. But that was not what you said; the fact you did not include the word "always" automatically means that you will have to resort to much more evidence in order to prove that what you said is true.

[Dean_the_Young]

That topic a while back I had. Where does that leave sibling mages again? In the same circle or seperate circles? 

 

I would expect separate circles, but it's probably up to the Circle in question. Given the rarity of mage siblings, though, it could easily be something that is unconventional but tolerated in its own right.

[KainD]

I said "familial ties will not always be a good influence". The keyword here is "always"; in order to prove that something does not ALWAYS happen, I only have to present a case in which that something did not happen. Because "always" means in 100% of the cases

 

Therefore, if you said that "templars can't ALWAYS look after the mages properly", then yes, Alrik alone would prove that. But that was not what you said; the fact you did not include the word "always" automatically means that you will have to resort to much more evidence in order to prove that what you said is true.

 

Alright. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Killing an innocent child is a crime where i live.

 

How about killing a non-innocent child? Or killing a child in self defense? Or under duress? Or on accident?

 

The answer is, of course, 'depends.' Some crimes stop being crimes, or at least won't be prosecuted or convicted, based on context.

 

There's also the point that you don't live in Thedas, for what that's worth. I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't still at the 'dash the skulls of babies against the stones' phase of sacking cities- ancient warfare was far more brutal than anything today.

[Dean_the_Young]

Dean,

 

"Compared to the relative ease of drafting an army for large-scale slaughter, believing that people would kill in the name of people they strongly care about is pretty simple."

 

Army attacking civilians is a war crime for a reason. We don't send our soldiers to kill civilians. 

 

War crimes are a relatively recent legal development. They have very little to do with the historic ability or willingness of the masses to conduct them if pressured.

 

Humanity hardly evolved to a point where people no longer are able or willing to commit war crimes. Society has evolved to a point at which moral legalists have achieved a broad (but hardly absolute) authority to punish war crimes.

 

Even within NATO, which is about as professional a military collective as anywhere in human history, you can still find war crimes and official coverups and coverups of abuses in the course of the conduct of the recent wars.

[Dean_the_Young]

I said "familial ties will not always be a good influence". The keyword here is "always"; in order to prove that something does not ALWAYS happen, I only have to present a case in which that something did not happen. Because "always" means in 100% of the cases

 

Therefore, if you said that "templars can't ALWAYS look after the mages properly", then yes, Alrik alone would prove that. But that was not what you said; the fact you did not include the word "always" automatically means that you will have to resort to much more evidence in order to prove that what you said is true.

 

It's also worth noting that MisterJB didn't actually oppose reforms for allowing families for mages. He was just noting that there was a basis for the Templars not doing it, as oppossed to viewing it as a senseless illogical Templar abuse without reason.

[KainD]

I would expect separate circles, but it's probably up to the Circle in question. Given the rarity of mage siblings, though, it could easily be something that is unconventional but tolerated in its own right.

 

I'm writting a little story. Have a roleplay go on a situation. ( Anyone here can have a go ) Imagine that you are in authority to make a choice about it:

 

A little mage is discovered. Templars come to take the little mage from their family. That mage has a sibling and the two of them are close. Parents don't care as they hate magic and don't want to do anything with their mage child anymore. When the templars arrive the siblings don't want to part and the second sibling gets emotional and blasts one of the templars with magic for the first time and hurts them. Basically templars suddenly have 2 mages on their hands even though they came to take one. Meanwhile the parents are very pissed and curse the maker for giving them cursed children as they hate magic and wanted normal children and basically disown both of their children. The two mage kids also see and hear that and realize that they are the only family they both have left. They are scared. 

Templars have a situation on their hands and if they are not the ones making the decision they have a story for that decision. 

 

What do you do with the two children? Same circle or different circles? 

[Divine Justinia V]

What do you do with the two children? Same circle or different circles? 

 

I imagine they'd separate them, but I'd want to keep them together.

[Dean_the_Young]

@Kain

 

I wouldn't know. Any context in which I would be in a position to make such a choice would be one in which I wouldn't be who I am.

 

At the very least, I see no point in separating them before returning to the Circle. Once, I imagine the precedent of the local circle would apply.

[EmissaryofLies]

I don't like children. Never was a fan, personally.

 

I wouldn't be adverse to looking the other way in the event of such an act transpiring, I would need to be compensated of course. 

[KainD]

I imagine they'd separate them.

 

And the logic behind that decision? 

 

I wouldn't know. Any context in which I would be in a position to make such a choice would be one in which I wouldn't be who I am.

 

You mean you don't support the circle system all together? 

 

I guess an answer from the pro templars would be the most objective. 

[Cobra's_back]

How about killing a non-innocent child? Or killing a child in self defense? Or under duress? Or on accident?

 

The answer is, of course, 'depends.' Some crimes stop being crimes, or at least won't be prosecuted or convicted, based on context.

 

There's also the point that you don't live in Thedas, for what that's worth. I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't still at the 'dash the skulls of babies against the stones' phase of sacking cities- ancient warfare was far more brutal than anything today.

 

Dean,

 

Dragon Age doesn't remind me of anytime in history because it is fantasy. I have to catch companion reactions to gauge this world they live in. I know Wynne, Alistair would never approve. I also know Fenris and Aveline are happy when i kill the serial killer who murders the pretty elves.

 

I believe the cost for someone killing an innocent child should be death. The example that was given me was a blood mage wanting the children's blood to save their child. 

 

How about killing a non-innocent child? Or killing a child in self defense?  I don't see this as murder. Or under duress? We are responsible for our actions. I'm sure someone in dragon age might want to take revenge for the loss of their child.

[Divine Justinia V]

And the logic behind that decision?

 

I feel like they'd fear conspiracy or just wouldn't trust them together. They're against most fraternization to begin with, usually.

[EmissaryofLies]

No child left behind!

[KainD]

I feel like they'd fear conspiracy or just wouldn't trust them together. They're against most fraternization to begin with, usually.

 

Makes sense.

 

But of course it's a grey choice since in separating them they also risk causing long lasting hatred for the templar order and circle system in both of the siblings that might eventually become unstable because of this inner hatred. 

Perhaps the two could live together being happy and law-abiding in the circle instead. Just as a counter-point.

[Divine Justinia V]

Makes sense.

 

But of course it's a grey choice since in separating them they also risk causing long lasting hatred for the templar order and circle system in both of the siblings that might eventually become unstable because of this inner hatred. 

Perhaps the two could live together being happy and law-abiding in the circle instead. Just as a counter-point.

 

That's likely as well. I guess it'd all depend on the Knight-Commander, ultimately.

[Cobra's_back]

War crimes are a relatively recent legal development. They have very little to do with the historic ability or willingness of the masses to conduct them if pressured.

 

Humanity hardly evolved to a point where people no longer are able or willing to commit war crimes. Society has evolved to a point at which moral legalists have achieved a broad (but hardly absolute) authority to punish war crimes.

 

Even within NATO, which is about as professional a military collective as anywhere in human history, you can still find war crimes and official coverups and coverups of abuses in the course of the conduct of the recent wars.

 

Is this because societies have different norms? 

 

Some of the characters in DA seem modern in their behavior? If this was really the dark ages how come they believe in romance. Wasn't romance more a modern thing?

[Dean_the_Young]

Dean,

 

Dragon Age doesn't remind me of anytime in history because it is fantasy. I have to catch companion reactions to gauge this world they live in. I know Wynne, Alistair would never approve. I also know Fenris and Aveline are happy when i kill the serial killer who murders the pretty elves.

 

 

And?

 

Besides that the companions are broadly good people who prefer the alternatives (which generally exist), they most certainly will stand by and accept the killing of a child as a necessity in a context that calls for it- such as abominations.

 

 

I believe the cost for someone killing an innocent child should be death. The example that was given me was a blood mage wanting the children's blood to save their child. 

 

 

I've known people who would gladly trade their lives, and the lives of others, if it meant the life of their child. They loved them that much.

 

Unless you intend to kill the blood mages now-saved child as well, threatening the blood mage with a redundant execution (since blood magic is already a capital offense) doesn't really moot the point of a loving and desperate parent putting their child before the lives of other people and their children.

 

 

How about killing a non-innocent child? Or killing a child in self defense?  I don't see this as murder. Or under duress? We are responsible for our actions. I'm sure someone in dragon age might want to take revenge for the loss of their child.

 

 

 

So we are in agreement that people will kill children?

 

Not that they should, or that it would be a crime to do so- simply that they will, if conditions are right?

[KainD]

Is this because societies have different norms? 

 

Some of the characters in DA seem modern in their behavior? If this was really the dark ages how come they believe in romance. Wasn't romance more a modern thing?

 

It's a fantasy setting, it doesn't always make sense.