746 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

No child left behind!

 

I was about to make a macabre joke, but I suspect some people wouldn't recognize it as such.

[KainD]

I was about to make a macabre joke, but I suspect some people wouldn't recognize it as such.

 

You should post for those that will. 

[Divine Justinia V]

You should post for those that will. 

 

Agreed

[Dean_the_Young]

Is this because societies have different norms?

 

What, conducting war crimes? People still conduct war crimes now. It's rare, yes in part to different norms, but it still exists. Break down the norms with abnormal contexts and circumstances, and it's relatively simple.

 

Just in general, if you put people under stress, remove the prospect or fear of oversight, and give them even a semblance of an acceptable target or rational, and people will do terrible things to each other on their own initiative. Not everyone, of course, but enough that it stops being surprising.

 

 

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?

 

Not really. Cultural conceptions of what constitutes romance have regularly (and gradually) changed, but mixes of passion and emotional bonds have been a long time. We get them as far back as our oldest myths and legends.

 

Characters (companions) in DA are generally broadly sympathetic and identifiable, but calling them modern is a loose label that only works on a superficial level. They are broadly sympathetic and deliberatly tailored to be identifiable and appealing to our general modern views, but pretty much every companion of the DA series would be a poor fit in our own society. You know, what with the habitual bloody murders, radical politics and racial identity focuses, and no aligning ideological underpinnings.

 

They're nice enough, but they'd be a fish out of temporal water.

[Dean_the_Young]

You should post for those that will. 

 

I know too many dead baby jokes, which is to say I know dead baby jokes in the first place.

 

It's not my fault, I swear. I had bad influences growing up.

[Cobra's_back]

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'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.

 

 

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?

 

My original post was this:

 

"Most people will not kill someone's child because their child is sick and dying."

 

This child would be an innocent, and it would be a crime.

 

The original case MisterJB stated never included an abomination or self defense.

 

Dragon age didn't tell me that their society often used children as human shields.

 

When we fought the darkspawn i didn't see many children warriors. To me it looks as if this society tries to protect the children.

 

There were men and women fighter but no children warriors. Norms are dictated by society. I haven't read anything in dragon age that told me human's didn't care for their young.

[KainD]

I know too many dead baby jokes, which is to say I know dead baby jokes in the first place.

 

It's not my fault, I swear. I had bad influences growing up.

 

I've grown up in a radical christian family. I love dark humor.

[Divine Justinia V]

I've grown up in a radical christian family. I love dark humor.

 

I would have never guessed lol

[EmissaryofLies]

What do you mean by that statement?

[Cobra's_back]

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.

 

This is what he wrote to my post:

 

ghostbusters101, on 22 Apr 2014 - 6:28 PM, said:

When Wynne had a child they took her baby away. That is not okay.

 

 

MisterJB wrote:

 

 

It is not pleasant but it is necessary.

 

1-If mages are allowed to freely reproduce, they will soon overpopulate the Circle. This increase in population will lead to a greater need for space, a need to increase the number of Templars which will also increase the lyrium demand which will affect human economy; plus, this new mage youths will crave greater recognition and representation within human politics which will lead to conflict.

 

2-Families are stressfull. Stress leads to demonic possession.

 

3-What if Rhys had been a normal person and Wynne was still allowed to keep him?

He would have spent his childhood years isolated from his peers for no reason at all and he would have no option for the future other than becoming a Templar because Wynne only knows one trade, magic, and she couldn't teach him.

 

 

He deems it necessary. That is the point of disagreement.

[dragonflight288]

'Tis not. I was not claiming all mages will act like Quentin did. I mentioned him in order to show that familial ties will not always be a good influence on mages hence why there is a reason the Templars keep it from them.

 

And so...what? No mages should be allowed to have a family ever because one man who happened to be a mage was sick in the head? 

[Dean_the_Young]

My original post was this:

 

"Most people will not kill someone's child because their child is sick and dying."

 

This child would be an innocent, and it would be a crime.

 

The original case MisterJB stated never included an abomination or self defense.

 

Dragon age didn't tell me that their society often used children as human shields.

 

When we fought the darkspawn i didn't see many children warriors. To me it looks as if this society tries to protect the children.

 

There were men and women fighter but no children warriors. Norms are dictated by society. I haven't read anything in dragon age that told me human's didn't care for their young.

 

 

 

MistJB did, however, state that killing the child was in order to save their own. That's not 'because their child is sick and dying'- that's 'to save their own child.' People don't kill other people because someone else is sick and dying- that's true, but irrelevant. People kill other people because it benefits them somehow.

 

This rarely applies to children in the real world, but when it does apply it does happen. The point of child soldiers wasn't that the DA setting uses them (though it probably does off-screen: it's implied, at least), the point was a demonstration of context in which even modern societies will kill children. In the DA setting, blood magic allows it to apply much more easily. You have ignored this by tying it to the real world where blood magic from a child has no equivalent.

 

You made an argument that the DA setting wouldn't kill children because the real world doesn't kill children and the people in the DA setting don't like to kill children. The first was wrong- children can and have been killed in the DA setting. The second is wrong: regular people will kill children under circumstances in which it makes sense to. The third is irrelevant: caring for children doesn't mean you can't be put in a position to kill a child, any more than any general preference is somehow an absolute.

 

 

This child would be an innocent, and it would be a crime.

People who would be criminals depending on context, by their nature, are not deterred by the fact that something is a crime or that their victim might be innocent.

 

It's kind of why crime exists despite all the laws making it illegal.

[Dean_the_Young]

Edit- delete this. JB can argue own posts. I'm off.

[Cobra's_back]

Edit- delete this. JB can argue own posts. I'm off.

 

 

 

Dean comment: "You made an argument that the DA setting wouldn't kill children because the real world doesn't kill children and the people in the DA setting don't like to kill children. The first was wrong- children can and have been killed in the DA setting. The second is wrong: regular people will kill children under circumstances in which it makes sense to. The third is irrelevant: caring for children doesn't mean you can't be put in a position to kill a child, any more than any general preference is somehow an absolute."

 

Who killing kids? What % of children are being killed by regular people? There are murderers yes, but they don't make up the general population.

 

Edit: This is the Misterjb case where a blood mage kills 5 human children. He made the case up as an example.

 

Don't need to find an example Inprea gave me some. I now have the pop. at risk.

[Inprea]

Your comment: "You made an argument that the DA setting wouldn't kill children because the real world doesn't kill children and the people in the DA setting don't like to kill children. The first was wrong- children can and have been killed in the DA setting. The second is wrong: regular people will kill children under circumstances in which it makes sense to. The third is irrelevant: caring for children doesn't mean you can't be put in a position to kill a child, any more than any general preference is somehow an absolute."

 

Who killing kids? I didn't see it. What % of children are being killed? There is nothing in the game that is telling me this society is okay with killing innocent kids. I'm not seeing many children being killed. There are murderers yes, but they don't make up the general population.

Well if you consider attempts at killing there is Anneran or however you spell it. The elf child that Wynne was given to tutor. The templars tracked him down and ran him through. Then there is Conner at Red Cliff. We shouldn't forget the burning of the orphanage.

[EmissaryofLies]

I wonder how many Grelod the Kinds have found their way into DA's orphanages. 

[Cobra's_back]

Well if you consider attempts at killing there is Anneran or however you spell it. The elf child that Wynne was given to tutor. The templars tracked him down and ran him through. Then there is Conner at Red Cliff. We shouldn't forget the burning of the orphanage.

 

Thank you. We were talking about humans and how they would treat human children. 

 

"Anneran or however you spell it. The elf child that Wynne was given to tutor." Templars trying to kill a run away mage. 

 

The orphanage where elves live. We know humans do not respect the lives of elves.

 

Edit: love your picture.

 

Here is his original post:

 

MisterJB: Let's say that an Apostate is hiding in a town with his son. This man is an exemplary citizen who has never used his magic for his own benefit. However, one day, his son comes down with a diseases that can only be cured through a blood magic ritual requiring the sacrifice of five other children. What will this man do? Will he abide by the law or sacrifice everything to save his precious son?

 

I assume these were human children and the reason why MisterJB wanted templars watching mages carefully and mages should not have  children. 

[Cobra's_back]

I wonder how many Grelod the Kinds have found their way into DA's orphanages. 

 

She dies by assassination. 

[Inprea]

Thank you. We were talking about humans and how they would treat human children. 

 

"Anneran or however you spell it. The elf child that Wynne was given to tutor." Templars trying to kill a run away mage. 

 

The orphanage where elves live. We know humans do not respect the lives of elves.

 

Edit: love your picture.

How were the children in dark town treated? As I recall the templars didn't mind cutting a few of them off from their primary support and despite, I believe her name was Avalena, the request of their former care giver they didn't do anything to help them. If you have Hawke work as a smuggler you also encounter a young lad working for the smugglers to feed his sisters.

 

Thanks. You've a nice keyboard cat.

[Cobra's_back]

How were the children in dark town treated? As I recall the templars didn't mind cutting a few of them off from their primary support and despite, I believe her name was Avalena, the request of their former care giver they didn't do anything to help them. If you have Hawke work as a smuggler you also encounter a young lad working for the smugglers to feed his sisters.

 

Thanks. You've a nice keyboard cat.

 

I hear what you are saying. These are the poor and they are not treated well. I guess in MisterJB example this blood mage could find these children and kill them. No one would find out about it. 

 

The answer to MisterJB is that yes this mage may do this but he wouldn't be the only one trying to hurt these children. 

 

 

Thank you for letting me see this more clearly.

[Cobra's_back]

It is evidence that familial ties can be a terrible influence on mages. The same can be said of Connor who allowed himself to be possessed so as to save his father.

 

Let's say that an Apostate is hiding in a town with his son. This man is an exemplary citizen who has never used his magic for his own benefit. However, one day, his son comes down with a diseases that can only be cured through a blood magic ritual requiring the sacrifice of five other children.

What will this man do? Will he abide by the law or sacrifice everything to save his precious son?

 

Thanks to the data given by other players. Children have been the victims of adults wanting to commit crimes. Not all of them mages. Templars and other humans have killed children but we don't take their rights to have children away.

 

Thanks for the inputs Dean, Inprea and Emissary of Lies

[Captain_Navarro]

I've always been waaay more pro-mage than templar, but I can definitely see the point here. Mages are no less likely to abuse power than any other group. It'll be interesting to see which way this goes.

[dragonflight288]

I've always been waaay more pro-mage than templar, but I can definitely see the point here. Mages are no less likely to abuse power than any other group. It'll be interesting to see which way this goes.

 

It usually goes around in a circle. MisterJB knows the lore just as well as anyone else here, but seems to think material comforts, clothing, food and education should be enough to appease mages because the majority of people outside the Circle's don't have all these things in the abundance mages tend to have. Then I usually bring up the fact that while mages have these, they lack the things that all the other groups outside have, and these are the important things that can build up self-esteem and emotional stability, the two things mages need to have to have the greatest chance of resisting demonic temptations. And these things are love, a sense of belonging, the feeling of safety within their own home, and so on. 

 

Then MisterJB says that mages can get these from other mages then I point out that templars tend to actively punish mages for seeking these things out, and depending on the Knight-Commander, may forbid having any relationships with others completely. Then he brings up Quentin as an example of why mages shouldn't have the things I mention, and say that if you give them what they want, they inevitably demand more, then I usually point out that that kind of argument doesn't work because he's comparing all mages to the one of the worst, and most mages aren't like that, then he usually gives some line that many mages will be like that because they can't handle emotions, and then depending on whether or not I'm frustrated at this point, I either go on that if he can paint all mages with the Quentin brush he thereby gives me permission to paint all templars with the Alrik brush, or if I'm more level headed, point out that mages are denied essential emotional support during the critical development years because the templars dehumanize them as a whole and don't see them as men, women or children, but merely as mages and if they have problems connecting with people emotionally and tend to be sociopathic, it's usually because they have been denied the time and interaction with others when emotional development is critical to begin to truly care about others, and it comes down to the adage "If you treat people as monsters, it shouldn't surprise you if that's what they become."

 

Usually around this time, TKS or Lotion pop in and make some large generalization about mages, call people naive or stupid (depending on whether they're frustrated or not) if anyone happens to disagree with them, then others like Eluvianix, Divine Justinia V, Emissary of Lies, Lobsel, or Xil will come in and provide codexes that prove their assertions wrong, which the former two tend to dismiss or say the one who introduced it is misinterpreting it. Then some strong-willed pro-mage is super frustrated and makes broad generalizations about templars.

 

If both groups get really frustrated at the same time, it turns into personal attacks or inappropriate real-life metaphors and allegories are brought in, the thread gets locked, and then we rinse and repeat in another thread. 

 

We've danced this dance for years, MisterJB and I, and personally I think we both may be kind of masochistic regarding each other since we can never stay away from debating each other despite the fact that we've done it so many times we know to near perfect detail what the other person is going to argue, when they're going to argue it, and we never wise up and simply discuss something else.

 

Must be our way of coping until Inquisition comes out. 

[TheKomandorShepard]

It usually goes around in a circle. MisterJB knows the lore just as well as anyone else here, but seems to think material comforts, clothing, food and education should be enough to appease mages because the majority of people outside the Circle's don't have all these things in the abundance mages tend to have. Then I usually bring up the fact that while mages have these, they lack the things that all the other groups outside have, and these are the important things that can build up self-esteem and emotional stability, the two things mages need to have to have the greatest chance of resisting demonic temptations. And these things are love, a sense of belonging, the feeling of safety within their own home, and so on. 

 

Then MisterJB says that mages can get these from other mages then I point out that templars tend to actively punish mages for seeking these things out, and depending on the Knight-Commander, may forbid having any relationships with others completely. Then he brings up Quentin as an example of why mages shouldn't have the things I mention, and say that if you give them what they want, they inevitably demand more, then I usually point out that that kind of argument doesn't work because he's comparing all mages to the one of the worst, and most mages aren't like that, then he usually gives some line that many mages will be like that because they can't handle emotions, and then depending on whether or not I'm frustrated at this point, I either go on that if he can paint all mages with the Quentin brush he thereby gives me permission to paint all templars with the Alrik brush, or if I'm more level headed, point out that mages are denied essential emotional support during the critical development years because the templars dehumanize them as a whole and don't see them as men, women or children, but merely as mages and if they have problems connecting with people emotionally and tend to be sociopathic, it's usually because they have been denied the time and interaction with others when emotional development is critical to begin to truly care about others, and it comes down to the adage "If you treat people as monsters, it shouldn't surprise you if that's what they become."

 

Usually around this time, TKS or Lotion pop in and make some large generalization about mages, call people naive or stupid (depending on whether they're frustrated or not) if anyone happens to disagree with them, then others like Eluvianix, Divine Justinia V, Emissary of Lies, Lobsel, or Xil will come in and provide codexes that prove their assertions wrong, which the former two tend to dismiss or say the one who introduced it is misinterpreting it. Then some strong-willed pro-mage is super frustrated and makes broad generalizations about templars.

 

If both groups get really frustrated at the same time, it turns into personal attacks or inappropriate real-life metaphors and allegories are brought in, the thread gets locked, and then we rinse and repeat in another thread. 

 

We've danced this dance for years, MisterJB and I, and personally I think we both may be kind of masochistic regarding each other since we can never stay away from debating each other despite the fact that we've done it so many times we know to near perfect detail what the other person is going to argue, when they're going to argue it, and we never wise up and simply discuss something else.

 

Must be our way of coping until Inquisition comes out. 

 

typical pro-mages talking how mages are abused when it isn't in case there is no abuse in circle well there is but it is same as everywhere... What are things they lack?

Family? peoples don't need one and mages have yet one

freedoom? masses never were free and never will be free.

As i said they have better life than 90 % of peoples and they do nothing to deserve that in fact they do everything they can to not deserve that...

To be honest chantry would just kill them and that would solve problems that world or at least on terrtories of chantry have with magic and mages.

Restrictions in circle seems be far from abusive and effective they would also just throw mages to the cells and throw out keys but they gave them luxury towers.

 

generalization? nah how many problems we have thanks to mages a those are most dangerous mess.It is hard to not call someone naive if someone suggests ridiculous solutions that work on mages good heart (haha good luck with that).I can pretty summarize mages freedom with vas words  . Yeah you mean 1 codex from origins? sorry but i prefer truth and i belive what i saw and i saw a lot of abomnations when codex try tell me something different sorry but even if DG will come here and tell me that morrigan was nice girl i won't take that seriously because i saw that she isn't same with mages...

[Cobra's_back]

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? 

 

True. In the DA world killing a innocent human child is a crime. However, there is a risk population that guards don't care about.