WoT says that a phylactery can be used to cast spells at a distance on the person whose blood is in it. Definitely a tool of oppression, not just policing.
And did you saw mages being tortured or something by using phylacteries? nightstick also can be tool of oppression yet it is allowed. 
I think that good is subjective. Every person is good to someone and bad to someone else.
everything is 'subjective' however will you call a person who is a mass murderer a 'good' person just because he can take care of there child?
good and evil are designed around a communal understanding and langue however as of late communication has in fact gone down in the world, while you can call internet and texting "communication" its not face to face so you can't see or hear there voice and there facial features.
So when I use the term "Good" or "Evil" i am using it in reference to a westcoast-American where 'good' deeds are like helping people with there small problems (IE: Helping a person who loses there papers cause of the wind, or if someone knocks them down) Where also Evil is generally "murder-death-kill" sort of thing,
Just because 1 person thinks something is good, doesn't make them right to the world. Even some of the worest people in history where good father's to there kids, doesn't make him a good person to the rest of the world after killing thousands of people.
Also to add to this, If "Everything" is subjective, then it has 0 meaning, in which case, every word you type can be taken as such thus, why are we on a forum? However its people who give words meaning, including 'good' and 'bad' and if enough people belive the same thing then those words have more meaning, which begins the start of a community which adds to the 'meaning' of a set of words.
This is our strength as a race of people, being able to convey and support eachothers meaning in words and communication.
WoT says that a phylactery can be used to cast spells at a distance on the person whose blood is in it. Definitely a tool of oppression, not just policing.
Try "tool of SUPPRESSION" and you would be right on the money. The Templars would prefer to subdue their querry.
Try "tool of SUPPRESSION" and you would be right on the money. The Templars would prefer to subdue their querry.
Some would. Some would prefer to kill all the mages. Some would prefer to make all mages tranquil. And some would prefer to help the mages as much as they could, whether out of sympathy, pity, or even a sort of empathy if they have a family member who is a mage, or something.
Not all templars are the same, but so too is the fact that not all mages are the same.
I suppose the issue is that it seems like the higher ups, those in the highest echelons of power, and the ones who enforce the rules are not interested in making sure all the templars are following the rules and getting punished for breaking them, and we see this because we've seen more extremists in positions of power than moderates. Lambert, Meredith, Mettin, Kerras, Alrik and so on are all extreme templars, and they're Knight-Commanders, Knight-Lieutenant's and the Lord High Seeker, whereas Kerren, Thrask, Otto don't seem to hold any real rank. Ser Bryant isn't in charge of a circle and leads the templars in a very small village, and Gregoire appears to be closer to an exception rather than the rule, based on codex entries, the novels, and so on.
How exactly would those higher-ups ever find out that the Templars didn't follow the rules, and actually killed an apostate in cold blood, instead of capturing him? Either way, I think chances are that the Templars' orders are rather "bring back the Apostate dead or alive" rather than "bring him back alive". I don't think the Templars are ever actually breaking any rules or laws when they kill an apostate, and certainly not in the case of Maleficars. You could argue wether or not it is a necesary use of power, but that is an entirely different discussion.
How exactly would those higher-ups ever find out that the Templars didn't follow the rules, and actually killed an apostate in cold blood, instead of capturing him? Either way, I think chances are that the Templars' orders are rather "bring back the Apostate dead or alive" rather than "bring him back alive". I don't think the Templars are ever actually breaking any rules or laws when they kill an apostate, and certainly not in the case of Maleficars. You could argue wether or not it is a necesary use of power, but that is an entirely different discussion.
Follow-up investigation. That's what the Seekers are for, yet Lambert, as the head of the whole Seeker order, doesn't seem to care about making sure the templars are following the rules. Rather than be internal affairs for templars, he seems more interested in being a templar.
And yes, it is a different discussion, so let's save it for another thread or a PM conversation.
Follow-up investigation. That's what the Seekers are for, yet Lambert, as the head of the whole Seeker order, doesn't seem to care about making sure the templars are following the rules. Rather than be internal affairs for templars, he seems more interested in being a templar.
And yes, it is a different discussion, so let's save it for another thread or a PM conversation.
I think you overestimate the available forensic science in Thedas. The only things the Seekers would be able to do, was go confirm that the Apostate was actually dead (assuming that the Apostate corpse was left to rot), and that is basically it.
Follow-up investigation. That's what the Seekers are for, yet Lambert, as the head of the whole Seeker order, doesn't seem to care about making sure the templars are following the rules. Rather than be internal affairs for templars, he seems more interested in being a templar.
I'll just point out that there's not much a follow-up investigation could prove about killing an apostate in cold blood. All the Templars would have to do is produce a knife, preferably from the mage in question, and claim the apostate was attempting to go blood mage. Heck, if we allow forensics and fingerprinting, the Templars could just put a knife in the mage's cold, dead hands and get the prints like that. Lord knows soldiers do that in modern wars with civilian casualties.
About the only thing a Seeker investigation could hope for would be an eyewitness. Which depends on there being (a) a witness, (
willing to testify, and © something to turn it into something other than he-said/she-said. Without mind-control magic of your own, it'd be pretty hard to tell if they were lying, and I'm willing to bet that the Chantry and Seekers aren't quite willing to cross that little line as a matter of course.
@ Emperor and Dean.
They can also look into the apprentice's history. Question the tutor, their friends, and other templars who didn't go after the mage to get their impressions of the apprentice.
They can also look into the background of the templars who hunted the apprentice, look at their history of how often they are sent to chase run-aways, how often the apprentice is killed or brought back alive, and how often they killed a human vs an elvhen apprentice. Do they have a history of blaming blood magic on frequent deaths, or are they raw recruits who may or may not be prone to panicking?
There's a lot more to help establish the facts beyond simply taking their word.
Sure, some apprentices may turn to blood magic, summon a demon or whatever and the templars may have to put them down, but if it's discovered that the templar who hunted Aneirin (as an example) also hunted five or seven other apprentices, and every single one of them were killed for the same reason, you can establish a pattern, and also use data gathered by other templars who hunted runaways and see how often mages do turn abomination when they run.
Give the templars the authority to put down a mage who is putting them, themselves, and many others at risk through blood magic or by turning into an abomination, but why not make it so much a hassle for the templars when they are sent to retrieve an apprentice that if they are forced to kill the mage, they via paperwork, questions, being taken off duty or reassigned during such times, that it doesn't become an excuse for the more fervent templars.
@ Emperor and Dean.
They can also look into the apprentice's history. Question the tutor, their friends, and other templars who didn't go after the mage to get their impressions of the apprentice.
None of which would be an accurate indicator of the apostate in question in the context in question. Apostates on the run while being pursued by Templars are in an extremely high-stress situation- stressed people, especially when they perceive cornered or unable to flee, are frequently known to act in atypical ways that the accounts of people who knew them in less stressful contexts wouldn't know.
Backstory and prior history before an escape attempt does not constitute evidence or suspicion on a claim of death during an escape attempt.
They can also look into the background of the templars who hunted the apprentice, look at their history of how often they are sent to chase run-aways, how often the apprentice is killed or brought back alive, and how often they killed a human vs an elvhen apprentice. Do they have a history of blaming blood magic on frequent deaths, or are they raw recruits who may or may not be prone to panicking?
If they do have a history of reporting blood magic, is there reason to believe they are incorrect or unreasonable in their assumptions or conclusions? What is the 'acceptable' range of a blood magic accusations, and how do you decipher erroneuous/noise reports from valid ones after the fact? What are the persons, Templar squadmates and otherwise, who were involved with the mission? What time of day (or night) was the apostate encountered? Did the apostate have companions with them at the time? Had the apostate eaten in the last eight hours? How many kills are associated with the Templar in question- do they already have a reputation, or is the mage more comfortable with them by familiarity? At what range did the apostate notice the Templars? Is there a maleficar cabal or mage underground resistance center in the area that might affect the decision to resist?
I could go on. The context and reasons for why a mage might fight or not is far more complicated than having a hanging judge of a Templar come after them. Take it from someone who looked at these sort of statistics on a regular basis: pattern analysis has severe limitations, and can't be used as a magic ratio detector.
There's a lot more to help establish the facts beyond simply taking their word.
Sure- but none of what you've provided offers any proof that a Templar kills an apostate in cold blood. What you do offer is terribly vulnerable to being corrupted and rendered unusable by bias and personal interests. If I were a mage, I would have a vested interest in downplaying the possible guilt of any fellow mage, and if I were a Templar I would have pressures and reasons to give my fellow Templars the benefit of the doubt. This isn't just us-vs-them mentality: there's self-interest on the account of those being investigated as well.
Having worked on the analysis end of what you're trying to describe, I could propose about five different factors or ways to break your system's accuracy off the top of my head. Statistical analysis and trend-watching is a useful tool, but it is never, ever a substitute for proof.
Sure, some apprentices may turn to blood magic, summon a demon or whatever and the templars may have to put them down, but if it's discovered that the templar who hunted Aneirin (as an example) also hunted five or seven other apprentices, and every single one of them were killed for the same reason, you can establish a pattern, and also use data gathered by other templars who hunted runaways and see how often mages do turn abomination when they run.
Data patterns only become meaningful and reliable over much greater numbers of incidents in much narrower contexts. Because every mage, every templar, every region, and every chase context is different, there is no uniform standard that can be used. Especially when entirely undefinable but real factors, such as the veil or relative activity or presence, come into play.
In analysis of event patterns, context is everything. Trends that are remarkable in one context can be completely unexceptional in another. Statistical analysis is limited because it's really bad at filtering these various important contexts when used at a broad scale: it can't tell you that abominations are more common in Kirkwall because of a thin veil, that apostates are bolder and better established in Rivain because of the limited influence of the Chantry and complicit Templars, that Ferelden had a healthy working relationship between mages and templars and a relatively leniant capture policy so that even repeat offenders didn't fear being taken back.
And that's without valid but significant changes in policy and vigor of enforcement. In intel analysis, there tend to be two kinds of intel blank zones: areas where there is no intel because there is no enemy to collect on, and areas where there is no intel because the enemy is so strong they keep intel from being collected on. Old patterns can change very quickly in the later just by moving an enforcement presence in.
Consider a valid Meredith policy: she cracked down on internal corruption that allowed people to bribe their mages out of the Templars sight. Statistically, this was almost certainly going to increase the number of apostate incidents in Kirkwall. Two reasons for this: the first is that blind eyes suddenly find what they were previously ignorring, and the second is that Meredith was going to encourage and promote the sort of aggressive, driven people who ignored bribes and hunted down hiding apostates. (People, it should be noted, who would include Kerran.) Meredith's numbers were going to go up... but statistically would this be considered an increase past the norm, or returning to an appropirate level after an artificial low brought on by complacency and corruption?
Take it a bit further, and were the mage rebels in the streets a consequence of Meredith's actions, or did Meredith's actions bring out mages who were already hiding in the populace?
This is the sort of thing statistical analysis doesn't get very well- the why.
Give the templars the authority to put down a mage who is putting them, themselves, and many others at risk through blood magic or by turning into an abomination, but why not make it so much a hassle for the templars when they are sent to retrieve an apprentice that if they are forced to kill the mage, they via paperwork, questions, being taken off duty or reassigned during such times, that it doesn't become an excuse for the more fervent templars.
There's a pretty basic answer for this: because when agencies face more restrictions in doing their job than not doing it, they either stop doing the job or they start actively circumventing the restrictions.
If you think I'm joking, I'm not. It's been an off-and-on issue in Iraq and Afghanistan, trying to teach and convince security forces to be organized. Lazy police just didn't go out. Dirty Harry cops who would take the law into their own hands just wouldn't report killing people.
*shrug*
I'm just trying to look into various ways that the Circle system can be reformed that mages, templars, and their supporters may possibly agree to. What I see as an ideal system, another would fight tooth and nail to prevent because they feel security from mages is more important than letting a mage who had been fully trained in the circle free to live their lives outside a Circle.
People are saying mages are more powerful than regular people and would use that to their advantage. While that might happen, I do not think everyone would be powerless. I sure as hell knifed a lot of mages while playing and Templars exist to kill mages. So while they might be more powerful, it's not like they can't be killed.
People are saying mages are more powerful than regular people and would use that to their advantage. While that might happen, I do not think everyone would be powerless. I sure as hell knifed a lot of mages while playing and Templars exist to kill mages. So while they might be more powerful, it's not like they can't be killed.
And mages are vastly outnumbered.
Dean_the_Young, on 27 Apr 2014 - 07:49 AM, said:I'll just point out that there's not much a follow-up investigation could prove about killing an apostate in cold blood. All the Templars would have to do is produce a knife, preferably from the mage in question, and claim the apostate was attempting to go blood mage. Heck, if we allow forensics and fingerprinting, the Templars could just put a knife in the mage's cold, dead hands and get the prints like that. Lord knows soldiers do that in modern wars with civilian casualties.
About the only thing a Seeker investigation could hope for would be an eyewitness. Which depends on there being (a) a witness, (
This is a spoiler for anyone who hasn't read Dragon Age the Silent Grove so read at your own risk.
SPOILER
Spoiler
@ Emperor and Dean.
They can also look into the apprentice's history. Question the tutor, their friends, and other templars who didn't go after the mage to get their impressions of the apprentice.
They can also look into the background of the templars who hunted the apprentice, look at their history of how often they are sent to chase run-aways, how often the apprentice is killed or brought back alive, and how often they killed a human vs an elvhen apprentice. Do they have a history of blaming blood magic on frequent deaths, or are they raw recruits who may or may not be prone to panicking?
There's a lot more to help establish the facts beyond simply taking their word.
Sure, some apprentices may turn to blood magic, summon a demon or whatever and the templars may have to put them down, but if it's discovered that the templar who hunted Aneirin (as an example) also hunted five or seven other apprentices, and every single one of them were killed for the same reason, you can establish a pattern, and also use data gathered by other templars who hunted runaways and see how often mages do turn abomination when they run.
Give the templars the authority to put down a mage who is putting them, themselves, and many others at risk through blood magic or by turning into an abomination, but why not make it so much a hassle for the templars when they are sent to retrieve an apprentice that if they are forced to kill the mage, they via paperwork, questions, being taken off duty or reassigned during such times, that it doesn't become an excuse for the more fervent templars.
I like this suggestion especially the part about looking into the mage's history and how prone to violence they are. It isn't absolute proof but it would be more likely to be just then the current system which is effectively taking the templars word for the absolute truth. As long as it is better then the old system it seems worth using. That said your methods aren't aggressive enough for my liking. The best system of crime prevention in my mind is the one that makes it less likely to happen in the first place. That's why I like things such as bait cars.
In the spirit of a bait car have you considered something like this. A seeker would come to a tower without revealing what they truly are or perhaps not even revealing themselves except to the first enchanter. Naturally this would mean the seeker needs to be trained in stealth. Perhaps they should higher a few bards. A mage would be chosen and informed they are to "flee" the circle to a chosen location. The seeker would then follow the templars who are sent after the "escaped" mage and evaluated. If the templars did their job the seeker would remain hidden if not the seeker, most likely with backup, would confront the templars. Then the templars could be dealt with based on how badly they miss behaved.
Hopefully the templars would realize that they can't be certain which escape attempts are real and which ones are a sting. It'd be even better if they were never certain of when they were being watched. Of course I believe the punishment even for a small infraction should be severe. Due to the authority a templar has over a mage they must be held to strict standards.
Perhaps the Inquisition should just form a nation themselves. A little piece of Thedas for mages and templars by mages and templars. The Circle can still function as an education center, mages wouldn't be confined to a dinky tower, and templars get to confine the "threat" within the borders of their land. Mages can have their own families and anyone who tread with in their borders do so at their own peril. Maybe they should even keep the phylactery system if only to hold the mages accountable and provide checks in order to prevent corruption like maybe only allow the Grand Enchanter and some select knight commanders worthy of access to them. I'm sure people like Evangeline de Barasad would be worthy of such a privilege. And maybe a curfew for mages to make sure they don't run.
@ Emperor and Dean.
They can also look into the apprentice's history. Question the tutor, their friends, and other templars who didn't go after the mage to get their impressions of the apprentice.
They can also look into the background of the templars who hunted the apprentice, look at their history of how often they are sent to chase run-aways, how often the apprentice is killed or brought back alive, and how often they killed a human vs an elvhen apprentice. Do they have a history of blaming blood magic on frequent deaths, or are they raw recruits who may or may not be prone to panicking?
There's a lot more to help establish the facts beyond simply taking their word.
Sure, some apprentices may turn to blood magic, summon a demon or whatever and the templars may have to put them down, but if it's discovered that the templar who hunted Aneirin (as an example) also hunted five or seven other apprentices, and every single one of them were killed for the same reason, you can establish a pattern, and also use data gathered by other templars who hunted runaways and see how often mages do turn abomination when they run.
Give the templars the authority to put down a mage who is putting them, themselves, and many others at risk through blood magic or by turning into an abomination, but why not make it so much a hassle for the templars when they are sent to retrieve an apprentice that if they are forced to kill the mage, they via paperwork, questions, being taken off duty or reassigned during such times, that it doesn't become an excuse for the more fervent templars.
That makes sense. Warning: wall of text incoming.
I'm not going to talk about theories or possible situations, but something that happened in real life. I'm talking about the Spanish Inquisition and the witches of Zugarramurdi.
Zugarramurdi is a little Spanish village near France. In 1609, Pierre de Lancre, a judge (not an inquisitor) of Bordeaux conducted a massive witch-hunt in Labourd (France). Around 70 people were burnt and panic spread. In the end, Pierre de Lacre was dismissed from office by the Parlement of Bordeaux, but by that time the fear of witches had reached the north of Spain. Neighbours tarted telling rumours about each other and in the end the Inquisition tribunal in Logroño, which had jurisdiction over the place, sent inquisitors to investigate.
The problem was that those inquisitors were fanatically convinced that witchcraft was real and that it had to be purged from that place. Women, men and children were imprisoned and tortured just because of rumours or because local priests suggested so until they confessed. The witch-hunt spread through Navarre (no, not that Nevarra) and the Basque Country. In the end, in 1610 there was a famous "auto de fe" in Logroño where six supposed witches were burnt alive, five were burnt in likeness since they were already dead, and 18 were readmitted into the Church after confession and penance. A lax sentence that could have been worse, because voices against the process began to appear
And now the part where dragonflight288's suggestions applied in Real Life.
Suspicious of the Logroño tribunal, the Supreme Council of the Spanish Inquisition sent inquisitor Alonso de Salazar y Frias to investigate. Armed with an Edict of Grace that promised pardon to all who confessed and helped the investigation, Salazar interrogated neighbours and witnesses, investigated the witches' backstories, told willing confessions from confessions obtained by torture, and looked for real evidence instead of gossip. Almost 2,000 people retracted from their previous accusations and Salazar sent his report to his bosses.
The real question is: are we to believe that witchcraft occurred in a given situation simply because of what the witches claim? No: it is clear that the witches are not to be believed, and the judges should not pass sentence on anyone, unless the case can be proven with external and objective evidence sufficient to convince everyone who hears it.
In 1614 the Inquisition ruled that the trials in Logroño had to be dismished. Also, they applied almost all of Salazar's suggestions regarding with-trials: "establishing whether witches’ gatherings had taken place; the requirement that witches’ entire statements be recorded with all the contradictions and consideration of motives, and if the accused had been exposed to violence or coercion; insistence on proof from outside witnesses and acceptance of revocation of statements; the stipulation that no person should be sentenced solely on the basis of witches’ denunciations; and insistence that public discussion of witchcraft should be forbidden".
With that, the witch-hunt craze in Spain ended. Oh, yes, secular authorities tried to burn several witches after that, but every time the Inquisition stepped in to remind them that witchcraft was their jurisdiction, and after taking control of them suspended the cases.
When the Spanish Inquisition is teaching you how to do things right, you know you are failing hard.
That makes sense. Warning: wall of text incoming.
I'm not going to talk about theories or possible situations, but something that happened in real life. I'm talking about the Spanish Inquisition and the witches of Zugarramurdi.
Zugarramurdi is a little Spanish village near France. In 1609, Pierre de Lancre, a judge (not an inquisitor) of Bordeaux conducted a massive witch-hunt in Labourd (France). Around 70 people were burnt and panic spread. In the end, Pierre de Lacre was dismissed from office by the Parlement of Bordeaux, but by that time the fear of witches had reached the north of Spain. Neighbours tarted telling rumours about each other and in the end the Inquisition tribunal in Logroño, which had jurisdiction over the place, sent inquisitors to investigate.
The problem was that those inquisitors were fanatically convinced that witchcraft was real and that it had to be purged from that place. Women, men and children were imprisoned and tortured just because of rumours or because local priests suggested so until they confessed. The witch-hunt spread through Navarre (no, not that Nevarra) and the Basque Country. In the end, in 1610 there was a famous "auto de fe" in Logroño where six supposed witches were burnt alive, five were burnt in likeness since they were already dead, and 18 were readmitted into the Church after confession and penance. A lax sentence that could have been worse, because voices against the process began to appear
And now the part where dragonflight288's suggestions applied in Real Life.
Suspicious of the Logroño tribunal, the Supreme Council of the Spanish Inquisition sent inquisitor Alonso de Salazar y Frias to investigate. Armed with an Edict of Grace that promised pardon to all who confessed and helped the investigation, Salazar interrogated neighbours and witnesses, investigated the witches' backstories, told willing confessions from confessions obtained by torture, and looked for real evidence instead of gossip. Almost 2,000 people retracted from their previous accusations and Salazar sent his report to his bosses.
In 1614 the Inquisition ruled that the trials in Logroño had to be dismished. Also, they applied almost all of Salazar's suggestions regarding with-trials: "establishing whether witches’ gatherings had taken place; the requirement that witches’ entire statements be recorded with all the contradictions and consideration of motives, and if the accused had been exposed to violence or coercion; insistence on proof from outside witnesses and acceptance of revocation of statements; the stipulation that no person should be sentenced solely on the basis of witches’ denunciations; and insistence that public discussion of witchcraft should be forbidden".
With that, the witch-hunt craze in Spain ended. Oh, yes, secular authorities tried to burn several witches after that, but every time the Inquisition stepped in to remind them that witchcraft was their jurisdiction, and after taking control of them suspended the cases.
When the Spanish Inquisition is teaching you how to do things right, you know you are failing hard.
Thanks. I didn't know that.
I know a great deal about the Salem Witch Trials among the Quakers which took place roughly the same time, did a report on it. It's famous, especially by the play The Crucible, but that play doesn't cover what happened after.
The fear of witchcraft in Massachusets continued even after so many were hung by the neck as witches, all on the evidence of teenage girls who were caught dancing (against the rules of society and their very religion) and saying they were forced to do it, an hundreds had been imprisoned and interrogated by fanatic judges. But the colony's secular authorities decided to re-investigate the claims, even as more accusations arose. Before, up to 20 people were hung and 200 were put in prison on testimony alone, but this second time, they wouldn't accept anything less than evidence to support their claims. Like if you're saying you were possessed by such and such person, then that person obviously couldn't be with anyone else as they were with you, but if three others were able to verify his or her activities the same time the witness accused them, then they obviously weren't witches.
They looked into the background of the witnesses and the accused both, and found the 'witnesses' for witchcraft, the victims as it were, were the ones who were most likely to get in trouble, or had the most to gain by the removal of the accused.
Not exactly a Dragon Age setting style, but it helped inspire my idea.
*shrug*
I'm just trying to look into various ways that the Circle system can be reformed that mages, templars, and their supporters may possibly agree to. What I see as an ideal system, another would fight tooth and nail to prevent because they feel security from mages is more important than letting a mage who had been fully trained in the circle free to live their lives outside a Circle.
Oh, don't let me mislead you- I'm all for reforms. Tracking how often someone reports 'oops, another blood mage' is definitely a valid and worthy thing to track and look into. It's just not something that works well as stastical modeling. Same with doing interviews- an investigation is worthwhile. Talking and trying to build a profile of the apostate is worthwhile. Putting significant weight on the accounts of friends and peers with an interest in affecting your conclusion, not so much.
I'm a contrarian by nature- throw an idea at me, and I'll pick at it whether I think the underlying premise is reasonable or not. It's the same reason why I often quibble with the reasoning behind proposals I actually agree with on general output. Like families- I often argue against people who suggest there is no reason behind the Circle's family policy, but I actually agree that allowing families in the Circle would be a good thing on moral and practical grounds.
I could talk pages about how the Circle works, why, and how various changes do or do not challenge the premise of the system. Which is what I did here in this analysis.
Thanks. I didn't know that.
I know a great deal about the Salem Witch Trials among the Quakers which took place roughly the same time, did a report on it. It's famous, especially by the play The Crucible, but that play doesn't cover what happened after.
The fear of witchcraft in Massachusets continued even after so many were hung by the neck as witches, all on the evidence of teenage girls who were caught dancing (against the rules of society and their very religion) and saying they were forced to do it, an hundreds had been imprisoned and interrogated by fanatic judges. But the colony's secular authorities decided to re-investigate the claims, even as more accusations arose. Before, up to 20 people were hung and 200 were put in prison on testimony alone, but this second time, they wouldn't accept anything less than evidence to support their claims. Like if you're saying you were possessed by such and such person, then that person obviously couldn't be with anyone else as they were with you, but if three others were able to verify his or her activities the same time the witness accused them, then they obviously weren't witches.
They looked into the background of the witnesses and the accused both, and found the 'witnesses' for witchcraft, the victims as it were, were the ones who were most likely to get in trouble, or had the most to gain by the removal of the accused.
Not exactly a Dragon Age setting style, but it helped inspire my idea.
Reminds me of one person's idea of proposing a reform to the Circle system on the topic of Templar abuses: any Templar accused of corruption or abuse would be punished fatally and immediately, with no delays. This would obviously deter corruption. When it was brought up that immediate punishment on hear-say would itself be open to abuse and corruption, the proposer had the ingenious solution that any mage accussed of false accusation would face the same immediate and harsh punishment.
It was amusing, if a bit depressing, to watch from afar.
dragonflight288: They were Puritans. Not Quakers.
dragonflight288: They were Puritans. Not Quakers.
Hmmm, I thought the Puritans was William Bradford and the pilgrims on the Mayflower, and the Quakers were in Massachusetts. *shrug* Whether they were or weren't, it still stands.
Thanks though.
Retour en haut