1751 réponses à ce sujet

[Hellion Rex]

He rapes Alvin

....Alain.

 

I love how you're in such a righteous fury but got his name wrong.

[Ryzaki]

....Alain.

 

I love how you're in such a righteous fury but got his name wrong.

 

XD

 

hey I probably wouldn't have been able to spell Karras name right either if they didn't say it first

[AshenEndymion]

If playing the game didn't convince you why he's such a douchenozzle, nothing I say possibly could.

 
Probably not... Especially considering he doesn't ever do anything in the game to be considered such.  He brings back known(and admitted) blood mages back to the circle, rather than executing them on sight.  And yes, Ser Karras champions the idea of a Right of Annulment being sent to the Divine, but that's not being an *******, that's common sense.  Kirkwall's Circle was a blood mage haven, and needed to be annulled.
 
 
 

He rapes Alain
 
Edit: Thanks Elu

 
Dubious.  Alain hints such, but 1)Alain is a blood mage.  And 2) the idea is formed because the threat is "if you say anything, I'll make you tranquil" and yet, here we are 6 years after telling Hawke, Alain is not tranquil and still practicing blood magic.
 
If anything, Ser Karras is a shining example of an incompetent templar, but not a "worst templar"(in the sense that he's "evil").  But, he's still better than Thrask.  Who colludes with blood mages every chance he can...

[Ryzaki]

 
Dubious.  Alain hints such, but 1)Alain is a blood mage.  And 2) the idea is formed because the threat is "if you say anything, I'll make you tranquil" and yet, here we are 6 years after telling Hawke, Alain is not tranquil and still practicing blood magic.
 
If anything, Ser Karras is a shining example of an incompetent templar, but not a "worst templar"(in the sense that he's "evil").  But, he's still better than Thrask.  Who colludes with blood mages every chance he can...

?

 

Alain doesn't become a bloodmage til after the time skip (and honestly constant abuse is easily a justification for him turning to such hell in his shoes I'd done the same). Remember Alain is the first one to run to you asking for Templar protection after Decimus starts using bloodmagic. If you kill the templars he's the only one who opts to go with Thrask back to the circle. Why on earth would he lie about the templars "making us do things." if he didn't have to?

[Mornmagor]

To those that replied.

 

I was not attempting to argue about natural rights, so much as giving a very very brief thumbnail sketch of the intellectual tradition of the concept, as well as pointing out that the historical use of terminology and concepts in the discussion of "natural rights" is radically different than what most people today understand by either of those words. If I might be frank, your replies only illustrate my point. The idea of nature as held by, say, Aristotle, is a metaphysical concept embedded in a metaphysical system, and the arguments that you give have nothing to do with the arguments that were made historically. And the reason that I'm not making counter-arguments is (1) this thread isn't about that and (2) I would have to spend couple dozen pages laying down just the metaphysical idea of "nature" before we even approached ethics, and then political philosophy, and then the notion of rights. We would have to go way up the chain of analysis and explore the positions of at least half a dozen major philosophers before we would be on the same page and able to argue the point.

 

If you want to gain an introduction to a traditional formulation of natural law, I would suggest this essay/article (PDF, not mine) published in "Social Philosophy and Policy," as a starting point.

 

We are not talking about Aristotle's version of what rights are, or should be, or what nature is according to philosophers of old.

 

Again, rights that can be used today, or in the subject at hand, are rights that come from the etymology of the word ΔΙΚΑΙΩΜΑ, which by the way comes from Aristotle's time and before. It's something to be used for vindication.

 

So, the philosophy lesson, has no point. It's a totally different way to look at a problem.

 

One that will not give practical solutions, only theoritical approaches.

[sylvanaerie]

 
Probably not... Especially considering he doesn't ever do anything in the game to be considered such.  He brings back known(and admitted) blood mages back to the circle, rather than executing them on sight.  And yes, Ser Karras champions the idea of a Right of Annulment being sent to the Divine, but that's not being an *******, that's common sense.  Kirkwall's Circle was a blood mage haven, and needed to be annulled.
 
 
 

 
Dubious.  Alain hints such, but 1)Alain is a blood mage.  And 2) the idea is formed because the threat is "if you say anything, I'll make you tranquil" and yet, here we are 6 years after telling Hawke, Alain is not tranquil and still practicing blood magic.
 
If anything, Ser Karras is a shining example of an incompetent templar, but not a "worst templar"(in the sense that he's "evil").  But, he's still better than Thrask.  Who colludes with blood mages every chance he can...

 

And your argument fails to impress me at all, because I have my own impression of a man who fairly champs at the bit to murder people and refers to them as 'robes' with the same expression people use racial slurs.  *cue sarcasm* Karras is the 'very flower of his Order'.    Which is why he usually died in my runs.

[Ryzaki]

And your argument fails to impress me at all, because I have my own impression of a man who fairly champs at the bit to murder people and refers to them as 'robes' with the same expression people use racial slurs.  *cue sarcasm* Karras is the 'very flower of his Order'.    Which is why he usually died in my runs.

 

Also I heard he made a really smarmy sounding remark to a mage femHawke. Something like calling her the pretty one or something? I didn't play her though so I wouldn't know.

[Hellion Rex]

Also I heard he made a really smarmy sounding remark to a mage femHawke. Something like calling her the pretty one or something? I didn't play her though so I wouldn't know.

He actually says it to both, iirc. Cause someone showed me a screenshot once of him saying it to male Hawke.

[Ryzaki]

He actually says it to both, iirc. Cause someone showed me a screenshot once of him saying it to male Hawke.

 

...On all my promage playthroughs I missed it

 

But it'd make sense he says it to both considering... ugh what a creep. He's the exact kind of templar I wouldn't mind someone lighting on fire. Hell we can make smores over his corpse.

[sylvanaerie]

...On all my promage playthroughs I missed it

 

But it'd make sense he says it to both considering... ugh what a creep. He's the exact kind of templar I wouldn't mind someone lighting on fire. Hell we can make smores over his corpse.

 

 

He actually says it to both, iirc. Cause someone showed me a screenshot once of him saying it to male Hawke.

 

 

Also I heard he made a really smarmy sounding remark to a mage femHawke. Something like calling her the pretty one or something? I didn't play her though so I wouldn't know.

 

Yea, I missed all that because I killed him a lot.  A couple times I used Varric to bait and switch and got a good giggle when he was all 'YOU LIED to me!!' in regards to them having to track the mages down from where ever they got off to.

 

I imagined him traipsing through woods, swamps, dirty city streets and in general having a high old time trying to track them all down.  Kinda wished he'd fallen on his sword in the pursuit.

 

Kit Hawke was great with chaos...

[AshenEndymion]

?

 

Alain doesn't become a bloodmage til after the time skip (and honestly constant abuse is easily a justification for him turning to such hell in his shoes I'd done the same). Remember Alain is the first one to run to you asking for Templar protection after Decimus starts using bloodmagic. If you kill the templars he's the only one who opts to go with Thrask back to the circle. Why on earth would he lie about the templars "making us do things." if he didn't have to?

 

If you're a blood mage, you're trapped in a cave with Templars outside, and you don't want to die, you're best chance of survival is to sell out your friends, claim they're the ones using blood magic, and you're an innocent.  If Alain truly was an innocent, he wouldn't be using blood magic he learned from Decimus and Grace years later.

 

As for why Alain would lie.... He's a blood mage.  Why wouldn't he lie?

 

And your argument fails to impress me at all, because I have my own impression of a man who fairly champs at the bit to murder people and refers to them as 'robes' with the same expression people use racial slurs.  *cue sarcasm* Karras is the 'very flower of his Order'.    Which is why he usually died in my runs.

 

For a man chomping at the bit to kill mages, he doesn't ever kill any...  If you give him the blood mages from Starkhaven, he just brings them back to Kirkwall...  He awaits orders from the Divine for the Rite of Annulment, rather than murdering the mages in their sleep Alrik-style.  He's, essentially, a male-Meredith without the Lyrium Idol.  Wishing he could have the permission to enact the change required to cleanse the Circle of it's corruption, but waiting because he doesn't get it, and isn't "evil" enough to take action on his own.

[Ryzaki]

Yea, I missed all that because I killed him a lot.  A couple times I used Varric to bait and switch and got a good giggle when he was all 'YOU LIED to me!!' in regards to them having to track the mages down from where ever they got off to.

 

I imagined him traipsing through woods, swamps, dirty city streets and in general having a high old time trying to track them all down.  Kinda wished he'd fallen on his sword in the pursuit.

 

Kit Hawke was great with chaos...

 

I used to keep him alive alot :X I still apologize to Alain on my pro-templar playthroughs

 

SAME. Or something had eaten him.

 

 

 

If you're a blood mage, you're trapped in a cave with Templars outside, and you don't want to die, you're best chance of survival is to sell out your friends, claim they're the ones using blood magic, and you're an innocent.  If Alain truly was an innocent, he wouldn't be using blood magic he learned from Decimus and Grace years later.

 

As for why Alain would lie.... He's a blood mage.  Why wouldn't he lie?

 

*sigh* Alrighty then. Because good people never do terrible things after enduring abuse. And Alain is that cunning and deceitful. He even decides to be the fall guy instead of leaving with the rest of them. Yep.

[sylvanaerie]

I used to keep him alive alot :X I still apologize to Alain on my pro-templar playthroughs

 

SAME. Or something had eaten him.

 

 

 

 

*sigh* Alrighty then. Because good people never do terrible things after enduring abuse. And Alain is that cunning and deceitful. He even decides to be the fall guy instead of leaving with the rest of them. Yep.

 

As I pointed upthread, if nothing he saw in game allowed him to see what an utter douchenozzle Karras is, no argument on this board was going to convince him.

[Ryzaki]

As I pointed upthread, if nothing he saw in game allowed him to see what an utter douchenozzle Karras is, no argument on this board was going to convince him.

 

Yeah my fault. XD

 

I mean the dude just oozes douchemobile. How is it even in question.

[AshenEndymion]

*sigh* Alrighty then. Because good people never do terrible things after enduring abuse. And Alain is that cunning and deceitful. He even decides to be the fall guy instead of leaving with the rest of them. Yep.

 

Again, there was no abuse.  Just lies that Alain presents for sympathy, so he has allies outside the Circle to help him when he needs it...  And Alain decides to be the fall guy so his blood mage brethren can escape without Templars chasing them.  If no mage is found, they're still out there.  If one mage is found, it could be claimed the others are dead.

[Ryzaki]

Again, there was no abuse.  Just lies that Alain presents for sympathy, so he has allies outside the Circle to help him when he needs it...  And Alain decides to be the fall guy so his blood mage brethren can escape without Templars chasing them.  If no mage is found, they're still out there.  If one mage is found, it could be claimed the others are dead.

 

...

 

Riiiiight. We're not gonna convince each other of anything. Also you just presented Alain as the type to

you're best chance of survival is to sell out your friends, claim they're the ones using blood magic, and you're an innocent.

but now you're saying he decides to be the fall guy so they can escape? that doesn't contradict itself at all.

[sylvanaerie]

 

...

 

Riiiiight. We're not gonna convince each other of anything. Also you just presented Alain as the type to

 

but now you're saying he decides to be the fall guy so they can escape? that doesn't contradict itself at all.

 

 

Well, I tend to think he's also trolling, if he can't clarify his 'head canon'.  Or I have to ask if he even played the same DA2 anyone else did.  Karras was one of those dim-witted schoolyard bully types.  Loves to beat up someone who can't fight back, but lacks the courage to face anyone who could stand up for themselves.

[Ryzaki]

Well, I tend to think he's also trolling, if he can't clarify his 'head canon'.  Or I have to ask if he even played the same DA2 anyone else did.  Karras was one of those dim-witted schoolyard bully types.  Loves to beat up someone who can't fight back, but lacks the courage to face anyone who could stand up for themselves.

 

I mean I'm pro circle myself and I realize some templars are POS that are better off dumped in the the ocean. But then again so are some mages. *shrug*

 

But yeah he struck me as the coward type.

[Vilegrim]

You misunderstood... No nation in Thedas has committed the atrocities that the Tevinter Imperium did at the height of their power...  So you can't make the claim that the mundane nobles of Thedas can "cause more pain" than the Mage overlords.
 
Also, there is no record of anyone in real life controlling people using their mind, or throwing walls of fire from their hands at unruly subjects... So, Tevinter Magisters seem to have a step up on real life too...

Propoganda and greek fire say hi.

[Sylvius the Mad]

@Shadow Fox: We do not operate in the same paradigm as a bear.

Or we do, but that's a discussion worth having, rather than just declaring one side correct by fiat.

[Sylvius the Mad]

(2) I would have to spend couple dozen pages laying down just the metaphysical idea of "nature" before we even approached ethics...

Not to mention the host of epistemological problems that underlie metaphysics generally.

[Ieldra]

@Ieldra:  I was mostly being a sarcastic twit.

 

I truly don't see the Circles as the jail you do.  

 

If I heard of a school where they were oppressive to their students - I wouldn't declare all schools suddenly evil and that all students should just up and leave.  I'd seek reform.

 

And the Circles need major reforms - and some questions need to be answered: Like "why" the Harrowing isn't properly trained for. 

 

- Before Anders you were allowed to leave pretty regularly (confirmed by several posters)

- You can study the most violent spells imaginable if you want (with Blood magic being the only forbidden school) 

- Tranquility was clearly not as common as some believe - Anders escaped 7 times and nobody even thought to Tranquilize him (hindsight is a ******)

- Kirkwall was absolutely not the norm for Circles before the rebellion (look at the Circle in Val Royeaux.  Adrian and Rhys got away with murder - sometimes literally.) 

 

Again - I absolutely support reform - I am absolutely against this rebellion and how it was carried out and I believe it is only natural for Bioware to tell a story of how completely horrible this is going to turn out for the Circle mages.  Furthermore - I think the Circle mages played right into the hands of the Elder One's plot. 

 

I don't think any mage who sees the Circle as a refuge - a calm in the storm - a safe harbor with like minded individuals who can assist you, if necessary, in dealing with the circumstances that might make you a threat to all around you... is blind, stupid, a traitor or whatever else the violent radicals of the BSN pro-magers would say.  

 

You know - I specifically wondered where you're concerned Ieldra.  You say you're about the knowledge of mages.  You're aware that the Circles pretty much gave up ALL their magical knowledge and items to the Templars with this rebellion yes?  There is no way that - Ferelden for example - transported that library to Andoral's Reach being hounded by Templars and slogging through the wilderness.  

 

I'm actually interested in how you reconcile the vast loss of magical knowledge. 

I don't.

 

The thing you need to remember is that the Libertarian position wasn't to abolish the Circles, but to remove them from Chantry control. That is the goal two of my pro-mage mages (the Warden and the Inquisitor) would have supported, and would've tried to achieve without going to war if at all possible. They were never among the instigators of the rebellion. My human Inquisitor had a relatively pleasant life in her Circle and given the choice, all she would've done was to smuggle forbidden books and write secret treatises about the Chantry's falsification of history. it was not to be...and when the rebellion started *and* an extremist templar arose as a leader, going back to the status quo ante became impossible. 

 

Chantry control - mages to be ruled by an ideology predisposed to revile them - has always been my main problem with the existing system, rather than the existence of a system of mandatory training and a "mage police" as such. I'm not even against a ruie that says mages need to be accompanied by someone who can counter their magic should they become possessed - if that person could be a friend and trusted companion rather than a traveling jailor intrinsically hostile to the idea of magic. I think most mages would rather be dead than possessed, and wouldn't be averse to the idea under changed circumstances.

[Ieldra]

 

Oh dear...

 

Look, without getting too far into a discussion on metaphysics, there's about 2,500 years of philosophy you're going to have to catch up on, since you're just recapitulating Thrasymachus from Plato's Republic. But that view having regained currency is probably a result of William of Ockham in the 14th century, though a good chunk of the blame also goes to Descartes, Kant, Marx, Nietzsche, and others, filtered more recently through Derrida, Foucault, and the like. The sum of it is that most people don't have an understanding of what someone like Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Aquinas, Averroes, Avicenna, or Moses Maimonides meant by "nature," which was a metaphysical term inextricably linked with teleology, and not referring to physics and chemistry, or trees and fuzzy animals.  In that respect, Daoist, Confucian, Hindu, and Buddhist philosophers had/have similar concepts.

 

As for Jefferson, I find it an open question as to whether he was following the Lockean notion of "natural rights" as self-ownership, which is the line that Rothbard, Rawls, and Nozick follow, or whether he was using the older Aristotelian-Thomistic notion of natural rights, by way of Richard Hooker, by way of Locke (who was strongly influenced by Hooker). In either case, natural rights mean those rights possessed by a human being by virtue of being human, while civil or legal rights are those rights granted by law. English Common Law jurisdictions still make this distinction, in the difference between infractions and felonies--malum prohibitum vs. malum in se--or those things made crimes by statute versus acts which are crimes by nature of the act.

 

In any case, I just wanted to point out that a lot of dead white/brown/yellow guys have put a lot of thought into these questions, and their answers are no less interesting because they're dead.

 

Certainly. The problem is that all these ideas only exist in our minds. Basically, any answer to the question of whether any natural rights exist is as much a matter of faith as a belief in the existence of gods. Given certain axioms about what nature is, certain answers can be inferred, but those axioms are anything but self-evident. Not to me, anyway, socialized as I have been in the last third of the 20th century in the non-communist part of central Europe. 

 

The concept of natural rights, as I see it, exists because there is a pragmatic need for it as an ideological foundation for formulating universal concepts of ethics, something which all humans are genetically predisposed to care about in one way or the other influenced by culture or education. Nonetheless, strong arguments can be made for the position that they don't really exist - and actually, unless you're coming from a position of philosophical idealism (as some of the quoted philosophers did), you'll probably conclude they can't exist.

 

(If it isn't apparent by now, I do reject essentialist and teleological conceptions of the natural world. I find these....hmm....alien, and have no idea of how anyone can look at the world and come up with something like that.)

[wolfhowwl]

Templar Power!

[Akkos]

My Warden and my Human Inquisitor are both Aequitarian. Seeing as this is the only peaceful method to solve this war.