57019 réponses à ce sujet

[Sinaxi]

eyeofhorus87 wrote...

Well, I'm completely against the death penalty so if I had a choice I wouldn't kill Quentin. However, he attacks you and there is nothing wrong with killing someone in self defence so long as it is reasonable force. Killing Quentin if he hadn't attacked you would be revenge, not justice.

The problem with Kelder is that the justice system in Kirkwall is corrupt, so although killing him is the best option it is not the most JUST thing to do. Justice is not to act as judge, jury and executioner. Kirkwall is mostly without justice, and that is why killing him is the only option in that situation. To me justice isn't easy, justice isn't always the popular decision, justice isn't acting on how revolted you feel about a crime (but to someone else, justice could be about that, which is why I won't accept that a justice spirit is automatically 'good').

I accept Kirkwall isn't the place where justice can be given out properly, and it is a place where you often need to take the law into your own hands. I was to pick a character in DA who represents justice the most, and tries to change things for the good it wouldn't be Justice - it would be Aveline. Shame that Anders spends half his time being suspicious of her.

Meh, I do completely see your point and can agree to an extent. I think there is a very fine line between the idea of Justice and then the action of revenge. It has a lot to do with perspective, and no two people's perspective will always be the same. People say revenge is at its core selfish, which is why there is that entire issue between Justice/Vengeance. Phrases like you were saying "eye for an eye" and "two wrongs don't make a right" come to mind.

Honestly, the best example I can come up with of someone who is TRULY always in it for "Justice" would be Superman. No matter what has happened to him or the people he loves, he always tries to do the right thing which is why branding him a vigilante (since he always cooperates with law enforcement) is not as accurate as it would be, for say, Batman or especially the Punisher.

One thing that is interesting to consider though, is that even in the Bible God has killed people. Destroyed cities. He killed A LOT of people in general. What is this then? Justice? Retribution for not being righteous? I frequently hear Christian's saying that killing is wrong, but yet there are many examples of it in the Bible. How is this "Justice"? It doesn't seem to fit in with your idea of it as far as I can tell.

Justice isn't always the popular decision, nor is Vengeance. These two are very very close though. I mean, I'm certaintly not trying to turn this into a whole Bible discussion because that will get way out of hand but whether or not you believe the stories doesn't detract from the fact that he literally cleansed the entire Earth save for Noah's family in the great flood. Divine Retribution. Many people look upon this as what Justice is, but others can say it is simply Vengeance.

Justice to me is not good or evil, because there are many different theories on what actually constitutes "justice". Perspective goes a long way. Anders/Justice's perspective is that these things must be atoned for, and they will be atoned for no matter what must happen to achieve this. The ends justify the means for them.

As for me, I believe Quentin deserved to die. It doesn't matter to me whether it is Justice or Vengeance, he was deserving. This is why mercy is such a powerful thing, because it is much harder to simply take a step back and spare someone who has wronged you. But then again, that can also be viewed differently since not sparing Karl is also viewed as mercy because you are showing him a kindness by agreeing to his wishes to not live his life as a complete shell of a person. And, Quentin is a complete nutjob anyways so I don't see rehabiliation in his future. So is it a mercy to kill him? He won't have to spend the rest of his life going insane about his dead wife and making himself into more of a monster.

Ah, questions questions. Just shows how things like this can't really be answered because these things are not definitive virtues or ideals. They mean something different to every person, which is why they are very interesting concepts. Just as sparing Anders can be considered a "poetic justice" because he must live his life knowing what he did to spark this war. Or how perhaps killing him is a mercy -which I really only would ever do on the rival path because he is so completely self-loathing.

I seriously don't even understand HOW people rival him. It makes him completely hate himself, and the irony is that by convincing him he has no control over Justice he actually does begin to completely lose himself. Blackouts in his memory, depression, etc. The icing on that cake is when people make him side with the Templars after rivaling him. You seriously have to be the biggest jackass to do that, and I'm okay if I offend some people by saying that lol. You take every single admirable quality or any hope he might have had away from the guy and then beat him into even more submission. Prettyyyy crappy.

Yeah this post sort of got away from me...anyyywayss

Modifié par Tidra, 01 août 2011 - 08:12 .

[berelinde]

Evilnor wrote...
Except she's not following justice so much as she's following the law while bending the rules a little bit.  Most of the time, she's advocating the system.  Case in point, those two elves the Qunari protect.  She doesn't advocate taking the law into your own hands in that case.  Maybe it's only ok when she or Hawke do it, but not when Joe Schmoe she doesn't know does it?  Maybe the office has changed her a little bit since the days she advocated killing a serial killer?  Or maybe her "justice" in that case would have been for the rapist guard killed and not the family that was hurt by him.  If that last one is the case, it doesn't really come across in the scene.

This is certainly a valid way to look at it, but my opinion on that situation was a bit different. Not that mine is the right one, necessarily. It's just how I see it.

Aveline takes her office very seriously. That's how she got there in the first place. When she is acting in an official capacity, e.g. retrieving fugitives who sought political assylum against crimes they admit to committing, she does not have the lattitude she has while acting as a private citizen, which is exactly what she is doing when she goes to recapture Kelder. The magstrate hires Hawke to  track down Kelder specifically because it will be done "off the books." Had the magistrate gone through Aveline as guard captain, and had Aveline asked Hawke to do the job under contract for Kirkwall, she might well have insisted that Kelder be brought in alive. Of course, in that case, she would not have allowed the magistrate to protect him anymore, either.

[Sinaxi]

berelinde wrote...
Aveline takes her office very seriously. That's how she got there in the first place. When she is acting in an official capacity, e.g. retrieving fugitives who sought political assylum against crimes they admit to committing, she does not have the lattitude she has while acting as a private citizen, which is exactly what she is doing when she goes to recapture Kelder. The magstrate hires Hawke to  track down Kelder specifically because it will be done "off the books." Had the magistrate gone through Aveline as guard captain, and had Aveline asked Hawke to do the job under contract for Kirkwall, she might well have insisted that Kelder be brought in alive. Of course, in that case, she would not have allowed the magistrate to protect him anymore, either.

Aveline got mad at me because I agreed with the Arishok when he told me the Elves killed a guard for raping his sister. Lol, I guess we can tell where I stand on the whole "Justice vs. Vengeance" thing. Yeah. If Vengeance is selfish at it's core, then I suppose I am selfish.

But seriously, what was that elf supposed to do? He said he went to the guards, nothing happened, and the guy was a guard himself. He was going to sit by while his sister probably got raped again? That's complete bull****. Love and Revenge are powerful motivators and how is it selfish to want to protect someone you love? Meh. He might have gone to prison, if he hadn't gone to the Qun but regardless was what he did inherently wrong? If the sister had killed the man it would be self-defense, but she probably wasn't strong enough to do this.

In many twisted ways I found the Arishok to be right about several things, except obviously going nuts and burning the city down lol, and their culture in general I can't really agree with (I wouldn't want to be a Qunari), and definitely not the way they treat their Mages. But..was I mad when Petrice got arrow stabbed in the head? Uh, no.....lol. She was a raving lunatic who was willing to let tons of people die around her, and she killed the Viscount's son.

Modifié par Tidra, 01 août 2011 - 08:44 .

[ForgeDark]

 

Fluffenstein wrote...LONG STORY SHORT, Justice, to me, lost his 'being a spirit' when he merged with Anders, he may not be a demon now, per se, but he is no longer a 'good spirit'.

I think that sums it up really, maybe spirits of Justice can be good in the fade where they can't do anything and don't want to, but not in the real world - a spirit of justice is just a bad mimic of justice in the same way the fade is a bad mimic.  So when you start to really think about what justice should be, you realise it can't be summed up by the actions and beliefs of one spirit  and therefore should never have been let out of the fade as unintentional as it was. Maybe really what I really mean that there aren't 'good' spirits are that as soon as they try to take action in the real world they are no longer good, and before that they aren't really anything.

Tidra wrote...
Honestly, the best example I can come up with of someone who is TRULY always in it for "Justice" would be Superman. No matter what has happened to him or the people he loves, he always tries to do the right thing which is why branding him a vigilante (since he always cooperates with law enforcement) is not as accurate as it would be, for say, Batman or especially the Punisher.

Oh how I hate superman far too self righteous. But I do see your point!

Tidra wrote...
One thing that is interesting to consider though, is that even in the Bible God has killed people. Destroyed cities. He killed A LOT of people in general. What is this then? Justice? Retribution for not being righteous? I frequently hear Christian's saying that killing is wrong, but yet there are many examples of it in the Bible. How is this "Justice"? It doesn't seem to fit in with your idea of it as far as I can tell.

Well, sometimes killing someone can be right without it being just. I'm not going to use the Bible since I am not religious, and I think my views on it would cloud the whole debate. But lets say you have to kill twenty innocent people to save thousands - I think it is right to do so but it is not just. I guess you can't always act in a just way, at least not if you are a leader (which is why superman drives me mad I think, because he will never take a life). 

Tidra wrote...
Justice to me is not good or evil, because there are many different theories on what actually constitutes "justice". Perspective goes a long way. Anders/Justice's perspective is that these things must be atoned for, and they will be atoned for no matter what must happen to achieve this. The ends justify the means for them.

And a Justice spirit possessing the body of a Chantry sister may now see it just to kill mages for what they have done. Which comes back to my point that Justice is not always 'good', and if somethings in the fade not doing anything justice can seem like a righteous concept but it no longer is in the real world. I think Anders did what was neccessary, and perhaps I can see that from their perspective there was justness in the act. I would find it hard to argue why I don't think Anders is an abomination at that point, even if he wasn't at the start of the game. He looks like Anders and not an abomination? That's all I've got but it's a good enough reason for me  In a way perhaps Justice is corrupted by Anders desires, so Anders could just as easily be under the control of by a Desire demon at that point and I wonder if you would be able to tell the difference.

Tidra wrote...

berelinde wrote...
Aveline takes her office very seriously. That's how she got there in the first place. When she is acting in an official capacity, e.g. retrieving fugitives who sought political assylum against crimes they admit to committing, she does not have the lattitude she has while acting as a private citizen, which is exactly what she is doing when she goes to recapture Kelder. The magstrate hires Hawke to  track down Kelder specifically because it will be done "off the books." Had the magistrate gone through Aveline as guard captain, and had Aveline asked Hawke to do the job under contract for Kirkwall, she might well have insisted that Kelder be brought in alive. Of course, in that case, she would not have allowed the magistrate to protect him anymore, either.

Aveline got mad at me because I agreed with the Arishok when he told me the Elves killed a guard for raping his sister. Lol, I guess we can tell where I stand on the whole "Justice vs. Vengeance" thing. Yeah. If Vengeance is selfish at it's core, then I suppose I am selfish.

I agreed with the Arishok too. The Elves got the best justice they could, and they did try to get proper justice. I would have done the same as the elves in that situation . Aveline really should have gone back to the barracks, conducted a proper investigation, and then perhaps have asked the Arishok for the elves after that. I agree the law and justice are different things, otherwise there is nothing unjust about the Circle, but I think Aveline does try and change things. In an ideal world laws would always be just, and I think that is the kind of justice I advocate but in reality it is impossible since you can't define justice  

[LT123]

Regarding Justice not being able to do anything in the Fade: He's about two seconds away from kicking in the Baroness' front gate to help the villagers when you meet him in Awakening. I don't remember if you can refuse to help him or not. Presumably he would have taken her on anyway.

Anders objects-"Do we really want to antagonize a powerful witch?"- and if you pick the "Oh, come on, it'll be fun" option, you get this:



There's a difference between murder (going after your neighbor with an ax) and killing (soldiers fighting during wars).

And in Dragon Age, at least, there are times when killing is justice (ex. Vaughan). The nobles don't care enough about the city elves to do anything to him. I suppose the king could step in, but Calian, at least, has no clue what is going on in the alienage of his capital. (I killed an arl's son for raping my friend."/"You...what?")

[upsettingshorts]

I haven't been following too closely - jumping in and catching up to a long series of posts is not on my agenda for the evening - but from what I could skim I thought I might offer this:

When it comes to capital punishment and revenge killings, the key difference - at least in my view - is that the former is execution by the state.  

This distinction is important, because the issue of revenge killings is one of personal morality whereas capital punishment is an issue of the rule of law and whether or not the state should have a monopoly on the (legal) use of force - as it often does.  The guards are a duly constituted authority that is - ideally - responsible for maintaining the rule of law.  Their authority in this matter is recognized, or ought to be, by Kirkwall at large.  The elves on the other hand might have legitimately defensible reasons for their revenge killing, but their actions would set a dangerous precedent - from the perspective of the state - for vigilante behavior which undermine the guards' role in maintaining order.

The law does not apply retroactively, so if revenge killings were not an affirmative defense for murder in Kirkwall before the elves took matters into their own hands - they would be guilty under that law regardless of whether or not their act is interpreted as justice or vengeance. Aveline seems to believe that the state - through the guards - are ideally, and indeed under her leadership, a force for good and therefore putting the exclusive right to judgement and use of force in their hands in the interests of the people is something worth fighting to enforce.

If someone has covered this already, well, that'd be the price I pay for skimming.

Edit:  It's for this reason that when it came to the BIG ANDERS DECISION I would have preferred if "hand him over to Aveline - and not the Templars - for trial" was an option.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 août 2011 - 11:54 .

[Fluffenstein]

@Upsettingshorts: Way off topic, but your avatar is making me really hungry.

[Evilnor]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
It's for this reason that when it came to the BIG ANDERS DECISION I would have preferred if "hand him over to Aveline - and not the Templars - for trial" was an option.

That would be a fascinating option, ideally.  Unfortunately, the results would ultimately be the same as if you handed him over to Meredith, since she is effectively holding the office of viscount and thus is unofficially Aveline's boss.  Fortunately, Meredith wouldn't live long enough to see any official executions through, but there's still that power vaccuum she was filling for awhile.  He'd probably end up languishing in prison until whoever the new viscount is decided to solidify his/her rule through a popular execution, which could take awhile (unless Hawke sides with the templars), considering that nobody wanted the job to begin with.  If it's Hawke, guess who gets to kill Anders anyway, but this time with state backing!

Eh, I'm no political scientist, so that's just my logical thoughts.  Interesting what-if, though.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I'm back from my convention. Yay, nearly 20 pages to catch up on! For now, I have some thoughts on the most recent two.

Arquen mentions Anders being paranoid because he thinks the Chantry might have made up propaganda to persecute mages. While in this case Anders was wrong, I don't think suspecting the Chantry of propaganda is unreasonable: they changed their own holy book and may have made up completely ridiculous propaganda in order to justify destroying the Dales. Sometimes I wonder if the exalted march on the Dales and the resulting issues with the city elves and Dalish were meant to inform as much of the rest of the Dragon Age world as they seem to, for me.

As for the issue of revenge vs capital punishment being an issue of the state having a monopoly on legal violence, well, the state doesn't have a monopoly on legal violence in Thedas, unless you consider the Chantry a state institution. There's the Wardens too. And then that brings up the question of "what is a state?" Are the Dalish still a state, now that they've lost their country and have no official status? Was all the violence Ferelden did to regain its independence illegal, until they officially became a state again? What do you have to do to be considered a "state," and thus entitled to a monopoly on violence in pursuit of order?

In modern times, there's a clear answer, usually something like recognition by the international community. But look at something like Taiwan: even today, what determines 'statehood' is very hazy.

The point is that it's the smallfolk who suffer when the nobles play their game of thrones. I jest, but my recent time in Westeros has mad me realize how subjective the concept of the state's monopoly on legal violence is, especially in a world of monarchies. If a man declares himself a King and wins his war, then everything he did was legal and his enemies are criminals. If he loses, then he was a traitor and his friends are the criminals.

(Also, when I was rereading A Feast for Crows, I found out Tommen has a kitten named Ser Pounce. A lot of things in Westeros give me serious Dragon Age flashbacks, but that made me smile.)

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 02 août 2011 - 04:22 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

The concept of "monopoly on legitimate use of force" as explained by Max Weber is a modern concept for "modern states". States prior the modern era did not hold that monopoly. In feudal systems, nobles could and did use violence when they saw fit. Feudal systems held, or aspired to hold, that monopoly when it came to larger issues / crimes. But for the most part, communities and fiefs within the feudal state were more or less auto-regulated. Monopoly on legitimate use of force is in large part linked to technology (gunpowder being one of the key inventions) and state capacity / institutions. The modern state is unparallelled in its capacities.

The Dalish certainly do not qualify to be a state. I am not even sure we can consider them a tribal confederation.

And of course, winners decide what is legal and what is not, and this is the case even today, regardless of how subtle they are in doing so.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 02 août 2011 - 04:30 .

[nitefyre410]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Edit:  It's for this reason that when it came to the BIG ANDERS DECISION I would have preferred if "hand him over to Aveline - and not the Templars - for trial" was an option.

It would have been nice  but  no legal system  in DA  is going to give a  Mage any kind of a fair trail - no matter how  awesome Aveline is not even she could pull that off. People  for the most  see mages as lepers in sense. Even if that was option it would have been shot down by both Meredith and the First Enchanter.  One saying Mages are not normal criminals so the laws must be applied differently and the  second saying that  Mages are already second class so they would not get a fair trail..

This being one of the overall problems  - Mages are viewed as  less then human so therefore they  don't  get the same treatment as everyone else.


   

[Arquen]

OooO OooO Favorite quote time... because it is pertinent to this conversation.

"When there is evil in this world that justice cannot defeat.Would you taint your hands with evil to defeat evil? Or would you remain steadfast & righteous even if it means surrendering to evil?" - Lelouch from Code Geass

Yes I pulled out a quote from my favorite anime. Honestly because Justice, like Freedom is a rather generalized ideal. The old adage Justice is blind and all that. Whatever side of the death penalty argument you are on I don't think anyone can say that Justice is served perfectly, infallibly, and without consequence.

Justice is NOT perfect, and convert that to a being. A being that represents Justice. Also, Justice demands retribution - Justice demands punishment at times. That is where Vengeance was born. Justice as a spirit of the Fade was drawn to situations of helping the weak over-come the strong. Providing Justice for the powerless. He didn't care for humans much, but his whole purpose and calling and creation was in the attempt to seek out situations in which an evil was being committed and he took it upon himself to right that evil. Hence my quote. Sometimes Justice alone cannot end evil. Punishment is necessary and Justice ALWAYS believed that. It is obvious from when you first meet him and he is hell bent on killing the Baroness to free the villagers.

Flash forward to after he merged into Kristoff and then he is bombarded with human emotion. His need to right the evil HE did by entering Kristoff's body and approaching his wife. It's very black/white and without nuance. He simply sees an evil he feels he must correct, and spends time making it up to Kristoff's wife as best as he can. Of course he is already tainted with human emotions and memories at this point.

I imagine him merging with Anders is the same reasoning. His actions afterwards are on par with the basic "see evil, correct evil" concept. How he accomplishes this is more vengeance, punishments, passing Judgement than actual Justice. Yet, to Justice ... Justice is less about court systems, due process, punishments, etc. and more about a basic psychological concept that evil exists in this world and suppresses the powerless, and that should not be so. Justice was always very child like to me. Always seeing "evil" in the strangest of things -- Sir Pounce A Lot. In Anders I believe he is still much the same way, and Vengeance is Ander's anger at the evils done to mages. This causes Justice to trigger into punishment mode, because that is the only way he feels Justice can be served.

Without going on a whole rant about the meaning of Justice and Freedom and OMG why do you tempt my philosophical mind!? There is my 2 cents. More like 10 cents.

[Evilnor]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
Arquen mentions Anders being paranoid because he thinks the Chantry might have made up propaganda to persecute mages. While in this case Anders was wrong, I don't think suspecting the Chantry of propaganda is unreasonable: they changed their own holy book and may have made up completely ridiculous propaganda in order to justify destroying the Dales. Sometimes I wonder if the exalted march on the Dales and the resulting issues with the city elves and Dalish were meant to inform as much of the rest of the Dragon Age world as they seem to, for me.

Ooh, Chantry propoganda!  We're never sure how much is real, how much is spun in the Chantry's favor, and how much is just complete BS in their favor.  For example: how did Andraste know the origins of the darkspawn in the first place?  She was born well after the Golden City was "corrupted."  Did the Maker tell her himself?  There certainly wasn't anyone alive by then who would know the truth, except maybe the addled magisters themselves, and who in their right mind would use one of them as a reliable source?

I've always wondered about the Chantry's sources, honestly.

Furthermore, the Chant itself never says to lock up all mages as a danger to themseves and society.  It just says basically not to misuse it.  As a matter of fact, The Canticle of Transfigurations reads much like the common sense parts of the Ten Commandments.  The Circle and the Templar Order were fabricated well after the Chantry was founded, therefore a fundamentalist could very well consider both institutions to be irrelevant to the Chant and therefore not necessary.  Perhaps even harmful.  It's a shame we don't see many fundamentalist Andrastians, only ones that buy into the Chantry's dogma.

It brings to mind a lovely poem by Kipling about how interpretations can completely ruin the message:

He that hath a Gospel
Whereby Heaven is won
( Carpenter, or cameleer,
Or Maya's dreaming son ),
Many swords shell pierce Him,
Mingling blood with gall;
But His Own Disciple
Shall wound Him worst of all!

Modifié par Evilnor, 02 août 2011 - 05:01 .

[Sinaxi]

Is this thread like, the biggest companion thread out of all the others on each forum on this website? Lol, I've looked on the other forums (ME, DA:O) and none of the companion threads are really as active.

I just think it's interesting.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tidra wrote...

Is this thread like, the biggest companion thread out of all the others on each forum on this website? Lol, I've looked on the other forums (ME, DA:O) and none of the companion threads are really as active.

I just think it's interesting.

You are obviously not familiar with old Tali threads. Deliberate plural.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 02 août 2011 - 05:09 .

[Sinaxi]

No, I wouldn't be. I joined these forums like last month lol. As far as right now though I haven't seen any other companion threads as active, which does kind of suck lol. I figured I'd see more on ME considering the third is coming out soon.

[nitefyre410]

Arquen wrote...

OooO OooO Favorite quote time... because it is pertinent to this conversation.

"When there is evil in this world that justice cannot defeat.Would you taint your hands with evil to defeat evil? Or would you remain steadfast & righteous even if it means surrendering to evil?" - Lelouch from Code Geass

Yes I pulled out a quote from my favorite anime. Honestly because Justice, like Freedom is a rather generalized ideal. The old adage Justice is blind and all that. Whatever side of the death penalty argument you are on I don't think anyone can say that Justice is served perfectly, infallibly, and without consequence.

Justice is NOT perfect, and convert that to a being. A being that represents Justice. Also, Justice demands retribution - Justice demands punishment at times. That is where Vengeance was born. Justice as a spirit of the Fade was drawn to situations of helping the weak over-come the strong. Providing Justice for the powerless. He didn't care for humans much, but his whole purpose and calling and creation was in the attempt to seek out situations in which an evil was being committed and he took it upon himself to right that evil. Hence my quote. Sometimes Justice alone cannot end evil. Punishment is necessary and Justice ALWAYS believed that. It is obvious from when you first meet him and he is hell bent on killing the Baroness to free the villagers.

Flash forward to after he merged into Kristoff and then he is bombarded with human emotion. His need to right the evil HE did by entering Kristoff's body and approaching his wife. It's very black/white and without nuance. He simply sees an evil he feels he must correct, and spends time making it up to Kristoff's wife as best as he can. Of course he is already tainted with human emotions and memories at this point.

I imagine him merging with Anders is the same reasoning. His actions afterwards are on par with the basic "see evil, correct evil" concept. How he accomplishes this is more vengeance, punishments, passing Judgement than actual Justice. Yet, to Justice ... Justice is less about court systems, due process, punishments, etc. and more about a basic psychological concept that evil exists in this world and suppresses the powerless, and that should not be so. Justice was always very child like to me. Always seeing "evil" in the strangest of things -- Sir Pounce A Lot. In Anders I believe he is still much the same way, and Vengeance is Ander's anger at the evils done to mages. This causes Justice to trigger into punishment mode, because that is the only way he feels Justice can be served.

Without going on a whole rant about the meaning of Justice and Freedom and OMG why do you tempt my philosophical mind!? There is my 2 cents. More like 10 cents.

 

+10 for the Code Geass quote and It will be watched after  I finish Xam'd Lost Memory.  

Now my answer to the question at least for me would be yes which is why I sided with the mages. Because not matter how  wrong Anders may have been... murdering every single Mage in the Circle was something  that I could not stomach.  The  hole Circle system in my eyes is  broken beyond belief.  

The virtue of justice consists in moderation, as regulated by wisdom. 
Aristole.   

I like this quote and I think it applies to Anders nicely.

I agree they are both very child like in there view and  I think book lack a wisdom to understand that some of things that have done are not justice but blind vengence  which lacks both mercy and wisdom. It was right for Anders to  speak out against the  Circle and the Templars. His actions where not the wisest but given the state of Kirkwall by Act 3  there was nothing that could  have been done to stop the powder keg from going off at that point it was all a matter of time.    

and I tempt it because  I am a rather  curious  by nature.  

[nitefyre410]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Tidra wrote...

Is this thread like, the biggest companion thread out of all the others on each forum on this website? Lol, I've looked on the other forums (ME, DA:O) and none of the companion threads are really as active.

I just think it's interesting.

You are obviously not familiar with old Tali threads. Deliberate plural.

Oh those were monsters backs when   ME 2  came out.

[TanyaT]

seems Anders has become the default romantic lead even in my husband's head, last night he kept calling him Alistair ...

[Amondra]

TanyaT wrote...

seems Anders has become the default romantic lead even in my husband's head, last night he kept calling him Alistair ...

LOL my friend kept doing that. She said it was clear Anders was the default romance option, he loves you no matter what.

[upsettingshorts]

nitefyre410 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Edit:  It's for this reason that when it came to the BIG ANDERS DECISION I would have preferred if "hand him over to Aveline - and not the Templars - for trial" was an option.

It would have been nice  but  no legal system  in DA  is going to give a  Mage any kind of a fair trail - no matter how  awesome Aveline is not even she could pull that off.

Are you implying that in a fair trial Anders would be not guilty?

[Xewaka]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Edit:  It's for this reason that when it came to the BIG ANDERS DECISION I would have preferred if "hand him over to Aveline - and not the Templars - for trial" was an option.

It would have been nice  but  no legal system  in DA  is going to give a  Mage any kind of a fair trail - no matter how  awesome Aveline is not even she could pull that off.

Are you implying that in a fair trial Anders would be not guilty?

If said implication is actually intended, there's a futurama video for that.

[Giggles_Manically]

Amondra wrote...

TanyaT wrote...

seems Anders has become the default romantic lead even in my husband's head, last night he kept calling him Alistair ...

LOL my friend kept doing that. She said it was clear Anders was the default romance option, he loves you no matter what.

Maybe on the friend path.... I dont see it on the rival path.
AT ALL. 

[nitefyre410]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Edit:  It's for this reason that when it came to the BIG ANDERS DECISION I would have preferred if "hand him over to Aveline - and not the Templars - for trial" was an option.

It would have been nice  but  no legal system  in DA  is going to give a  Mage any kind of a fair trail - no matter how  awesome Aveline is not even she could pull that off.

Are you implying that in a fair trial Anders would be not guilty?

 

There is no such thing as a fair trail for a mage in the DA world... Guilty or Not Guilty.    The System for that kind of  legal proceeding does not exist because there is One set of rules for mages and one set of rules for normal people.  Just becasue  a trail would have given me an outcome that I would have liked - him being covicted of something . It would not have been a fair trail. 

If was going to say that he was not guilty I would have said it I have no need to imply anything.

Modifié par nitefyre410, 02 août 2011 - 10:58 .

[Giggles_Manically]

I dont think the idea of a fair trial was ever that big of one in the past.
Sure a few cultures had a good attempt at it like say Rome... but not really in a Medieval world.

Have power? Get away with it (Vaughan)
Have no power? No justice (Mages and Elves and Casteless dwarves)

Although Kirkwall's courts never got explored which is a shame.