57019 réponses à ce sujet

[Dave of Canada]

Okay, I'll bite.

Except he wasn't picking the target because he wanted to eliminate her, he picked the target because he knew the reaction it would create among the people. He knew what would occur after he killed Elthina, that was his goal and Elthina was his means to that end. He wanted her death to provoke a reaction among the people, something which he planned and was correct on his assumption, to share his agenda.

The Qunari on the other hand are invaders, people who've arrived to Kirkwall and tried to remain at peace until they decided to invade the city. The reactions they'd receive from their actions wasn't the intended goal, their actions was the total destruction or conquest of Kirkwall. Had they attacked Kirkwall to instil fear among the Free Marches, you'd have a point.

This was not the case.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 10 novembre 2011 - 11:42 .

[Arquen]

I'm really not trying to be antagonizing here, but this made me laugh a little...

Terrorists don't wake up in the morning and say to themselves "I'm doing this for fun", they're fighting a war for their own beliefs and motivations. Whether you agree with them or not doesn't matter, their methods is all that really counts.

with a signature quote of "salvation comes with a cost. Judge us not by our methods, but what we seek to accomplish."

The irony... it got me.

As for response I'm not quite sure what exactly point your trying to disprove. The Arishok acted outside the Qun, and outside the wishes of the Qun. He was there to reclaim a relic, and instead he went "rogue" and decided to indoctrinate Kirkwall because he PERSONALLY felt like he couldn't stand by and watch the city rot. It was his own damn choice, not the will of the Qun and while the Qunari may indeed be invaders. He was sent to Kirkwall to recover a relic, and not to "invade." So, when he went off the rails it kind of made his agenda very personal and the way he instigated it was nothing short of terrorism. He was directing his personal agenda and anger on the people of Kirkwall and trying to justify it by saying that it was the will of the Qun, which, it wasn't. Hmm... rogue zealot much?

As for Anders, the big difference is that Anders is going after a system and not a personal agenda. He isn't doing it for personal reasons, personal vengeance, or personal anger. While those things are no doubt a part of him, they are not why he chose the Chantry. He chose the Chantry because of what it represents. His anger is at the circle and the Templars, if it was about petty personal reasons and terror he would have targeted them, but he did not. He targeted something bigger.

[tadonnen]

Dave of Canada wrote...


Except he wasn't picking the target because he wanted to eliminate her, he picked the target because he knew the reaction it would create among the people. He knew what would occur after he killed Elthina, that was his goal and Elthina was his means to that end. He wanted her death to provoke a reaction among the people, something which he planned and was correct on his assumption, to share his agenda.

So is your argument that if the target has symbolic significance to the system you're trying to overthrow then you're a terrorist?

That removes "shock and awe" out of honourable warfare tactics and.... actually would make warfare a lot more deadly if you couldn't rely on demoralising the opposite side as a strategy.



Also, I disagree entirely with your assessment of the Qunari... they were targeting primarily civilians and civilian districts throughout their attack, targetting civilian targets is pretty much the only agreed upon definition of terrorism there is, whether you're an organised invading force or not.  Also, at the time, they weren't an invading force, they were essentially diplomats, and given some semblance of the courtesies thereof -- their own compound where they could practice a facesimile of their own culture, a direct line of communication to the the three political powers seated in the city, the Arishok was afforded a certain measure of diplomatic immunity, even, until he began testing the limits.

Attacking without a formal declaration in that situation, especially when the attack ravaged primarily civilian districts and ignored the primary military and government institutions of the Chantry and Templars, was pretty irrefutably terrorist in nature, by even the loosest definition.

[ladyshamen]

I haven't had time to post, but I've been reading. I'm going to try not to write anything long here, but felt I could say something. For starters, I agree with Arquen & Heidenreich on a lot of things. I grew up in a large city, not the 'good' side. I have lived in Israel, and I have seen what terrorist do. I'm not too sure I would put that label on Anders. He did ONE act that could be considered that of a terrorist. ONE. He was possessed. He did NOT go running around killing innocents 'for the cause'. He didn't do what he did so mage's could take over the world. All he wanted was equality. My kid is a 'special needs' kid. I have seen even adults treat him like a lower life form. I understand Anders anger at 'how things are'. All of this is IMO, please don't yell at me! (exiting stage left)

[Nerys]

Dave of Canada wrote

Except he wasn't picking the target because he wanted to eliminate her, he picked the target because he knew the reaction it would create among the people. He knew what would occur after he killed Elthina, that was his goal and Elthina was his means to that end. He wanted her death to provoke a reaction among the people, something which he planned and was correct on his assumption, to share his agenda.

His target was The Chantry itself, Not simply Elthina. She might have been a symptom of it, but she was not the root of the problem. Anders is nothing if not idealistic.
On a side note, I think if Anders had simply wanted Elthina dead, he'd have killed her plain and simple,  And without all that pesky collateral damage.   

[General User]

To my way of thinking, in order for Anders to be considered anything other than a murderous terrorist he would have to be operating at the behest of some sort of legitimate organization.  But, as far as I know, he was not.

When a person entirely on their own volition undertakes the endeavor of blowing up a house of worship, the term "lone-wolf terrorist" fits very well.

[Xewaka]

Egypt called. They want their river back.
Terrorism: Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).
Seriously, no matter what spin you try to put at it, the facts are there and very clear: Anders destroyed in a surprise attack a centre of worship, a very soft, non militar target, because of a political goal, disregarding the safety of the civilians. He is very much the definition of a terrorist.

[esper]

Xewaka wrote...

Egypt called. They want their river back.
Terrorism: Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).
Seriously, no matter what spin you try to put at it, the facts are there and very clear: Anders destroyed in a surprise attack a centre of worship, a very soft, non militar target, because of a political goal, disregarding the safety of the civilians. He is very much the definition of a terrorist.

Expet the chantry is a military target and not soft at all.

[tadonnen]

General User wrote...

To my way of thinking, in order for Anders to be considered anything other than a murderous terrorist he would have to be operating at the behest of some sort of legitimate organization.  But, as far as I know, he was not.

When a person entirely on their own volition undertakes the endeavor of blowing up a house of worship, the term "lone-wolf terrorist" fits very well.

So how are totalitarian dictatorships overthrown then?  Given that no opposition to them will ever be legitimate until after they have already won the cause?  

Or is this another way of restating the argument that all rebellions are terrorists until they win?

[Xewaka]

esper wrote...
Expet the chantry is a military target and not soft at all.

It's a CHURCH. It's not a fortified military centre, it's a centre of cult. I hope you appreciate the difference.
And yes, I know technically Elthina has lordship over Meredith. Still, it is more akin to bombarding a city hall, where the civil goverment resides.

[esper]

Xewaka wrote...

esper wrote...
Expet the chantry is a military target and not soft at all.

It's a CHURCH. It's not a fortified military centre, it's a centre of cult. I hope you appreciate the difference.
And yes, I know technically Elthina has lordship over Meredith. Still, it is more akin to bombarding a city hall, where the civil goverment resides.

Being a church does not excuse it for also being a military. You can't wave a religious flag and say, just because we are an religion it means that you must not attaclk the head of our army.

[General User]

tadonnen wrote...

General User wrote...

To my way of thinking, in order for Anders to be considered anything other than a murderous terrorist he would have to be operating at the behest of some sort of legitimate organization.  But, as far as I know, he was not.

When a person entirely on their own volition undertakes the endeavor of blowing up a house of worship, the term "lone-wolf terrorist" fits very well.

So how are totalitarian dictatorships overthrown then?  Given that no opposition to them will ever be legitimate until after they have already won the cause?  

Or is this another way of restating the argument that all rebellions are terrorists until they win?

By no means!

The Continental Congress during the War of the American Revolution is a prime example of a legitmate organization sponsoring a legitimate rebellion.

[Arquen]

Well that in itself is a pitfall argument. The first question being -- what constitutes a "legitimate" organization? A government, a group of people, a club, a cult?

Also, the Chantry in Thedas is a lot more than a "house of worship," and has its own propaganda, agenda, and military force backing it. The Chantry can't simply be compared to a church of "X" religion. It is a lot more than that in Thedas.

As for the "lone-wolf terrorist" -- the problem here is that a lone wolf terrorist usually identifies philosophically with an extremist group, and conceive plots and terrorist actions all by themselves without any prior contact or involvement with the group they are trying to "help." Anders was indeed part of the mage underground, and only out of desperation and after the mage underground was completely crushed did he then go to a "last straw" option. Not to kill civilians and not to intstill terror to further the cause of X faction (providing them power). NO, he did it for the mages as a whole. While he did act by himself, I don't think it can be categorized the same way.

Now, there are plenty of extremist groups in Thedas who support mage freedom, and vie for power over the fate of mages, but Anders didn't seem like he belonged or supported any of them specifically. Of course then you are getting into the fraternities. The Fraternities are arguably a legitimate organizations of mages within the circle, and they too have their own agenda's and seek power within the system. Not technically extremist groups.. well.. perhaps the Lucrosians -- who are like the Tevinter mages and believe mages should rule men and use their power to gain wealth.

[esper]

@Arguen.
It think it is the resolutionist that wants Tevinter 2.0 and the Lucrosians wants money for some reasons...

[General User]

Arquen wrote...
Well that in itself is a pitfall argument. The first question being -- what constitutes a "legitimate" organization? A government, a group of people, a club, a cult?

For simplicity's sake, the first one: a government.  Specifically one that derives its power form the just consent of the governed.

Arquen wrote...
Also, the Chantry in Thedas is a lot more than a "house of worship," and has its own propaganda, agenda, and military force backing it. The Chantry can't simply be compared to a church of "X" religion. It is a lot more than that in Thedas.

The Chantry is both an organization and a building.  Besides, the only one of those that makes the Chantry unique is having a military force.  And even that's kinda "iffy" in a world where everyone and their mother seems to have their own mercenary force on call.

Arquen wrote...
As for the "lone-wolf terrorist" -- the problem here is that a lone wolf terrorist usually identifies philosophically with an extremist group, and conceive plots and terrorist actions all by themselves without any prior contact or involvement with the group they are trying to "help." Anders was indeed part of the mage underground, and only out of desperation and after the mage underground was completely crushed did he then go to a "last straw" option. Not to kill civilians and not to intstill terror to further the cause of X faction (providing them power). NO, he did it for the mages as a whole. While he did act by himself, I don't think it can be categorized the same way.

Now, there are plenty of extremist groups in Thedas who support mage freedom, and vie for power over the fate of mages, but Anders didn't seem like he belonged or supported any of them specifically. Of course then you are getting into the fraternities. The Fraternities are arguably a legitimate organizations of mages within the circle, and theytoo have their own agenda's and seek power within the system. Not technically extremist groups.. well.. perhaps the Lucrosians -- who are like the Tevinter mages and believe mages should rule men and use their power to gain wealth.

A common variety of lone wolf terrorists are those who have had previous contact or involvement in groups sympathetic to their professed cause and since left to pursue their own path because they felt the groups they were involved in "did not go far enough."

There are indeed many organizations that support many things, but none of them are legitimate organizations to sponsor a rebellion, let alone authorize an attack on a civilian target.  The only possible exception would be the College of Magi in Cumberland.  The split person of Anders/Justice is certainly not one.

Modifié par General User, 10 novembre 2011 - 02:50 .

[Arquen]

dammit I forgot about the resolutionists... sneaky buggers...

Well, that pretty much blew that out of the water because I forgot that they also had ties to the mage underground. So, then yes, Anders does fit the profile of lone-wolf-terrorist if he is acting on behalf of the Resolutionists. However, when you read their description there is a startling difference...

"the Resolutionists are open apostates who support freedom for mages at all costs. They engaged in acts of terror and sabotage against the Chantry throughout Thedas, and many are connected to Kirkwall's mage underground. They have declared that unless mages are freed to rule themselves, they will show every person in Thedas how little protection the Circle of Magi actually offers."

That difference being that "they will show every person in Thedas" -- Anders does not go around showing every person in Thedas terror. Nor does he target other apostates, mages, or citizens. I don't think he would share that opinion that people should be afraid of the Chantry not protecting them from harm. He also doesn't seem to push the agenda of wanting to punish others for what the Chantry does or does not do. Especially random citizens. He chooses a target at the root of the problem, and goes for that.

Modifié par Arquen, 10 novembre 2011 - 02:46 .

[ladyshamen]

"That difference being that "they will show every person in Thedas" -- Anders does not go around showing every person in Thedas terror. Nor does he target other apostates, mages, or citizens. I don't think he would share that opinion that people should be afraid of the Chantry not protecting them from harm. He also doesn't seem to push the agenda of wanting to punish others for what the Chantry does or does not do. Especially random citizens. He chooses a target at the root of the problem, and goes for that. "


Thank you Arquen!

Modifié par ladyshamen, 10 novembre 2011 - 02:57 .

[tadonnen]

General User wrote...

For simplicity's sake, the first one: a government.  Specifically one that derives its power form the just consent of the governed.

That's a fair point.  Anders didn't have that, and if he had waited to gather support, his actions would have been far more legitimate.

I do still believe that the Chantry is a viable political target -- it makes and enforces (via the Templars) laws that imprison or sentence to death mage and non-mage alike, if the non-mages happen to have mage sympathies.  That kind of power removes any immunity from acts of war that the Chantry would have been granted by being a religious institution.

[Gyrefalcon]

HolyJellyfish wrote...

I always had faith in Hepler. I think she was stir bat crazy to taking on Anders, considering the level of complexities to his character. But I am so happy to see her growth in Bioware from DA:O, when she blew us away with A Paragon of her Kind, and now DA2 when she carefully constructed and threaded together an NPC that would singlehandedly throw the story into a curve ball.

More so since she was taking two already fleshed out characters from Awakenings and merged them into one. Now that had to be incredibly difficult, but the challenge turned out gorgeously.

She came up with that storyline?  I STILL get shivers from that creepy poem being recited in the deep tunnels.  It was probably the best section of the whole game.  And the choice there of having golems to stop the blight or keeping the dwarves from sacrificing their very souls was one of the few that made me pause for a moment.  I can't wait to see what she is going to come up with next!

Oh, sidenote to people thinking of getting "Mark of the Assassin DLC":  Do it and try the "diplomatic dialogue" options at the wine and cheese party after the hunt.  The lines and voice acting will have you rolling with laughter!  ;D

[Gyrefalcon]

tadonnen wrote...

General User wrote...

For simplicity's sake, the first one: a government.  Specifically one that derives its power form the just consent of the governed.

That's a fair point.  Anders didn't have that, and if he had waited to gather support, his actions would have been far more legitimate.

I do still believe that the Chantry is a viable political target -- it makes and enforces (via the Templars) laws that imprison or sentence to death mage and non-mage alike, if the non-mages happen to have mage sympathies.  That kind of power removes any immunity from acts of war that the Chantry would have been granted by being a religious institution.

Problem:  The legitimate government got destroyed during 'Demands of the Kun".  Meredith was secretely the power behind the Viscount already and it is made clear that she has been deterring any attempts to re-establish the position.  In the meantime, the number of mages being made tranquil for just speaking out had been increasing greatly.  Anders may have lost the other members of his mage underground and felt pushed into a corner as one of the last survivors to have to take action before Meredith came knocking on Hawke's door in the middle of the night.

Unfortunately, we do not have that tidbit of information.  But running a mage underground railroad certainly means he was working with some other mage sympathetizers.  I am really hoping there will be some DLC for the 2 paths of the aftermath (templars or mages) where we might get to see how things fall out.  I would still love to see Aveline's reports on the events.  And what effect would Varric's version of the legend have on ultimately changing the system?

****
OH!  Big question:  Did Varric actually plant the whole idea into Ander's head when he said he was writing a story about a romantic apostate up against forces he could not possibly succeed against?  He even said, "It's not a good story unless the hero dies."  Foreshadowing or self-fufilling prophesy?
****

[General User]

If the legitimate government has been destroyed (or driven underground, cowed into submission, etc.) then the moral/patriotic thing to do is to help organize and/or protect a new legitimate government. Not blow up a church.

[esper]

General User wrote...

If the legitimate government has been destroyed (or driven underground, cowed into submission, etc.) then the moral/patriotic thing to do is to help organize and/or protect a new legitimate government. Not blow up a church.

How should a person who has no legimate right by accident of birth do that?

[nirvana6794]

@Gyrefalcon: I don't think it's self-fulfilling prophecy or foreshadowing on Varric's part. He's a story teller, and tragic heroes fighting against insurmountable odds are compelling characters from a bardic/writer's prospective, and they always have been. As far as the character is concerned it's a plot device for his epic poem, but it was totally intentionally written into Varric's dialogue.

Modifié par nirvana6794, 10 novembre 2011 - 10:03 .

[General User]

esper wrote...

General User wrote...

If the legitimate government has been destroyed (or driven underground, cowed into submission, etc.) then the moral/patriotic thing to do is to help organize and/or protect a new legitimate government. Not blow up a church.

How should a person who has no legimate right by accident of birth do that?

Help to organize and/or protect a government?

Sebastian said something (I believe to Bethany) about how one needn't be born a noble to exhibit nobility.  That's the armchair-philosophical answer.

On a more practical tact, obviously it's not particularity simple or easy.  First you have to know that your cause is just.  Then you go about making contacts and building allies among the worthy and honorable.  The goal begin to bring together enough persons of standing that when they speak, it cannot be ignored or repressed.  Then you convince them to speak.  Then you protect them from anyone trying to silence them. 

It's a process that can take years, and isn't going to satisfy every party or faction.  But, in the end, it's the only way to bring about stable, positive, lasting change.

Modifié par General User, 10 novembre 2011 - 10:16 .

[esper]

General User wrote...

esper wrote...

General User wrote...

If the legitimate government has been destroyed (or driven underground, cowed into submission, etc.) then the moral/patriotic thing to do is to help organize and/or protect a new legitimate government. Not blow up a church.

How should a person who has no legimate right by accident of birth do that?

Help to organize and/or protect a government?

Sebastian said something (I believe to Bethany) about how one needn't be born a noble to exhibit nobility.  That's the armchair-philosophical answer.

On a more practical tact, obviously it's not particularity simple or easy.  First you have to know that your cause is just.  Then you go about making contacts and building allies among the worthy and honorable.  The goal begin to bring together enough persons of standing that when they speak, it cannot be ignored or repressed.  Then you convince them to speak.  Then you protect them from anyone trying to silence them. 

It's a process that can take years, and isn't going to satisfy every party or faction.  But, in the end, it's the only way to bring about stable, positive, lasting change.

No. I don't think that all the innocent mages life that would be lost to death/tranqualization and annulments during the time it would take to build a goverment without supression in Thedas is worth the wait. I say this with the mind on the fact that the last 1000 years mages situation has only gotten worse and they have lost more rights. 
No one will listen to the mages. They can't orginize anything and they have no political power an no rights.
Diplomacy and neogotiation only work when both parts have something to negotiate with. The mages have none and the Chantry will first negoatie with them when their power is threatened and the only way the chantrys power is threaten (from the mages) is if the mages is using violence. Violence is the only thing the mage have left. It is sad, but such is the fact. 
Now with two of their three armed factions gone from their control, perhaps the Chantry seems to be getting cold feet, but be aware that they are only doing it because both the mages and the templars have decided to leave the chantry's control.