Ryzaki wrote...
He stays a terrorist to the people he wronged.
And we all know history is written by the victors. So him being remembered as a terrorist really depends on who wins.
thenyxie wrote...
The problem with the word terrorist is that it's become a politically loaded term. It's not just a descriptor, there is far more than the basic definition implied when the word is invoked.
Anarya wrote...
yukidama wrote...
Pseudocognition wrote...
Anarya wrote...
Anders just makes me really sad. I can't hate him. I can't forgive him either, but I can't hate him. He's so far gone ;_;
This. It's a weird feeling. I like it.
Exactly.
I'm just like "I LOVE THIS STORY SO MUCH.... FFFFFF I HATE IT SO MUCH.... YOU ARE TEARING ME APART, LISA[/s] BIOWARE"
*has more moodswings than Fenris and Anders combined*
I'm firmly on the side of "love" where the story is concerned but wow, is it a difficult story. Emotionally and morally difficult. If we go back to simplistic big bads I'll cry inside, though. I like to be challenged in this way.
RinjiRenee wrote...
HAWKE HUNGRY.
WANT ONE?
Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 mars 2011 - 07:51 .
Kolotosa wrote...
RinjiRenee wrote...
HAWKE HUNGRY.
WANT ONE?
You will be an inspiration to generations of people trying to avoid debates about terrorisms!
Kolotosa wrote...
RinjiRenee wrote...
HAWKE HUNGRY.
WANT ONE?
You will be an inspiration to generations of people trying to avoid debates about terrorisms!
Sjofn wrote...
MelfinaofOutlawStar wrote...
Ahem....
Late as usual, but:
L
O
L
marquiseondore wrote...
My problem with the entire Anders's is a terrorist argument is that prior to all that he spent the last 6+ yrs in Kirkwall trying to peacefully help mages escape. The definition of a terrorist was someone who consistently causes harm to others. If the game had come out 11-12 yrs ago I doubt he would have been pegged as a terrorist.
For good or bad it sometimes takes a drastic move to advance a cause. I think it will take DA3 to fully define Anders as a madman or revolutionary.
yukidama wrote...
Haha, yeah. I LOVE that it is emotionally draining and it isn't easy because you don't have that undeniable big bad.
The I HATE IT part comes mostly when I can't stop thinking about it and I have a lot of schoolwork to do when I'd rather just be playing and talking about it and having my heart ripped out and stomped into a trazillion little pieces.
I like the abuse. /masochist
RinjiRenee wrote...
Yeah, I think people are thinking it's suddenly horrible to like a character who is by definition a terrorist. You don't have to like what he did. He's still a character in a story that had a role to play.
Exactly. He did something that invokes terror in people. Terrorist. Blew up a chantry, killed lots of people. Terrifying.Pseudocognition wrote...
Terrorist doesn't mean "bad guy." Terrorist means he committed an act of terrorism.
Herr Uhl wrote...
The terrorist keeps on being a terrorist though. It is like how a fireman stays a fireman if you dislike them or not.
I prefer to call firemen Freedom Haters.
Rheia1234 wrote...
Kolotosa wrote...
RinjiRenee wrote...
HAWKE HUNGRY.
NOMNOMSAMMICH
WANT ONE?
You will be an inspiration to generations of people trying to avoid debates about terrorisms!
So...which slice is Anders?
SurelyForth wrote...
EnchantedEyes1 wrote...
yukidama wrote...
Siq burn from Nate in regards to Anders:
Yeesh o_o
What does he say? I don't have my earphones and can't hear at work. Would someone mind posting it real quick?
"I was hoping that Justice would have been the dominant personality."
Only he says it all mean-Nate like, not dry-Nate like.
Welp. That settles that fun little scenario. Or maybe Nathaniel just really loved Justice? Denial: I am in it.
Upsettingshorts wrote...
Depends on what kind of level of introspection and self-criticism the victors are comfortable with. For example I consider what the Allies did to Dresden and greater Germany in the strategic bombing campaign of World War II terrorism, and I'm an American and "we" won. It depends.
Modifié par Ryzaki, 24 mars 2011 - 07:54 .
Dunizel wrote...
SurelyForth wrote...
EnchantedEyes1 wrote...
yukidama wrote...
Siq burn from Nate in regards to Anders:
Yeesh o_o
What does he say? I don't have my earphones and can't hear at work. Would someone mind posting it real quick?
"I was hoping that Justice would have been the dominant personality."
Only he says it all mean-Nate like, not dry-Nate like.
Welp. That settles that fun little scenario. Or maybe Nathaniel just really loved Justice? Denial: I am in it.
When does he say it? o_O
I did the whole cameo with Anders with me, tried all the options and dialogues, and I never heard that line.
He was just like "Anders, there is no escaping you it seems" Anders: "I'm special that way". He was pretty friendly with my Anders, in the usual stoic-Nate tone at least xD
Herr Uhl wrote...
marquiseondore wrote...
My problem with the entire Anders's is a terrorist argument is that prior to all that he spent the last 6+ yrs in Kirkwall trying to peacefully help mages escape. The definition of a terrorist was someone who consistently causes harm to others. If the game had come out 11-12 yrs ago I doubt he would have been pegged as a terrorist.
For good or bad it sometimes takes a drastic move to advance a cause. I think it will take DA3 to fully define Anders as a madman or revolutionary.
Where is that definition stated? And is it the only definition in that case?
If it is the only one, I'd complain to the one that wrote it.
Herr Uhl wrote...
marquiseondore wrote...
My problem with the entire Anders's is a terrorist argument is that prior to all that he spent the last 6+ yrs in Kirkwall trying to peacefully help mages escape. The definition of a terrorist was someone who consistently causes harm to others. If the game had come out 11-12 yrs ago I doubt he would have been pegged as a terrorist.
For good or bad it sometimes takes a drastic move to advance a cause. I think it will take DA3 to fully define Anders as a madman or revolutionary.
Where is that definition stated? And is it the only definition in that case?
If it is the only one, I'd complain to the one that wrote it.
Lucy_Glitter wrote...
And to add:
ter·ror·ism
[ter-uh-riz-uhm]
–noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
To avoid calling him a terrorist is like avoiding calling two slices of bread with edible content in them a sandwich.
RinjiRenee wrote...
Many revolutionaries in our history have been terrorists by definition. Try to think of it that way. The fact they are revolutionaries does not change the fact that they were also terrorists.
conversation, but I've just about had it with people calling the destruction of the Chantry an act of terrorism.
Lucy_Glitter wrote...
And to add:
ter·ror·ism
[ter-uh-riz-uhm]
–noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
To avoid calling him a terrorist is like avoiding calling two slices of bread with edible content in them a sandwich.
Modifié par RinjiRenee, 24 mars 2011 - 07:57 .
Ryzaki wrote...
And I see it as a grim necessity.
It does depend though.
Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 24 mars 2011 - 07:56 .
Kawamura wrote...
Yes, because the word is that simple.
Retour en haut
