552 réponses à ce sujet

[Harorrd]

WHy dident he blew himself up and the chantry? those poor civilians,

[Killjoy Cutter]

Miri1984 wrote...

@Killjoy Cutter: Blanket statements of "You're very wrong" with no justification or explanation go into the troll basket for me.

That's nice.

Equating the accidental killing of civilians despite efforts to avoid it during the execution of strikes on military targets, with the deliberate targetting of civilians for maximum psychological and political affect, is a conversation-ender.  There's no point in continuing a conversation with someone who does so, they're too far gone. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

renaissancemom wrote...

There really needs to be a way to exorcise Vengeance from Anders. DLC PLS LOL! 

Hard to exorcise the spirit when Anders is dead.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Narreneth wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
2) The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.

I really wish people would quit saying this.  It's an Einstein quote and in no way shape or form illustrates what "insanity" is.  Insanity isn't even a proper psycological term, it came into existense solely as a legal defense word.   I know that this is incredibly off-topic but I really have a hard time getting past this part of your argument because what you're saying ultimately doesn't make any sense.

Don't get caught up in psychological terms them.  Hell, the field in which some people still take Freud or Jung seriously, and which still has hardline Skinner adherents, can't complain. 

The point still stands.  So many of the factions in DA2 just keep plowing down the same road endlessly, never getting anything but bad results, never getting what they want, and never considering any other path.  The Templars, the mages, the Qunari, etc. 

[Well]

LoneWolf4191 wrote...

Abness wrote...

Haha the arishok was a d*ck indeed but let's be honest he does look kick ass. But what i meant is even with the people who should not be mentioned (Voldermort) haha no but it can help a society or break it in tye sense of if the dude did not go paranoid on everybody a system with disipline and perpouse stand beter than that of freedom drenqed in chaos. Altouth there metodes are are extreme they cannot be sweet talked i mean to get this disiple you will have to lose freedom. And is that a price you are willing to pay? But indeed the qunari would have killed you a 1000 times if it were up to them. It is so that dictatorship can be good in the right hand and no i dont meen cadafi or sadam i men like tito from yougoslavie he was announced most modern dictator of the 20th century with al that power you can help alot of people but it is easy to easyly get corupted like our dragon age mages

But damn we're kinda grimm talking about this kind of stuff dont you think haha. And no matter what war humans always seem to show some bad sides during war haha. So lets talk about hPpy stuf hows the weather?

Well if you look at our history, we had fudes over Religion, religion was a way of survival. The basis of war back then was land, money and religion. People came to the Americas and converted Natives as a means of control, which is also what the Qun was trying to do. Thedas has many religions, the Dalish are like Native Americans, the Chantry is like Christianity. Europeans went to the Americas because the Ottoman Empire (islamic traditions) was becoming powerful, so they sought wealth and land to gain power.

Wow!Guess you missed that whole Great Famine thing.I could go into other things but what the hell.

[Sarah1281]

The Keeper during the Night Terrors quest mentions that even when you do a Connor on an abomination, that person is damaged forever (which makes Arl Eamon mentioning Connor is acting weird in the post-game show in DA:O more depressing).

That's a bug. You're only SUPPOSED to get that line if you sold Connor's soul.

[Sarah1281]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Miri1984 wrote...

@Killjoy Cutter: Blanket statements of "You're very wrong" with no justification or explanation go into the troll basket for me.

That's nice.

Equating the accidental killing of civilians despite efforts to avoid it during the execution of strikes on military targets, with the deliberate targetting of civilians for maximum psychological and political affect, is a conversation-ender.  There's no point in continuing a conversation with someone who does so, they're too far gone. 

I think the only civilian deliberately targeted was the grand cleric. The rest were collateral damage.

[rak72]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Miri1984 wrote...

@Killjoy Cutter: Blanket statements of "You're very wrong" with no justification or explanation go into the troll basket for me.

That's nice.

Equating the accidental killing of civilians despite efforts to avoid it during the execution of strikes on military targets, with the deliberate targetting of civilians for maximum psychological and political affect, is a conversation-ender.  There's no point in continuing a conversation with someone who does so, they're too far gone. 

I think the only civilian deliberately targeted was the grand cleric. The rest were collateral damage.

If that were the case, he could have just walked into the chantry, asked her for a blessing, then zapped her with a fire ball when she was doing it.

Edit - not that that would make his actions any more excusable.

Modifié par rak72, 19 mars 2011 - 05:13 .

[Sarah1281]

Well, he still wanted to blow the Chantry up to make it dramatic and all there's-no-going-back but I think he would have been just as happy if the Grand Cleric had happened to be the only one in the Chantry at the time. And does anybody seem to care about anyone dying who wasn't the Grand Cleric? I remember them being very upset that he blew up the Chantry itself AND that Elthina died.

[rak72]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Well, he still wanted to blow the Chantry up to make it dramatic and all there's-no-going-back but I think he would have been just as happy if the Grand Cleric had happened to be the only one in the Chantry at the time. And does anybody seem to care about anyone dying who wasn't the Grand Cleric? I remember them being very upset that he blew up the Chantry itself AND that Elthina died.

I guess she was the only "famous" one in there at the time, so she is the only one that gets mentioned.
Another thing that realy ticks my Hawk off - she lost everyone who was important in her life - Anders knew that very well.  She was also very close to Sebastian, who lives in the chantry.  After all those years together, I'm sure Anders would have known of Hawk & Seb's "special" relationship, yet he still goes & blows up the place where the last important person in hawk's life lives, without regard to the possibility of killing him.

[Sarah1281]

Isn't Sebastian standing right there with you when it happens, though? There's not much of a risk there. Of course, whether Anders would have blown it up later if he had known that Sebastian happened to be inside is another matter.

[rak72]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Isn't Sebastian standing right there with you when it happens, though? There's not much of a risk there. Of course, whether Anders would have blown it up later if he had known that Sebastian happened to be inside is another matter.

I think he had all ready set off the bomb, then comes strolling into the Gallows, it was a done deal by then. So he wouldn't of known if Sebastian was with me or not.  But like you said - it wouldn't of stopped him either way.

[cglasgow]

Sarah1281 wrote...

I think the only civilian deliberately targeted was the grand cleric. The rest were collateral damage.

As pointed out, Anders had it easily in his power to just kill her individually, and instead deliberately went for a huge bomb.   That takes it out of the realm of 'collateral'.

Basically, the question you have to ask yourself is 'Would he still have blown up the Chantry building if there were no people inside it?'   If the answer is 'no', then the people were the target.

Modifié par cglasgow, 19 mars 2011 - 06:06 .

[Sarah1281]

Basically, the question you have to ask yourself is 'Would he still have blown up the Chantry building if there were no people inside it?' If the answer is 'no', then the people were the target.

I think a better question is 'Would he still have blown up the Chantry building if there was no one inside it but Elthina?' I think he would have. No one's saying that he was only targeting the building. We all know his real target was the Grand Cleric. I just think everyone else who died besides Elthina was collateral. He made no effort to save them but they weren't his targets.

[Eshaye]

He knew there would be more people dying, probably wished it wasn't too many, but it's still something he understood and took full guilt and responsibility for. People blow things up because their own people have been pushed too far by others. They have witnessed atrocities committed against their own and no one in power is helping them. It's an act of last resort and desperation and most of the time the person committing the act expects to die right away, such a person is already broken and doing such a thing would break them even more.

That's the tragedy, which is why the happy ending you can with Anders get is just a tad too happy imo. Anders doesn't want to kill innocents but he at that time doesn't see a more effective alternative. Like a general doesn't want civilians to die but knows it's inevitable. And don't tell me it's not the same, it's still people dying, it's still blood on someone's hands no matter if politics paints it a different color.

[panamakira]

Eshaye wrote...

He knew there would be more people dying, probably wished it wasn't too many, but it's still something he understood and took full guilt and responsibility for. People blow things up because their own people have been pushed too far by others. They have witnessed atrocities committed against their own and no one in power is helping them. It's an act of last resort and desperation and most of the time the person committing the act expects to die right away, such a person is already broken and doing such a thing would break them even more.

That's the tragedy, which is why the happy ending you can with Anders get is just a tad too happy imo. Anders doesn't want to kill innocents but he at that time doesn't see a more effective alternative. Like a general doesn't want civilians to die but knows it's inevitable. And don't tell me it's not the same, it's still people dying, it's still blood on someone's hands no matter if politics paints it a different color.

Sadly I have to agree. No matter what, Anders chose to kill innocents for the sake of the cause. There's blood on his hands. He's already broken.

[cglasgow]

Eshaye wrote...

And don't tell me it's not the same, it's still people dying, it's still blood on someone's hands [snip]

It's not the same.  

I mean, people die in negligence just as dead as they die in manslaughter just as much as they die in murder one.  So why are those all different crimes?   Why don't we just have 'all wrongful deaths are murder'?  Intent and accident vs. deliberate, that's why.

If a general deliberately orders the shooting of civilians, that's war crime.   If a general orders something his troops to go through civilians to reach the enemy when he could just as easily have around them rather than over them, that's also war crime.   If a general orders his troops to attack the enemy while doing their best to not hit any civilians, and civilians accidentally die in the process anyway, that's not a war crime.   (Before anybody mentions certain cities in WWII that caught on fire a lot, let me remind you that with WWII technology, 'the best you could do' to avoid hitting civilians when aiming at the nearby factory or army base was 'pretty much zero', given the really crappy accuracy of bombs back then.  So, no need to discuss that.  Again.)

So yeah, different.   'Innocent people die in war, therefore anyone who starts a war is a murderer!'    Innocent people die on the friggin' Interstate every year too; that doesn't make President Eisenhower a murderer, now does it?

Statistical risk does not morally equate to deliberate, hands-on killing.   Any sufficiently large # of human beings engaging in any collective activity, however ostensibly nice, will eventually be responsible for at least one accidental death; the gods of the actuarial tables are harsh and inescapable.   This does not automatically give everybody involved in that activity the 'murderer' flag.

On the other hand, when you hand-carry a bomb into a building, put it exactly on the mark you're aiming for plus-minus zero feet, and then punch the detonator when you know the building is full of civilians... when, in fact, your plan relied on mass civilian casualties to shock and horrify people into reacting the way you wanted... that isn't 'statistical', that's direct.

Modifié par cglasgow, 19 mars 2011 - 07:26 .

[Eshaye]

They are all murderers to a different degree, but to those who've lost loved ones, it does not make much of a difference.

[Poison Apple]

Act I
HAWKE: (FLIRT) "Hurt me. I might like it."

Act III
(CHANTRY EXPLODES)
"DON'T LIKE. DEFINITELY DON'T LIKE."

Modifié par Poison Apple, 19 mars 2011 - 08:04 .

[Raiil]

Poison Apple wrote...

Act I
HAWKE: (FLIRT) "Hurt me. I might like it."

Act III
(CHANTRY EXPLODES)
"DON'T LIKE. DEFINITELY DON'T LIKE."

I lol'd so hard, damn you.

[cglasgow]

Eshaye wrote...

They are all murderers to a different degree, but to those who've lost loved ones, it does not make much of a difference.

Well in that case, everybody who has ever lost a loved one due to tragedy is now granted a 'get out of murder free' card and may justifiably go blow up anyone who is guilty of enabling their personal tragedy however indirectly, even if it was simply by 'not doing enough to oppose my enemy'.  And so all the 'murderers' will die, because there's really no difference among them all and they all deserve it.  Wouldn't that be a so much better world to live in?   /sarcasm

Modifié par cglasgow, 19 mars 2011 - 08:24 .

[Eleinehmm]

cglasgow wrote...

It's not the same.  

I mean, people die in negligence just as dead as they die in manslaughter just as much as they die in murder one.  So why are those all different crimes?   Why don't we just have 'all wrongful deaths are murder'?  Intent and accident vs. deliberate, that's why.

 'Innocent people die in war, therefore anyone who starts a war is a murderer!'   

Wait, you mean  that people do not intentionaly kill other people in war ?

Yes, it does. Any politician who gives an order to kill is a murderer.  I don't care about historians who sing praises to the winners or whatever.


I do not support Anders (OMG, you moron, what have you done reaction included in the package), but again, I think that any person who willingly join the army is a bad person (especially if there is no enemy forces directly attacking the
country)

People in the army kill because they are ordered to kill, thinking that they are defending someone. The only people they are killing are the bunch of misguided fools at best, and innocent people who just want to be left alone at worst.

Civilian is a funny word, why is killing some young conscripted fool (mind ye, he probably didn’t want to do anything with fighting before he was told that the  ( demonized) enemy wants to kill his loved ones)  is ok, while killing the same guy when he’s not wearing a uniform is not ok.

It seems a little bit hypocritical to allow some people to kill for freedom and then condemn others for the same action.
The only difference that during the war people are taught to think about other peoples as if they were some kind of a Hive Mind, bend on destroying their lifestyle.
Personal revenge I can understand, war – not a chance.
War is murder, because you are killing other people for things that are not of their making.

 Sorry guys, It is difficult to see any middle ground here, for me it is ether for or against.

Modifié par Eleinehmm, 19 mars 2011 - 09:53 .

[cglasgow]

Eleinehmm wrote...

Wait, you mean  that people do not intentionaly kill other people in war ?

Of course they do.  What they don't always do is intentionally kill civilians.

The purpose of war is generally to kill the enemy's soldiers.  You know, those guys with the uniforms and the weapons.  The ones who are shooting at you.  If and when civilians die in war, its always tragic, but its not always intentional.  (And when it is intentional, well, somebody should get a war crimes trial.)

But if you're going to go off on some 'all killing is murder, no matter the motive and no matter the target', then we have no common ground to talk to each other on, we'll just be talking past each other forever.

It seems a little bit hypocritical to allow some people to kill for freedom and then condemn others for the same action.

Yes, because there is no difference between shooting someone who is actually fighting you, and shooting civilians because they're there.  /sarcasm

That's like claiming there's no difference between a police officer shooting a suspect who was waving a gun around, and a police officer shooting a suspect who was waving a cell phone around.    There actually is a huge legal and moral difference between the two, and the police department's reaction to that officer's behavior will also be wildly different in both cases.

Modifié par cglasgow, 19 mars 2011 - 09:57 .

[Eleinehmm]

cglasgow wrote...

Eleinehmm wrote...

Wait, you mean  that people do not intentionaly kill other people in war ?

Of course they do.  What they don't always do is intentionally kill civilians.

The purpose of war is generally to kill the enemy's soldiers.  You know, those guys with the uniforms and the weapons.  The ones who are shooting at you.

But if you're going to go off on some 'all killing is murder, no matter the motive and no matter the target', then we have no common ground to talk to each other on, we'll just be talking past each other forever.

The question is WHY are they shooting at you, pal. It's not LOTR or Aliens movie. They  shot at you because you shot at them.

Modifié par Eleinehmm, 19 mars 2011 - 09:57 .

[cglasgow]

Eleinehmm wrote...

The question is WHY are they shooting at you, pal. It's not LOTR or Aliens movie. They  shot at you because you shot at them

Yes, history has no examples of unprovoked aggression, ever.  /sarcasm

Do I have to hold an entire lecture series on 'just war theory'?  Because, seriously, not going to try.   I'd rather you just google it.  I do not get paid to teach history or philosophy class.

Modifié par cglasgow, 19 mars 2011 - 10:00 .