543 réponses à ce sujet

[Rinji the Bearded]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

cglasgow wrote...
People, think about this the next time you're all like 'one guy's terrorist is another guy's freedom fighter' and 'nobody ever got free without doing some terrorism'.

I kept meaning to say this yesterday but opted not to. Now however...

Contrary to what some people want to insist, it is ok to hold fiction and reality to different standards. Agreeing with, supporting, or even just sympathizing with the actions of a fictional character or organization does not mean you automatically have to support those same actions in real life.

Agreeing with Anders doesn't mean you have to like Bin Laden.
Thinking Meredith was right does not mean you have to think the inquisition was a good idea.
Liking the book Lolita doesn't make you a child predator.
Owning a collection of Tarantino movies doesn't mean you enjoy robbing diners.

It really is ok for someone's actual morality to be different than their imaginery morality.
I myself am a pacifist and consider almost all forms of violence archaic and useless. If I could only play games where the protagonist felt the same way.... I'd never get to play any games.

Thank you. 

[Red Templar]

RinjiRenee wrote...
My point in saying that was he was attacking that person who said "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter."  And this is completely true of Anders.  I would also say the Chantry's been a practioner of fear and terrorism for quite some time with all the hate-mongering going on, but there you go.  The definition of terrorism is not limited to a single act of it.

Simply put: he called out a person who had a valid point, and I was defending that other person.  I do hate it when people try to pull real life issues and try to apply them to video game stories.  Osama Bin Laden did not bomb the twin towers to force slavery to end --he did it to break American spirit.  Anders blew up a Chantry to take out the so-called mediating force that was not taking the issue at hand, not to cause fear. Fear was not his intention; actually, he WANTED open war.

These characters live in a different world than ours.  It's not so easy to compare the two.

I get you, but the only differences are the circumstances. The principles are the same thing; widen your list of targets to include civilians and non-combatents, and bring violence to bear on them to provoke a reaction. Granted, Bin Ladin isn't a perfect comparison - there are much better real world comparisons to be made to Anders situation, but even so we are talking about roughly the same thing under the same principles.

It is true that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. But that doesn't mean that the guy stops being a terrorist just because someone sees him positively. He's still every inch the terrorist; his actions are simply justified by people who are sympathetic to his cause. Which is common to terrorism throughout history.

[Rinji the Bearded]

Red Templar wrote...

RinjiRenee wrote...
My point in saying that was he was attacking that person who said "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter."  And this is completely true of Anders.  I would also say the Chantry's been a practioner of fear and terrorism for quite some time with all the hate-mongering going on, but there you go.  The definition of terrorism is not limited to a single act of it.

Simply put: he called out a person who had a valid point, and I was defending that other person.  I do hate it when people try to pull real life issues and try to apply them to video game stories.  Osama Bin Laden did not bomb the twin towers to force slavery to end --he did it to break American spirit.  Anders blew up a Chantry to take out the so-called mediating force that was not taking the issue at hand, not to cause fear. Fear was not his intention; actually, he WANTED open war.

These characters live in a different world than ours.  It's not so easy to compare the two.

I get you, but the only differences are the circumstances. The principles are the same thing; widen your list of targets to include civilians and non-combatents, and bring violence to bear on them to provoke a reaction. Granted, Bin Ladin isn't a perfect comparison - there are much better real world comparisons to be made to Anders situation, but even so we are talking about roughly the same thing under the same principles.

It is true that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. But that doesn't mean that the guy stops being a terrorist just because someone sees him positively. He's still every inch the terrorist; his actions are simply justified by people who are sympathetic to his cause. Which is common to terrorism throughout history.

The definitions of terrorism are so broad, and while we're sitting and yelling at one man for being a terrorist, someone else is cheering for him, calling him a patriot.  It's all a matter of perspective.  Does it change the fact that it might have been "terrorism?"  No.  But not everyone's going to think that way.

The fact that he brought up Bin Laden seemed like an attack, more than anything -- a name that can be brought up that everyone can recognize.  What about William Wallace? Revolutionaries can be considered terrorists by the opposing side... all of them. 

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 14 mars 2011 - 07:05 .

[White_Buffalo94]

He is the first person in a thousand years to have the balls to stand up and strike at the big guy. I see him as another Andraste, her true feelings and wants exposed through Anders. I believe the Chantry corrupted itself after Andraste, that she wouldn't want what actually happened with the Circle and oppressing mages. Grand Cleric Elthina is an indecisive worthless sack and although she was a good person, she had to die. You gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelet.
I (and my Hawke) were surprised and apalled at first, but realizing that change only comes through force, I realized it was necessary for my goals, which was to destroy the Templar Order and free mages from their Circles.

[White_Buffalo94]

RinjiRenee wrote...

Red Templar wrote...

RinjiRenee wrote...
My point in saying that was he was attacking that person who said "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter."  And this is completely true of Anders.  I would also say the Chantry's been a practioner of fear and terrorism for quite some time with all the hate-mongering going on, but there you go.  The definition of terrorism is not limited to a single act of it.

Simply put: he called out a person who had a valid point, and I was defending that other person.  I do hate it when people try to pull real life issues and try to apply them to video game stories.  Osama Bin Laden did not bomb the twin towers to force slavery to end --he did it to break American spirit.  Anders blew up a Chantry to take out the so-called mediating force that was not taking the issue at hand, not to cause fear. Fear was not his intention; actually, he WANTED open war.

These characters live in a different world than ours.  It's not so easy to compare the two.

I get you, but the only differences are the circumstances. The principles are the same thing; widen your list of targets to include civilians and non-combatents, and bring violence to bear on them to provoke a reaction. Granted, Bin Ladin isn't a perfect comparison - there are much better real world comparisons to be made to Anders situation, but even so we are talking about roughly the same thing under the same principles.

It is true that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. But that doesn't mean that the guy stops being a terrorist just because someone sees him positively. He's still every inch the terrorist; his actions are simply justified by people who are sympathetic to his cause. Which is common to terrorism throughout history.

The definitions of terrorism are so broad, and while we're sitting and yelling at one man for being a terrorist, someone else is cheering for him, calling him a patriot.  It's all a matter of perspective.  Does it change the fact that it might have been "terrorism?"  No.  But not everyone's going to think that way.

The fact that he brought up Bin Laden seemed like an attack, more than anything.  Revolutionaries can be considered terrorists by the opposing side... all of them. 

I would perhaps compare Anders to "V" from the movie "V For Vendetta"

[Pileyourbodies]

I must wonder what caused the red beam? During his quest we're gathering the components of gunpowder and last time i checked gunpowder doesn't cause giant red beams to space. Maybe it was lyrium infused or something...

[Bigdoser]

EchoGarrote wrote...

I killed Anders, but I sided with the Mages. But...well...the Revered Mother in some ways she's just as bad as Meredith and Orsino.

Although, now don't get me wrong the Revered Mother was a good person first and foremost. Did she deserve death? No. Was Anders wrong? Yes. Was she another responsible party for the whole damn mess? Yes.

(Personally, I wish there was an option to go a little Qunari on him. Keep him alive, but chop off his hands.)

But back to the Revered Mother and why she (and the Viscount as well regarding the Qunari) are responsible.

Here's the core of it: You can't be in a position of power and do nothing except hope that the problem will go away. Because if you make no choice, someone else will make the choice for you.

The Revered Mother was given many MANY opportunities to speak out, to make a comment, to say that Meredith had gone too far, or that Orsino needed to back down. But she didn't. She was given a chance to walk away by the Divine herself. But she didn't. Anders even gave her one last chance to say something, anything, while he was setting up his surprise. But she continued to waffle. I also bet two bucks that, had Anders not done what he did, she would have told Orsino to shut up and allow the search while scolding Meredith to tone it down and let Cullen lead it. Once more, nothing would have been resolved, nothing would have changed, and odds were good that someone else would have done something even worse than Anders.

If she had pushed it, just a little, then Meredith would have snapped or Orsino would have exposed himself for being a Blood Mage and then there would be a change, but with a FAR smaller body count.

Also, the Revered Mother was not exactly spreading the word of 'Give mages a chance' but rather 'Just don't kill them.' Anders said that the Chantry and the Templars like Meredith spend a good amount of time saying that mages are a sin against the Maker, and that they're all bound for the Void. Remember in Origins that one mage who wished that she died because she was ashamed of her magic? If the Revered Mother was so sympathetic about the mages then why didn't she go out and say something to contradict that? No. She was assured that she was doing the 'right' thing by not taking sides and she let her pride keep her there when she was told by the Divine that the situation was going to explode. So she just let the Chantry spew it's hate speech and allowed Meredith to get worse and worse and the Mages more and more desperate.

It all harkens back to Flemeth's little speech on the top of the mountain about seeing if you can fly. Orsino and Meredith already hurled themselves into the void and crashed. The Revered Mother just stood on the edge, pretending that it wasn't there, that it wasn't a problem, that she had control...and then Anders pushed her in.

Hawke, and Anders if you see it from his POV, became dragons.

This. took the words right out of my mouth (kept anders and alive and sided with the mages).

[Red Templar]

RinjiRenee wrote...
The definitions of terrorism are so broad, and while we're sitting and yelling at one man for being a terrorist, someone else is cheering for him, calling him a patriot.  It's all a matter of perspective.  Does it change the fact that it might have been "terrorism?"  No.  But not everyone's going to think that way.

Well, not all that broad. Anders murdered civilian non-combatents in order to provoke fear and violence from a completely different (militarized) group of people, and galvanize another group of people into violent immitation against said miltarized force. That is a textbook definition of terrorism.

The moral implications that this has for Anders and his cause are debatable, as is the manner in which the various group sof Thedas will receive him. But on definitions, it is terrorism.

[Rinji the Bearded]

“Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.”

Do you know who said that?

Benjamin Franklin.

All a matter of perspective.  That's what I love about this game.  And, to point out, I brought up the above quote to show how ridiculous it is to bring real world issues into this.

And also, I don't think he did that for the express purpose to scare anyone.  It MIGHT have scared some, but it incensed Meredith enough to invoke the Right of Annullment.

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 14 mars 2011 - 07:21 .

[Red Templar]

RinjiRenee wrote...

“Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.”

Do you know who said that?

Benjamin Franklin.

All a matter of perspective.  That's what I love about this game.  And, to point out, I brought up the above quote to show how ridiculous it is to bring real world issues into this.

I don't really see the relevence. If Benjamin Franklin fought tyrants by directing violence against civilians in order to provoke a response from others, he would also be a terrorist. Doesn't mean the enemy he is fighting wouldn't be tyrannical, it would just be the dictionary definition of what old Ben was doing.

Linguistic accuracy is not the same thing as moral judgement or condemnation. We are talking about terrorism here; what moral judgements you make of it are your own to decide, but that is the proper term.

That said, props to bioware for approaching such a modern issue in a video game. It definitely grew my respect for the writers.

[Syenthros]

Anders.. He played me good. He used my friendship against me. Through the game, I supported the mages due to Hawk's father and sister. I didn't like how Magi were being treated, and while I supported their cause, I constantly reminded Anders that a balance between the two could be found. I felt close to breaking through to him.

Then he blew up the Chantry.

At that moment, I was surprised, my mouth agape as I stared wide eyed at the screen. Then the initial moment of shock faded and was replaced by anger. Anger at betrayal. Anders, my friend since I had met him, had betrayed me. Had betrayed his own cause - because of him, he caused Meridith to invoke the Right of Annulment after she had almost backed down. He had to be dealt with.

So I'll execute him. Ander's final, fanatical words still ring in my ears - that killing him will only make him a martyr. Those words told me just how complete his fall was.

No other game character has made me feel so utterly betrayed. Well done, Bioware. Well done.

[Bigdoser]

I don't really care that anders blew up the chantry if there is any organisation that supports the removal of someone's humanity they deserve it I mean when karl came back from being tranquil it seemed like he did not expect it to be very bad and would rather die after feeling what it is like to be tranquil. If any organisation supports or condones a system like that they deserve to be destroyed.

[Rinji the Bearded]

Red Templar wrote...

RinjiRenee wrote...

“Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.”

Do you know who said that?

Benjamin Franklin.

All a matter of perspective.  That's what I love about this game.  And, to point out, I brought up the above quote to show how ridiculous it is to bring real world issues into this.

I don't really see the relevence. If Benjamin Franklin fought tyrants by directing violence against civilians in order to provoke a response from others, he would also be a terrorist. Doesn't mean the enemy he is fighting wouldn't be tyrannical, it would just be the dictionary definition of what old Ben was doing.

Linguistic accuracy is not the same thing as moral judgement or condemnation. We are talking about terrorism here; what moral judgements you make of it are your own to decide, but that is the proper term.

That said, props to bioware for approaching such a modern issue in a video game. It definitely grew my respect for the writers.

What I meant by quoting Benjamin Franklin was this:   It's also not too unlike what Osama Bin Laden was quoted as saying.  To pull a quote that Osama Bin Laden out of context and apply it to Anders is ludicrous to me.  People have been saying things like that for thousands of years, not just one man.

I think the goal of the writers was to create these characters with extremely polarized views, and that if they could get you to change your perceived view of the world of Thedas than when you first started out, then the character was a success.  Not to point out the moral ambiguities in our world necessarily, though I guess you could draw some parallels.  As a person, I would not be able to, under any moral reasoning, be able to rack up the numbers of deaths my Hawke caused, justified or no.

I wonder if the Grand Cleric had any phat lewts. *SHOT*

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 14 mars 2011 - 07:39 .

[Aithieel]

I don't agree taht treating Anders as Osama Bin Laden is fine. He ahd to do something. Something ahd to be done to start some movement. I din't expect that one of player companios will have so mutch impact on the game world. Greatly created - BioWare all of you have to agree. Also:

TelvanniWarlord wrote...
I don't blame Anders though, I blame Justice. Even in Awakening he had a similar attitude. Without Justice, Anders would still be Anders from Awakening.

There is something in in.

Jimmy Fury wrote...

cglasgow wrote...
People, think about this the next time you're all like 'one guy's terrorist is another guy's freedom fighter' and 'nobody ever got free without doing some terrorism'.

Agreeing with Anders doesn't mean you have to like Bin Laden.
Thinking Meredith was right does not mean you have to think the inquisition was a good idea.
Liking the book Lolita doesn't make you a child predator.
Owning a collection of Tarantino movies doesn't mean you enjoy robbing diners.

Yes!

White_Buffalo94 wrote...

He is the first person in a thousand years to have the balls to stand up and strike at the big guy. I see him as another Andraste, her true feelings and wants exposed through Anders. I believe the Chantry corrupted itself after Andraste, that she wouldn't want what actually happened with the Circle and oppressing mages. Grand Cleric Elthina is an indecisive worthless sack and although she was a good person, she had to die. You gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelet.
I (and my Hawke) were surprised and apalled at first, but realizing that change only comes through force, I realized it was necessary for my goals, which was to destroy the Templar Order and free mages from their Circles.

...and that's a good idea for that what is coming next. I hope he still will be important person in expansion.

[cglasgow]

RinjiRenee wrote...

“Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.”

Do you know who said that?

Benjamin Franklin.

And do you know what Benjamin Franklin did?   He joined the army that was killing British soldiers. 

He didn't go to Britain and bomb a church so as to goad the British soldiers to start massacreing American citizens in retaliation so that the rest of the world would gape with horror at Britain's atrocities and start beating on it.

There is no 'perspective' as regards deliberately going after civilians for the purpose of pissing people off.   There is no justification.   There is no moral excuse.   If you do this then regardless of your cause you are a terrorist.

That's why I posted an Osama bin Laden quote with the serial #'s filed off -- to see if anyone could tell the difference between it and, oh, Benjamin Franklin.    Answer: nope!   Why?   Because rhetoric is rhetoric; anybody can use it.  

But rhetoric does not wash away innocent blood, and to a lesser degree, neither does good intentions.   Both good and evil men can and have used the same rhetoric to try and justify themselves; the reason they are judged differently is because of what they did and who they did it to.

If you've got a beef with a tyrant, kill the tyrant.   If you want to fight an oppressing army, kill the army.   If you're being enslaved, butcher the slavers.   That is what a freedom fighter does.    He fights the people actually going after his freedom, the ones with weapons who are fighting him, the tyrant and his enforcers.

The terrorist, on the other hand, goes and murders up defenseless civilians to try and force, or goad, or trick, someone else to do his freedom fighting for him.

So no, freedom fighters and terrorists are never the same.   The former has the balls to take on his enemy directly and the sense of proportion to separate genuinely guilty targets from innocent bystanders.   And the latter... does not.

It's not a question of goals; both terrorists and freedom fighters can entirely have the same goals.   Its a question of methods.

Anders used the method of a terrorist; therefore he is one, and not a freedom fighter.  Q.E.D.

Modifié par cglasgow, 14 mars 2011 - 08:05 .

[Nathan Redgrave]

That what Anders did was a terrible thing to do was made pretty clear in the story itself, especially if you have Sebastion there to rage at him for murdering the grand cleric. That's not really up for debate. It was an extremely ugly and cruel act. Whether you choose to stand full-on against him or attempt to do something with the change he forces on the world is another matter entirely. And of course it's up to you whether or not you take justice into your own hands by killing him (funnily enough, the irony in that only just now occurs to me as I write this).

[cglasgow]

Well, seeing as how he confessed and said that he accepts being executed, and you are the Champion of Kirkwall, you could even argue it was an official execution. Nobles do traditionally have the right of high justice in medieval societies, after all, and its not like there's a viscount to be dragging him in front of, which sort of makes you senior man on the spot.

I grant that its pure plot fiat that Meredith didn't simply drag him out and kill him, as death #1 on the Rite of Annulment. She was right there. But, Gameplay & Story Segregation.

Modifié par cglasgow, 14 mars 2011 - 07:57 .

[Rinji the Bearded]

cglasgow wrote...

RinjiRenee wrote...

“Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.”

Do you know who said that?

Benjamin Franklin.

And do you know what Benjamin Franklin did?   He joined the army that was killing British soldiers. 

He didn't go to Britain and bomb a church so as to goad the British soldiers to start massacreing American citizens in retaliation so that the rest of the world would gape with horror at Britain's atrocities and start beating on it.

There is no 'perspective' as regards deliberately targeting and mass murdering noncombatants.   There is no justification.   There is no moral excuse.   If you do this then regardless of your cause you are a terrorist.

That's why I posted an Osama bin Laden quote with the serial #'s filed off -- to see if anyone could tell the difference between it and, oh, Benjamin Franklin.    Answer: nope!   Why?   Because rhetoric is rhetoric; anybody can use it.  

But rhetoric does not wash away innocent blood, and neither do good intentions.   Both good and evil men can and have used the same rhetoric to try and justify themselves; the reason they are judged differently is because of what they did and who they did it to.

If you've got a beef with a tyrant, kill the tyrant.   If you want to fight an oppressing army, kill the army.   If you're being enslaved, butcher the slavers.   That is what a freedom fighter does.    He fights the people actually going after his freedom.

The terrorist, on the other hand, goes and murders up defenseless people to try and force, or goad, or trick, someone else to do his freedom fighting for him.

So no, freedom fighters and terrorists are never the same.   The former has the balls to take on his enemy directly and the sense of proportion to separate genuinely guilty targets from innocent bystanders.   And the latter... does not.

It's not a question of goals; both terrorists and freedom fighters can entirely have the same goals.   Its a question of methods.

Anders used the method of a terrorist; therefore he is one, and not a freedom fighter.  Q.E.D.

Anders didn't goad anyone into fighting for him -- he commits the act with your help or no.  If you let him live, he fights right there beside you.  If you let him go and side with the Mages, he tries to rejoin you.  Also, Osama Bin Laden didn't even bomb the Twin Towers himself.  He inspired others to do it.  Technically, he has only preached the acts of terrorism to others.  You cannot compare the two.

And in Anders's eyes, maybe he saw that the Chantry was NOT so innocent as we would like to think they are?  They do condone the act of making mages tranquil.  They also enslave the Templars with lyrium, making them fanatics.  A little controversial, don't  you think?

[Nathan Redgrave]

That Meredith doesn't even glance twice at Anders specifically is something Sebastion calls direct attention to, if I remember. Not really story segregation at all, just Meredith being off her rocker.

This said, "right of high justice" has never been hinted at in Dragon Age, so I'm not sure they have that in Kirkwall... not that whether or not the Champion has a LEGAL right to execute Anders had any bearing on my point.

[cglasgow]

Actually, noblemen having the right of high justice has been explicitly shown in Dragon Age; at least, if you take the option where Arl Eamon has Jowan executed.

[Rinji the Bearded]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

That Meredith doesn't even glance twice at Anders specifically is something Sebastion calls direct attention to, if I remember. Not really story segregation at all, just Meredith being off her rocker.

This said, "right of high justice" has never been hinted at in Dragon Age, so I'm not sure they have that in Kirkwall... not that whether or not the Champion has a LEGAL right to execute Anders had any bearing on my point.

I did kind of feel bad for Sebastian then.  He was like... the only one with any sense to see what had happened, and everyone else was yelling about the Right of Annullment.   If Meredith had killed Anders, a lot of that conflict could have been avoided, I think.

[cglasgow]

Few people are arguing against that, no.

The tragedy of DA2 is that if Meredith hadn't been insane, Anders would just have been a lone nut. Instead, she gave him exactly what he wanted.

Of course, if Orsino hadn't been helping conceal crazy blood mages in the city for so long, Meredith might never have gone totally paranoid.   (Although the idol definitely didn't help things there).

Or if the Champion had never found the idol in the Deep Roads.

Or if...

If we're talking about 'Who is responsible for the ending of DA2 being such a disaster?', the answer is 'It was a perfect storm of insanity, evil, and just plain bad luck from practically every damn person involved'.

But that's a separate debate from 'Was Anders' method morally acceptable or not'.

Modifié par cglasgow, 14 mars 2011 - 08:16 .

[BubbleDncr]

The whole ending of DA2 was me being "HOLY ****." I was in the same mindset Merril was in when we killed the keeper and the dalish elves. "Oh God, this has to be a dream, I want to wake up."

Everything was a result of everyone going crazy. But I was always siding with the mages, as I was a mage, and I was in a romance with Anders. I couldn't bring myself to kill him. I told him that he made things worse, and I imagine that for weeks after the final battle, my Hawke will still be randomly exploding at Anders for what he did. But I couldn't kill him.

It's funny how both my Warden and Hawke make terrible decisions based on love. My Warden lets a demon child be born, and Hawke lets a terrorist live.

[namedforthemoon]

Most of the mages I met were blood mages or abominations, so the only way I'll support Anders is if I'm playing a blood mage myself... Since the specialization is there.

[Nathan Redgrave]

BubbleDncr wrote...

The whole ending of DA2 was me being "HOLY ****." I was in the same mindset Merril was in when we killed the keeper and the dalish elves. "Oh God, this has to be a dream, I want to wake up."

Everything was a result of everyone going crazy. But I was always siding with the mages, as I was a mage, and I was in a romance with Anders. I couldn't bring myself to kill him. I told him that he made things worse, and I imagine that for weeks after the final battle, my Hawke will still be randomly exploding at Anders for what he did. But I couldn't kill him.

It's funny how both my Warden and Hawke make terrible decisions based on love. My Warden lets a demon child be born, and Hawke lets a terrorist live.

Yours, too, huh?

My Hawke even takes Anders back. >_>