543 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

The same reason you ignore that mages are being enslaved and Anders' actions put a stop to it?i never said be was perfect, I said he tried and succeeded in ending the slavery of mages.

Well, cglasglow, the shoe actually fits for the Divine and the Chantry to be given that label, considering how it's a comparison about religious fanatics who rape, torture, and kill people, and relegate a particular group of people in the name of their deity. You know, since the shoe fits...

[fett51]

cglasgow wrote...

Nope.  It just felt to me like an attempt to either recruit us, or get us killed if we refused.

That's implying he was in on it.  If so it was exceptionally stupid of him to set us on the trail of people who'd just taken a hostage.  Doubly so given blood mages overturning the Templars would've brought the entire Chantry down on Kirkwall.  More likely it was what he said:  he was afraid if she found out she'd use it as an excuse to call for the Right rather than investigate it.  Wasn't exactly far off with that one was he? 

cglasgow wrote...

As you yourself concede, Meredith could have been relieved of command.  By either Cullen or the Grand Cleric.  If they'd had a reason to do so.

Continuing to act like... well, Meredith... even in the face of a much more reasonable First Enchanter who was actually doing his best to turn over his blood mages rather than hide them would be that reason.

Cullen expressed doubts, as did Elthina.  I can't speak to the grand cleric's mind, but Cullen was paranoid following his experience in the ferelden circle, which is why him expressing doubts is significant.  Thrask and other Templars were trying to undermine Meredith for years, and had Grace not gone crazy (and Thrask not been an idiot) things might have turned out very differently. 

cglasgow wrote...

And what were all those abominations and blood mages we fought through on our way through Lowtown and the Docks, optical illusions? 

As I said, I only recall one blood mage in the streets, and even if I'm forgetting a couple, I can certainly attest the majority of mages we fought did not use blood magic or summon packs of demons, or do much of anything apart from cast basic spells.  And we saw what was up with the abominations: the templars cornered a mage and she lost control.  That's no reason to suspect she was a blood mage or even a libertarian.  Just wonder how she passed her harrowing.

Which is why I want to make sure nobody forgets his own ****ups were a
key part of this.   Because if he'd been doing his damn job all along,
Irving-style, we'd never have had an act 3.   Meredith would very
likely have been relieved of command in late act 2, because she'd have
had no excuse to keep her job.

Decimus and Grace fled in Act 1, that evidently was the start of the blood magic in the circle.  How do we know Orsino is more culpable for that than Irving was for Uldred?  Yes, he did study blood magic, but we don't have any evidence he shared what he knew with anyone, least of all Grace and that bunch. 

Helen0rz wrote...

What Anders did was just too extreme and unexcusable. I don't care what his cause was, it doens't matter. they could've battled it out without Anders killing Elthina and whoever else that was in the Chantry. Very unnecessary. However, Sebastian's threat/promise does not make him noble either. Like you said, Elthina would've not back that up, but would Sebastian listen though? both men have the wrong idea when it comes to Justice. Sebastian, if he were to follow up on that promise, it makes him no better than Anders, pretty much done to his level

 
Worse.  Anders blew up people who supported a system he hated, Sebastian was talking about killing a city (where the vast majority were completely opposed to what Anders did) just because they were in the same place, to say nothing of the difference in number of people who would die.  Was very annoyed I didn't get to call him on that. 

Modifié par fett51, 15 mars 2011 - 02:19 .

[ChrissyTina]

Flashflame58 wrote...

I think my jaw landed somewhere in the Deep Roads during that scene.

I was super pissed off at Anders but I was romancing him at the time. So I forgave him and Sebastian left. I am killing him everytime from now on.

LOL!  Me too!!! 

[Helen0rz]

fett51 wrote...

Helen0rz wrote...

What Anders did was just too extreme and unexcusable. I don't care what his cause was, it doens't matter. they could've battled it out without Anders killing Elthina and whoever else that was in the Chantry. Very unnecessary. However, Sebastian's threat/promise does not make him noble either. Like you said, Elthina would've not back that up, but would Sebastian listen though? both men have the wrong idea when it comes to Justice. Sebastian, if he were to follow up on that promise, it makes him no better than Anders, pretty much done to his level

 
Worse.  Anders blew up people who supported a system he hated, Sebastian was talking about killing a city (where the vast majority were completely opposed to what Anders did) just because they were in the same place, to say nothing of the difference in number of people who would die.  Was very annoyed I didn't get to call him on that. 

All in all, I think what Anders/Justice/Vengence did was simply hypocritical. Justice without sacrifice is possible, and yes, Sebastian's probably worst, since in the end he only wanted the throne to kill a city of people as revenge. He was an annoying kid throughout the game, kinda useless since he used a bow and Varric did a much better job. I hope he's not gonna show up in DA3

[Kimberly Shaw]

I told the old woman to leave the chantry while she could, and she said she wanted to die there. So, um...she got what she wanted. Anders was my lover so no way I killed him.

That said, what followed was so ridiculous (the ending of act 3 is the worst ending to a bioware game ever).

[ObserverStatus]

When the laser fired I half expected Allistair Tenpenny to show up and say "Well done Mister Mage! What a grand display of fireworks! I almost wish there was another chantry we could detonate. You don't see that very often."

[Jimmy Fury]

I just heard the conversation in Act 1 between Anders and Bethany where he argues that due to the right of tranquility it's impossible to have a civil debate between the circle and the chantry so the only course of action is violence against the entire system.
Bethany disagreed meerly on the grounds of there being good people in both...

I'm now inclined to agree that he seems to have had the whole thing planned from the very start. He's already justifying violence against the Chantry and he jumped at the chance to tell us he'd heard about the Qunari explosives before.  Which I find sort of disappointing... I liked the idea of his gradual descent much better.
The idea that he has his attack planned from day 1 calls into question everything he ever said to my first Hawke... I now have to wonder if he meant any of it or if he saw Hawke as a means to an end. <_<

Unrelated: Bobobo I can't help but find your sig banner... unnerving [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/unsure.png[/smilie]


Although if I think of the Chantry like that.... yes i might just be able to see Anders's point...

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 15 mars 2011 - 05:12 .

[Babi]

So, in short, everyone debating... Anders Bin Laden or Anders for Vendetta?

[Aithieel]

Kimberly Shaw wrote...

I told the old woman to leave the chantry while she could, and she said she wanted to die there. So, um...she got what she wanted. Anders was my lover so no way I killed him.

Yep!

[crimsontotem]

It was inevitable and Anders made it happen... Anders FTW

[Red Templar]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The same reason you ignore that mages are being enslaved and Anders' actions put a stop to it?i never said be was perfect, I said he tried and succeeded in ending the slavery of mages.

Dictionary definitions are what they are. Anders is a terrorist. No matter how much you agree with him, that is the exact definition of what he is. He didn't attack the organisation that was "enslaving" his people directly. He attacked a public building, filled with civilians, in order to provoke violence from a non-civilian militarized order against the people he claims to champion, so that those people would have their backs against a wall and have to resort to violence themselves.

Terrorism is about widening your range of targets to include civilians. Terrorism is about using violence for the sake of provocing a reaction from people. Anders used violence on civilians in order to provoke violence from others.

Anders is not an abolitionist. If he worked within the law, maybe. If he used violence to go after the people who were actually "enslaving" his people, maybe. If he blew up Meredith and a bunch of templars, and templars only, maybe. But he killed civilians, fully aware of their innocence, to deliberately derail any peaceful resolution and inspire violence.

Swoon over his cause all you like. His methods make him a terrorist. There is no way to deny this without using incorrect language, flawed definitions, or weak sleight-of-hand arguments.

Modifié par Red Templar, 15 mars 2011 - 11:29 .

[Rabies]

Red Templar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The same reason you ignore that mages are being enslaved and Anders' actions put a stop to it?i never said be was perfect, I said he tried and succeeded in ending the slavery of mages.

Dictionary definitions are what they are. Anders is a terrorist. No matter how much you agree with him, that is the exact definition of what he is. He didn't attack the organisation that was "enslaving" his people directly. He attacked a public building, filled with civilians, in order to provoke violence from a non-civilian militarized order against the people he claims to champion, so that those people would have their backs against a wall and have to resort to violence themselves.

Terrorism is about widening your range of targets to include civilians. Terrorism is about using violence for the sake of provocing a reaction from people. Anders used violence on civilians in order to provoke violence from others.

Anders is not an abolitionist. If he worked within the law, maybe. If he used violence to go after the people who were actually "enslaving" his people, maybe. If he blew up Meredith and a bunch of templars, and templars only, maybe. But he killed civilians, fully aware of their innocence, to deliberately derail any peaceful resolution and inspire violence.

Swoon over his cause all you like. His methods make him a terrorist. There is no way to deny this without using incorrect language, flawed definitions, or weak sleight-of-hand arguments.

This is so true. If I was playing a mage Hawke at the time I might have spared him. However, I was playing a warrior and his actions caused a ton of trouble for my sister and put her in direct danger. Yeah. You gots to die.

[Raikas]

Red Templar wrote...


The people he heals in Darktown are a drop in the ocean compared to the bloodshed and death his terrorism provoked.

That may be, but given that aside from Aveline all of Hawke's friends are essentially murderers or mercenaries who kill for cash or fun, is purpose-driven terrorism such a bad thing when considered in that context?

fett51 wrote...
 
Sebastian was talking about killing a city
(where the vast majority were completely opposed to what Anders did)
just because they were in the same place, to say nothing of the
difference in number of people who would die.  Was very annoyed I didn't
get to call him on that. 

That annoyed me as well - especially considering that the conclusion of his personal quest was supposedly "Revenge isn't satisfying" (and that the grand cleric even calls him on it), the fact that he's so eager to cause more deaths is even more disturbing.

Modifié par Hervoyl, 15 mars 2011 - 01:37 .

[Helen0rz]

Aithieel wrote...

Kimberly Shaw wrote...

I told the old woman to leave the chantry while she could, and she said she wanted to die there. So, um...she got what she wanted. Anders was my lover so no way I killed him.

Yep!

no one knew he's just gonna go blow the place up either tho

[Danjaru]

The first thing that came to mind was the quote by Kennedy "those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable".

My second thought was "Finally, I hate the chantry" and third thought "Lets kill some TEMPLARS!!".

Naturally, I let him live and shooed Sebastian off.

[Red Templar]

Hervoyl wrote...
That may be, but given that aside from Aveline all of Hawke's friends are essentially murderers or mercenaries who kill for cash or fun, is purpose-driven terrorism such a bad thing when considered in that context?

Trick question? Of course it is. We're talking about the indescriminate killing of random civilians for the sake of provoking violence. Not nearly the same thing as mercenary work. And I don't recall any of the other party members murdering random innocents, but maybe that is just how I played it.

Modifié par Red Templar, 15 mars 2011 - 02:08 .

[atheelogos]

bobobo878 wrote...

When the laser fired I half expected Allistair Tenpenny to show up and say "Well done Mister Mage! What a grand display of fireworks! I almost wish there was another chantry we could detonate. You don't see that very often."

HA!

[atheelogos]

Red Templar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The same reason you ignore that mages are being enslaved and Anders' actions put a stop to it?i never said be was perfect, I said he tried and succeeded in ending the slavery of mages.

Dictionary definitions are what they are. Anders is a terrorist. No matter how much you agree with him, that is the exact definition of what he is. He didn't attack the organisation that was "enslaving" his people directly. He attacked a public building, filled with civilians, in order to provoke violence from a non-civilian militarized order against the people he claims to champion, so that those people would have their backs against a wall and have to resort to violence themselves.

Terrorism is about widening your range of targets to include civilians. Terrorism is about using violence for the sake of provocing a reaction from people. Anders used violence on civilians in order to provoke violence from others.

Anders is not an abolitionist. If he worked within the law, maybe. If he used violence to go after the people who were actually "enslaving" his people, maybe. If he blew up Meredith and a bunch of templars, and templars only, maybe. But he killed civilians, fully aware of their innocence, to deliberately derail any peaceful resolution and inspire violence.

Swoon over his cause all you like. His methods make him a terrorist. There is no way to deny this without using incorrect language, flawed definitions, or weak sleight-of-hand arguments.

Is he a Terrorist? I suppose he is. With that said change never comes easily, and seldom peacefully. Hell even Andraste took the violent route and there are dozens if not hundreds of examples of slave rebelions in our own world. In the long run some of them worked out for the better despite the loss of innocent life.

[DreGregoire]

I sat staring at the screen in shock for the longest time. I still haven't dealt with the fallout. I mean I knew he was using me, but everybody in DA2 used me so, no biggy right? It still hit me pretty hard at the magnitude of it. He did warn me but still. The whole chantry? Tell me he didn't use the ingredients I helped him gather for that!

Modifié par DreGregoire, 15 mars 2011 - 03:15 .

[Raikas]

Red Templar wrote...

Hervoyl wrote...
That may be, but given that aside from Aveline all of Hawke's friends are essentially murderers or mercenaries who kill for cash or fun, is purpose-driven terrorism such a bad thing when considered in that context?

Trick question? Of course it is. We're talking about the indescriminate killing of random civilians for the sake of provoking violence. Not nearly the same thing as mercenary work. And I don't recall any of the other party members murdering random innocents, but maybe that is just how I played it.

  Well, Isabela sets the Qunari on their fight into the city which results in many deaths, and depending on how you play Merrill's quest her actions wipe can wipe out her whole clan.  And in general life in Thedas is cheap - joining up with a gang of mercenaries or smugglers is a fact of life, most of your friends can/will kill their own family members (often mercy killings, but not always), if you choose not to kill Anders, Sebastian will threaten to kill the rest of the civilian population of Kirkwall - death is everywhere.  If you're a random person in the chantry when it blows up, then that's sad - no one wants to be collateral damage for someone else's politics - but if you live in Kirkwall you probably already assume that death is just around the corner.

[Red Templar]

atheelogos wrote...
Is he a Terrorist? I suppose he is. With that said change never comes easily, and seldom peacefully. Hell even Andraste took the violent route and there are dozens if not hundreds of examples of slave rebelions in our own world. In the long run some of them worked out for the better despite the loss of innocent life.

Rebbellion = Rising up against your masters/rulers/government/whatever.

Terrorism = Use of violence against non-military targets with the intention of provocing a response.

Andraste was a rebel; she rose up against the Imperium. Andraste was not a terrorist, because she did not deliberately target innocents to provoke a reaction from Tevinter.

They are not at all the same thing, even if they can overlap.

[Layn]

DreGregoire wrote...

 Tell me he didn't use the ingredients I helped him gather for that?

He did...

[DreGregoire]

Crrash wrote...

DreGregoire wrote...

 Tell me he didn't use the ingredients I helped him gather for that!

He did...

*Pretends to not have seen this because denial is more fun* LOL

Modifié par DreGregoire, 15 mars 2011 - 03:15 .

[Red Templar]

Hervoyl wrote...
Well, Isabela sets the Qunari on their fight into the city which results in many deaths, and depending on how you play Merrill's quest her actions wipe can wipe out her whole clan.  And in general life in Thedas is cheap - joining up with a gang of mercenaries or smugglers is a fact of life, most of your friends can/will kill their own family members (often mercy killings, but not always), if you choose not to kill Anders, Sebastian will threaten to kill the rest of the civilian population of Kirkwall - death is everywhere.  If you're a random person in the chantry when it blows up, then that's sad - no one wants to be collateral damage for someone else's politics - but if you live in Kirkwall you probably already assume that death is just around the corner.

The fallout of Isabela's actions is not murder, even if people died from it. If the killing is only an unintented, indirect consequence of your actions, it does not fit the definition of murder.

Merrill's clan attacks you. Killing them is self-defense, not the deliberate murder of non-combatents.

Sebastian was threatening war against a state whose champion was considering harbouring a terrorist. No real different from Afghanistan.

I am noticing a recurring fallacy on this board... one type of killing is not the same as another type of killing. Murder is completely different from "collatoral damage", is completely different from self-defense, is completely different manslaughter. We have these definitions for a reason. Likewise, terrorism is not at all the same thing as simple rebellion, or a civil rights movement, or an actual war.

[SpeakingInSilence]

I don't even know how someone could justify what Anders did. He targeted a neutral party and blew it up. It would be like if Great Britain in World War 2 went to Sweden, and starting bombing them because they wouldn't fight alongside with them against the Axis. Crazy! You have to remember too there are more then just templars and the Grand Cleric in the Chantry. There was
Brothers and Sisters, also probably refugees seeing how the whole city was in flames. I sided with the templars; however I tried to save as many mages as possible, but SO many of them were corrupted. In my opinion the mages in this were probably more insane then the mages.

I would say I saw over 30 abominations running out in the streets. Pretty much every mage outside the of circle seemed to practice blood magic, and even the first enchanter himself seemed to be in co-hoots with the guy that killed your mother. In origins to me the whole thing between mages and templar was more gray, but mages in this seemed outright wicked.

Meredith was mostly corrupted by the idol, seeing if you guys don;t remember in act two I think she rejects the ideal of making all makes tranquil.

Modifié par SpeakingInSilence, 15 mars 2011 - 03:22 .