2340 réponses à ce sujet

[Poison Apple]

My Hawke spared him. After losing Carver to the darkspawn, Bethany to the Circle and her mother to the serial killer, she felt all she had left was Anders. Unwillingly, she had fallen for him. She knew something was deeply wrong in Act III and she knew she was being used by him.  Underneath all her wisecracking and snark, she was an insecure and lonely woman.
Despite her rebellious nature and support for the mages, what he did left her absolutely devastated. She still let him live. Eventually, Hawke figured it was a necessary sacrifice if it meant freedom for the mages - for Bethany especially. She ran to the hills with Anders even though she knew there was likely no future for them.
Love is blind. 

Of course, that's just Hawke. I could never commend terrorism myself. 

Modifié par Poison Apple, 19 mars 2011 - 05:56 .

[Kabraxal]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Nokternul wrote...

Lets not forget the presumably innocent religious people he just murdered in cold blood.

The same religious members who are part of an organization who have enslaved his people for nearly a millennia, you mean?

That is just poor reasoning.  With that kind of thinking then the Chantry is well justified in doing what they do to the mages.  They were the Chantry in many respects for the Imperium until they were oven thrown.  Blood mages have been shown to be nasty vile mages that have no respect for life.  And magic has often led to more destruction than it has anything good from what has been shown in the first two games. 

If it is okay to kill innocent chantry members just because of what the organisation did, then it is fine for the Templars to tranquil and kill innocent mages for what mages have done as a whole.

Hmm... your argument isn't looking too good there.

Modifié par Kabraxal, 19 mars 2011 - 06:35 .

[Kabraxal]

*deleted*

Modifié par Kabraxal, 19 mars 2011 - 06:36 .

[LobselVith8]

Kabraxal wrote...

That is just poor reasoning.  With that kind of thinking then the Chantry is well justified in doing what they do to the mages.

Considering not all mages were part of the Tevinter Imperium, and the Chantry of Andraste is actively enslaving mages, I fail to see your point.

Kabraxal wrote...

They were the Chantry in many respects for the Imperium until they were oven thrown.  

By the leaders of former slaves Andraste and Shartan, one or both of whom may have been mages.

Kabraxal wrote...

Blood mages have been shown to be nasty vile mages that have no respect for life. 

So have some templars and members of the Chantry.

Kabraxal wrote...

And magic has often led to more destruction than it has anything good from what has been shown in the first two games. 

Because stopping the Blight via the Joining never lead to anything good.

Kabraxal wrote...

If it is okay to kill innocent chantry members just because of what the organisation did, then it is fine for the Templars to tranquil and kill innocent mages for what mages have done as a whole.

Hmm... your argument isn't looking too good there.

How innocent is the Grand Cleric when it's within her power to stop Knight-Commander Meredith and she does nothing?

[Kabraxal]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

That is just poor reasoning.  With that kind of thinking then the Chantry is well justified in doing what they do to the mages.

Considering not all mages were part of the Tevinter Imperium, and the Chantry of Andraste is actively enslaving mages, I fail to see your point.

Kabraxal wrote...

They were the Chantry in many respects for the Imperium until they were oven thrown.  

By the leaders of former slaves Andraste and Shartan, one or both of whom may have been mages.

Kabraxal wrote...

Blood mages have been shown to be nasty vile mages that have no respect for life. 

So have some templars and members of the Chantry.

Kabraxal wrote...

And magic has often led to more destruction than it has anything good from what has been shown in the first two games. 

Because stopping the Blight via the Joining never lead to anything good.

Kabraxal wrote...

If it is okay to kill innocent chantry members just because of what the organisation did, then it is fine for the Templars to tranquil and kill innocent mages for what mages have done as a whole.

Hmm... your argument isn't looking too good there.

How innocent is the Grand Cleric when it's within her power to stop Knight-Commander Meredith and she does nothing?

But most mages are either prone to posession or have fallen to killing innocents for their power.  Huh... guess that doesn't count though.  They are only individual mages and not indicative as mages as a whole.

Compared to a Chantry that employs who knows how many members and most of those members shown in game have done little other than preach on the side of a road and help those less fortunate.  O wait... they are simly part of an organisation that has seen first hand the destruction wrought by mages.  So they are all evil by association I guess.

And let's not forget you keep forgetting that the Grand Cleric wasn't the only one in that building... funny how often you do that.

The point always was, was that your argument always was always about simple association.  .  Sorry to break it to you, but mages have been shown to be far more corrupt and evil than the Chantry.  So your argument is actually stronger in favour of enslaving mages over attacking a building filled with innocents. 

[Kabraxal]

And I in no way support enslaving mages or what the Templars did in Kirkwall. Simply showing how foolish that argument trying to support an act of terrorism is.

[LobselVith8]

Kabraxal wrote...

But most mages are either prone to posession or have fallen to killing innocents for their power.  Huh... guess that doesn't count though.  They are only individual mages and not indicative as mages as a whole.

Yet we know there are free mages among the Dalish clans, the Chasind tribes, in the nation of Rivain, and in the town of Haven, so the Chantry of Andraste's method isn't a universal truth.

Kabraxal wrote...

Compared to a Chantry that employs who knows how many members and most of those members shown in game have done little other than preach on the side of a road and help those less fortunate.  O wait... they are simly part of an organisation that has seen first hand the destruction wrought by mages.  So they are all evil by association I guess.

What destruction? You mean when the Circle of Magi was the greatest edge against the Qunari during the New Exalted Marches? When magic allowed for the formation of the Grey Wardens and gave humanity the chance to end the Blight?

Kabraxal wrote...

And let's not forget you keep forgetting that the Grand Cleric wasn't the only one in that building... funny how often you do that.

I addressed that there were other members of the Chantry there, who were members of an organization that enslaved mages.

Kabraxal wrote...

The point always was, was that your argument always was always about simple association.  .  Sorry to break it to you, but mages have been shown to be far more corrupt and evil than the Chantry.  So your argument is actually stronger in favour of enslaving mages over attacking a building filled with innocents. 

It's not simple association when it's members of an organization that enslave people. And my statement is focused on Anders attacking the very institution that enslaved his people - my thinking is that when your organization is involved in enslaving people for a thousand years, expect a revolution to happen sooner or later.

[Kabraxal]

If you truly believe all Chantry members are evil... yeah, you are just wrong. There is no argument here.

[Retserof]

Kabraxal wrote...

If you truly believe all Chantry members are evil... yeah, you are just wrong. There is no argument here.

I put this to you: if a police department arrests people for something you do not consider a crime (say, use of recreational drugs), are the members of that department not, simply by membership, propagating that unjust action?

You have to make people responsible for their actions (and thus associations) at some point. An officer that remains in a department that enforces laws he considers unjust is just as guilty as an officer that actually enforces the laws.

Similarly, the Chantry member that remains in the Chantry is just as guilty as the members that actually enforce the unjust laws (which would be the Templars in this case).

To the degree of which they are responsible (and should be punished) would be up for debate, but they are by no means innocent (if you consider the treatment of mages unjust).

Modifié par Retserof, 19 mars 2011 - 08:58 .

[TexasToast712]

@ Lobselv

Is there not a single thread that you dont come into and start crying "MAGE ABUSE!" ?

You not only keep arguing but you ignore the facts that pretty much destroy your arguements.

[LobselVith8]

TexasToast712 wrote...

@ Lobselv

Is there not a single thread that you dont come into and start crying "MAGE ABUSE!" ?

Coming from someone who condescendingly called everyone who disagreed with him fanboys, I don't really take your criticism all too seriously.

TexasToast712 wrote...

You not only keep arguing but you ignore the facts that pretty much destroy your arguements.

By "ignoring the facts," you mean I state an opinion that differs from yours?

[Nemis-Roidsavelt]

Dude no one is going to kill Anders. Atleast if you are playing on Nightmare or Hard Mode. Anders is the god dam healer!!!!!

[SpEcIaLRyAn21]

I sided with mages with my warrior Hawke. I was Anders friend through and through. I supported him even when no one else would. Then what he did was unforgivable.

Anders had to die. However I plan and going through the game again as a mage and side with the templars. Should be interesting.

[Blessed Silence]

First playthrough no, I left with Anders.

Second playthrough (now) since I'm trying out Sebby's romance I told Anders to leave.

Third playthrough I will be a warrior who isn't keen on mages .. so yeah prolly will then.

[Augustei]

The Thing is it wasn't true anders who blew up the chantry. It was Justice.. Well Vengeance now.
Anders says in Awakening that mages pulling away from the chantry entirely was a receipe for disaster... Yet when he happens to be possessed his view is completely different.

So Justice / Vengeance was the one who blew up that chantry... Justice, The guy who is now a demon, Justice the guy who was going to kill that innocent mage if Anders doesn't regain control.. Justice is clearly insane, I mean he kills both Templars and Mages. All said mage was trying to do was flee the circle

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 19 mars 2011 - 11:09 .

[SpEcIaLRyAn21]

XxDeonxX wrote...

The Thing is it wasn't true anders who blew up the chantry. It was Justice.. Well Vengeance now.
Anders says in Awakening that mages pulling away from the chantry entirely was a receipe for disaster... Yet when he happens to be possessed his view is completely different.

So Justice / Vengeance was the one who blew up that chantry... Justice, The guy who is now a demon, Justice the guy who was going to kill that innocent mage if Anders doesn't regain control.. Justice is clearly insane, I mean he kills both Templars and Mages. All said mage was trying to do was flee the circle

This is true but Anders had to die. If you let him come with you he gets all happy like nothing happened. Justice or Vengeance has warped Anders mind so much that by the end of act 3 its clear that the light hearted Anders we knew from Awakening is gone.

[Soldatto Rosso]

Actually, when you ask Anders if it was Vengeance who forced him to go through with the plan, Anders denies it. Justice doesn't exist anymore. It was all him, his choice, his grand gesture to bring about revolution.

[cglasgow]

Retserof wrote...

I put this to you: if a police department arrests people for something you do not consider a crime (say, use of recreational drugs), are the members of that department not, simply by membership, propagating that unjust action?

By that same logic, everybody who voted for any politician who themselves didn't act directly against those laws is also guilty of the same injustice.   So I suppose guess social justice now requires burninating most of the general population or something.

You see, this is why some people like to get away from the whole 'anybody with even indirect connection to' thing and stick more to a 'was the dude actually holding a sword' kinda thing when they go avenging avenger.   Because the first way around, if you want to carry it out to the bitter end, requires stacking bodies up in ridiculously large piles.   If you stretch any point far enough, pretty much anybody living remotely near somehow becomes 'involved'.  Guilt by association is more contagious than the common cold.

This is why blood guilt shouldn't try to be spread by association, only genuine participation.

Modifié par cglasgow, 20 mars 2011 - 02:00 .

[nowherekid85]

Nope. I let him live and stayed with him.

I don't see the big deal about destroying the Chantry. I hate the Chantry to begin with.
As far as the idea of killing innocents-that's what happens in a war...

[Northern Sun]

Killed him, even though I don't like the Chantry much. Even though my Hawke was a mage-sympathizer he'd have preferred a peaceful compromise and Anders removed that option.

Plus, Hawke romanced Merrill and Anders was a complete **** to her. That made it easier.

Modifié par Northern Sun, 20 mars 2011 - 02:05 .

[Zing Freelancer]

I kill him sooner if I could.
That idiot was giving mages equally bad image as blood mages did.

I also sided with mages.

[SpEcIaLRyAn21]

Justice might be gone or might not be. Towards the beginning when you first meet up with Anders he says that he can feel Justice's thoughts as his own. Maybe Anders did make the choice on his own but its clear that Justice did somehow influence his actions. I mean compare the Anders you meet at the beginning of the game, who wouldn't hurt a fly, to the Anders at the end of the game, who would kill innocents just to get a point across.

[Retserof]

cglasgow wrote...

Retserof wrote...

I put this to you: if a police department arrests people for something you do not consider a crime (say, use of recreational drugs), are the members of that department not, simply by membership, propagating that unjust action?

By that same logic, everybody who voted for any politician who themselves didn't act directly against those laws is also guilty of the same injustice.   So I suppose guess social justice now requires burninating most of the general population or something.

You see, this is why some people like to get away from the whole 'anybody with even indirect connection to' thing and stick more to a 'was the dude actually holding a sword' kinda thing when they go avenging avenger.   Because the first way around, if you want to carry it out to the bitter end, requires stacking bodies up in ridiculously large piles.   If you stretch any point far enough, pretty much anybody living remotely near somehow becomes 'involved'.  Guilt by association is more contagious than the common cold.

This is why blood guilt shouldn't try to be spread by association, only genuine participation.

Indeed, if you were to immediately remove all the "guilty" the world would be a very (if not totally) empty place. I don't see that as a viable or even desirable conclusion--rather insane (though logical in the strictest 'Vulcan' sense I suppose).

Social justice would not necessarily require 'burninating' (sweet verb by the way) most of the population, only that people start taking responsibility for their actions (both indirect and direct). The people who support the groups allow people who are 'actually holding a sword' to commit the crimes they commit. If the guys holding swords were the only people who made up the chantry, the fight for social justice would be much easier, would it not? Given you've narrowed it down to a few hundred (or whatever number it would end up being).

Guilt by association is almost always a logical fallacy, and thats not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that membership in a group that makes laws that oppress people (the Chantry and Chantry law respectively) and whos goal is enforcement of that law makes you guilty of enacting an injustice whether or not you're actually physically doing it (and of course, one must have previously considered the act an injustice).

To clarify further--a follower of Andraste would not be guilty of oppression, though a follower of Andraste who was a member of the Chantry would. Generalizations and such are bad form, and I'm not trying to suggest such a thing. Essentially, company does not equal membership--being friends with a templar is different from giving funds to the Chantry, etc.

And finally, guilt in no way automatically means death--thats not the point I was trying to make at all. Guilt only implies the lack of being innocent, the punishment or whatever stems from that is most certainly debatable (and a rather interesting argument). So while the people inside the Chantry were guilty of oppressing their fellow man, they did not necessarily need to die.

Mostly semantics, granted, but I get sort of disgruntled when people throw around trumped up emotional terms such as "innocent" when, logically, they can't be.

Modifié par Retserof, 20 mars 2011 - 03:41 .

[cglasgow]

Retserof wrote...

Guilt by association is almost always a logical fallacy, and thats not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that membership in a group that makes laws that oppress people[snip]

... means you are a tax-paying or tithes-paying citizen of any nation on Thedas.  Save possibly the Dalish.   After all, even those 'just followers' you are so graciously exempting are still part of the Chantry's support system; if they weren't putting coins in the offering box, there wouldn't be a Chantry!  They're actually part of the financial support system!

So by your own criteria they're at least as guilty of continuing the oppression as all those lay sisters out there in their robes, feeding Ferelden orphans, how dare they, somebody should blow them up.   And in Kirkwall, somebody did.

The problem with all 'if you are not part of the solution than you are part of the problem!' logic is that the only people who are 'part of the solution' are you and those fellow-travellers who totally agree with you and fight alongside you.   Everybody else ain't.

So however its phrased or justified, in practice it ultimately just reduces down to 'Death to everybody even slightly Not Us!'

No thanks.  If your particular criteria for killing cannot recognize the (edit) categories of 'neutral', or 'opposed yet still noncombatant', and exempt them from the extermination list, then we're back to the mass burnination problem.

There's a reason for generally wanting to narrow down the slaughter only to the enemy's combatants, even if that means not getting perfect justice; it helps cut down on the dystopian rivers of blood.   Good God, pretty much the allegory for Anders' entire personal arc in this game is 'Justice without Mercy is a monstrous monstrous thing'.

Modifié par cglasgow, 20 mars 2011 - 04:53 .

[Augustei]

Soldatto Rosso wrote...

Actually, when you ask Anders if it was Vengeance who forced him to go through with the plan, Anders denies it. Justice doesn't exist anymore. It was all him, his choice, his grand gesture to bring about revolution.

Anders doesn't exist anymore either, they had become one.. But it was becoming clearer and clearer that Justice was obtaining more control as time went on