2340 réponses à ce sujet

[Retserof]

cglasgow wrote...
... 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!

Indeed, willingly (key term!) putting coins in the chantry box/paying taxes makes you a member of the Chantry (you're donating to support a group whos goals are oppression as defined by it's law). What I meant by the term you use "just follower" would be one who was not associating themselves with the chantry, yet followed Andraste (such as Anders does, for example). Granted, there are few of these people who do not fall into the categories previously described.

cglasgow wrote...

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.

You've totally ignored most of what I just said. I stated several times guilt does not mean death, and that there are degrees of guilt. All I've claimed is that they share in the guilt, and are partially responsible for the oppression. I never said they're all equally guilty at all.

cglasgow wrote...
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.

I am not suggesting, nor have I ever suggested this. If you are part of the problem, then you are part of the problem is exactly what I'm saying. If you're not fighting chantry oppression, thats fine and dandy--nobodys forcing you to do so, and by choosing to sit out you're not part of the problem at all.

But if you're donating money to the chantry, or you're a member of the chantry, or if you're supporting the chantry, then, logically, you're part of the problem. If you're living in the countryside on a farm (or some other analogy), you're obviously not part of the solution or of the problem (unless governments are forcibly taking money from you to fund the Chantry of course). I've never suggested what you're claiming.

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

I said several times guilt does not necessarily mean death. Must I do so again? One could take it to that extreme of course, all I'm saying is that guilt is guilt--people are deluded into thinking that Chantry members are somehow "innocent," at best they're "innocent enough" but by being members they're causing the problem. If anything, it would reduce down to "everyone should be held responsible for the actions they take, direct and indirect."

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.

You're not neutral if you're donating to the Chantry, and you're also not neutral if you're a member of the Chantry. If you don't donate or support the Chantry, then you are neutral. If you are opposed to the freedom of mages, yet do not support the Chantry or donate money to a cause that oppresses the mages, you are a noncombatant (but not neutral obviously).

Everyone in the Chantry would have either been a member, donator, or both. Anyone who wasn't could INDEED be considered "innocent" in that regard (the neutrals and "noncombatants").

Should the donators or supporters be killed? That's a totally different debate. The fact of the matter is, they're guilty of oppressing mages. The punishment, and if there should be a punishment, is certainly in question. My sole point is they are NOT "innocent" (if the treatment of mages is taken as unjust, of course).

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'.

I agree. I've previously said to slaughter everyone would be rather insane (and would end with an "empty world")... but that doesn't mean they're off the hook by a longshot. You're suggesting a "fallacy of the single cause"--that only the aggressive members of a group are the cause of the oppression.

You put quite a few words in my mouth, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt given this is an informal forum conversation and there's room for misinterpretation.

Modifié par Retserof, 20 mars 2011 - 05:58 .

[Aluinie]

For me that was the longest decision i made in the game sitting there thining what would be best before i ended up plunging the dagger into hi even though he was my characters love interest.

[Arppis]

I killed him. I needed a healer, but I felt RP was more important and he deserved his death for killing the Grand Cleric.

[Silver Direwolf]

Sadly, that was a point in the game when I broke the role play element. Seeing as I had made Anders a staple of my "good" team, I wanted to keep him along, even though I and the my character wouldn't agree with him at all. If wanting him for my team wasn't an issue, I would have killed him, or atleast sent him away.

It lost me Sebastian, and Fenris too. Stupid Anders

So I take it the items you collect during the Justice quest were to make his bomb thing, and nothing to do with an actual potion?

[DKJaigen]

LobselVith8 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.  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. 

The difference between the chantry and bloodmages is that chantry is uniform and the bloodmages are not. That means that bloodmages are wide group of persons that might like to help people or destroy the world. the chantry and templars think alike. so they can be treated alike

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.

The chantry are an organisation by joining that organisation you approve of their methods otherwise you wouldn't have joined them. so in my opinion their are no innocent chantry members. if you join the chantry you actively support an organization that suppresses mages. do not cry foul when that makes you a target.



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

[cglasgow]

To narrow things down to the crux of the matter...

Retserof wrote...

I said several times guilt does not necessarily mean death. Must I do so again? One could take it to that extreme of course [...]

And that is exactly the extreme Anders took it to; death.   Which is why people keep talking about it in this thread.   

If you want to say that you believe Anders was wrong to take his killing that far, then okay.   If you want to try to say that you don't believe in calling everybody in that Chantry building a legitimate target but at the same time stand up for Anders, then... well, you can't, not without contradicting yourself somewhere.

Modifié par cglasgow, 20 mars 2011 - 07:38 .

[Rangerkillroy]

I let Anders re-join my party and then sided with the mages. I didn't like how Anders decided to blow up the chantry, but I was fairly sure Anders' idea was to become a martyr. Which honestly, -would- have held a bigger impact to the other mages in the circles. My Hawke was a Neutral Good mage, so my desire was to find a middle ground because I believed the Templars were simply doing their jobs, and the Mages did deserve at least some sembelence of freedom.

But, since I was pigeon-holed into picking a side, I ended up siding with the mages because I felt the battle would seem more "Epic" that way. >_> Sorry, but I'm kind of a sucker for those "Hopeless situations breed heroes" storylines, but GEEEEEZ Orsino really busted my groove.

[Arppis]

Silver Direwolf wrote...

Sadly, that was a point in the game when I broke the role play element. Seeing as I had made Anders a staple of my "good" team, I wanted to keep him along, even though I and the my character wouldn't agree with him at all. If wanting him for my team wasn't an issue, I would have killed him, or atleast sent him away.

It lost me Sebastian, and Fenris too. Stupid Anders

So I take it the items you collect during the Justice quest were to make his bomb thing, and nothing to do with an actual potion?

Yes, they were the bomb elements. And you would have done just fine without Anders. I almost didn't kill him because he was a great healer. But I took  the chance and RP'd my character to the fullest. It was the only choice. He had become abomination.

[Andraste_Reborn]

Hardest decision I've ever had to make in any video game, but in the end I just couldn't kill him in cold blood. Even though I disagreed with what he'd done, and even though my Hawke lost her beloved prince over it .   It would have been different if he'd attacked me, but he just sat there looking miserable and inviting me to stick the knife in.

[Retserof]

cglasgow wrote...
If you want to try to say that you don't believe in calling everybody in that Chantry building a legitimate target but at the same time stand up for Anders, then... well, you can't, not without contradicting yourself somewhere.

My point exactly. My original comment in this particular thread was to rectify a logical inconstancy people have been continuously professing--that the treatment of mages is unjust, yet the people in the Chantry were somehow innocent.

If you think the treatment of the mages was unjust, then it is illogical to suggest the people inside the chantry were "innocent," given their connection to the Chantry (and the unjust actions committed) as I previously outlined. They can indeed have not been "guilty enough to merit death/punishment at all," but they cannot logically be "innocent." I'm guessing we're in agreement on this point.

Now, the rampant misuse of the word innocent aside, as for my opinion:

You don't really have enough grounds to kill Anders outright, even if you disagree with his action. All you're sure of immediately after the destruction of the Chantry is that the building is destroyed, and the people inside are probably dead--but until you actually take a quick peak at the rubble (which Meredith doesn't even entertain before going off on a revenge rampage), all you're sure of is that Anders blew up a building. Since when is property destruction grounds for a knife in the back?

Kill him later after you've seen the extent of the damage (and perhaps after a quick trial)? Excellent arguments can indeed be made for that.

Kill him on the spot based on assumptions (given he's just sitting there and not continuing violence)? Not a justifiable action IMO.

Modifié par Retserof, 20 mars 2011 - 08:33 .

[cglasgow]

Retserof wrote...

My point exactly. My original comment in this particular thread was to rectify a logical inconstancy people have been continuously professing--that the treatment of mages is unjust, yet the people in the Chantry were somehow innocent.

The problem lies in that the word innocent has multiple meanings, and you're the using one of 'Entirely unconnected with any wrongdoing', while most other people are using it in the sense of 'not a legitimate target of war'... and the two, of course, are not necessarily the same thing.

You don't really have enough grounds to kill Anders outright, even if you disagree with his action.

Actually, I do; the minimum # of murders necessary to earn the death penalty is 'one', and I know damn well he's done at least that many.  The Grand Cleric is 'one'.  Especially given that he freely confesses on the spot.

And when a building explodes so violently that flaming chunks of the rubble are landing literally miles away, its really not that much of a stretch to deduce that anybody inside that building at the time is no longer with us.

As for holding him for trial later; well, if the city wasn't about to erupt in civil war, and the viscount's office totally absent, and the Knight-Commander busy going totally goddamn insane, then yes, that would have been on the table.  As is, the only options were given is 'do him right now' or 'let him walk free', and, well...

Modifié par cglasgow, 20 mars 2011 - 08:41 .

[haroldhardluck]

My rogue let Anders live but I am now playing a warrior whose stricter morals will not let him live.

I sided with the mages and plan to again. First, Meredith was acting under the influence of the idol and is clearly insane. Regardless of the mage vs. templar situation, that possession alone is enough to make it mandatory to stop Meredith. Meredith is establishing a tyranny over Kirkwall and not just the mages. Stopping her is the prime objective. Siding with the mages is just a side effect of stopping her.

Second, the Chantry assumes all mages are abominations or blood mages who are pretending to be good mages. It is a repressive system that only works when both the First Enchanter and the Knight Commander are reasonable and work well together and in Fereldon. It is a system that easily leads to tyranny. Meredith exploited that fact and used it to make her actions seem reasonable. It is the oldest excuse in the book for a tyrant to justify tyranny. The system is inherently corruptable and has to be destroyed. Anders is correct in that the status quo simply cannot continue.

Long live the Revolution!

Harold

[Retserof]

cglasgow wrote...

The problem lies in that the word innocent has multiple meanings, and you're the using one of 'Entirely unconnected with any wrongdoing', while most other people are using it in the sense of 'not a legitimate target of war'... and the two, of course, are not necessarily the same thing.

I'm rather sure the texbook definition of Innocent is "free from wrongdoing/guilt." Could an illigitimate target of war not commit a crime? People seem to be confusing innocent with "non-combatant."

Actually, I do; the minimum # of murders necessary to earn the death penalty is 'one', and I know damn well he's done at least that many.  The Grand Cleric is 'one'.  Especially given that he freely confesses on the spot.

I suppose that depends on how you define murder, does it not? If one murder merits the death penalty, then every templar who killed a mage should be killed as well, should they not? Meredith included. Plus Hawkes countless murders (but we'll let those slide because it was in the persuit of glorious shiny treasures)!

And when a building explodes so violently that flaming chunks of the rubble are landing literally miles away, its really not that much of a stretch to deduce that anybody inside that building at the time is no longer with us.

My point regarding the building is not to suggest no one is dead, that's all but a given, but the point is--it's just a given. You're killing a man on an assumption. You don't even know if the Grand Cleric was in the building--Meredith and Orsino were on the way to talk to her, not coming from a conversation. Anders just showed up with you and couldn't have known beyond what he was assuming. Maybe she gets smashed at the Hanged Man with the sisters after lunch? ...or perhaps the Maker protected her.

...as is, the only options were given is 'do him right now' or 'let him walk free', and, well...

You get the option to take him with you, and have him (as it's said) partially "attone for what he's done" by defending the mages from Merediths unjustified slaughter. Aveline says right afterwords that she intends to take Anders into custody after the city quiets down, and expects him to turn himself in. So, in away, you do have an option to put him up on charges later.

Modifié par Retserof, 20 mars 2011 - 08:56 .

[Ryzaki]

Ugh Seb irritates me so I had no trouble siding with Anders.

He killed a church filled with people. Killing him wasn't going to bring them back. 

Last thing I needed was more being killed because of Anders stupidity and Meredith's insanty. So I dragged Anders with me and sided with the Mages. Hopefully they'll be a way to do something about "Justice" dominating him. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 20 mars 2011 - 08:59 .

[Jayce]

Personally, I'd've killed the bastard after his vengeance alter-ego murders that mage in cold blood just for calling him an abomination.

He clearly is one.

[Count Viceroy]

I felt Anders deserved to die after doing that. And that was even before Sebastian started barking.

The fact that he used you to do it is just icing on the cake. And I supported the mages. It's basically terrorism. He's just as bad as Meredith.

[RomanDark]

I had sided with the mages all the way through the game mainly cause I of a soft spot for my apostate sister and my loverboy Anders but after every single mage turned to blood magic, Leandra's death, and what Anders did I decided enough was enough and sided with the Templars in the end. Anders refused to help me and after what he did I couldn't just let him walk. Sooooooooo, I killed my love interest... fan freakin tastic

[Brawne]

Killing your only healer before last battle... yeah that will go well. This was actually one thing I hated about game, only one character could heal and you simply had to drag him along in all bigger fights.
He is such a downer too, having both him and Fenris is party was like listening to two emo-cutters.

[Count Viceroy]

Brawne wrote...

Killing your only healer before last battle... yeah that will go well. This was actually one thing I hated about game, only one character could heal and you simply had to drag him along in all bigger fights.
He is such a downer too, having both him and Fenris is party was like listening to two emo-cutters.

Which is why I healed on my own mage. Anders is stuck on repeat. Freedoooooooooooom

Thank god for mods that add the healing talents to Merrill.

[Fedorcyclops]

of course

i wish i can throw the dagger to his head!

[Avilia]

I just finished my first play through and yes. I did.

[SpEcIaLRyAn21]

I was a little worried about killing my only healer before the huge brawl at the end. I made Bethany a Grey Warden though so she joined me shortly after and became my healer. Problem solved.

[Niniva]

I really wanted to, but couldnt sacrifice my healer :/

If merril had access to creation/spirit healer...

[Capeo]

Niniva wrote...

I really wanted to, but couldnt sacrifice my healer :/

If merril had access to creation/spirit healer...

If Bethany is still alive at that point you can plug her in as your healer.  Not to mention this game has tons of potions, including resurrection potions so you can get along just fine with no healer.

[cglasgow]

Retserof wrote...

You get the option to take him with you [snip]

Ahahahahaha... I'm supposed to let the insane abomination, who just confessed to mass murder, stand behind me with a loaded mage staff?  During the upcoming firefight?   That's even crazier than he is!

Especially since I know that Anders will flip out and kill a fellow mage if he even suspects that they're not anti-templar-hardcore enough for his preferences.  I watched him do it in act 2.

There is a place for crazy mass murderers.  That place is not 'at my back'.

Modifié par cglasgow, 20 mars 2011 - 11:07 .