2340 réponses à ce sujet

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Monica21 wrote...


Well, sure. If a bunch of converts were trying to conquer my land because of the Qun I'd kill them too. According to the Llomerryn Accords codex entry the converts were killed because they refused to leave their homes, which was part of the treaty.

Why should they leave? It was their homes long before the accords were set up. Accords that interestingly, the qunari themselves don't put much stock in. For that matter, the Rivani don't put much stock in the Chantry, either. The converts weren't trying to conquor anyone's land. It was their land in the first place, and they converted to the qun. It was their home. But like the qunari, the Chantry simply can't tolerate opposing belief, and uses violent means to stamp it out.

And like I said, the accords are pretty much meaningless, since the Qunari do not follow them.

I'm disregarding holy wars because there's really no room for negotiation. I guess it was basically, "Yay! Have a day of celebration because the Divine is dead!" And then war. That's kind of how holy wars go. As for the dwarves, if we're going to go with what Gaider said, then the epilogues are treated as rumors and hearsay. There's no evidence that they ever talked about an Exalted March against Orzammar. If the Dalish are kidnapping humans and sacrificing them, then I would say it's certainly someone's business.

Holy wars are, by definition, any war fought with religion being the prime factor and driving force. Every war the Chantry has sponsered can be considered a "holy war". Be as gaider might handwave the epilogues, the epilogues still give us a picture of the kind of mentality that drives the Chantry, one that I've seen strengthened in codexes and lore. As I said, I really doubt the claims of human sacrifice, which, as I stated, have been a mainstay of demonizing propoganda since the beginning of civilization. In fact, damned near every civilization in history has accused the "barbarians" of everything from ritual sacrifice and cannibalism to incest. Attacking humans that strayed too close to their border? yes, I can see that. And of course, the fact that the Dalish stood by and did nothing in the second Blight would have pissed alot of people off. And I have no doubts that the Dalish killed or kicked out missionaries of the Chantry because they weren't interested.

However, the Chantry was antagonizing the Dalish by trying to push their religous beliefs on them via missionaries and templars. When the Dalish refused to convert that way, they started sending force to try and convert. That's the only two paths as far as the chantry is concerned. Submit, or war. Not so different from the Qunari, to be honest.

All we know is that the monarch asked if the Circle can be free and the Divine said no. Of course she's going to say no. That's not an in-between or any kind of negotiation. You don't start with total freedom. Or you do and work backwards. All we know is that it was asked and denied and that was it. That's not starting with, say, mages having more freedom to leave the Circle without chaperones or allowing their families to visit. Where is the evidence that any of what was discussed at the conference Wynne attended got to the Divine? Where is the evidence of First Enchanters sitting down with Grand Clerics and saying, "You want this but we want this so how do we make this work?" There's none. There's a lot of evidence that groups within the Circle don't like Chantry control, but zero evidence that any of that went beyone that group.

It's not like Anora or Alistair just said "hey, free the circle". There was likely negotiation, especially in Anora's case, as that's something she thrives at. Given that there is alot about Thedas we don't know, especially beyond Ferelden, just because something is not stated specifically does not mean it was not attempted. And after 1000 years of rule, I'm willing to bet it has been tried.

We know that the Right of Annulment has been invoked 17 times in the 800 year history of the Right. yet we do not know anything about the conditions that led to each annulment, nor which Circles were annulled.

It's easy to say that the Chantry understands violence but I can also say that's the only solution they've been given. And here we have another crazed apostate who violated a Chantry and the people inside and never actually talked to anyone about how to free mages. Seriously. I've seen sit-ins with more planning.

Only solution they have been given? More like the only solution they have ever shown themselves capable of. Anders blowing up the Chantry is a fart in a thunderstorm compared to the violence the Chantry has been passive and active in since its inception. Long before Anders exploded his poo bomb, and Kirkwall's streets were mobbed with blood mages, i spent act 2 getting attacked by Chantry zealots trying to start a war with Qunari zealots.

Anders was just bringing their violent chickens home to roost, that's all. That the Chantry would react with violence is predictable. of course, Anders had no plan. That was his biggest mistake, starting a war with no plans how to fight it. Stupid, yes. But not jaw droppingly so. It was bound to happen. The Chantry had created enough enemies and people with a chip on their shoulders that something like that was bound to happen. And the Chantry pretty much created Janders the ultrabomber. As crazy as he was, he was still quite Andrastian. I think most of his manifestos feature him rambling on about the Maker and such. But more than just his religous beliefs, the Chantry-run Circle created Janders.

[DKJaigen]

Monica21 wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
The Chantry marched into Rivain and slaughtered the human and elven Qun converts. The Qunari haven't overrun Thedas because of magic, a force they simply are too paranopid to use in its fullest.

Well, sure. If a bunch of converts were trying to conquer my land because of the Qun I'd kill them too. According to the Llomerryn Accords codex entry the converts were killed because they refused to leave their homes, which was part of the treaty. 

The March on tevinter was a holy war, that's kind of my point. The marches on Orzammar are talked about in the epilogue, where the divine is considering it (though given events, unlikely to pursue because of lack of resources). As far as the Dalish go, who cares if they were offering human sacrifices or not (I highly doubt it, as it's a time honored tool of propganda). Within their own borders, it's their biz, not the Chantry's.

I'm disregarding holy wars because there's really no room for negotiation. I guess it was basically, "Yay! Have a day of celebration because the Divine is dead!" And then war. That's kind of how holy wars go. As for the dwarves, if we're going to go with what Gaider said, then the epilogues are treated as rumors and hearsay. There's no evidence that they ever talked about an Exalted March against Orzammar. If the Dalish are kidnapping humans and sacrificing them, then I would say it's certainly someone's business.

How do slaves and prisoners negotiate with a master/overlord that lives by dogma and superstition over reason and logic? Talking amongst themselves is the limit of power the mages have. Anything else, the Chantry cracks down. And as I said before, even a monarch can't get the Chantry to bend.

All we know is that the monarch asked if the Circle can be free and the Divine said no. Of course she's going to say no. That's not an in-between or any kind of negotiation. You don't start with total freedom. Or you do and work backwards. All we know is that it was asked and denied and that was it. That's not starting with, say, mages having more freedom to leave the Circle without chaperones or allowing their families to visit. Where is the evidence that any of what was discussed at the conference Wynne attended got to the Divine? Where is the evidence of First Enchanters sitting down with Grand Clerics and saying, "You want this but we want this so how do we make this work?" There's none. There's a lot of evidence that groups within the Circle don't like Chantry control, but zero evidence that any of that went beyone that group.

It's easy to say that the Chantry understands violence but I can also say that's the only solution they've been given. And here we have another crazed apostate who violated a Chantry and the people inside and never actually talked to anyone about how to free mages. Seriously. I've seen sit-ins with more planning.

The chantry will never allow a change because it will erode their own power. violence is the only option

[Monica21]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Why should they leave? It was their homes long before the accords were set up. Accords that interestingly, the qunari themselves don't put much stock in. For that matter, the Rivani don't put much stock in the Chantry, either. The converts weren't trying to conquor anyone's land. It was their land in the first place, and they converted to the qun. It was their home. But like the qunari, the Chantry simply can't tolerate opposing belief, and uses violent means to stamp it out.

They should leave because the leaders of their religion signed a treaty that said they would leave. They can certainly renounce the religion for trying to relocate them, but hey, don't come complaining for not complying with an expectation your own leaders had.

Holy wars are, by definition, any war fought with religion being the prime factor and driving force. Every war the Chantry has sponsered can be considered a "holy war".

Eh, I'm not sure I completely agree, but I can see your point. But I disregard the march against Tevinter because the nature of religion gives you very little room for compromise.

Be as gaider might handwave the epilogues, the epilogues still give us a picture of the kind of mentality that drives the Chantry, one that I've seen strengthened in codexes and lore.

There is still no evidence planned march against Orzammar. It could be nothing more than people hanging around a tavern wondering if they're going to.

As I said, I really doubt the claims of human sacrifice, which, as I stated, have been a mainstay of demonizing propoganda since the beginning of civilization. In fact, damned near every civilization in history has accused the "barbarians" of everything from ritual sacrifice and cannibalism to incest. Attacking humans that strayed too close to their border? yes, I can see that. And of course, the fact that the Dalish stood by and did nothing in the second Blight would have pissed alot of people off. And I have no doubts that the Dalish killed or kicked out missionaries of the Chantry because they weren't interested.

Agree to disagree about human sacrifice then, but I see no evidence one way or the other. Yes, you do have valid points about the Dalish deliberately being maligned and demonized, but there's no evidence that it wasn't happening.

However, the Chantry was antagonizing the Dalish by trying to push their religous beliefs on them via missionaries and templars. When the Dalish refused to convert that way, they started sending force to try and convert. That's the only two paths as far as the chantry is concerned. Submit, or war. Not so different from the Qunari, to be honest.

Is this a reference to the Dalish Exalted March, or something else?

It's not like Anora or Alistair just said "hey, free the circle". There was likely negotiation, especially in Anora's case, as that's something she thrives at. Given that there is alot about Thedas we don't know, especially beyond Ferelden, just because something is not stated specifically does not mean it was not attempted. And after 1000 years of rule, I'm willing to bet it has been tried.

And all I'm saying is we don't know. The Warden was offered a boon and chose one. We have absolutely no idea how it was asked or if Alistair or Anora tried to negotiate something lesser as appeasement. 

Only solution they have been given? More like the only solution they have ever shown themselves capable of. Anders blowing up the Chantry is a fart in a thunderstorm compared to the violence the Chantry has been passive and active in since its inception. Long before Anders exploded his poo bomb, and Kirkwall's streets were mobbed with blood mages, i spent act 2 getting attacked by Chantry zealots trying to start a war with Qunari zealots.

Kirkwall's streets and mountains were running rampant with blood mages and apostates during the entire playthrough of DA2. I spent Act 3 getting mobbed by blood mages and their thralls. I spent Act 1 trying to free a Templar from a blood mage and trying to negotiate freedom for a group of Starkhaven apostates only to have most of them try and kill me. These are not acts of people who are legitimately trying to change the relationship between the Chantry and the mages, and that's my point. We have zero evidence that anyone has ever sat down with the Chantry and tried to change anything. We have a lot of evidence of mages running loose and trying to kill people who are doing their best to help them.

Anders was just bringing their violent chickens home to roost, that's all. That the Chantry would react with violence is predictable. of course, Anders had no plan. That was his biggest mistake, starting a war with no plans how to fight it. Stupid, yes. But not jaw droppingly so. It was bound to happen. The Chantry had created enough enemies and people with a chip on their shoulders that something like that was bound to happen. And the Chantry pretty much created Janders the ultrabomber. As crazy as he was, he was still quite Andrastian. I think most of his manifestos feature him rambling on about the Maker and such. But more than just his religous beliefs, the Chantry-run Circle created Janders.

I think the biggest problem is with Kirkwall's leadership and with Anders personal experience. No, he hasn't had the best time in the Circle, but compare that with a mage like Finn who rather likes being in the Circle. Why does Anders get to speak for him? Why do any of the mages who rebel after the Gallows incident get to decide to speak for Finn? 

And I will agree to disagree with you about the Chantry creating Janders. Anders made the decision, not the Chantry. 

[Monica21]

DKJaigen wrote...
The chantry will never allow a change because it will erode their own power. violence is the only option

And I'm talking about what we have evidence of and not what assumptions you have.

[Monica21]

ChaplainTappman wrote...
Mages need lyrium, too. The dwarves are not going to trade with people cutting off other trade routes.

To be fair, mages don't need lyrium. It helps them regenerate mana faster, but otherwise it will regenerate by itself. As far as we know, mages don't take lyrium in the same manner Templars do, so there's no reason to think mages can't exist without it.

[phaonica]

LobselVith8 wrote...

phaonica wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Which happens to be what King Alistair is doing in Ferelden with apostates.

What's your point? That Alistair wouldn't break Chantry law, so it must not be one? Or that if it is a law, Alistair is breaking it?

Considering that you seem to think it's an automatic death sentence, I'd imagine that Meredith would have made a bigger deal out of it if that was the case.

I never said I thought the punishment for harboring an apostate was an automatic death sentence. I only said that it might be within the authority of the Chantry to punish citizens for breaking Chantry laws, one of which would be harboring apostates. The "crime" could consequence any range of punishment, and the "laws" seem to  be neither enforced nor punished equally. Meredith would no more attempt to arrest the King of Ferelden for harboring apostates than she would simply arrest Hawke for being one.

phaonica wrote...

That still doesn't make any of it "law" in a sense of a strict standard of what constitutes a crime and what is the standard proper punishment. I'm not sure how much that idea of "law" even applies to the institutions in Thedas that we've seen so far. "Laws" seem more like guidelines, and they hardly seem standardized.

The fact that the templars couldn't kill Anders simply for running away seems pretty cut and dry to me.

That may be the harshest the Knight Commander in Ferelden is willing to punish that particular transgression. That doesn't necessarily mean the templars are following a law when they arrest Anders, it means they're following a superior's order.

Modifié par phaonica, 18 septembre 2011 - 02:21 .

[ChaplainTappman]

Monica21 wrote...

To be fair, mages don't need lyrium. It helps them regenerate mana faster, but otherwise it will regenerate by itself. As far as we know, mages don't take lyrium in the same manner Templars do, so there's no reason to think mages can't exist without it.

They need it to amplify their magical power without resorting to blood magic, don't they? I could easily be wrong, but that was the impression I was under.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Monica21 wrote...

They should leave because the leaders of their religion signed a treaty that said they would leave. They can certainly renounce the religion for trying to relocate them, but hey, don't come complaining for not complying with an expectation your own leaders had.

But the leaders of their religion did not expect them to leave. Sten tells Alistair the Qunari signed a piece of paper because it had meaning to the Theodosians, not the Qunari. The Qunari stopped the war for their own reasons. The Rivani Qun converts were not required by the Qun to leave. Nor should they have had to. That was their lands, their homes, regardless of religion. The Qun has a very different sense of honor and politics than Thedas does.

Eh, I'm not sure I completely agree, but I can see your point. But I disregard the march against Tevinter because the nature of religion gives you very little room for compromise.

Which is kind of my whole point. The Chantry is a religion. religion does not comprimise, not the one-way/my-way-or-the-highway type religions that the Chantry is. You can't negotiate on religion. And the Chantry is dead set in its control of mages being a part of its religion/dogma. It has been since its creation by emporer Drakon. This is not something the Chantry would ever comprimise on.

Is this a reference to the Dalish Exalted March, or something else?

The dalish Exalted Marches, yes. When you look at the codexes written by both sides, what I gathered, based on where the two version agree, the Chantry kept sending Missionaries to try and convert the Dalish, as well as building a Chantry in the Dales. The Dalish were getting tired of it, and started expelling or killing missionaries, then the Chantry started sending templars. And then the Dalish retaliated. And it escalated into exalted march.

Kirkwall's streets and mountains were running rampant with blood mages and apostates during the entire playthrough of DA2. I spent Act 3 getting mobbed by blood mages and their thralls. I spent Act 1 trying to free a Templar from a blood mage and trying to negotiate freedom for a group of Starkhaven apostates only to have most of them try and kill me. These are not acts of people who are legitimately trying to change the relationship between the Chantry and the mages, and that's my point. We have zero evidence that anyone has ever sat down with the Chantry and tried to change anything. We have a lot of evidence of mages running loose and trying to kill people who are doing their best to help them.

it was only act 3 I was getting mobbed by blood mages. Act 1? Other than Decimus and his little Manson Family, and Tahrone the Day-Glo nut with Idunna, My problems in act 1 were non-mage related. Act 2 it was religous mundane zealots. Act 3 was when everyone went nuts. But the streets weren't running with apostates and blood mages before act 3. The only mages you run into on the streets are part of criminal gangs. Which is standard all over Thedas.

Of course they were acting like insane idiots, attacking everyone and everything. Given what I had seen up to that point, I would be surprised if they were sane. What else are they going to do? Who will they negotiatiate with? Meredith the flaming cow? Elthina the Useless? It's not like they have many options, as far as more peaceful resolution. Hell, Orsino was trying to appeal to Elthina because meredith was a complete psycho, and Elthina yawned them both off.

I think the biggest problem is with Kirkwall's leadership and with Anders personal experience. No, he hasn't had the best time in the Circle, but compare that with a mage like Finn who rather likes being in the Circle. Why does Anders get to speak for him? Why do any of the mages who rebel after the Gallows incident get to decide to speak for Finn?

By the same token, why should mages who don't want anything to do with the Chantry and Circle allow Finn's support and acceptance to decide their fate? Why should they have to remain caged simply because some of their fellows like it that way?

There is no middle ground here, at least not as far as the Chantry is concerned. The two sides are in opposition. Anders "spoke" for those who had enough of the Chantry and wanted out. Those who want to stay? Well, no one is forcing them to leave the Chantry's aegis. Though they might end up dying in an annulment or purge. But annulments and purges are part of this wonderful system the Finns of Thedas have accepted, so...

And I will agree to disagree with you about the Chantry creating Janders. Anders made the decision, not the Chantry. 

That Janders planted the bomb and chose to do so, I do not debate. But the creature that he had become was very much a Chantry creation. Not the actual merge with a spirit. I'm talking about a bitter, pissed off, mentally unstable person with a serious chip on their shoulder, and little to lose. That's the part the Chantry created through its terminal incompetance and idocy. Janders the hopeful martyr bomber was just the evolution.

[ChaplainTappman]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

That Janders planted the bomb and chose to do so, I do not debate. But the creature that he had become was very much a Chantry creation. Not the actual merge with a spirit. I'm talking about a bitter, pissed off, mentally unstable person with a serious chip on their shoulder, and little to lose. That's the part the Chantry created through its terminal incompetance and idocy. Janders the hopeful martyr bomber was just the evolution.

By that logic, the West bears the blame for Osama bin Laden's actions. Legitimate grievances do not justify terrorism. Anders chose to flee the Circle. He chose to turn his back on his fellow mages. He forfeited any claims to speak for the Circle mages then, long before we ever met him. It wasn't until he merged with a spirit and became an avatar of the templars' arguments against freedom for mages that he decided he and he alone was worthy of determining the fate of the Circles.

[Monica21]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
But the leaders of their religion did not expect them to leave. Sten tells Alistair the Qunari signed a piece of paper because it had meaning to the Theodosians, not the Qunari. The Qunari stopped the war for their own reasons. The Rivani Qun converts were not required by the Qun to leave. Nor should they have had to. That was their lands, their homes, regardless of religion. The Qun has a very different sense of honor and politics than Thedas does.

I fail to see how that's the Chantry's fault. The Qunari signed the Accords and are therefore bound by them. One side considered it a suggestion and disregarded it and the other side considered it a binding treaty and held to it.

By the same token, why should mages who don't want anything to do with the Chantry and Circle allow Finn's support and acceptance to decide their fate? Why should they have to remain caged simply because some of their fellows like it that way?

There is no middle ground here, at least not as far as the Chantry is concerned. The two sides are in opposition. Anders "spoke" for those who had enough of the Chantry and wanted out. Those who want to stay? Well, no one is forcing them to leave the Chantry's aegis. Though they might end up dying in an annulment or purge. But annulments and purges are part of this wonderful system the Finns of Thedas have accepted, so...

We're not going to agree on the Chantry and the Marches so I'll address this. We have no evidence that any peaceful attempts to change how the Circle is treated by the Chantry have been made. We have a lot of evidence that certain groups are talking amongst themselves, but that's useless. We have evidence that Ferelden asks the Chantry if it will release control of the mages and they said no, but that's it. Again, zero evidence of any attempt at a peaceful solution or any kind of negotiation.

That Janders planted the bomb and chose to do so, I do not debate. But the creature that he had become was very much a Chantry creation. Not the actual merge with a spirit. I'm talking about a bitter, pissed off, mentally unstable person with a serious chip on their shoulder, and little to lose. That's the part the Chantry created through its terminal incompetance and idocy. Janders the hopeful martyr bomber was just the evolution.

I disagree.

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

So the mages should attack Orzammar aswell now? Cause that is the only way Orzammar is going to stop trading.

I said knockout the trade routes not attack orzammar smartass.

An attack on the trade route would be an attack on Orzammar. Not the city itself, but the kingdom.

I'm not so sure. If the lyrium changed hands and was in the Chantry's hands, it would be an attack on the Chantry and not Orzammar.

In fact, it would be really hilarious. The Dwarves get their money, the mages disrupt the trade routes which cause the Templars to go into withdrawal, some die, others go insane, others go Templar in the Hanged Man, and the Chantry goes back to Orzammar for more lyrium. Rinse and repeat.

[DKJaigen]

Monica21 wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...
The chantry will never allow a change because it will erode their own power. violence is the only option

And I'm talking about what we have evidence of and not what assumptions you have.

Their is plenty of evidence in both games. But let me give you a shining example how the chantry thinks

http://dragonage.wik...rding_Apostates

Do you really believe that you can negotiate with zealots like that? The chantry believes that free mages = new tevinter imperium. So you can stop defending your argument the blame lies with the chantry not the mages.

[MichaelFinnegan]

ChaplainTappman wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

To be fair, mages don't need lyrium. It helps them regenerate mana faster, but otherwise it will regenerate by itself. As far as we know, mages don't take lyrium in the same manner Templars do, so there's no reason to think mages can't exist without it.

They need it to amplify their magical power without resorting to blood magic, don't they? I could easily be wrong, but that was the impression I was under.

I think some spells require greater mana, willpower, concentration, or whatever one might refer to it as. And, once spells are cast, fatigue or exhausion sets in, requiring recharge times. Lyrium helps a mage in both regards, either by allowing a spell requiring greater mana to be cast; or, after casting an array of spells, to help alleviate that fatigue. So lyrium is very much handy to mages; more so since numbers don't seem to favor them.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

ChaplainTappman wrote...
By that logic, the West bears the blame for Osama bin Laden's actions.

The west does bear some blame. Al Qaeda would not have existed as it did were it not for the funding, training and support we gave the mujadeen in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion. As well as a number of highly questionable political and military descisions. So yeah, we helped create the monster that would come back and bite us in the ass.

[ChaplainTappman]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

The west does bear some blame. Al Qaeda would not have existed as it did were it not for the funding, training and support we gave the mujadeen in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion. As well as a number of highly questionable political and military descisions. So yeah, we helped create the monster that would come back and bite us in the ass.

A common and inaccurate assessment of history. Seeing as how we never funded, trained, or supported bin Laden, and he never received much support (in a moral sense) from the Afghan muj who we were supporting, no we do not bear blame for him or his actions. We made a lot of mistakes in Afghanistan, but creating bin Laden is not one of them.

What's more, you're ignoring my point: grievances, no matter how legitimate, do not justify terrorism. Don't presume to absolve Al Qaeda, the PIRA, ETA, Sendero Luminoso, FARC, the RAF of their sins just because it suits your anti-Chantry argument. I have some very serious , very valid greivances against my work. But I'm not justified in shooting up the place.

[Relix28]

Funny, how this post 9/11 mentality works. Hawke carves his way through half of Kirkwall, killing god knows how many innocents along the way. Siding with the Mages or Templars forces you to kill way more innocents than Anders blew up in the Chantry. How many Templars were just doing their job, or how many innocent Mages were just defending themselves?
So because of that Hawke becomes a hero, and Anders becomes an insta-Bin Laden. lol
I also think people should remember how the USA was once created and who were the terrorists then and then try to re-think the term terrorism.

Modifié par Relix28, 18 septembre 2011 - 01:51 .

[ChaplainTappman]

Relix28 wrote...

Funny, how this post 9/11 mentality works. Hawke carves his way through half of Kirkwall, killing god knows how many innocents along the way. Siding with the Mages or Templars forces you to kill way more innocents than Anders blew up in the Chantry. How many Templars were just doing their job, or how many innocent Mages were just defending themselves?
So because of that Hawke becomes a hero, and Anders becomes an insta-Bin Laden. lol
I also think people should remember how the USA was once created and who were the terrorists then and then try to re-think the term terrorism.

That's kind of a fair point, but there's a huge distinction. The Founding Fathers didn't deliberately target innocents. Ditto Hawke. Collateral damgage is a terrible, but sadly unavoidable consequence of war.

Ander's dectruction of the Chantry could only result in one thing: the death of innocent on a massive scale. That was the point, to cause as much death and destruction as possible, to either force an equally violent reaction out of the templars or break their will. That's the logic of the terrorist, that was the goal of 9/11. To either bring the West to its knees, or provoke a violent anti-Muslim outburst that would incite a Huntington-esque clash of civilizations. And to suggest that Anders is justified because of the valid criticisms he has against the templar Order is to ape the rhetoric of every terrorist group in history.

The thing is, I'm sympathetic to the mages' cause. The abuses they suffered at the hands of the Order, especially in Kirkwall, are indefensible. The system as a whole isn't a bad idea, because you want mages to be educated in a curriculum that's absent the supremecism that led to Tevinter, but the Order's zealotry is inexcusable. I don't blame the mages for rising up; I support them on every playthrough I consider canon. But that doesn't excuse Anders' actions.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

ChaplainTappman wrote...
By that logic, the West bears the blame for Osama bin Laden's actions.

The west does bear some blame. Al Qaeda would not have existed as it did were it not for the funding, training and support we gave the mujadeen in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion. As well as a number of highly questionable political and military descisions. So yeah, we helped create the monster that would come back and bite us in the ass.

So, by your logic, the Russians are to blame for Bin Laden for having invaded Afghanistan in the first place. Actually, lets go even further back, it is Hitlers fault for not having conquered Soviet Russia! Even further, it is Napoleon's fault for not having conquered Russia!

As you can see, that logic is downright stupid. If you insist on keep pointing the finger back, you eventually end up blaming the first single-celled organism that decided to split.
By the end of the day there is always only one person responsible for his actions. Himself. No one forced Anders to bomb the Chantry. He may have had his reasons, but the action was entirely his own.

[Xilizhra]

It should be noted that Anders didn't deliberately target innocents. The only person he actually went after, Elthina, wasn't innocent by any means, and the rest of the attack was just likely to cause numerous civilian deaths, something that could be said of many wartime actions that wouldn't be considered terrorism.

[rak72]

Xilizhra wrote...

It should be noted that Anders didn't deliberately target innocents. The only person he actually went after, Elthina, wasn't innocent by any means, and the rest of the attack was just likely to cause numerous civilian deaths, something that could be said of many wartime actions that wouldn't be considered terrorism.

If he just wanted Elthina, he could have wlked into the chantry and hurled a fire ball at her.  Cut the BS.  (And yes, she was innocent)

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xilizhra wrote...

It should be noted that Anders didn't deliberately target innocents. The only person he actually went after, Elthina, wasn't innocent by any means, and the rest of the attack was just likely to cause numerous civilian deaths, something that could be said of many wartime actions that wouldn't be considered terrorism.

You don't make a domb that destroy an entire district of Hightown jsut to kill one person. Cease your insistant attempts at trying to make Anders seem a victim.

[ChaplainTappman]

Xilizhra wrote...

It should be noted that Anders didn't deliberately target innocents. The only person he actually went after, Elthina, wasn't innocent by any means, and the rest of the attack was just likely to cause numerous civilian deaths, something that could be said of many wartime actions that wouldn't be considered terrorism.

Two points: First, I continue to assert that the distinction has to be made between the Templar Order and Drakon's Andrastian Chantry, to which the Order is aligned only pretty loosely. Second, Elthina may have been "the only person he actually went after," but that doesn't negate the fact that he willfully chose a method of attack that has the sole outcome was mass casualties. That says to me that he didn't just want to kill Elthina.

[Xilizhra]

If he just wanted Elthina, he could have wlked into the chantry and hurled a fire ball at her. Cut the BS. (And yes, she was innocent)

By reason of aggressive neglect, she's partially responsible for everything Meredith did. In fact, she might be more responsible by Act 3 when Meredith is no longer in full control of her actions.

Two points: First, I continue to assert that the distinction has to be made between the Templar Order and Drakon's Andrastian Chantry, to which the Order is aligned only pretty loosely. Second, Elthina may have been "the only person he actually went after," but that doesn't negate the fact that he willfully chose a method of attack that has the sole outcome was mass casualties. That says to me that he didn't just want to kill Elthina.

Not relevant in this case. Not every Chantry priest may be guilty by association of the evils of the Templar Order, but Elthina was explicitly Meredith's superior and most definitely shirked her responsibilities to anyone Meredith harmed.
As for the means of attack, what it was supposed to do is serve as a large and flashy symbol of how far the mages have been pushed, and probably to play on Meredith's insanity to bring her into an attack. The amount of civilian casualties was unimportant.

You don't make a domb that destroy an entire district of Hightown jsut to kill one person. Cease your insistant attempts at trying to make Anders seem a victim.

Cease your repeated genocide apologia and maybe we can talk.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 18 septembre 2011 - 03:00 .

[ChaplainTappman]

 

Xilizhra wrote...
Not relevant in this case. Not every Chantry priest may be guilty by association of the evils of the Templar Order, but Elthina was explicitly Meredith's superior and most definitely shirked her responsibilities to anyone Meredith harmed.As for the means of attack, what it was supposed to do is serve as a large and flashy symbol of how far the mages have been pushed, and probably to play on Meredith's insanity to bring her into an attack. The amount of civilian casualties was unimportant.

First of all, you're missing my point about the Order/Chantry distinction. Blaming the Chantry for the actions of the Order is misplacing blame, and serves only to muddle the conversation. I'll grant that Elthina should have done more to rein in Meredith, though by the time it became apparent that Meredith wasn't in control of her faculties it may have been too late to do anything.

Secondly, you don't think the brazen assassination of the Revered Mother in the chantry by an abomination would be flashy enough? If Anders is, as he claims, more than willing to be a martyr for the cause, that would accomplish his goals, without mass civilian casualties. He deliberately chose a method that killed innocents. That is morally indefensible.

[Xilizhra]

First of all, you're missing my point about the Order/Chantry distinction. Blaming the Chantry for the actions of the Order is misplacing blame, and serves only to muddle the conversation. I'll grant that Elthina should have done more to rein in Meredith, though by the time it became apparent that Meredith wasn't in control of her faculties it may have been too late to do anything.

Given Meredith's personal history, she should never have been appointed as Knight-Commander in the first place, among other things.

Secondly, you don't think the brazen assassination of the Revered Mother in the chantry by an abomination would be flashy enough? If Anders is, as he claims, more than willing to be a martyr for the cause, that would accomplish his goals, without mass civilian casualties. He deliberately chose a method that killed innocents. That is morally indefensible.

I'm not sure if it would be enough; Meredith would probably just kill him personally and that would be it. The action itself just wouldn't be big enough to work.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 18 septembre 2011 - 03:11 .