2340 réponses à ce sujet

[Monica21]

DKJaigen wrote...

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.

That's completely missing the point. It is possible to still have Chantry controlled Circles and still have more freedom for mages. If the mages' goal is insta-freedom then that's a stupid goal. Mages are taught a lot, but negotiation isn't one of them.

[ChaplainTappman]

Xilizhra wrote...

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

No argument here, but the Chantry doesn't appoint Knight-Commanders. That wasn't Elthina's decision to make.

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.

You're suggesting that Meredith would have taken the reasonable action? No. She would have invoked the Rite of Annulment anyway. Recall that in the game, it's Elthina's death that she uses to justify Annulment, not civilan casualties.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xilizhra wrote...
Cease your repeated genocide apologia and maybe we can talk.

Again with the fancy words eh? That really is the only way you can lend any sort of credence to your arguments. Now I won't restart this conversation, but suffice to say that what you refer to as genocide is not genocide, but taht the Circle system itself, could be viewed as genocide. The annulments seems more akin to purges or containment emergencies.

[Xilizhra]

No argument here, but the Chantry doesn't appoint Knight-Commanders. That wasn't Elthina's decision to make.

I'm pretty sure that's the Grand Cleric's job.

You're suggesting that Meredith would have taken the reasonable action? No. She would have invoked the Rite of Annulment anyway. Recall that in the game, it's Elthina's death that she uses to justify Annulment, not civilan casualties.

She says "The chantry destroyed" as one of her justifications as well, remember.

Now I won't restart this conversation,

Oh, good.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 18 septembre 2011 - 03:19 .

[phaonica]

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.

The Right of Anullment actually only goes after blood mages and abominations, who aren't innocent, and the rest of the attack is just likely to cause numerous innocent mage deaths.

[Monica21]

Xilizhra wrote...
Cease your repeated genocide apologia and maybe we can talk.

Really? Talking to you isn't possible. You're either completely irrational or you're trolling, and you seem to have far too fervent a belief in what you're saying to be trolling, so I'm going with the former. You consistently overlook and ignore facts because they don't fit your argument. When asked to support an argument you make you ignore it. You resort to name-calling to needle people who oppose your arguments into continuing them.

Simply "talking" with you is not possible.

[Xilizhra]

phaonica wrote...

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.

The Right of Anullment actually only goes after blood mages and abominations, who aren't innocent, and the rest of the attack is just likely to cause numerous innocent mage deaths.

"Every mage in the Circle is to be executed--immediately!"

[phaonica]

Xilizhra wrote...

phaonica wrote...

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.

The Right of Anullment actually only goes after blood mages and abominations, who aren't innocent, and the rest of the attack is just likely to cause numerous innocent mage deaths.

"Every mage in the Circle is to be executed--immediately!"

And every person who is inside or around the Chantry is to be bombed, guilty or not.

[ChaplainTappman]

Xilizhra wrote...

I'm pretty sure that's the Grand Cleric's job.

There's really no way to know, but considering the history and nature of the Order, I'm under the impression that the Knight-Vigilant assigns Commanders.

She says "The chantry destroyed" as one of her justifications as well, remember.

Fair enough, it's been some time since I've played it. My point still stands, you're assuming that Meredith would take a moderate, reasoned approach. A mage walks into the chantry, maybe during services, and violently assassinates the Grand Cleric? That seems public and flashy enough to me.

[Nyreen]

I made a poll on this weeks ago...

http://social.biowar...73/polls/19398/

[Xilizhra]

And every person who is inside or around the Chantry is to be bombed, guilty or not.

I would not, personally, have bombed the Chantry. All I can do is play the best I can in Anders' game.

There's really no way to know, but considering the history and nature of the Order, I'm under the impression that the Knight-Vigilant assigns Commanders.

There's only one Knight-Vigilant, and I doubt he can keep traveling all around Thedas to assign new commanders personally, not to mention review them.

Fair enough, it's been some time since I've played it. My point still stands, you're assuming that Meredith would take a moderate, reasoned approach. A mage walks into the chantry, maybe during services, and violently assassinates the Grand Cleric? That seems public and flashy enough to me.

It's possible, but even though Anders is willing to die, he can only die once. He has to be absolutely sure that it counts.

[Relix28]

ChaplainTappman wrote...

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.

1.And Anders deliberately targeted innocents in the chantry? When did that happen? He destroyed the Chantry to start a rebellion. The grand cleric and small numer of other innocents that were killed in there were basically collateral damage. 

2.What in the blazes are you talking about?

It's actually not all that different from the American revolution, if you think about it. Just picture the mages as the American people, Anders as one of the Founding Fathers and Chantry+Templars as the British Empire. Sure, there are differences, but in a way, it's very similar. A certain group of people is getting oppressed by various questionable institutions and someone decides he had enough and starts to carry out terrorist acts (read: decides to fight back).
The only similarity between Anders and the events of 9/11 was a blown up building. It's funny how many people instantly associate the one event with the other, even though they had nothing in common except for the blown up building. And that's the misguided post 9/11 mentality that many people suffer from today. Contrary to what your media tells you, not every terrorist act in history had the same background and motivations as 9/11. And a lot of these bad bad terrorists are revered as heroes, freedom fighters and revolutionaries today. And that's exactly what BioWare imagined with Anders. He was depicted as a freedom fighter and not a mass murderer trying to kill as many innocents as possible. Where people get that impression of Anders, I can only wonder.

[ChaplainTappman]

Xilizhra wrote...

There's only one Knight-Vigilant, and I doubt he can keep traveling all around Thedas to assign new commanders personally, not to mention review them.

Those kinds of decisions are made every day in hierarchies, especially in military ones. Of course he could assign those commanders personally. He doesn't even have to leave Val Royeux. Could he review their activities on a day to day basis? No, but that's not his job. You promote a commander, and trust that they do their job well. And by the thinking of the Order, Meredith is a perfect Knight-Commander, especially for a troubled Circle like Kirkwall's. Sure in her zealotry and incapable by way of her history of being friendly with mages. I don't agree with it, but that's how they'd see it.

It's possible, but even though Anders is willing to die, he can only die once. He has to be absolutely sure that it counts.

All I can do is reiterate that you're assuming Meredith would be reasonable, when everyone knows she wouldn't considering her addled state by that point.

What's more, if your movement needs innocent corpses to make its point, your movement has failed. Or, at any rate, its time has not yet come.

[Xilizhra]

What's more, if your movement needs innocent corpses to make its point, your movement has failed. Or, at any rate, its time has not yet come.

Did it need them? I'm not sure. What we know is that it got them, and we can't let that fact stop us from fighting for it.

[Monica21]

Relix28 wrote...
It's actually not all that different from the American revolution, if you think about it. Just picture the mages as the American people, Anders as one of the Founding Fathers and Chantry+Templars as the British Empire. Sure, there are differences, but in a way, it's very similar. A certain group of people is getting oppressed by various questionable institutions and someone decides he had enough and starts to carry out terrorist acts (read: decides to fight back).
The only similarity between Anders and the events of 9/11 was a blown up building. It's funny how many people instantly associate the one event with the other, even though they had nothing in common except for the blown up building. And that's the misguided post 9/11 mentality that many people suffer from today. Contrary to what your media tells you, not every terrorist act in history had the same background and motivations as 9/11. And a lot of these bad bad terrorists are revered as heroes, freedom fighters and revolutionaries today. And that's exactly what BioWare imagined with Anders. He was depicted as a freedom fighter and not a mass murderer trying to kill as many innocents as possible. Where people get that impression of Anders, I can only wonder.

Okay, this continued comparison between the American Revolution and the British Empire is simply not accurate so I have to step in. No, the revolutionaries were not terrorists. They weren't even technically revolutionaries; they were seccesionists. And let's not forget that the British who killed five civilians were successfully defended by John Adams, that guy who signed the Declaration and later became President, and received reduced sentences. 

Yes, they fought the British. Yes, there were battles. No, they did not blow up their own buildings because they didn't like their government. The biggest act of "terror" (if you can even call it that) was wearing headdresses and dumping a bunch of tea into a harbor. (And so began America's infatuation with coffee.) The most you can say about American warfare is that they were a smaller force and had to resort to something of a guerilla fighting style. Fighting back is not terrorism. A battlefield where you kill soldiers is not terrorism. That's war, and that's entirely different.

It's not "very similar" in any way, shape, or form.

[phaonica]

Xilizhra wrote...

And every person who is inside or around the Chantry is to be bombed, guilty or not.

I would not, personally, have bombed the Chantry. All I can do is play the best I can in Anders' game.

So his his collateral killing of innocents is forgivable, but the collateral killing even one innocent mage during an RoA (not just the Kirkwall RoA, but any RoA) is reprehensible?

[Relix28]

Monica21 wrote...

Relix28 wrote...
It's actually not all that different from the American revolution, if you think about it. Just picture the mages as the American people, Anders as one of the Founding Fathers and Chantry+Templars as the British Empire. Sure, there are differences, but in a way, it's very similar. A certain group of people is getting oppressed by various questionable institutions and someone decides he had enough and starts to carry out terrorist acts (read: decides to fight back).
The only similarity between Anders and the events of 9/11 was a blown up building. It's funny how many people instantly associate the one event with the other, even though they had nothing in common except for the blown up building. And that's the misguided post 9/11 mentality that many people suffer from today. Contrary to what your media tells you, not every terrorist act in history had the same background and motivations as 9/11. And a lot of these bad bad terrorists are revered as heroes, freedom fighters and revolutionaries today. And that's exactly what BioWare imagined with Anders. He was depicted as a freedom fighter and not a mass murderer trying to kill as many innocents as possible. Where people get that impression of Anders, I can only wonder.

Okay, this continued comparison between the American Revolution and the British Empire is simply not accurate so I have to step in. No, the revolutionaries were not terrorists. They weren't even technically revolutionaries; they were seccesionists. And let's not forget that the British who killed five civilians were successfully defended by John Adams, that guy who signed the Declaration and later became President, and received reduced sentences. 

Yes, they fought the British. Yes, there were battles. No, they did not blow up their own buildings because they didn't like their government. The biggest act of "terror" (if you can even call it that) was wearing headdresses and dumping a bunch of tea into a harbor. (And so began America's infatuation with coffee.) The most you can say about American warfare is that they were a smaller force and had to resort to something of a guerilla fighting style. Fighting back is not terrorism. A battlefield where you kill soldiers is not terrorism. That's war, and that's entirely different.

It's not "very similar" in any way, shape, or form.

Like Varric once said to Carver. Point, missing it.

[Xilizhra]

phaonica wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

And every person who is inside or around the Chantry is to be bombed, guilty or not.

I would not, personally, have bombed the Chantry. All I can do is play the best I can in Anders' game.

So his his collateral killing of innocents is forgivable, but the collateral killing even one innocent mage during an RoA (not just the Kirkwall RoA, but any RoA) is reprehensible?

I don't actually believe in unforgivable actions in the first place. I can't very well fight against his Chantry bombing because it only happens once and I have no influence in it. I would be willing to accept a templar surrender during the RoA if one was offered.

[ChaplainTappman]

Relix28 wrote...

1.And Anders deliberately targeted innocents in the chantry? When did that happen? He destroyed the Chantry to start a rebellion. The grand cleric and small numer of other innocents that were killed in there were basically collateral damage. 

2.What in the blazes are you talking about?

Anders deliberately chose a method of attack that would cause mass civilian casualties. A massive explosion, sending out waves of shrapnel. Did Anders "want" to kill civilians? Maybe, maybe not. But he sure ensured that civilians would be killed.

It's actually not all that different from the American revolution, if you think about it. Just picture the mages as the American people, Anders as one of the Founding Fathers and Chantry+Templars as the British Empire. Sure, there are differences, but in a way, it's very similar. A certain group of people is getting oppressed by various questionable institutions and someone decides he had enough and starts to carry out terrorist acts (read: decides to fight back).

You're going to have to remind me of the time during the Revolutionary War that George Washington murdered British civilians. I must've skipped that day in every history class I took.

The only similarity between Anders and the events of 9/11 was a blown up building. It's funny how many people instantly associate the one event with the other, even though they had nothing in common except for the blown up building. And that's the misguided post 9/11 mentality that many people suffer from today. Contrary to what your media tells you, not every terrorist act in history had the same background and motivations as 9/11. And a lot of these bad bad terrorists are revered as heroes, freedom fighters and revolutionaries today. And that's exactly what BioWare imagined with Anders. He was depicted as a freedom fighter and not a mass murderer trying to kill as many innocents as possible. Where people get that impression of Anders, I can only wonder.

Don't patronize me. I never said every terrorist in history "had the same background and motivations as 9/11." That's patently untrue. The ideals differ, but the methodology remains the same. Violence against innocents intended to either sap the will of the enemy, or provoke a disproportionate response with the goal of inciting rebellion. That is the nature of terrorism; it always has been, it always will be. That was the goal behind the 9/11 attacks, that's why the PIRA and the Basque ETA conducted their bombing campaigns, that's why Hamas launches rockets into Israel. The ideologies differ, but the concept behind the attacks do not.

[Monica21]

Relix28 wrote...
Like Varric once said to Carver. Point, missing it.

You can't make a comparison and say, hey, Anders is like the Founding Fathers and the Templars are like the British without making a ver poor and uninformed comparison. So what is your point?

[ChaplainTappman]

Xilizhra wrote...

What's more, if your movement needs innocent corpses to make its point, your movement has failed. Or, at any rate, its time has not yet come.

Did it need them? I'm not sure. What we know is that it got them, and we can't let that fact stop us from fighting for it.

Okay, I'll grant that. But there's a difference between supporting the mages' cause, which I do (generally), and condoning Anders' actions.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xilizhra wrote...

phaonica wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

And every person who is inside or around the Chantry is to be bombed, guilty or not.

I would not, personally, have bombed the Chantry. All I can do is play the best I can in Anders' game.

So his his collateral killing of innocents is forgivable, but the collateral killing even one innocent mage during an RoA (not just the Kirkwall RoA, but any RoA) is reprehensible?

I don't actually believe in unforgivable actions in the first place. I can't very well fight against his Chantry bombing because it only happens once and I have no influence in it. I would be willing to accept a templar surrender during the RoA if one was offered.

So you don't believe in unforgivable crimes, but an annulment is unforgivable? Uhm...

[Xilizhra]

ChaplainTappman wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

What's more, if your movement needs innocent corpses to make its point, your movement has failed. Or, at any rate, its time has not yet come.

Did it need them? I'm not sure. What we know is that it got them, and we can't let that fact stop us from fighting for it.

Okay, I'll grant that. But there's a difference between supporting the mages' cause, which I do (generally), and condoning Anders' actions.

True enough. Whatever the case, I'd do my best to prevent him from trying that again, though I doubt he would.

So you don't believe in unforgivable crimes, but an annulment is unforgivable? Uhm...

I never said it was unforgivable. I said it was worthless and I had no respect for Hawkes who made that decision, but I would be willing to forgive if they recanted their actions and tried to atone.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 18 septembre 2011 - 04:00 .

[RagingCyclone]

Relix28 wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Relix28 wrote...
It's actually not all that different from the American revolution, if you think about it. Just picture the mages as the American people, Anders as one of the Founding Fathers and Chantry+Templars as the British Empire. Sure, there are differences, but in a way, it's very similar. A certain group of people is getting oppressed by various questionable institutions and someone decides he had enough and starts to carry out terrorist acts (read: decides to fight back).
The only similarity between Anders and the events of 9/11 was a blown up building. It's funny how many people instantly associate the one event with the other, even though they had nothing in common except for the blown up building. And that's the misguided post 9/11 mentality that many people suffer from today. Contrary to what your media tells you, not every terrorist act in history had the same background and motivations as 9/11. And a lot of these bad bad terrorists are revered as heroes, freedom fighters and revolutionaries today. And that's exactly what BioWare imagined with Anders. He was depicted as a freedom fighter and not a mass murderer trying to kill as many innocents as possible. Where people get that impression of Anders, I can only wonder.

Okay, this continued comparison between the American Revolution and the British Empire is simply not accurate so I have to step in. No, the revolutionaries were not terrorists. They weren't even technically revolutionaries; they were seccesionists. And let's not forget that the British who killed five civilians were successfully defended by John Adams, that guy who signed the Declaration and later became President, and received reduced sentences. 

Yes, they fought the British. Yes, there were battles. No, they did not blow up their own buildings because they didn't like their government. The biggest act of "terror" (if you can even call it that) was wearing headdresses and dumping a bunch of tea into a harbor. (And so began America's infatuation with coffee.) The most you can say about American warfare is that they were a smaller force and had to resort to something of a guerilla fighting style. Fighting back is not terrorism. A battlefield where you kill soldiers is not terrorism. That's war, and that's entirely different.

It's not "very similar" in any way, shape, or form.

Like Varric once said to Carver. Point, missing it.

Ah...revisionist history...gotta love it.

Monica21 is accurate here.

[phaonica]

Xilizhra wrote...

phaonica wrote...

So his his collateral killing of innocents is forgivable, but the collateral killing even one innocent mage during an RoA (not just the Kirkwall RoA, but any RoA) is reprehensible?

I don't actually believe in unforgivable actions in the first place. I can't very well fight against his Chantry bombing because it only happens once and I have no influence in it. I would be willing to accept a templar surrender during the RoA if one was offered.

No, you can't prevent Anders' Chantry bombing, but you can hold him accountable for it.

I never said it was unforgivable. I said it was worthless and I had no respect for Hawkes who made that decision, but I would be willing to forgive if they recanted their actions and tried to atone.

So Anders' bombing the Chantry added worth to your cause, and thus he doesn't lose your respect?

Modifié par phaonica, 18 septembre 2011 - 04:13 .