[quote]ChaplainTappman wrote...
[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...
Don't get me wrong. I was merely pondering how one could see the difference between a "freedom fighter" and "terrorst," because there is something in the game itself that can help us to distinguish/contrast between the terms.
But, although I perceive his act to be wrong, not merely in blowing up the Chantry, but also in losing the support that he had from locals, who go from helping apostates escape to possibly demanding for blood of mages, I do understand that Anders was mostly acting out of desperation.[/quote]
I'd agree with you, but I see a clear delineation between acts. When Anders lashes out in frustration and desperation, like he does against Ser Alrik in "Dissent,"[/quote]
I see what you mean. Ser Alrik was assaulting an innocent and defenseless mage (Ella?) as far as I could see it. Anders/Justice was reacting to that, in fury. I'd not consider this an act of desperation, though, unless he'd not willfully engage templars for some reason but somehow inexplicably in this situation he did. With the blowing up of the Chantry, though, the whole ball game changes - because now Anders' act involves harm to people who were in all probability not directly concerned with the happenings at the Circle and/or the Chantry, same as the case when Anders/Justice cannot see the situation clearly with Ella, and attempts to kill her after having dealt with Ser Alrik. At least that's how I see it.
[quote]
But by Act 3, his goals have shifted from mage liberation to destruction of the Chantry, and his methods have become inexcusable.[/quote]
At this point in time, I'd like to introduce my thoughts at a more broader level. What is it really that makes us think along the lines of: "inexcusable" or "unforgivable" or "wrong" or "right," and so on? We automatically, in this context at least, seem to be agreeing that killing of innocents is not excusable. This - the two of us, at least - see as something we can do without; in fact something that we should abhor in all cases, irrespective of the context. But, considering the deeper meaning, it's not all that clear what is supposed to be right or wrong, in every conceivable point of view, which is where the problem with such an argument is. Sometimes people look at actions that allegedly produces the "greater good" as morally right (I would say a famous example is are the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WW2, where civiilans died, and continued to die over generations), and somethimes people see that what is right for the individual, but does not harm others, as morally right. Still others see that what Anders did as a necessary thing, or perhaps the only option that was open. And then there are those who think that Anders didn't have the right to decide that for other mages. Etc. and so forth.
So, really, we're proceeding on the assumption that what is right in this context is something that could have involved no slaughter/murder of innocents. Which to me, at least, is a valid point.
But, in any case, we can probably say that once someone resorts to acts such as that of Anders, the templars will probably respond in kind, as Meredith does (arguably she was insane at that point, but still). And then the whole landscape of combat changes - anything and everything becomes permissible, because each side knows that the other is not making any concessions on the former's behalf. And then the whole thing turns ugly, and puts a great question mark over what might eventually emerge from all of it, for the future. This is really also a point that one ought to contend with, apart from the question of whether something is in and of itself morally justifiable or not - consequences count.
And, as I said earlier, Anders act also could have turned the people of Kirkwall away from their support of mages. Which also is an undesirable act, in my opinion, if the broader goal is freedom from oppression.
[quote]
That's a fair point, that it's not Anders who decides to destroy the chantry, but Justice. But the fact remains that the creature (whatever it is) calling itself Anders chose that act, and must be held accountable for it. That quote of Merrill's, that there's no such thing as a "good spirit" is actually kind of core to my opinion of Anders, post-merging with Justice. He is an abomination, an incredibly powerful one. The arc of his mental state throughout the game suggests to me that the demon is winning, is taking over. It's not unreasonable to assume that, left alive, he'll only become more unstable, more violent.[/quote]
I haven't completed an Awakening playthrough, yet - kind of stuck with other more important things at the moment. So I don't know really how Justice, as a character, was. Anyway, the point being that we don't know what caused Anders to stoop to such desperation - whether he himself, or Justice, or something else entirely was responsible. In any case, although "the creature" might have murdered innocents, it's just this uncertainty of determining who was actually responsible that makes me hesitate to kill Anders/Justice. I had kind of hoped that in the future I could somehow liberate both Anders and Justice from each other's clutches, if possible.
In any case, I didn't understand why he was left to Hawke's mercy by both Orisino and Meredith, depending on whom I sided with. He should have been tried by the people of Kirkwall, who were the real sufferers...
[quote]
[quote]
But does Varric really say that the templars are going after the mages? If so, I'll take back my argument.[/quote]
What Varric says, verbatim:
"In fact, haven't the templars rebelled as well? I thought you decided to abandon the Chantry to hunt the mages."
He's speaking to Cassandra and making the common mistake of assuming the Seekers are part of the Order, but it's pretty clear to me. The Order wouldn't have abandoned the Chantry if the Divine was willing to let them fight a war with the mages.[/quote]
Maybe. He says three different sentences one after the other: "you've already lost all the Circles," "in fact, haven't the templars rebelled as well?" and "I thought you decided to abandon the Chantry to hunt the mages". I thought, in each case, he was referring to the three known parts of the Chantry, mages, templars, and seekers, respectively. All of which had fallen to pieces. And what Cassandra says later, "not all of us desire war, Varric," tells me a couple of things: that perhaps the seekers aren't looking for war, but a conflict resolution, and that the templars are indeed at war with mages, perhaps having gone back to their pre-Chantry days. Now how Varric knows that the seekers have abandoned the Chantry, I cannot say, nor can I say what involvement the Divine has in this matter.
[quote]
[quote]
No, I do not think it was a mistake. The Chantry, when it formed the Circles with the mages and templars, was perhaps doing the right thing for everyone concerned. After the fall of Tevinter, mages would have been considered a threat, everywhere, so they'd have had a terrible time, not really because of a fault of their own.[/quote]
Like I said, I think it's the sort of thing that requires hindsight to accept as a mistake. I don't know what alternatives they had, though they should have kept strict oversight on the Order.[/quote]
Yes, oversight over the templars would have been especially a good thing (which is there, with a new order we'e been introduced to now, that of the seekers). We'll run into the eternal debate of who oversees the overseer, though. In my view, what they could've done, over time, is to put the First Enchanter in the same standing as the Knight Commander, so that there was at least an equality of power. This would put a question mark over how the RoA would itself seem enforcable, but perhaps there were better ways.
But, in any case, I think it is a mistake people seem to do at times - set up an institution with enough rigidity and dogma within it that it is guaranteed to fail in the long run.
[quote]
There's a lot wrong with the system, no doubt, but I think much of it should be blamed on the Order, considering they're the ones who created and oversaw the system. The fact is, there never should have been a Circle in Kirkwall. The Tevinter magisters deliberately weakened the Fade there, and to situate a large number of Fade-sensitive people there was the height of arrogance and stupidity. There's no doubt in my mind that the first Circle mages there informed the templars and were ignored. That invited everything that transpired there.[/quote]
I think both are to blame - the Chantry and the Templar Order - to varying degrees. The Chantry, I do not know why, has made the Circles in such a way that it doesn't contain a Chantry within - it's just the mages and templars. And with a KC like Meredith, the mages are more or less left nowhere to go, especially when Elthina seems to wish that the mages and templars should resolve disputes between themselves, when such a resolution seemed rather impossible. It was rather unfortunate, for the Circle at Kirkwall, that people at the top turned out to be this way. And rather convenient for the war to start - depending on how one looks at it.
It'd be interesting to learn more about the Circle at Kirkwall though - why it was established, what sort of events occurred there prior to what we see during DA. On the surface, I agree, it appears rather foolish to locate so many mages where the Veil seemed rather thin.
[quote]
The prohibition on marriage (which is somewhat flexible) and the separation from family are wrong, there's no doubt about that to me. I think young mages should be kept at the Circle (for uniformity of education and for their own protection), but absolutely should be given visitation rights. And having relationships and marrying should certainly be allowed.[/quote]
Yes, I too think so about marriages, fraternization, etc. These are core aspects, and denying them, to whatever degree, ought to be counterproductive to whatever the Circles were hoped to accomplish.
[quote]
I actually have no problem with the Harrowing. If you're not strong enough to resist demonic possession, that should be determined in a controlled environment. I'm kind of ambivalent about Annulment and the tranquil issue. If a Circle is too far gone to be salvaged, if possession is rampant, I'm not sure it's a bad idea to give overseers the ability to purge; at least with the Right, that ability is codified and there's some sort of restriction. With tranquils, if you can't resist possession, is it better to be tranquil or dead? I don't know.[/quote]
Yes, I understand what you say. But that is assuming the existing state of affairs. If we consider however that if the Chantry had been more willing to allow mages to research/experiment more on matters such as demonic possession - under strict scrutiny of the templars of course - things, over time, ought to have improved. A stage could probably have been reached when demonic possession need no longer have been feared, perhaps with the assurance that it could be reversed, or easily contained. I don't claim that such research would have succeeded, but that I see the Chantry's forbidding it as necessarily wrong.
[quote]
To me, the issues stem from the single fact that the people assigned to oversee the mages are an organization that has one prerequisite for enlistment: blind religious zeal. The resultant attitude, that mages are necessarily dangerous and suspect, is a nonstarter for peaceful and constructive cooperation. The Chantry gave the Circles to the Order and stopped thinking about them, which was a mistake. But had mages been placed in the charge of the Seekers, I think the situation would've been much different, and much less onerous to the mages.[/quote]
Much as I agree that the templars should have been under more scrutiny, I don't know what would have happened under the seekers - we've seen just one seeker in the form of Cassandra, who appears to have been on a mission to stop a war, rather than blindly hunt for mages. And there is of course Leliana. But, overall, who knows?
But consider: aren't the seekers supposed to be overseers of the templars. So what exactly were they doing when all hell was breaking loose at Kirkwall? Why weren't people like Alrik or Karras brought to justice (or whatever it is that the seekers do to punish corrupt templars) sooner by the seekers? Why is it that Hawke had to take care of almost everything at Kirkwall? Somehow it doesn't speak highly about the seekers to me.
In any case, I'd like to highlight a fundamental issue that needs debate, in my opinion. We see people all over, some mages, templars, civilians, qunari, etc. all willing to put some shackle or the other on all mages, all proceeding on the assumption that mages are inherently dangerous. Now the question really isn't whether this is morally correct, but to me it is, why in blazes should those mages who look for more freedom agree to such a deal? One might answer: it will help train mages, but one might answer, why only the Circle way; surely there are better methods? Or one might say, well, to protect mages from themselves, civilians, etc. And one might answer, yes, true, but, again, why only in this way?
For long lasting peace, it would have been beneficial to give some "natural" incentives for mages to lead lives different from common folk. It would have been good had someone really tried to make mages understand from a young age that they're vulnerable simply because of what they are, instead of allowing fear to consume the minds. And what the templars think, that they've divine domination over mages, ought to have been perished from the outset. I know in a dogmatic, superstitious society such things are too much to ask, but still, one can only hope...
EDIT: Some formatting corrections. And, geez, I typed another long reply...
Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 19 septembre 2011 - 06:27 .
Retour en haut
