2340 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

Alexa_ wrote...

If you want to compare sparing him with anything comparable than have a look at Isabela. She made the Qunari kill a lot of people (maybe innocents too?) just because she had stolen their relic ... for selfish reason! Would you kill HER, if the game gave you the choice?

Wait, what?  Hold on, seriously, now, what? 

Isabela did not MAKE the Qunari kill anyone.  This line of thinking is utterly ridiculous.  She stole a book.  Under no circumstance did that action FORCE any of the qunari to murder anyone.  Killing people was a choice the Arishok freely made.  Isabela had nothing to do with it.

[Lazy Jer]

Silfren wrote...

Petrice wasn't trying to protect the people from the Qunari invaders.  She was specifically trying to prevent the qunari religion from taking influence away from the Chantry.  That was her concern: not the people's actual welfare, but making sure that the Chantry didn't have a competitor. 

I don't think that "if this, then that" works well as a comparison between Anders' actions and Petrice's, because it assumes their intentions are equivalent, and they aren't.  Petrice was working to preserve the Chantry's influence among the people.  Anders was working to achieve a war for mage freedom.  Hugely different goals there.

The problem is who determines just cause?  There's a lot of people who would support Meredeth as having a just enough cause to enact the Rite of Annulment.  A fewer amoung of people would consider Petrice's goal of combating the Qunari/The Qun itself as being justified.  If you advocate the taking of innocent lives for a "just cause" then life becomes cheap.  That's the point I'm trying to make.

[Kavatica]

Silfren wrote...

Lazy Jer wrote...

Alexa_ wrote...

The problem in Kirkwall is Meredith, but  Anders' pursuit is to achieve equality and freedom for all the mages in Thedas. Killing Meredith wouldn't change anything! Destroying the chantry as a symbol of nearly 1000 years of suppression and torture ... that's what shakes up the people in whole Thedas!

That may explain why Anders did it.  But it doesn't mean that it is justifiable for him to get away scott-free with killing innocent people.  If he does then Mother Petrice was justifed in killing Seamus.  After all her goal was to protect the people of Kirkwall from the Qunari.  But she isn't.  She killed was responsible for the deaths of innocent people (Seamus, the Qunari entorage).  She was out of line and appropriate punishment.

Petrice wasn't trying to protect the people from the Qunari invaders.  She was specifically trying to prevent the qunari religion from taking influence away from the Chantry.  That was her concern: not the people's actual welfare, but making sure that the Chantry didn't have a competitor. 

I don't think that "if this, then that" works well as a comparison between Anders' actions and Petrice's, because it assumes their intentions are equivalent, and they aren't.  Petrice was working to preserve the Chantry's influence among the people.  Anders was working to achieve a war for mage freedom.  Hugely different goals there.

Nicely put. And to add to this, we all know Anders is "possessed" and not exactly thinking clearly by the end of Act 3. I'm pretty sure Petrice is just a full-on zealot - no nice little possession excuse there.

[Kavatica]

Lazy Jer wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Petrice wasn't trying to protect the people from the Qunari invaders.  She was specifically trying to prevent the qunari religion from taking influence away from the Chantry.  That was her concern: not the people's actual welfare, but making sure that the Chantry didn't have a competitor. 

I don't think that "if this, then that" works well as a comparison between Anders' actions and Petrice's, because it assumes their intentions are equivalent, and they aren't.  Petrice was working to preserve the Chantry's influence among the people.  Anders was working to achieve a war for mage freedom.  Hugely different goals there.

The problem is who determines just cause?  There's a lot of people who would support Meredeth as having a just enough cause to enact the Rite of Annulment.  A fewer amoung of people would consider Petrice's goal of combating the Qunari/The Qun itself as being justified.  If you advocate the taking of innocent lives for a "just cause" then life becomes cheap.  That's the point I'm trying to make.

Doesn't going around killing your friends make life a bit cheap as well, though? Yes, Anders does kill a lot of innocent people. But killing him doesn't exactly make his actions go away. It just puts you on his level, as you are now killing someone who doesn't wish to fight you.

[Silfren]

Lazy Jer wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Petrice wasn't trying to protect the people from the Qunari invaders.  She was specifically trying to prevent the qunari religion from taking influence away from the Chantry.  That was her concern: not the people's actual welfare, but making sure that the Chantry didn't have a competitor. 

I don't think that "if this, then that" works well as a comparison between Anders' actions and Petrice's, because it assumes their intentions are equivalent, and they aren't.  Petrice was working to preserve the Chantry's influence among the people.  Anders was working to achieve a war for mage freedom.  Hugely different goals there.

The problem is who determines just cause?  There's a lot of people who would support Meredeth as having a just enough cause to enact the Rite of Annulment.  A fewer amoung of people would consider Petrice's goal of combating the Qunari/The Qun itself as being justified.  If you advocate the taking of innocent lives for a "just cause" then life becomes cheap.  That's the point I'm trying to make.

Ah.  And therein lies the million dollar question, doesn't it?  This is what makes DA games so great, because it is here that people find the shades of grey: do you meta-game your own morals, or those within the game's context?  Is it even possible to divorce your (general you) 21st century first-world morals from that of the characters within the context of the game's politico-cultural setting?  

People have always counted some measure of innocent lives cheap.  The term we use for it today is "collateral damage" and there are endless debates to be had as to its inevitability, its standing as a lesser evil, etc. 

The only stance that has ever been completely, and utterly, free of believing that any measure of human life is cheap, and therefore expendable for whichever greater cause is being championed, is to be a total anti-violence pacifist.  Some people are capable of living that ideology.  Most of us don't, however, or can't, and unfortunately the various ills of the world usually demand that blood of some sort, from SOME group of people, be shed.  

Given the various all-or-nothing positions of various groups within Thedas, the only possible outcome is that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, is going to die, for SOMEBODY'S cause. 

The phrase, "can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" may be trite, but its true. 

[Lazy Jer]

Kavatica wrote...

Doesn't going around killing your friends make life a bit cheap as well, though? Yes, Anders does kill a lot of innocent people. But killing him doesn't exactly make his actions go away. It just puts you on his level, as you are now killing someone who doesn't wish to fight you.

If you go around killing your friends because they cheat at cards, yes it does make life cheap.  If you kill your friends because you just witnessed them commit mass-murder, not so much in my opinion.  The fact is that in Act 3 you can't take him to a legal authority to plead his case because the legal authority is on fire with the rest of the city. 

So Hawke is put in the position of being his judge.  Your choices are let him stay with you, tell him to go sail, or kill him.  Anders doesn't deny he planted the bomb so he is essentially pleading guilty or at least "not guilty by reason of 'just cause'".  In my opinion killing Anders is reasonable punishment for his actions.  So no I don't believe it makes life cheap to do it. 

[Kavatica]

Silfren wrote...

Ah.  And therein lies the million dollar question, doesn't it?  This is what makes DA games so great, because it is here that people find the shades of grey: do you meta-game your own morals, or those within the game's context?  Is it even possible to divorce your (general you) 21st century first-world morals from that of the characters within the context of the game's politico-cultural setting? 

So true. And so many of Hawke's choices in the game fall in the grey area (obviously it was the same for the Warden, but I feel like it is even more pronounced with the decisions Hawke is forced to make). I think one can leave one's own morals out of a game for RP purposes (if one consciously chooses to do so), but I personally find this difficult to do.

Modifié par Kavatica, 14 mars 2012 - 09:14 .

[Koire]

Lazy Jer wrote...
I don't think Isabella isn't an appropriate conparison either.  She stole the book, yes, but she didn't even know what the book was, so she certainly couldn't have predicted that taking it would lead to an invasion by the Qunari.  If it was anything it was negligence, and that's a maybe since Qunari sacked the city more because of treatment of Qunari by the people of the city (Seamus, the Qunari envoy, the elves that had converted just before the confetti hit the fan).

Well, I actually think Isabela (friend) is worse: she is selfish. This is something I can't tolerate in people. When she runs away she knows perfectly well what the book is and what trouble is brewing. And yet she steals it one more time. I managed to make her return on my fourth playthrough, but 3 times out of 4 she decided that the conflict is none of her business, and her own hide is more precious to her than the entire city. Needless to add, I dislike her. Not to the point when I'd be willing to kill her, of course, but yet 

Modifié par Koire, 14 mars 2012 - 09:04 .

[Kavatica]

Koire wrote...

Well, I actually think Isabela (friend) is worse: she is selfish. This is something I can't tolerate in people. When she runs away she knows perfectly well what the book is and what trouble is brewing. And yet she steals it one more time. I managed to make her return on my fourth playthrough, but 3 times out of 4 she decided that the conflict is none of her business, and her own hide is more precious to her than the entire city. Needless to add, I dislike her. Not to the point when I'd be willing to kill her, of course, but yet 

She's definitely selfish. But she's also so much more than that. She's not as shallow as she wants you to believe. I think this is what I like about her the most - she is complex. And she makes me laugh. Or maybe I just have a thing for pirates. It took me a few playthroughs before I figured out the key to getting her back, too (she is one of the toughest characters to win over).

[Kavatica]

Lazy Jer wrote...

Kavatica wrote...

Doesn't going around killing your friends make life a bit cheap as well, though? Yes, Anders does kill a lot of innocent people. But killing him doesn't exactly make his actions go away. It just puts you on his level, as you are now killing someone who doesn't wish to fight you.

If you go around killing your friends because they cheat at cards, yes it does make life cheap.  If you kill your friends because you just witnessed them commit mass-murder, not so much in my opinion.  The fact is that in Act 3 you can't take him to a legal authority to plead his case because the legal authority is on fire with the rest of the city. 

So Hawke is put in the position of being his judge.  Your choices are let him stay with you, tell him to go sail, or kill him.  Anders doesn't deny he planted the bomb so he is essentially pleading guilty or at least "not guilty by reason of 'just cause'".  In my opinion killing Anders is reasonable punishment for his actions.  So no I don't believe it makes life cheap to do it. 

Yeah, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I personally don't find killing someone who killed someone else a reasonable punishment.

[Lazy Jer]

Koire wrote...


Well, I actually think Isabela (friend) is worse: she is selfish. This is something I can't tolerate in people. When she runs away she knows perfectly well what the book is and what trouble is brewing. And yet she steals it one more time. I managed to make her return on my fourth playthrough, but 3 times out of 4 she decided that the conflict is none of her business, and her own hide is more precious to her than the entire city. Needless to add, I strongly dislike her.

Seriously?  I convinced her to bring it back on my first play through.  I didn't even know that her not bringing the book back was an option.  Thus arguing about this issue is difficult since we, literally, are talking about two very different versions of Isabella.  One in which she does the right thing at the end and the other where she doesn't.

[Koire]

Lazy Jer wrote...
Seriously?  I convinced her to bring it back on my first play through.  I didn't even know that her not bringing the book back was an option.  Thus arguing about this issue is difficult since we, literally, are talking about two very different versions of Isabella.  One in which she does the right thing at the end and the other where she doesn't.

Were you romancing her? You get a lot of extra friendship points for flirting and sleeping with her. I was not - all my Hawkes were straight females.

Modifié par Koire, 14 mars 2012 - 09:19 .

[Kavatica]

Lazy Jer wrote...

Koire wrote...


Well, I actually think Isabela (friend) is worse: she is selfish. This is something I can't tolerate in people. When she runs away she knows perfectly well what the book is and what trouble is brewing. And yet she steals it one more time. I managed to make her return on my fourth playthrough, but 3 times out of 4 she decided that the conflict is none of her business, and her own hide is more precious to her than the entire city. Needless to add, I strongly dislike her.

Seriously?  I convinced her to bring it back on my first play through.  I didn't even know that her not bringing the book back was an option.  Thus arguing about this issue is difficult since we, literally, are talking about two very different versions of Isabella.  One in which she does the right thing at the end and the other where she doesn't.

It has to do with getting her to the right level of friendship/rivalry before you get to the final quest of Act 2. I have noticed that when I romance her, it is a lot easier to get there quickly and have her stick around. It's more work if you are interested in a different character (you have to bring her along more and even then, I have found that I sometimes don't have her Questioning Beliefs quest pop up until right before we go into the warehouse to fight the Qunari - after I tell her she can have the Tome).

Also, I don't think those are two different versions of Isabela. I think it is the same version of Isabela - only one where she likes you, and one where she doesn't really care about you all that much. 

Modifié par Kavatica, 14 mars 2012 - 09:22 .

[Lazy Jer]

Silfren wrote...

Ah.  And therein lies the million dollar question, doesn't it?  This is what makes DA games so great, because it is here that people find the shades of grey: do you meta-game your own morals, or those within the game's context?  Is it even possible to divorce your (general you) 21st century first-world morals from that of the characters within the context of the game's politico-cultural setting?  

People have always counted some measure of innocent lives cheap.  The term we use for it today is "collateral damage" and there are endless debates to be had as to its inevitability, its standing as a lesser evil, etc. 

The only stance that has ever been completely, and utterly, free of believing that any measure of human life is cheap, and therefore expendable for whichever greater cause is being championed, is to be a total anti-violence pacifist.  Some people are capable of living that ideology.  Most of us don't, however, or can't, and unfortunately the various ills of the world usually demand that blood of some sort, from SOME group of people, be shed.  

Given the various all-or-nothing positions of various groups within Thedas, the only possible outcome is that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, is going to die, for SOMEBODY'S cause. 

The phrase, "can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" may be trite, but its true. 

All true, I suppose.  It's which eggs are broken that stirs up these little debates.

[Lazy Jer]

Koire wrote...

Were you romancing her? You get a lot of extra friendship points for flirting and sleeping with her. I was not - all my Hawkes were straight females.

Well...romancing might be a strong word in some cases , but yeah we were usually in that general area.

[Koire]

Lazy Jer wrote...
Well...romancing might be a strong word in some cases , but yeah we were usually in that general area.

I've asked because I discussed it with my husband a lot) She was his Hawke's LI and he was also surprised that it's so hard to get her approval if she's not.

Modifié par Koire, 14 mars 2012 - 09:43 .

[Kavatica]

Lazy Jer wrote...

Koire wrote...

Were you romancing her? You get a lot of extra friendship points for flirting and sleeping with her. I was not - all my Hawkes were straight females.

Well...romancing might be a strong word in some cases , but yeah we were usually in that general area.

Aw, it's still a romance. She just doesn't use the word. Doesn't make it any less so.

[Lazy Jer]

Koire wrote...

I've asked because I discussed it with my husband a lot) She was his Hawke's LI and he was also surprised that it's so hard to get her approval if she's not.

Well in the first play through my Hawke (straight male for those keeping score), didn't get into an ongoing romance but he did have a trist with her at the beginning of Act 2.  Still managed to develope quite a few friendship points with her for it, though.

[Kavatica]

Lazy Jer wrote...

Koire wrote...

I've asked because I discussed it with my husband a lot) She was his Hawke's LI and he was also surprised that it's so hard to get her approval if she's not.

Well in the first play through my Hawke (straight male for those keeping score), didn't get into an ongoing romance but he did have a trist with her at the beginning of Act 2.  Still managed to develope quite a few friendship points with her for it, though.

That's as far as you can get with her in the Act 2 romance - even if you weren't to move on to Merrill afterwards, you don't get any other flirt options until Act 3 (it's the same for all of the romances, as far as I can tell, although some characters say more loving things to you in banter, etc than others).

[Lazy Jer]

Kavatica wrote...

That's as far as you can get with her in the Act 2 romance - even if you weren't to move on to Merrill afterwards, you don't get any other flirt options until Act 3 (it's the same for all of the romances, as far as I can tell, although some characters say more loving things to you in banter, etc than others).

I moved on to Merrill.  While we're keeping score, I also romanced Morrigan in DA:O, and I will admit that it would be more difficult for me to kill her if she had done the same thing as Anders.

[Kavatica]

Lazy Jer wrote...

Kavatica wrote...

That's as far as you can get with her in the Act 2 romance - even if you weren't to move on to Merrill afterwards, you don't get any other flirt options until Act 3 (it's the same for all of the romances, as far as I can tell, although some characters say more loving things to you in banter, etc than others).

I moved on to Merrill.  While we're keeping score, I also romanced Morrigan in DA:O, and I will admit that it would be more difficult for me to kill her if she had done the same thing as Anders.

I haven't romanced Merrill yet. I almost tried it once, but then I backed out. It's hard for me not to see her as a little sister. She's so adorable.

It's hard to break the attachment when the character is written well. I created a male Warden to romance Morrigan for the achievement and haven't played it through in its entirety yet...but based on what I have seen so far, you get to see an entirely different side of her when you are romancing her. She is a great character. I imagine it would be something along the lines of executing Alistair for me. I could never do that. In a billion years.

Modifié par Kavatica, 14 mars 2012 - 10:01 .

[TEWR]

Isabela did not MAKE the Qunari kill anyone. This line of thinking is utterly ridiculous. She stole a book. Under no circumstance did that action FORCE any of the qunari to murder anyone. Killing people was a choice the Arishok freely made. Isabela had nothing to do with it.

Indeed, the Arishok attacked Kirkwall for things completely unrelated to the book. The book kept him there -- or so Qunari philosophy/doctrine decrees -- but it wasn't why he attacked Kirkwall.

Petrice and her mob started bullying the dragon, and then when the dragon fought back they used that as justification for their deeds, citing it as "You see?! They're all monsters!"

Well, that's the general idea. The game doesn't really follow this, but it's the same line of thought as the Templars and Mages. The Templars want to push the Mages so badly believing they're monsters, and when the Mages dare to fight back they use it as evidence of why mages should be locked up.

One of the bright spots about Orsino's character -- as much as was there anyway -- is that he flat out states this to Meredith.

I'll fight the Qunari when they attack. I'll kill the Arishok. But I'll always maintain that the Arishok was justified in his assault of the city.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 14 mars 2012 - 10:01 .

[Kavatica]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I'll fight the Qunari when they attack. I'll kill the Arishok. But I'll always maintain that the Arishok was justified in his assault of the city.

I don't know if I agree with you that he was justified, but I certainly don't blame him. Kirkwall is a hole. I mean, I thought Fereldan had a lot of loonies running around, but Kirkwall just takes the cake on that one.

[TEWR]

Kavatica wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I'll fight the Qunari when they attack. I'll kill the Arishok. But I'll always maintain that the Arishok was justified in his assault of the city.

I don't know if I agree with you that he was justified, but I certainly don't blame him. Kirkwall is a hole. I mean, I thought Fereldan had a lot of loonies running around, but Kirkwall just takes the cake on that one.

He was. Think about all the things that have happened to him during his forced sojourn -- under Qunari doctrine anyway -- in Kirkwall:

1) Ketojan's kerataam was killed and their bodies led to the spot where Arvaarad was found. Petrice's hope was that a group of kind souls escorting a mage to freedom would be killed by the Qunari that were led there and that would provide her with sufficient means of starting a war (and in retrospect, some of her dialogue does in fact point to this being her goal prior to the actual escorting of Ketojan). The Arishok lost two groups of men because of blind fanatical hatred of who the Qunari are, rather then what they've done. Which at that point was nothing.

2) Ashaad is killed by a mercenary company -- no obvious ties to Petrice but he does still lose a man -- while he's scouting for the Arishok, seeking an answer. I can only surmise that the question was related to the crash of Isabela's ship, its whereabouts, the book's whereabouts, and mapping the area of the Wounded Coast.

3) Some of the citizens of Kirkwall -- working in alliance with Petrice's group -- unknowingly steal the Qunari plans for saar qamek. Their intent was based on the belief that it was the gaatlok -- blackpowder -- and that they could set off explosions throughout the city. This would not only raise fear in the Qunari amongst the populus, but give the Chantry the needed spur to kill them all. Again, he's being feared and hated for what he is rather then what he does. And again, it's still nothing. All that he's done was accept willing converts to his compound. I feel for the Elven woman. I do. But it wasn't her call.

4) The stamp of the Grand Cleric was used to authorize the kidnapping of Qunari delegates -- who had willingly agreed to keep their weapons tied to their sheaths when conversing with the Viscount and the Seneschal -- and torture them. This is meant to sow disunity amongst the peace that the Viscount is desperately trying to keep. The Arishok has now lost those men that he tasked with conversing with the Viscount diplomatically, insofar as the antaam are able to since they're the military hand of Qunari society.

5) Saemus is tricked into returning to the Chantry where he is subsequently strangled from behind -- or his neck was broken. Those are the two most likely causes of death I figured were what happened -- after he had willingly converted to the Qunari. This was done by Petrice because she was afraid that Saemus' actions would serve as an example for other people to join. And there was nothing wrong with that. Saemus wanted to foster relations between the two societies, maybe hoping that each could live in peace with one another. She only cared about preserving Chantry influence rather then serving the people beneficially and Elthina was right to chastise her for it. Even if the Chantry is a corrupt institution, Petrice's goals had nothing noble about them.

I think that's all of the quests dealing with the Qunari. The Tal-Vashoth one and Javaris doesn't count into this because that wasn't detrimental to the Qunari in any way aside from "Aww... we wanted to kill Tal-Vashoth!"
 
It basically boils down to "You fear, revile, and murder us because of who we are as opposed to what we do?! Then I will give you something to fear!"

He is justified, because there was no winning with the people of Kirkwall. All of the actions taken against him led to the loss of his men and most -- the mercenary one being the only one that might not be tied to Petrice -- stemmed from religious zealotry. The Dragon was bullied, and he was pissed off. So he fought back.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 14 mars 2012 - 11:07 .

[Koire]

I mostly agree with what The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote above