35 réponses à ce sujet

[Retserof]

A preliminary definition of terms:

• "Innocent" -- free from evil or guilt.
• "Guilt" -- responsibility for wrongdoing.
• (simplified) Innocent: Being free from responsibility for wrongdoing.

The claim I see made over and over is that the people who were harmed at the time of the Kirkwall Chantrys destruction (at the hands of Anders) were "innocent."

Let us consider who may have been in the Kirkwall Chantry at the time/were killed by the blast:

• Chantry-related personnel (e.g. Grand Cleric, sisters)
• Templar-related personnel (unlikely, though possible)
• Kirkwall Guardsmen (also unlikely, though possible)
• Kirkwall Townsfolk (many--all the other citizens of Kirkwall)
• Visitors/travelers from other places (Unlikely, though indeed possible)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Given that these are indeed the categories of people, let us consider the term "innocent."

To imply these people are "innocent" would be to imply they are free of responsibility for wrongdoing (particular to these specific charges). This is the key point here--we'll go through each categories connection to "wrongdoing." Let us consider that the current treatment of mages is "unjust" (we'll look at this from Anders' perspective for all intents and purposes).

If the current treatment of mages is "unjust," then it is reasonable to assert that those whom partake in this treatment, directly or indirectly, are propagating this unjustness. To the degree of which they are responsible would be up for debate, though providing there is a viable connection between them and the acts committed, we'll consider them responsible enough to prove their "guilt."

The Chantry sets the policy for the circle and treatment of mages in Kirkwall. All members of the Chantry are either employed by the Chantry (in a sort), or support its policies (otherwise, they would not be considered members of the Chantry). If the Chantrys law is indeed "unjust," as Anders claims, then anyone who abides by the law (or enforces it, etc.) is committing an injustice or is an accessory to the fact. This includes Chantry personnel (being the chief supporters/employees/"legislators"), the Templars (being those who carry it out, and directly enforce it upon the mages), and indeed even the Guardsmen of Kirkwall, whom also enforce Chantry law (illustrated by Aveline, having referenced turning over "a few dozen" apostates to the Templars, which we will assume was in accordance with Chantry law).

In the same way that a drunk patron at the hanged man would be charged with murder were he to kill someone in a bar fight (though he was impaired by alcohol at the time), a citizen who was oblivious to the results of their support of the chantry would still be responsible for it's actions at some level. Any citizen that donated money to the chantry, vehemently supported it (and thus its policies), or even paid taxes inside of Kirkwall (or bought goods that were taxed) that went in some way to the guard or the Chantry... would be taking part, even in a small manor, in the "injustices" perpetrated against the mages.

Now that we've shown the link of guilt to the first 4 categories, we're left with the only one which may be an exception--visitors/travelers. If the travelers are not supportive of the Chantry and it's oppressive laws (unlikely given they were INSIDE or around the chantry at the time), and were not funding the chantry or the guard through taxes or donations (also unlikely, given the travelers would have made purchases in the city), then the visitors/travelers would INDEED be "innocent" (at least to a degree we're able to go into at this time).

SO--Anders blew up the chantry. Was it "wrong"? Debatable indeed! Were the people inside the Kirkwall Chantry "innocent" according to the charges Anders was making? Not in the least! Degrees of guilt vary, as do degrees of responsibility. Could the average citizen making pilgrimage to the chantry building be held to the same standard as, say, Meredith should be? Perhaps not.

The fact of the matter is, however, they ARE responsible for what Anders perceives as "wrongdoing," and they ARE "guilty" to a degree. Someone cannot be both "guilty" and "innocent" at the same time. So, if you consider the treatment of the mages to be unjust, then (barring travelers whom did not support the chantry or buy anything in Kirkwall, but were killed by the blast anyway) noone who was killed by Anders' act of "terrorism" was  "innocent."

The defense rests.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The point of all this was to highlight the way "innocent" is thrown around (not just in this case) in general as a sort of "trigger word" of sorts. Some people are saying that the mages are treated unjustly, but ALSO saying that Anders killed innocent people. If the treatment of the mages is indeed unjust, then the people were not "innocent." Some people are trying to make it look like they're being "reasonable" when in fact they're being hypocritical! Mostly a pet peeve given this is a video game and all, but this correlates directly to the real world. If someone is connected in a meaningful way, whether directly or indirectly, to what you consider to be an "unjust" event or action, then they cannot be "innocent" at the same time. Only "less guilty" perhaps.

TL;DR -- I was bored and decided to make a long winded argument regarding the term "innocent," and came to the conclusion that nobody killed by Anders' act of "terrorism" was "innocent" (if you consider the treatment of mages "unjust").

Modifié par Retserof, 09 juillet 2013 - 09:14 .

[Pileyourbodies]

Just because anders sees them as being guilty doesn't make it so. The chantry has lasted 900 years and in 900 years and it is the law of the land. Supporting the chantry means you support the law, the basis for civilization. Without the law there is anarchy. Supporting the law doesn't mean you're not Innocent. Supporting the establishment, doesn't make you not innocent.
Anders being a terrorist isn't an issue he was one you'd be hard pressed not to find someone who thinks he was a terrorist.
If someone blows up a building in even an oppressive regime they're a terrorist.
Is a citizen of texas guilty of murder because they they kill someone for capital crimes?

If in the future the mages gain power like in Tevinter and they control the laws and history then the Mages will be innocent of crimes here and they will be freedom fighters rather than terrorists. However considering the attack hurt not just the chantry but the city of kirkwall anders will always be a terrorist. The rest of the mages you could make a case for being an organized army and thus NOT terrorists.

Modifié par Pileyourbodies, 17 mars 2011 - 05:52 .

[Retserof]

Sure, Anders isn't some all-knowing fountain of morality--I agree. The only point I was making was that if you think that the treatment of mages is unjust, then the people who were killed cannot logically be "innocent" (given their connection to the treatment of mages). "Innocent under law" perhaps, but not free of responsibility for something you perceive as wrongdoing.

Modifié par Retserof, 09 juillet 2013 - 08:49 .

[MortalEngines]

Your definition of innocent is too clinical and strict. By your definition, no one in this world is innocent because we all stand by while people in Africa are mistreated or all people who didn't aid the Jews in WW2 is guilty of their deaths. Sometimes you can't do anything about it, sometimes the best way is to do nothing because it protects yourself, is someone guilty for trying to protect themselves and their families by following the law?

Also, by your definition Mages are also not innocent because they stand by while other mages get made tranquil or while blood mages kill normal citizens. People are only human, the people in the chantry are innocent because they never directed aided in the mistreament of the mages nor did they wish for it. The Grand Cleric herself states that she wish she could help them.

Modifié par MortalEngines, 17 mars 2011 - 06:07 .

[Retserof]

MortalEngines wrote...

You're definition of innocent is too clinical and strict. By your definition, no one in this world is innocent because we all stand by while people in Africa are mistreated or all people who didn't aid the Jews in WW2 is guilty of their deaths. Sometimes you can't do anything about it, sometimes the best way is to do nothing because it protects yourself, is someone guilty of trying to protect themselves and their families by following the law?

Also, by your definition Mages are also not innocent because they stand by while other mages get made tranquil or while blood mages kill normal citizens.

My appologies for not being clear. I've never said that standing by and doing nothing makes you guilty at all! Everyone inside the Chantry would have been activly participating in some way in the unjust treatment of the mages (which is what I was showing).

So, standing by and doing nothing during WW2 wouldn't make you "guilty" per se, It would most certainly (in my opinion) be a completly abhorent and terrible thing to do. But! -- as long as you weren't funding the german government, or pointing out where jews were, etc. you wouldn't really be "guilty" of anything. Minding your own business is not cause for guilt. Indirectly funding oppression, however, IS. I hope I've made that more clear, I can elaborate further if it's still a bit fuzzy haha!

Modifié par Retserof, 09 juillet 2013 - 08:51 .

[MortalEngines]

Retserof wrote...
My appologies for not being clear. I've never said that standing by and doing nothing makes you guilty at all! Everyone inside the Chantry would have been activly participating in some way in the unjust treatment of the mages (which is what I was showing).

So, standing by and doing nothing during WW2 wouldn't make you "guilty" per se, It would most certainly (in my opinion) be a completly abhorent and terrible thing to do. But! -- as long as you weren't funding the german government, or pointing out where jews were, etc. you wouldn't really be "guilty" of anything. Minding your own business is not cause for guilt. Indirectly funding oppression, however, IS. I hope I've made that more clear, I can elaborate further if it's still a bit fuzzy haha!

But they weren't actively participating. The Grand Cleric made it clear she would not take sides and most chantry sister seemed to follow the same philosopy. All actions of the Templars came directly from Meredith and so I feel it's unfair to make the Grand Cleric responsible, especially when she was the one who would stop Meredith going to far. Those in the Chantry in Kirkwall were not funding oppression, the Divine was.

[Lithuasil]

MortalEngines wrote...


But they weren't actively participating. The Grand Cleric made it clear she would not take sides and most chantry sister seemed to follow the same philosopy. All actions of the Templars came directly from Meredith and so I feel it's unfair to make the Grand Cleric responsible, especially when she was the one who would stop Meredith going to far. Those in the Chantry in Kirkwall were not funding oppression, the Divine was.

When one of your subordinates is abusing her power, and overstepping her boundaries, not interfering isn't the same as "not taking a side".
Meredith pushed the mages more and more, squeezed tighter and tighter, and the only one who could've stopped the inevitable easily, due to being meredith' immediate superior, stood by. That's not neutrality, it's shying away from responsibility. Similarly, if soldiers believe themselves to be under orders, and their commander just looks the other way, OF COURSE he'll be held responsible as well. As Anders said, there's no 'neutrality' no 'not taking sides' in this, because doing so means furthering the templars cause.

[Retserof]

Lithuasil wrote...

MortalEngines wrote...

But they weren't actively participating. The Grand Cleric made it clear she would not take sides and most chantry sister seemed to follow the same philosopy. All actions of the Templars came directly from Meredith and so I feel it's unfair to make the Grand Cleric responsible, especially when she was the one who would stop Meredith going to far. Those in the Chantry in Kirkwall were not funding oppression, the Divine was.

When one of your subordinates is abusing her power, and overstepping her boundaries, not interfering isn't the same as "not taking a side".
Meredith pushed the mages more and more, squeezed tighter and tighter, and the only one who could've stopped the inevitable easily, due to being meredith' immediate superior, stood by. That's not neutrality, it's shying away from responsibility. Similarly, if soldiers believe themselves to be under orders, and their commander just looks the other way, OF COURSE he'll be held responsible as well. As Anders said, there's no 'neutrality' no 'not taking sides' in this, because doing so means furthering the templars cause.

Indeed! Working for the Chantry (whose law the Templars follow and enforce, and who regulates the mages) is no different than working for the templars. She is participating in oppressing the mages, albeit indirectly (or at least, less directly than the templars themselves). If you consider the oppression of the mages to be "unjust," then the members of the Chantry are NOT innocent at all. If you don't consider what happened to the mages to be "unjust," MortalEngines, then they would perhaps be innocent from your perspective. Really does hinge on perspective here, like most things.

Modifié par Retserof, 09 juillet 2013 - 08:54 .

[Medhia Nox]

Then by your proclamations - I am forced to consider the oppression of the mages to be just. Just as I would oppress the rights of murderers to continue murdering - I will oppress the rights of potential abominations to become abominations.

[Lithuasil]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Then by your proclamations - I am forced to consider the oppression of the mages to be just. Just as I would oppress the rights of murderers to continue murdering - I will oppress the rights of potential abominations to become abominations.

So you're proposing we oppress everyone, because everyone is a potential murderer?

[Retserof]

Ah, you're making a bit of an odd distinction there, Mr. Nox. A murderer
is not a murderer until he murders someone, correct? You added
"potential" to the last part of your statement--which means, I suppose,
you either meant "potential murderers" or you were being disingenuous
with your implied parallel.

Modifié par Retserof, 09 juillet 2013 - 08:55 .

[Vilegrim]

Pileyourbodies wrote...

Just because anders sees them as being guilty doesn't make it so. The chantry has lasted 900 years and in 900 years and it is the law of the land. Supporting the chantry means you support the law, the basis for civilization. Without the law there is anarchy. Supporting the law doesn't mean you're not Innocent. Supporting the establishment, doesn't make you not innocent.
Anders being a terrorist isn't an issue he was one you'd be hard pressed not to find someone who thinks he was a terrorist.
If someone blows up a building in even an oppressive regime they're a terrorist.
Is a citizen of texas guilty of murder because they they kill someone for capital crimes?

If in the future the mages gain power like in Tevinter and they control the laws and history then the Mages will be innocent of crimes here and they will be freedom fighters rather than terrorists. However considering the attack hurt not just the chantry but the city of kirkwall anders will always be a terrorist. The rest of the mages you could make a case for being an organized army and thus NOT terrorists.

So wait.. a system is justified because it has lasted a long time? So galdiatorial games where fine?  Burning people alive to light the parties of senators was fine, any action a roman commited was fine bcause the republic/empire had laster centuries.. thats a flawed arguement.   

[Nyaore]

Lithuasil wrote...

When one of your subordinates is abusing her power, and overstepping her boundaries, not interfering isn't the same as "not taking a side".
Meredith pushed the mages more and more, squeezed tighter and tighter, and the only one who could've stopped the inevitable easily, due to being meredith' immediate superior, stood by. That's not neutrality, it's shying away from responsibility. Similarly, if soldiers believe themselves to be under orders, and their commander just looks the other way, OF COURSE he'll be held responsible as well. As Anders said, there's no 'neutrality' no 'not taking sides' in this, because doing so means furthering the templars cause.

And if you notice throughout the game, there are a couple of other instances where the Grand Cleric shies away from taking action - such as when you bring the matter with Patrice to her before the confrontation in the Chantry. She eventually deems it fit to punish Patrice for her actions, once confronted with her own testimony, but not before the damage has long since been done and the Qunari are more riled than ever. I have little doubt that the Qunari would have eventually acted out given the depravity of the entire city, but by not containing Patrice before it was far too late the Grand Cleric allowed the situation to boil over long before it should have.
I'm not saying that killing her was the right action, but that I agree that she often came off as hesitant to act when it was needed.

Modifié par Nyaore, 17 mars 2011 - 07:44 .

[Kemor]

Retserof wrote...

A preliminary definition of terms:

• "Innocent" -- free from evil or guilt.
• "Guilt" -- responsibility for wrongdoing.
• (simplified): Innocent: Being free from responsibility for wrongdoing.

[..]

Soooo...You just not only justified the 9/11 events and just clarified that the death of all these people was actually a normal thing to do since none of them were "innocent" according to your logic?

Good job!

[Pileyourbodies]

Lithuasil wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

Then by your proclamations - I am forced to consider the oppression of the mages to be just. Just as I would oppress the rights of murderers to continue murdering - I will oppress the rights of potential abominations to become abominations.

So you're proposing we oppress everyone, because everyone is a potential murderer?

We already do so with laws. convicts can't own guns in many places, Mentally disturbed people can't own guns in many places. So we already do so you wild eyed idealists are in lala land.

[Retserof]

Pileyourbodies wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

Then by your proclamations - I am forced to consider the oppression of the mages to be just. Just as I would oppress the rights of murderers to continue murdering - I will oppress the rights of potential abominations to become abominations.

So you're proposing we oppress everyone, because everyone is a potential murderer?

We already do so with laws. convicts can't own guns in many places, Mentally disturbed people can't own guns in many places. So we already do so you wild eyed idealists are in lala land.

You just contradicted yourself. Yes, CONVICTS can't own guns. They are people previously CONVICTED of a crime (and mentally disturbed people are PREVIOUSLY shown to be incapable of making rational choices on their own, etc.). This is totally different from oppressing everyone, just because they COULD be a murderer. If an individual has a history of such acts, restricting them SINGULARLY is a reasonable thing to do. To do so indiscriminately because of what is possible is irrational.

Kemor wrote...

Soooo...You just not only justified the 9/11 events and just clarified that the death of all these people was actually a normal thing to do since none of them were "innocent" according to your logic?

Good job!

Never said it was a "normal" thing to do at all. I was only saying that the term "innocent" would not apply to the people who were killed in the Chantry. Does that make it right? It's irrelevant. All I was getting at was the term "innocent" does not apply if you consider the mages oppressed (which, as I've stated before, depends on your perspective and definition of the wrongdoing"). If you extrapolate this to 9/11, it's possible to "justify" depending on the perspective you're looking at it from. It doesn't make it right or wrong, only makes the term "innocent" apply or not. Ya follow?

Modifié par Retserof, 09 juillet 2013 - 08:56 .

[Herr Uhl]

Retserof wrote...

MortalEngines wrote...

You're definition of innocent is too clinical and strict. By your definition, no one in this world is innocent because we all stand by while people in Africa are mistreated or all people who didn't aid the Jews in WW2 is guilty of their deaths. Sometimes you can't do anything about it, sometimes the best way is to do nothing because it protects yourself, is someone guilty of trying to protect themselves and their families by following the law?

Also, by your definition Mages are also not innocent because they stand by while other mages get made tranquil or while blood mages kill normal citizens.

My appologies for not being clear. I've never said that standing by and doing nothing makes you guilty at all! Everyone inside the Chantry would have been activly participating in some way in the unjust treatment of the mages (which is what I was showing).

So, standing by and doing nothing during WW2 wouldn't make you "guilty" per se, It would most certainly (in my opinion) be a completly abhorent and terrible thing to do. But! -- as long as you weren't funding the german government, or pointing out where jews were, etc. you wouldn't really be "guilty" of anything. Minding your own business is not cause for guilt. Indirectly funding oppression, however, IS. I hope I've made that more clear, I can elaborate further if it's still a bit fuzzy haha!

So the defining point on whether a German citizen was guilty of killing jews or not is tax evasion?

[Retserof]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Retserof wrote...

MortalEngines wrote...

You're definition of innocent is too clinical and strict. By your definition, no one in this world is innocent because we all stand by while people in Africa are mistreated or all people who didn't aid the Jews in WW2 is guilty of their deaths. Sometimes you can't do anything about it, sometimes the best way is to do nothing because it protects yourself, is
someone guilty of trying to protect themselves and their families by following the law?

Also, by your definition Mages are also not innocent because they stand by while other mages get made tranquil or while blood mages kill normal citizens.

My appologies for not being clear. I've never said that standing by and doing nothing makes you guilty at all! Everyone inside the Chantry would have been activly participating in some way in the unjust treatment of the mages (which is what I was showing).

So, standing by and doing nothing during WW2 wouldn't make you "guilty" per se, It would most certainly (in my opinion) be a completly abhorent and terrible thing to do. But! -- as long as you weren't funding the german government, or pointing out where jews were, etc. you wouldn't really be "guilty" of anything. Minding your own business is not cause for guilt. Indirectly funding oppression, however, IS. I hope I've made that more clear, I can elaborate further if it's still a bit fuzzy haha!

So the defining point on whether a German citizen was guilty of killing jews or not is tax evasion?

Not that it's much of a laughing matter, but I can see the humor in that. I was just being brief. If you were a German citizen, you were probably helping the government work in some way (perhaps indirectly), and if you were doing that you were responsible in a fashion for the atrocities committed. I'll put it this way: a German that refused to pay his taxes did less harm than a German who did. At the end of the day, taxes were really the only connection between the government and it's citizens. Does that make standing by and doing nothing right? Hell no. But you weren't directly making it worse.

Modifié par Retserof, 09 juillet 2013 - 08:58 .

[Pileyourbodies]

So tax evasion is ok if you disagree with your goverment? What about the people who didn't like what the government was doing and left the country? Because they didn't fight against the ****s and just left are they just as evil as the ****s?

[Retserof]

Pileyourbodies wrote...

So tax evasion is ok if you disagree with your goverment? What about the people who didn't like what the government was doing and left the country? Because they didn't fight against the ****s and just left are they just as evil as the ****s?

If they just left, I might be tempted to call them cowards (I like to think that I would stay and fight against the government, but having not been there, I won't pretend to be more honerable than those that fled). I wouldn't say they were as evil as the ****s at all, quite the contrary--it would take guts to leave your home on principle. They didn't make it worse, and that was the least they could do.

As for tax evasion being OK if you disagree with your government... this really is a subject for another thread (perhaps forum haha!) but I think if you don't agree with your government, you have a duty to yourself to stop giving them money to go commit what you feel are crimes (done in your name, no less). That said, you would have to stop using government utilities, services and what have you, otherwise It would be theft I suppose. If you're interested in the topic, Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau is an excellent book.

Modifié par Retserof, 09 juillet 2013 - 08:59 .

[Lithuasil]

Retserof wrote...
If you're interested in the topic, Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau is an excellent book.

Seconded. 
let's get back to the original point of this thread though, shouldn't we? (Before Godwin invokes the right of annulment )

[Vilegrim]

I'll give you Templars, Chantry personnel and City Guards, those are valid targets being either military/paramilitary or command and control, civilians are collateral damage to be avoided if at all possible.   (I know in a modern war places or worship are not valid targets, but there is a proviso on that: unless they are being used to store/maintain command and control, war materiel or as barracks, oh which the chantry was at least 2)

Modifié par Vilegrim, 17 mars 2011 - 08:27 .

[Retserof]

Vilegrim wrote...

I'll give you Templars, Chantry personnel and City Guards, those are valid targets being either military/paramilitary or command and control, civilians are collateral damage to be avoided if at all possible.

A fair point indeed, sir. I would agree that the civilians should always be avoided. What it comes down to, I think, is that they're supporting the status quo (and the oppression) indirectly--paying taxes that fund the templars, supporting Chantry law (simply by being in the church). They're not directly oppressing mages, and perhaps they're not even aware that such a thing is a result--many of them might be appalled (well... a few at least). I'm meerly pointing out they're not "innocent" by any stretch. "Less guilty" indeed, much so, and certainly not deserving of death--but if you consider how the templars, or the chantry itself, would function without the support and funds from the citizens? Impossible.

Really, the major barrier between the mages and freedom is not the templars or the chantry--it's the indifference of their fellow man.

Now... blowing up your fellow man isn't the best way to get him to come to your side... but I can understand Anders' frustration, misplaced though it was. Such indifference is quite prevalent in societies 'round the world.

Modifié par Retserof, 09 juillet 2013 - 09:00 .

[Oneiropolos]

What people ALSO Seem fond of forgetting is that if you talked with the Grand Cleric, she REPEATEDLY says she's in talks with BOTH Orsino and Meredith to try to reach peace. She's the one who breaks up their argument at the beginning of Act III. Meredith was cowed enough by her that she actively sought to prevent Orsino from going to "Her Grace" over it.. and Anders, wishing to prevent compromise, then murdered her.

Could the Grand Cleric have done more? Well, at one point you can accuse her of that. Tell her she should be doing more. But she'll give you a sort of sad smile and say you are greatly overestimating her power. CULLEN is the one that says that the Grand Cleric would side with the Templars and she's being cruel giving the mages hope. I don't think he's correct. Remember, he's a biased source. A Templar. Perhaps Elthina should have done MORE, and I think that's a sound argument. But like EVERYONE ELSE in the game she had her hands tied by something.

You're also ignoring OTHER Definitions of 'innocent'. They range from 'righteous' to simply 'not guilty of a particular crime' or even 'virtuous'. Guilt can also be defined as, "to have legal culpability of a crime' or 'to have remorseful awareness of having done something wrong'. The Grand Cleric IS aware that wrong-doings are occurring and she isn't doing as much as she could to stop it. She's not quite sure how to handle the issue because she's human.

Of course, I probably haven't given as much money as I could to Japan's relief right now. Which means I'm making an active choice to eat what I want to tonight while there's people starving because I did not make the choice to give more than I have. Which makes me guilty because I am aware AND I am choosing to turn my head. I suspect most people on these boards are guilty of the same. We all spent around 60 dollars on entertainment and justified it while our fellow human beings are dying. The problem is, there's always a crisis. It may not be as huge as what happened in Japan, but every city has homeless shelters. All these people defending Anders and his actions...what are YOU doing? You're on a computer and you've played the game so I assume that means you're not devoting your life to purely humanitarian works and gave up all your money to the causes.

....so, if there is no one innocent and everyone is guilty of some crime of ignoring the power we do have (and money IS power), then do we deserve to die because some radical deems us as not doing -enough-? I do give quite a bit to charities. But certainly not all I could. The Grand cleric and many followers in the chantry were trying to make progress on the issue... they just didn't do it fast enough and didn't do enough for Anders. And so he killed them so he could make his own radical gesture. I am NOT saying what Meredith and SOME Templars were doing was correct. But it doesn't justify Anders and the Chantry. It never will.

Have I taken things to extremes? Yes. But so is simplifying the definitions of 'guilt' and 'innocent' in order to condemn them all.

[Vilegrim]

Retserof wrote...

Vilegrim wrote...

I'll give you Templars, Chantry personnel and City Guards, those are valid targets being either military/paramilitary or command and control, civilians are collateral damage to be avoided if at all possible.

A fair point indeed, sir. I would agree that the civilians should always be avoided. What it comes down to, I think, is that they're supporting the status quo (and the oppression) indirectly--paying taxes that fund the templars, supporting Chantry law (simply by being in the church). They're not directly oppressing mages, and perhaps they're not even aware that such a thing is a result--many of them might be appalled (well... a few at least). I'm meerly pointing out they're not "innocent" by any stretch. "Less guilty" indeed, much so, and certainly not deserving of death--but if you consider how the templars, or the chantry itself, would function without the support and funds from the citizens? Impossible.

Really, the major barrier between the mages and freedom is not the templars or the chantry--it's the indifference of their fellow man.

Now... blowing up your fellow man isn't the best way to get him to come to your side... but can understand Anders' frustration, misplaced though it was.

no one is innocent by that measure.   

Dangerous, thinking indeed, the Chantry is guilty, the Templars are guilty and any Authority that aids them is guilty.

We are not talking about democratic liberal goverments here, for all the talk of 'the people' this is a medieval setting with feudalism and all that brings, meaning to avoid taxes is to be killed. To avoid chantry is to risk being percieved as a heretic, the civilian population is not in a postion to protest, the guards would cut them down for it.