35 réponses à ce sujet

[RolandX9]

Vanders (Vengeance-Anders) explicitly killed the Grand Cleric because she was a decent and reasonable person and she might have stopped the war he wanted to start. Whether or not you agree with his reasoning, he deliberately killed not just innocent people, but actively good ones, by his own admission. Malice of forethought, indeed.

The prosecution rests.

[Pileyourbodies]

This is hardly a medieval society. All of the countries seem to be renaissance at least in their thinking and age of enlightment in others considering all of the democratic ideas that are within the governments.

[Retserof]

Vilegrim wrote...

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.  

Indeed, the only innocent would likely be the people living in the wilds, or isolated farming communities who were not subject so some sort of feudal lord. The best you can do is mitigate the amount you harm others.

And yes, to avoid or oppose the chantry would likely end in death. I am not in a position to do such a thing, so I can only suppose what I would do, as could anyone else... but I will pose the question to you regardless:

Does the threat of death justify allowing oppression? Personally, I say never. But words are weak things indeed, especially over the Internet.

RolandX9 wrote...

Vanders (Vengeance-Anders) explicitly killed the Grand Cleric because she was a decent and reasonable person and she might have stopped the war he wanted to start. Whether or not you agree with his reasoning, he deliberately killed not just innocent people, but actively good ones, by his own admission. Malice of forethought, indeed.

The prosecution rests.

An interesting point. I suppose that depends on how you define "good," does it not? If the Grand Cleric wanted to keep things the way they were--even relax the restrictions on the mages slightly--would it not still be oppressive? Does that make her good, simply because she found a new level of acceptable restrictions?

If you please, expand upon your use of the word innocent. From my perspective, everyone inside the building was either directly or indirectly causing the oppression of the mages.

Modifié par Retserof, 09 juillet 2013 - 09:10 .

[Lithuasil]

Retserof wrote...


Does the threat of death justify allowing oppression? Personally, I say never. But words are weak things indeed, especially over the Internet.

Definitely. In that same sense however, the threat of death or tranquility to you or your loved ones justifies raising the dead, slitting your wrists and lighting people on fire. Thus is the nature of a well orchestrated fictional conflict. (And by extension the nature of most real conflicts that end in violence)

[Vilegrim]

Pileyourbodies wrote...

This is hardly a medieval society. All of the countries seem to be renaissance at least in their thinking and age of enlightment in others considering all of the democratic ideas that are within the governments.

They might have reached enlightened absolutism, still a very oppresive and brutal system.  (Hell during the Penisual war more british troop where fighting our own poplation than fighting Bonaparte, and we where one of the more 'free' countries) 

[AlexXIV]

Thing is Anders did not know who was in the Chantry at this time or why. Hawke is in the Chantry a couple of times. I don't really like that thought that people die just because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even though it happens. An assassin would have done a better job. Unless it was Zevran, then he needs a beautiful female hero to pull him out.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 17 mars 2011 - 08:58 .

[Jaulen]

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.....trhe American Colonists should have just continued to bend over and take it from England?

Uh huh.

[Retserof]

Lithuasil wrote...

Definitely. In that same sense however, the threat of death or tranquility to you or your loved ones justifies raising the dead, slitting your wrists and lighting people on fire. Thus is the nature of a well orchestrated fictional conflict. (And by extension the nature of most real conflicts that end in violence)

I never understood the inherent "evilness" of blood magic... sure, consorting with demons is just foolish and always ends in a terrible fashion, but just using your blood as an energy source? I don't think there's a necessary connection to demons unless you choose so... which really makes the magic itself sort of... not bad? (aside from killing yourself slowly that is lol).

Nullification of coercion and force (when not being used to stop coercion and force of course) is always justified IMO.

Setting people on fire is just bonus points.

Modifié par Retserof, 09 juillet 2013 - 09:11 .

[Vilegrim]

AlexXIV wrote...

Thing is Anders did not know who was in the Chantry at this time or why. Hawke is in the Chantry a couple of times. I don't really like that thought that people die just because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even though it happens. An assassin would have done a better job. Unless it was Zevran, then he needs a beautiful female hero to pull him out.

Now THAT would have been epic.. Anders at high enough friendship getting Hawke to help in an assasiantion attempt.

[Retserof]

AlexXIV wrote...

Thing is Anders did not know who was in the Chantry at this time or why. Hawke is in the Chantry a couple of times. I don't really like that thought that people die just because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even though it happens. An assassin would have done a better job. Unless it was Zevran, then he needs a beautiful female hero to pull him out.

Probably the best point so far! You would think he would have checked first to make sure Merrill didn't wander in there looking for shiny things!

Plus we never know how many people actually died. Could have been empty aside from the Grand Cleric, so I suppose most of our assumptions may be ill concieved.

I hope there's an easter egg ending where the Grand Cleric walks up and asks Anders why he blew up her Chantry right after the cutscene haha!

Grand Cleric: "So... I suppose I can't put this off until after lunch then, can I?"

Modifié par Retserof, 09 juillet 2013 - 09:13 .

[Lithuasil]

Retserof wrote...

I never understood the inherent "evilness" of blood magic... sure, consorting with demons is just foolish and always ends in a terrible fashion, but just using your blood as an energy source? I don't think there's a necessary connection to demons unless you choose so... which really makes the magic itself sort of... not bad? (aside from killing yourself slowly that is lol).

Nullification of coercion and force (when not being used to stop coercion and force of course) is always justified IMO.

Setting people on fire is just bonus points.

The way I understand it, bloodmagic means giving some mana into a certain bodypart, shedding blood from there and using it as bait to get a demon over for dinner, so he can do the heavy lifting for you. (Hence why blood magic makes you more powerful - it's not your own powers, someone does the working for you)