209 réponses à ce sujet

[NinjaRogue]

Icy Magebane wrote...

NinjaRogue wrote...

*facepalm* Okay, The Templars are not controlled by the Chantry as Knight Commander Meridith illustrates. Finn was a slave?!?!?!?! Wynne was a slave?!?!?!?!?! Kirkwal had some insane Templars, and if you read anything about the Templars you learn that they are not always the nicest people. But if you meet Sir Oto he changes the mold. Grand Cleric Ethena even said that she did not have near enough power.

Mereidith is the equivalant of Fred Phelps

Thank you.  It's easy to take the most extreme examples of misbehavior into account and forget about the decent folks.  He wasn't the only nice Templar.  There was also the leader in the Lothering Chantry, Griegor, the idiot boatman who tries to keep you out of the Circle, and many others.  Templars, like police, cannot be judged by a few bad seeds.

And while we are on the subject. Bioware it pissed me off that we couldn't save Ser Oto, he was one of my favorite Characters. Jerks. >.>

[Icy Magebane]

@Ninja - lol... yeah Ser Oto was awesome. Even my evil Wardens liked him. He should have been a secret companion, IMO. But then again, I'm in favor of at least 5 secret companions per game so... maybe I'm not the best person to ask about that.

[TJPags]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Icy Magebane wrote...

The mages were contained and monitored because of their potential to harbor and bond with demons. 

Read History of the Circle. Mages were imprisoned because they protested their lack of rights in an Orlesian cathedral. The Circles themselves were created because of Emperor Drakon's religious views, as you can read in History of the Chantry Part Four.

The mages went willingly into the Circle - it was pretty much their idea, if you read the codex as you claim.

LobselVith8 wrote...

Icy Magebane wrote...

The Templars in Kirkwall were out of control.  That much I'd dare anyone to question.  But that does not mean that Circles are a bad idea... I don't remember any abuses at the Ferelden Circle. 

Let's ask Aneirin the Healer if getting stabbed and left for dead was a form of abuse. Let's ask Cullen to remind us about how some templars talk about killing mages with glee...

Right - stab a mage who is running away from the Circle (a criminal offense, btw) = blow up innocent families.  Good comparison.

LobselVith8 wrote...

Icy Magebane wrote...

If anything, they rob you of some personal freedom but allow you to live a relatively peaceful life apart from regular people.  It's not a bad compromise. 

Which is easy to say coming from someone who doesn't have to personally endure such treatment.

Been imprisoned and absued in a Circle Tower, have you?

LobselVith8 wrote...

Icy Magebane wrote...

Also, I am in direct opposition to the murder of non-combatants to further political goals.  If that coward had targeted the Templars, I'd have had his back.  Instead, he attacked civilians, and the murder knife had his back instead.

Having the power to put an end to slavery and doing nothing instead doesn't make the Grand Cleric innocent. And Anders attacked members of the Chantry, the very institution that's enslaved his people for nearly a thousand years.

So, what you're saying is that, a group which feels they are oppressed should strike violently not at their actual oppressors, but at innocent people?

So, in other words, prisoners who feel they are being mistreated should attack visitors and janitors, rather than guards, right?  After all, the visitors and janitors didn't stop it, so they are complicit.

Someone who is a victim of police brutality should go blow up a church to make their point, right?  The church didn't stop it, so they are complicit.

Someone who is anti-abortion should blow up a hospital, right?  They might perform abortions there, after all.

Your views on mages have nothing to do with this thread, which is about whether it was Anders, Justice, or Vengeance who was the driving force behind the act.  Please take your support for insane acts of terrorism back to the threads which are debating whether his act was right or wrong.

*edited for spelling

Modifié par TJPags, 19 mars 2011 - 07:01 .

[Kabraxal]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Badpie wrote...

Just because you can call it that, doesn't mean it is.  I can call your mom a ho, doesn't mean she is.

Because the writers writing multiple characters to refer to the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery, slaves, or oppression should clearly be ignored since you personally don't like it.

Badpie wrote...

In the end it doesn't matter.  

It does when you factor in that it's the reason Anders attacked the institution that's subjugated his people.

Badpie wrote...

The bottom line is that Anders was wrong and in the end only served to do more damage than good.  That's exactly what terrorism is.  A set of ideals and a desire for revolution to change the world manifested in a violent inexcusable manner.

He wanted the emancipation of his people. He wanted to free the slaves. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Terrorism is never justified.  Ever.  There is no good reason to become a murdering monster.  It is evil and wrong no matter how hard you try to sugercoat this vile act with cries of "freedom!".

[LobselVith8]

Icy Magebane wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Read History of the Circle. Mages were imprisoned because they protested their lack of rights in an Orlesian cathedral. The Circles themselves were created because of Emperor Drakon's religious views, as you can read in History of the Chantry Part Four.

This doesn't change the facts.  Mages are a danger to themselves and the world if they are not properly trained and raised with morality that allows them to understand that personal sacrifice is necessary to protect the majority of people (it's okay if you want to call that "indoctrination."  I still see it as acceptable).

If the Chantry's goals are to keep mages under their control, then it's hardly altruistic. I also don't think anyone is arguing against mages being properly trained, but against their subjugation.

Icy Magebane wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Let's ask Aneirin the Healer if getting stabbed and left for dead was a form of abuse. Let's ask Cullen to remind us about how some templars talk about killing mages with glee...

And many police officers enjoy apprehending and killing criminals.  Does that make their jobs any less necessary?  No.  Whether a person enjoys grim business is not the issue.  We are discussing the necessity of that work, not the personality of those involved.  The Ferelden Circle had Templars that liked their jobs... they were not rapists and they did not kill indescriminately (as far as we know).

Templars aren't police officers, they're the military arm of an organization that's enslaved mages for centuries. It's a completely different occupation, and the circumstances surrounding being a templar and being an officer of the law are quite dissimilar. As for whether the templars are necessary, the entire premise of Dragon Age 2 allows us to agree with or condemn what the templars do, so let's not state there's some absolute on this issue because there isn't.

Icy Magebane wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Which is easy to say coming from someone who doesn't have to personally endure such treatment.

You've only indicated by that comment that you are too selfish to accept that society is more important than the individual.  While I would agree that I would not like being controlled, I can understand the need for such safeguards.  But we are not good examples of impartiality.  Look at Wynne and Irving if you want examples of Mages who don't mind being subjected to scrutiny.  (I apologize if calling you selfish is insulting... I don't mean it that way, it is merely an assessment of the situation.  Nothing personal, I promise!)

I don't think it's selfish to disagree with slavery. The whole premise of Dragon Age allows us as the protagonist to make our own decisions, and deciding that slavery is not the answer isn't selfish by any measure.

Also, I clearly remember Irving thanking the Hero of Ferelden for freeing them from "their shackles" when I asked for the Magi boon.

Icy Magebane wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Having the power to put an end to slavery and doing nothing instead doesn't make the Grand Cleric innocent. And Anders attacked members of the Chantry, the very institution that's enslaved his people for nearly a thousand years.

Again, we disagree on the most basic issue.  Mage Circles =/= slavery.  They are not forced to do anything other than stay far away from demons.  They don't get to travel around freely because of the potential disasters that can occur, and those disasters are real, regardless of the Chantry's self-interested motivations.  Does the Chantry gain a lot by remaining in power at the cost of perpetuating the myth of Andraste?  Most likely, yes.  Does that mean that mages are not dangerous and prone to demonic possession?  No.

Wow... formatting this is more complicated than I expected... lol

Hawke can clearly refer to it as slavery when discussing it with Fenris. Hawke can say in discussion with Anders that mages shouldn't be forced "into servitude."  You seem to be disputing a term that's specifically chosen by the writers to define the Chantry controlled Circles. You're welcome not to see it as slavery, but clearly even a former member of the Circle thinks that the Circle does indeed = slavery.

Also, there's a stark difference between training mages in the proper use of their abilities and oppressing them. Training mages properly doesn't mean you have to brutally oppress them to the point of revolution.

[AllThatJazz]

Kabraxal wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Badpie wrote...

Just because you can call it that, doesn't mean it is.  I can call your mom a ho, doesn't mean she is.

Because the writers writing multiple characters to refer to the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery, slaves, or oppression should clearly be ignored since you personally don't like it.

Badpie wrote...

In the end it doesn't matter.  

It does when you factor in that it's the reason Anders attacked the institution that's subjugated his people.

Badpie wrote...

The bottom line is that Anders was wrong and in the end only served to do more damage than good.  That's exactly what terrorism is.  A set of ideals and a desire for revolution to change the world manifested in a violent inexcusable manner.

He wanted the emancipation of his people. He wanted to free the slaves. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Terrorism is never justified.  Ever.  There is no good reason to become a murdering monster.  It is evil and wrong no matter how hard you try to sugercoat this vile act with cries of "freedom!".

You're right. But it is a lot easier to say this as a privileged member of a free and liberal community, someone who has not been subjugated, possibly tortured/beaten/raped (with the implicit sanction, or at least indifference of the state), certainly taken from their family, someone who would be hunted to death if they attempted escape, someone who may have seen friends being lobotomised for dissenting, and who sees no hope of things ever changing. We may call it terrorism, but those who may ultimately find their lot improved by such an action would indeed cry 'freedom!' And for them, it would be so.

Edited for spelling 

Modifié par AllThatJazz, 19 mars 2011 - 07:15 .

[LobselVith8]

Icy Magebane wrote...

People in the game who refer to it as "slavery" are personally biased or using hyperbole. We all know what true slavery is, and this isn't it. Mages are not forced to work, they are not mistreated, they are not kept in shackles, etc... Kirkwall is the extreme.

They're personally biased against slavery, and let's not pretend you're the ultimate arbiter on the definition of words, okay? You're welcome to personally disagree with it, you're not welcome to act as though you define the terms specifically used by multiple characters when they're referencing the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery. Given that the writers had characters reference it as slavery, I see no reason to dismiss the term. Also, Irving says thanks to the Hero of Ferelden for freeing them from "their shackles," so even the moderate First Enchanter was not pleased with being under the subjugation of the Chantry.

NinjaRogue wrote...

*facepalm* Okay, The Templars are not controlled by the Chantry as Knight Commander Meridith illustrates.

You are aware that the templars are the military arm of the Chantry, correct? If you forgot this, re-play Dragon Age: Origins and listen to Alistair talk about how the Chantry controls the templars through their lyrium addiction.

NinjaRogue wrote...

Finn was a slave?!?!?!?! Wynne was a slave?!?!?!?!?!

Finn escaped the Circle, and he was an apostate. Wynne specifically mentions that mages aren't free, and never contests the Circle being a prison or a place of oppression when the Warden uses those terms; in fact, she says the Warden can change the Circle being an oppressive place.

Furthermore, Wynne notes in Awakening that the Chantry would rather kill all the mages than see them free.

NinjaRogue wrote...

Kirkwal had some insane Templars, and if you read anything about the Templars you learn that they are not always the nicest people. But if you meet Sir Oto he changes the mold. Grand Cleric Ethena even said that she did not have near enough power.

Has anyone here even said templars were evil or that all templars are bad? I liked Ser Otto. I liked Ser Thrask, and never blackmailed him or killed him. I also helped the missing templar keep his job and while I disagreed with Knight-Captain Cullen, I didn't think he was a bad person.

[silver-crescent]

ExistsAlready wrote...

Did you even listen to Anders? His little speech can be summed up as "I just killed the only person of mediating a peaceful solution, so you'll just HAVE to go and have a needlessly bloody conflict that might end up freeing all mages everywhere". His whole plan was: 1. Get mages and templars to kill each other 2. ???? 3. Pr-Freedom for All Mages.

The problem is that the person who could provide a peaceful solution didn't do ANYTHING over 10 years.

[Kabraxal]

AllThatJazz wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Badpie wrote...

Just because you can call it that, doesn't mean it is.  I can call your mom a ho, doesn't mean she is.

Because the writers writing multiple characters to refer to the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery, slaves, or oppression should clearly be ignored since you personally don't like it.

Badpie wrote...

In the end it doesn't matter.  

It does when you factor in that it's the reason Anders attacked the institution that's subjugated his people.

Badpie wrote...

The bottom line is that Anders was wrong and in the end only served to do more damage than good.  That's exactly what terrorism is.  A set of ideals and a desire for revolution to change the world manifested in a violent inexcusable manner.

He wanted the emancipation of his people. He wanted to free the slaves. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Terrorism is never justified.  Ever.  There is no good reason to become a murdering monster.  It is evil and wrong no matter how hard you try to sugercoat this vile act with cries of "freedom!".

You're right. But it is a lot easier to say this as a provileged member of a free and liberal community, someone who has not been subjugated, possibly tortured/beaten/raped (with the implicit sanction, or at least indifference of the state), certainly taken forcibly from their family, someone who would be hunted to death if they attempted escape, someone who may have seen friends being lobotomised for dissenting, and who sees no hope of things ever changing. We may call it terrorism, but those who may ultimately find their lot improved by such an action would indeed cry 'freedom!' And for them, it would be so.

You kill an innocent you lose any and all sympathy and any right to call it justice.  I don't give a damn what someone went through.  Kill those that are guilty.  Fine.  Kill someone innocent just because they are in any way related to those guilty or just in the wrong place at the wrong time... no.  There is no excuse for terrorism.  Ever.

Freedom is no reason to celebrate the death of an innocent.

[LobselVith8]

Badpie wrote...

Which would have been fine if he'd attacked the Templars - or at least more excusable.  But he didn't.  He attacked civilians.

He attacked members of the Chantry, who are members of an organization who have enslaved mages for nearly a millennia.

Badpie wrote...

That's like saying in America, when the slaves wanted freedom, instead of going to war to fight for it they should just kill every white person they see no matter what because those white people - whether they are or not - are clearly a PART of the institution that was holding them down.  It doesn't make sense.  Terrorism rarely does.

That's a completely inaccurate analogy. Anders didn't kill every mundane out there, he attacked the local head of an organization that enslaved his people. You're conflating the notion of civilians with active members of an organization that enslave mages. Anders didn't target random civilians, he targetted the local leader of the Kirkwall Chantry who was doing nothing to stop the abuses that were being committed against the mages when it was within her power to do so. Anders wanted to see an end to the slavery of his people, and acted.

[silver-crescent]

AllThatJazz wrote...

You're right. But it is a lot easier to say this as a privileged member of a free and liberal community, someone who has not been subjugated, possibly tortured/beaten/raped (with the implicit sanction, or at least indifference of the state), certainly taken from their family, someone who would be hunted to death if they attempted escape, someone who may have seen friends being lobotomised for dissenting, and who sees no hope of things ever changing. We may call it terrorism, but those who may ultimately find their lot improved by such an action would indeed cry 'freedom!' And for them, it would be so.

That''s very true. For those reasons exactly I think comparing what Anders did to real life terrorism is just plain ridiculous.

[AllThatJazz]

The Chantry isn't exactly innocent, is it? They are the most most powerful institution in Thedas, the Templars often, if not always, act at their bidding. They could easily enforce change, or at least a greater degree of tolerance and mercy and freedom for mages. They don't. Presumably because the Chantry rather likes wielding the power and doesn't want to lose it.

[Wulfram]

Icy Magebane wrote...

@Ninja - lol... yeah Ser Oto was awesome.

Bloody awful Templar though, what with him totally missing all the elves being kidnapped by Tevinter blood mages.

[Kabraxal]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Badpie wrote...

Which would have been fine if he'd attacked the Templars - or at least more excusable.  But he didn't.  He attacked civilians.

He attacked members of the Chantry, who are members of an organization who have enslaved mages for nearly a millennia.

Badpie wrote...

That's like saying in America, when the slaves wanted freedom, instead of going to war to fight for it they should just kill every white person they see no matter what because those white people - whether they are or not - are clearly a PART of the institution that was holding them down.  It doesn't make sense.  Terrorism rarely does.

That's a completely inaccurate analogy. Anders didn't kill every mundane out there, he attacked the local head of an organization that enslaved his people. You're conflating the notion of civilians with active members of an organization that enslave mages. Anders didn't target random civilians, he targetted the local leader of the Kirkwall Chantry who was doing nothing to stop the abuses that were being committed against the mages when it was within her power to do so. Anders wanted to see an end to the slavery of his people, and acted.

And all members of the Chantry are evil or support this stance?  Really?  Huh guess all those sisters and brothers that were just trying to help people had ulterior motives.

Again, Mages have been PROVEN to be far more unstable and evil than the Chantry in the two games we are presented with:  Connor, Uldred, almost every blood mage...

So by your very reasoning the Chantry is completely justified in enslaving every mage, tranquiling who they see fit, and killing those that try to rebel. 

Funny how bad the very reasoning you are using is....

[AllThatJazz]

Kabraxal wrote...

AllThatJazz wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Badpie wrote...

Just because you can call it that, doesn't mean it is.  I can call your mom a ho, doesn't mean she is.

Because the writers writing multiple characters to refer to the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery, slaves, or oppression should clearly be ignored since you personally don't like it.

Badpie wrote...

In the end it doesn't matter.  

It does when you factor in that it's the reason Anders attacked the institution that's subjugated his people.

Badpie wrote...

The bottom line is that Anders was wrong and in the end only served to do more damage than good.  That's exactly what terrorism is.  A set of ideals and a desire for revolution to change the world manifested in a violent inexcusable manner.

He wanted the emancipation of his people. He wanted to free the slaves. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Terrorism is never justified.  Ever.  There is no good reason to become a murdering monster.  It is evil and wrong no matter how hard you try to sugercoat this vile act with cries of "freedom!".

You're right. But it is a lot easier to say this as a provileged member of a free and liberal community, someone who has not been subjugated, possibly tortured/beaten/raped (with the implicit sanction, or at least indifference of the state), certainly taken forcibly from their family, someone who would be hunted to death if they attempted escape, someone who may have seen friends being lobotomised for dissenting, and who sees no hope of things ever changing. We may call it terrorism, but those who may ultimately find their lot improved by such an action would indeed cry 'freedom!' And for them, it would be so.

You kill an innocent you lose any and all sympathy and any right to call it justice.  I don't give a damn what someone went through.  Kill those that are guilty.  Fine.  Kill someone innocent just because they are in any way related to those guilty or just in the wrong place at the wrong time... no.  There is no excuse for terrorism.  Ever.

Freedom is no reason to celebrate the death of an innocent.

I didn't see Anders celebrating.  Also, there was a part of the game where the Templars were about to murder the sister of an apostate because she had given her sibling some food. An innocent related to the guilty. So the Templars are also terrorists? And have been acting such for the past thousand years. With no attempt to stop them from the Chantry.

Modifié par AllThatJazz, 19 mars 2011 - 07:30 .

[Suron]

LobselVith8 wrote...

fathomless33 wrote...

He attacked the civilian arm of the organization.

Do you think that MLK would have supported killing white children to obtain his goals of emancipation.

Anders didn't kill children, he targetted the head of the Chantry in Kirkwall. The Order of Templars are the military arm of the Chantry, actually. The Chantry is the organization in charge, and the arbiter that shut down the Magi boon from happening in Ferelden as well as the responsible party for enslaving mages for centuries in the name of religion.

no he targeted EVERYONE in that building.  If he just wanted to target the Grand Cleric he had more then enough times he could have WITHOUT KILLING CIVILIANS.

no personal offense meant but your defense is baseless, blind, and honestly not thought out at all.

MLK would NEVER have supported/condoned this type of thing (as a real-world example already made.)

And no ones saying conflict isn't the only way this will be resolved. But the stunt he pulled was, in fact, terrorism and murder.  He went after the easiest and most defenseless target he could....much like any terrorist.

[Suron]

fathomless33 wrote...

A not so intelligent, immature mage, possessed by a demon.

/threadclose

congratulations on total lack of reading comprehension and failure.  in and of itself it doesn't even fit as an answer to the thread title...much less what the threads about..but you obviously don't comprehend that.  So how does your off-topic response warrant a "/threadclose" ?

exactly.

Modifié par Suron, 19 mars 2011 - 07:47 .

[Ashaman65]

As much as I dislike the Chantry, which I feel is overly powerful and can easily get away with many abuses in Thedas not least against mages.

But Anders went too far in blowing up the Chantry and murdering all those innocents, even the Grand Cleric wasn't a bad person no matter her standing in the Chantry and killing her was simply a bad idea from any angle.

Perhaps the Circle should exist but as a centre of arcane learning to teach young magi how to properly control their power.
Not as a form of slavery which it currently is...or was I guess seeing as how things have went after everything.

Despite how much I hated what Ander's did...it did lead to the ending which I also didn't like as alot of people get killed.
But in the end the Mages are currently free...who knows for how long or how badly it might end.
At least they're free for a while.

[Bondkakan]

Icy Magebane wrote...

People in the game who refer to it as "slavery" are personally biased or using hyperbole. We all know what true slavery is, and this isn't it. Mages are not forced to work, they are not mistreated, they are not kept in shackles, etc... Kirkwall is the extreme.

You state that as fact. But here are some definitions of slavery for you


- Slavery (also called thralldom) is a form of forced labour in which people are considered to be the property of others. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand wages. 

- The subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work

- The state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune


Just because it doesn't involve hard work doesn't mean it isn't slavery. They are still property of someone else and have pretty much no rights what so ever.

[JulianoV]

Siven80 wrote...

Shazzie wrote...

If you are Rivalmancing Anders, you get an awful lot  that you miss out on otherwise. You really need to see this...
It's like the longer we go, the less of me there is.

Hmm, that was interesting.

Glad i killed him.....it 

Oh... Wow... just... wow... I had no idea. Seriously, that's pretty enlightening. I'm more inclined to standing by the guy's side now honestly.

[LobselVith8]

Kabraxal wrote...

And all members of the Chantry are evil or support this stance?  Really?  Huh guess all those sisters and brothers that were just trying to help people had ulterior motives.

That isn't even what I said.

Kabraxal wrote...

Again, Mages have been PROVEN to be far more unstable and evil than the Chantry in the two games we are presented with:  Connor, Uldred, almost every blood mage...

Yeah, because enslaving mages, raping them, torturing them, making them tranquil, or condemning every mage man, woman, and child to die in Kirkwall for the actions of the man standing right in front of you isn't evil in the least...

Kabraxal wrote...

So by your very reasoning the Chantry is completely justified in enslaving every mage, tranquiling who they see fit, and killing those that try to rebel. 

On one hand, you have an organization that enslaves mages. On the other, you have a man wanting to end this millennia long cyle of slavery. I don't think the two situations are remotely similar.

Kabraxal wrote...

Funny how bad the very reasoning you are using is....

My reasoning is that I think slavery is wrong and should be abolished.

[AllThatJazz]

Kabraxal wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Badpie wrote...

Which would have been fine if he'd attacked the Templars - or at least more excusable.  But he didn't.  He attacked civilians.

He attacked members of the Chantry, who are members of an organization who have enslaved mages for nearly a millennia.

Badpie wrote...

That's like saying in America, when the slaves wanted freedom, instead of going to war to fight for it they should just kill every white person they see no matter what because those white people - whether they are or not - are clearly a PART of the institution that was holding them down.  It doesn't make sense.  Terrorism rarely does.

That's a completely inaccurate analogy. Anders didn't kill every mundane out there, he attacked the local head of an organization that enslaved his people. You're conflating the notion of civilians with active members of an organization that enslave mages. Anders didn't target random civilians, he targetted the local leader of the Kirkwall Chantry who was doing nothing to stop the abuses that were being committed against the mages when it was within her power to do so. Anders wanted to see an end to the slavery of his people, and acted.

And all members of the Chantry are evil or support this stance?  Really?  Huh guess all those sisters and brothers that were just trying to help people had ulterior motives.

Again, Mages have been PROVEN to be far more unstable and evil than the Chantry in the two games we are presented with:  Connor, Uldred, almost every blood mage...

So by your very reasoning the Chantry is completely justified in enslaving every mage, tranquiling who they see fit, and killing those that try to rebel. 

Funny how bad the very reasoning you are using is....

You point to Connor, Uldred and most Blood Mages. I would point out Bethany, Wynne, a couple of my Wardens, a future Hawke, Hawke's father, First Enchanter Irving, a great many Dalish Keepers, Velanna, possibly Andraste herself, almost every non blood mage in the game. 

The argument that the Templars/Chantry are right to behave as they do seems embedded in the idea that it's acceptable to punish or oppress the majority, not only for the actions of the minority, but for their potential actions, for what they might do one day. 

A very mild version of this happened to me at primary school once. One kid in the class kept giving the teacher some attitude. As a result of this child's actions (a child who no-one really liked, and certainly not a kid any of us had any influence over), the entire class was given lines and detention. Did it make us hate the child? No more than we already disliked him. It made us hate the teacher for being so disproportionate with his punishment. I was a kid who kept my head down, worked hard and never caused any type of fuss. But damn, I wanted to after this, because 'being good' hadn't saved me from getting it in the neck because of someone else's wrongdoing. And it didn't work! The kid kept on misbehaving until we all went to comp, the other kids who would have misbehaved anyway still did so, and those of us who behaved ourselves were just really pissed off at the teacher. Blanket responses to individual cases are a really, really bad idea.

Modifié par AllThatJazz, 19 mars 2011 - 07:47 .

[LobselVith8]

Suron wrote...

no he targeted EVERYONE in that building.  If he just wanted to target the Grand Cleric he had more then enough times he could have WITHOUT KILLING CIVILIANS.

Since the Chantry is closed in the middle of the night, there are no civilians in there.

Suron wrote...

no personal offense meant but your defense is baseless, blind, and honestly not thought out at all.

I can tell you strongly disagree with what Anders did, and that's perfectly fine with me. I'm looking at the situation from the perspective of the mages who have been enslaved for a thousand years, and thinking that it should be brought to an end.

Suron wrote...

MLK would NEVER have supported/condoned this type of thing (as a real-world example already made.)

Yet the Black Panthers didn't share his views. People saw different ways to achieve equality. The difference is that Americans of African descent weren't actively being enslaved (when MLK was fighting for equality) like the mages are in Thedas. The scenerios are very different, and shouldn't be compared.

Suron wrote...

And no ones saying conflict isn't the only way this will be resolved. But the stunt he pulled was, in fact, terrorism and murder.  He went after the easiest and most defenseless target he could....much like any terrorist.

He went after the local head of an organization involved in slavery. That makes Anders very different than what you're trying to make him out to be.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 19 mars 2011 - 07:45 .

[Melra]

This starts to sound really personal :S

[fathomless33]

Kabraxal wrote...

Funny how bad the very reasoning you are using is....

My reasoning is that I think slavery is wrong and should be abolished.

You forgot to add by any means necessary even killing civilians.