709 réponses à ce sujet

[nekhbet]

I admit I cheered when the Chantry jenga scene played. I appreciate the sort of trolling to ruin Hawke's best laid plans to get some sense into Kirkwall.

[TripLight]

nekhbet wrote...

I admit I cheered when the Chantry jenga scene played. I appreciate the sort of trolling to ruin Hawke's best laid plans to get some sense into Kirkwall.

Just add someone carrying a sign that says in all caps "WHERE IS YOUR MAKER NOW?" and it be the perfect troll:lol:.

And no I wasn't upset at what Anders did, shocked, but my Hawke had enough of Kirkwall, and being a mage she had high stakes at risk. As others said before, if he had told my Hawke she would have been right there with him, though probably before sending Elthina tied up on a Ship to Orlais, with a note that says "U MAD?". But then again, that wouldn't have gotten the reaction to bring forth the Meredith and Orsino confrontations to peak.

I'd also like to point out what so many people are forgetting, immersion aside, this is a game, just because our characters support an NPC's actions in a fictional world, doesn't mean we support in REAL LIFE. 

No real lives are actually lost in a video game, but if that brands me as a terrorist because you are mad you couldn't control every aspect of the game and like a stagnant and fairytale ending story, so be it.

People play RPG differenty, I am not sure why some of you are so upset about someone elses playthroughs. You aren't them and they aren't you, so don't expect them to have the same impressions as you. If you can't seperate games from real life, I'll worry about you more then the people who aren't upset by the Chantry's destruction.

If you wanted a happy ending you were playing the wrong game, I'm just saying...

[Fruit of the Doom]

I wasn't particularly bothered.

Elthina got what was coming to her lazy ass.

[The Baconer]

Kawamura wrote...
What? It's okay for your Warden to make choices for other people because they don't end in an uprising?

No, because they don't force a genocide.

You decide politics for two kingdoms,

They begged for the Warden to do it. Picking Bhelen also improves the lives of many dwarves.

you deal with an artifact of great power,

That's not even remotely comparable.

you can help annul a Circle yourself,

Indeed, you can call for a genocide. I never did, so this doesn't apply to me.

you can let go the being responsible for the last Blight or kill it (and kill more dwarves).

Good thing I never killed more dwarves then.

You, as your Warden, make a lot of choices for people. Anders makes one. Were you upset that you made those choices for other people? I imagine many of those choices could end in deaths.

I judge each action by its merits. Saying they're all the same simply because they're choices that happened to affect other people is intellectually dishonest.

Through your games, you're killing way more folks/telling your party members to kill way more folks than Anders most likely did on his own.

Irrelevant. It isn't accurate to make that claim anyway, since all mages throughout Thedas (disregarding Tevinter) are now fighting for their lives.

[Kawamura]

The Baconer wrote...

No, because they don't force a genocide.

They begged for the Warden to do it. Picking Bhelen also improves the lives of many dwarves.

That's not even remotely comparable.

Indeed, you can call for a genocide. I never did, so this doesn't apply to me.

Good thing I never killed more dwarves then.

I judge each action by its merits. Saying they're all the same simply because they're choices that happened to affect other people is intellectually dishonest.

Irrelevant. It isn't accurate to make that claim anyway, since all mages throughout Thedas (disregarding Tevinter) are now fighting for their lives.

You make choices for other people. Is the problem that he made a choice for you, he made a choice that doesn't work out or that it kills people? Is it all right for you to remove other people's chance to make choices, but not him?

You say he forced a genocide. How? Because the mages chose to rise up?

[The Baconer]

Kawamura wrote...
You make choices for other people. Is the problem that he made a choice for you, he made a choice that doesn't work out or that it kills people? Is it all right for you to remove other people's chance to make choices, but not him?

I judge each action by its merits. Saying they're all the same simply
because they're choices that happened to affect other people is
intellectually dishonest.

You say he forced a genocide. How? Because the mages chose to rise up?

Well, an annulment is essentially genocide, and he forced one on the Kirkwall Circle. Nuking the Grand Cleric gave Meredith the authority to call for one on her own, and the Chantry bombing gave her the perfect excuse to make mages a scapegoat.

[Kawamura]

The Baconer wrote...


I judge each action by its merits. Saying they're all the same simply
because they're choices that happened to affect other people is
intellectually dishonest.

Well, an annulment is essentially genocide, and he forced one on the Kirkwall Circle. Nuking the Grand Cleric gave Meredith the authority to call for one on her own, and the Chantry bombing gave her the perfect excuse to make mages a scapegoat.

You take other people's chance at having a choice. You make decisions for them. I thought that wsa part of the reason you were upset at Anders in the first place, wasn't it?

He forced Meredith to annull the Circle, did he?

[The Baconer]

Kawamura wrote...
You take other people's chance at having a choice. You make decisions for them. I thought that wsa part of the reason you were upset at Anders in the first place, wasn't it?

Correct, that's only part of it.

He forced Meredith to annull the Circle, did he?

If you want to split hairs, no. But he knew that was the road Meredith would take, so he did essentially force the mages' hand.

[pimple]

On bloody slave rebellions involving burning **** to the ground:

"In 1712, some slaves in New York City rose up in a crude rebellion that could have been much more deadly, had it been better planned. As it was, it was among the most serious slave resistances in American history, and sparked a vicious backlash by the authorities. The revolt was led by African-born slaves, who decided death was preferable to life in bondage. They managed to collect a cache of muskets and other weapons and hide it in an orchard on the edge of town. On the night of April 6, twenty-four of the conspirators gathered, armed themselves, and set fire to a nearby building. They then hid among trees, and when white citizens rushed up to put out the blaze, the slaves opened fire on them, killing five and wounding six.
The surviving citizens sounded the alarm. Every able-bodied man was pressed into service, and appeals were made to governors of surrounding colonies. The militia pinned down the rebels in the woods of northern Manhattan. The leaders of the uprising committed suicide, and the rest, starving, surrendered.

The death toll in the 1712 uprising doesn't seem high, but in a New York county that, at that time probably numbered some 4,800 whites, it was shocking. In considering the psychological impact on the survivors, imagine some sort of attack on modern New York, with its 8 million people, that would leave casualties of 10,000 dead.

"A special court convened by the governor made short work of the rebels. Of the twenty-seven slaves brought to trial for complicity in the plot, twenty-one were convicted and put to death. Since the law authorized any degree of punishment in such cases, some unlucky slaves were executed with all the refinements of calculated barbarity. New Yorkers were treated to a round of grisly spectacles as Negroes were burned alive, racked and broken on the wheel, and gibbeted alive in chains. In his report of the affair to England, Governor Hunter praised the judges for inventing 'the most exemplary punishments that could be possibly thought of.' "" (http://www.slavenorth.com/newyork.htm)

It seems to me that those who object most to what Anders did are those that most support the brutalities against the mages. But, take that away and see how you actually would view such a thing in a context like this, where you acknowledge that it was slavery.

On another note, The Chantry here is a political and military organization. Those that support the Cleric acknowledge she had power here to force compromise. So, you lot have acknowledged that she is not a non-combatant. The templars are an instrument of the Chantry. These are the slavemasters here. The attack was against a political and military target, by its very nature. Any military attack or armed rebellion has casualties. However, in cases where rebellion is actually needful (such as this one) there are already casualties. One person asks about the mother of the civilian who dies, what of the mother of the mage child ripped from her arms and killed in a harrowing? What of the mage who has a forbidden pregnancy and birth within the circle? Do not accuse the pro-Anders side of being callous when you do not give a crap about huge swaths of innocents either. Now, we can argue that Anders' actions were poorly planned, or though he was generally justified in striking back he crossed a line, but it is rather asinine to suggest that a person who is killing a military leader in their own country whose followers spend every minute of every day hunting for people like him to kill and jail who attacks them without any purposeful killing of civilians (I mean purposeful in the legal sense, where he is just as happy or happier to accomplish his goal without such deaths) is the same as a purposeful targeting of civilians halfway across the world.

Also, on the templars-they really suck at their job. Seriously. I don't see how just letting mages roam around without any supervision would be worse, as I have yet to actually witness a templar intervening with a necesary problem (such as a possesed mage or murderer) unless it walked up and attacked them to their face. Am I forgetting an example? The closest I can think of is the templar investigating the serial killer in DA2, however, we are not certain at that point that the killer is even a mage, and, besides, he still fails at it.

[Herr Uhl]

Kawamura wrote...

He forced Meredith to annull the Circle, did he?

That was his clear intent though. The whole "no compromise" thing.

[Kawamura]

The Baconer wrote...

Correct, that's only part of it.

If you want to split hairs, no. But he knew that was the road Meredith would take, so he did essentially force the mages' hand.

I'm still a bit confused. You kill a lot of folks in the game. In both games. Even if he sets it up for Meredith to pick the Rite, so you consider him responsible for those deaths, they've still got to be less than you've killed. It makes it difficult to take the high road when you've got two characters with pretty blood hands.

[bleetman]

Kawamura wrote...

I'm still a bit confused. You kill a lot of folks in the game. In both games. Even if he sets it up for Meredith to pick the Rite, so you consider him responsible for those deaths, they've still got to be less than you've killed. It makes it difficult to take the high road when you've got two characters with pretty blood hands.

Context? Ignoring those fights involving wild animals, undead and the like, the mercenaries, bandits, slavers and mage types who attack you in the streets generally make a conscious decision to do so, or otherwise don't leave much choice. It's not comparable to forcing a slaughter upon others based on an accident of birth.

Anders actions doom what remains of the Kirkwall circle, nevermind those inside the chantry at the time, and he knows that. He wants that. Force a massacre, trigger a war. He's decided that freedom and death is preferable to submission and life, and anyone who disagrees is a shill of the Templars.

Modifié par bleetman, 16 avril 2011 - 06:58 .

[The Baconer]

It seems to me that those who object most to what Anders did are those that most support the brutalities against the mages.

You'd be wrong. I recommend not making sweeping assumptions in the future.

But, take that away and see how you actually would view such a thing in a context like this, where you acknowledge that it was slavery.

I found that a very tasteless attempt to place those who disagree with Anders' actions in the moral wrong.

On another note, The Chantry here is a political and military organization. Those that support the Cleric acknowledge she had power here to force compromise.

I never said I supported the Cleric, but yes.

So, you lot have acknowledged that she is not a non-combatant. The templars are an instrument of the Chantry. These are the slavemasters here. The attack was against a political and military target, by its very nature. Any military attack or armed rebellion has casualties. However, in cases where rebellion is actually needful (such as this one) there are already casualties.

I don't object to rebellion. I object to causing a slaughter of the very people you're claiming to fight for to jumpstart it.

Do not accuse the pro-Anders side of being callous

Never did.

when you do not give a crap about huge swaths of innocents either.

I recommend you follow your own advice.

Now, we can argue that Anders' actions were poorly planned, or though he was generally justified in striking back he crossed a line, but it is rather asinine to suggest that a person who is killing a military leader in their own country whose followers spend every minute of every day hunting for people like him to kill and jail who attacks them without any purposeful killing of civilians (I mean purposeful in the legal sense, where he is just as happy or happier to accomplish his goal without such deaths) is the same as a purposeful targeting of civilians halfway across the world.

He didn't purposely target them. He purposely made them a target.

Also, on the templars-they really suck at their job. Seriously. I don't see how just letting mages roam around without any supervision would be worse, as I have yet to actually witness a templar intervening with a necesary problem (such as a possesed mage or murderer) unless it walked up and attacked them to their face. Am I forgetting an example? The closest I can think of is the templar investigating the serial killer in DA2, however, we are not certain at that point that the killer is even a mage, and, besides, he still fails at it.

Ok.

Modifié par The Baconer, 16 avril 2011 - 06:54 .

[Kawamura]

bleetman wrote...

Kawamura wrote...

I'm still a bit confused. You kill a lot of folks in the game. In both games. Even if he sets it up for Meredith to pick the Rite, so you consider him responsible for those deaths, they've still got to be less than you've killed. It makes it difficult to take the high road when you've got two characters with pretty blood hands.

Context? Ignoring those fights involving wild animals, undead and the like, the mercenaries, bandits, slavers and mage types who attack you in the streets generally make a conscious decision to do so, or otherwise don't leave much choice. It's not comparable to forcing a slaughter upon others based on an accident of birth.

Killing is killing. It is most likely an accident of birth that puts one character on one side and another on the other.

And who knows? Maybe it isn't an accident. Maybe the Maker saw they'd all end up being blood mages and evil anyways, so he gave 'em magic.

[Herr Uhl]

Kawamura wrote...

Killing is killing. It is most likely an accident of birth that puts one character on one side and another on the other.

So then killing in self defense is the same as murder? Or rather, willingly setting up people to die as opposed to being one of those being set up.

[The Baconer]

Kawamura wrote...
Killing is killing. It is most likely an accident of birth that puts one character on one side and another on the other.

Well, if you're looking at this from a black and white angle, and saying all killing is wrong regardless of context, then I don't understand why you would play video games in the first place.

If you're arguing from the standpoint of a moral relativist, then you wouldn't see the Chantry's treatment of mages as 'wrong' either.

And who knows? Maybe it isn't an accident. Maybe the Maker saw they'd all end up being blood mages and evil anyways, so he gave 'em magic.

... Okay.

[bleetman]

Kawamura wrote...

Killing is killing.

There's generally a reason for differentiating between, say, self defence, accidental death and outright homicide. Context is incredibly important, no matter how callously you seek to dismiss it.

Kawamura wrote...

And who knows? Maybe it isn't an accident. Maybe the Maker saw they'd all end up being blood mages and evil anyways, so he gave 'em magic.

That'd be fantastic. Forsee that they'd become wicked blood mages and abuse their power, so give them mag... wait, what?

Modifié par bleetman, 16 avril 2011 - 07:04 .

[Ayanko]

I'm only disappointed he didn't tell me about it, and given me the time of detonation.
I would have loved my Hawke to just randomly whip out some sunglasses and casually say "The Chantry blows" YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
-Que Explosion-

[nekhbet]

bleetman wrote...

That'd be fantastic. Forsee that they'd become wicked blood mages and abuse their power, so give them mag... wait, what?

It's not the weirdest idea deities of different religions have come up with!

[Devildealer]

I sort of liked being surprised there and was very happy with what happened to the chantry. In fact I could watch it over and over. Anders did what I could not, all those times in the Godfather when I planted bomb's inside the churches nothing really great happened except for a boom and while I know they weren't programmed to explode into a thousand pieces, I wish they would have. So thank you Anders.

[Kawamura]

bleetman wrote...

There's generally a reason for differentiating between, say, self defence, accidental death and outright homicide. Context is incredibly important, no matter how callously you seek to dismiss it.

That'd be fantastic. Forsee that they'd become wicked blood mages and abuse their power, so give them mag... wait, what?

Context may be important (as I'm often more sympathetic to, say, someone that kills in response than someone that actively kills), but it still makes it odd to be angry at someone else for killing. Anders did what PC's do quite often: he kils a lot of people who probably don't deserve to die (whatever "deserving to die" means), he makes choices for others and he shapes the world around him.

And it wouldn't be that odd. I mean, it reminds me of the whole fruit of the tree of good and evil thing in the judeochristian stories. Innocence is an... interesting idea. I don't think most people in Thedas think magic is an innocent accident of birth. Or, not quite.

[Kabraxal]

Kawamura wrote...

bleetman wrote...

There's generally a reason for differentiating between, say, self defence, accidental death and outright homicide. Context is incredibly important, no matter how callously you seek to dismiss it.

That'd be fantastic. Forsee that they'd become wicked blood mages and abuse their power, so give them mag... wait, what?

Context may be important (as I'm often more sympathetic to, say, someone that kills in response than someone that actively kills), but it still makes it odd to be angry at someone else for killing. Anders did what PC's do quite often: he kils a lot of people who probably don't deserve to die (whatever "deserving to die" means), he makes choices for others and he shapes the world around him.

And it wouldn't be that odd. I mean, it reminds me of the whole fruit of the tree of good and evil thing in the judeochristian stories. Innocence is an... interesting idea. I don't think most people in Thedas think magic is an innocent accident of birth. Or, not quite.

Not all killing is murder... what Anders did was murder, pure and simple.  He intentionally destroyed a building that he knew could have innocents when he did what he did... and then of course there is the simple fact that there is a wide swath of devestation around the Chantry where he endangered even more innocents.  Hell, given all the in game evidence, Elthina was quite innocent herself and the whole target of this mad terrorising bastard.  Anders is a murderer. 

But you can still kill and not have murdered anyone. 

[Kawamura]

Kabraxal wrote...

Kawamura wrote...

bleetman wrote...

There's generally a reason for differentiating between, say, self defence, accidental death and outright homicide. Context is incredibly important, no matter how callously you seek to dismiss it.

That'd be fantastic. Forsee that they'd become wicked blood mages and abuse their power, so give them mag... wait, what?

Context may be important (as I'm often more sympathetic to, say, someone that kills in response than someone that actively kills), but it still makes it odd to be angry at someone else for killing. Anders did what PC's do quite often: he kils a lot of people who probably don't deserve to die (whatever "deserving to die" means), he makes choices for others and he shapes the world around him.

And it wouldn't be that odd. I mean, it reminds me of the whole fruit of the tree of good and evil thing in the judeochristian stories. Innocence is an... interesting idea. I don't think most people in Thedas think magic is an innocent accident of birth. Or, not quite.

Not all killing is murder... what Anders did was murder, pure and simple.  He intentionally destroyed a building that he knew could have innocents when he did what he did... and then of course there is the simple fact that there is a wide swath of devestation around the Chantry where he endangered even more innocents.  Hell, given all the in game evidence, Elthina was quite innocent herself and the whole target of this mad terrorising bastard.  Anders is a murderer. 

But you can still kill and not have murdered anyone. 

Murder is almost subjective: it's unlawful killing, which would make what Anders did murder. But probably a lot of what Hawke does is murder as well (I'm thinking killing slavers trying to get back property).

Elthina ... seems to have been more aware of things than I would consider an innocent to be aware of (like Sister Peatrice's actions). She was also allowing Meredith to do what she did. I don't think anyone in power so far has been particularly innocent in that game, but I'd put my vote for Viscount Dumar being the nicest. So far.

[Kabraxal]

Kawamura wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

Kawamura wrote...

bleetman wrote...

There's generally a reason for differentiating between, say, self defence, accidental death and outright homicide. Context is incredibly important, no matter how callously you seek to dismiss it.

That'd be fantastic. Forsee that they'd become wicked blood mages and abuse their power, so give them mag... wait, what?

Context may be important (as I'm often more sympathetic to, say, someone that kills in response than someone that actively kills), but it still makes it odd to be angry at someone else for killing. Anders did what PC's do quite often: he kils a lot of people who probably don't deserve to die (whatever "deserving to die" means), he makes choices for others and he shapes the world around him.

And it wouldn't be that odd. I mean, it reminds me of the whole fruit of the tree of good and evil thing in the judeochristian stories. Innocence is an... interesting idea. I don't think most people in Thedas think magic is an innocent accident of birth. Or, not quite.

Not all killing is murder... what Anders did was murder, pure and simple.  He intentionally destroyed a building that he knew could have innocents when he did what he did... and then of course there is the simple fact that there is a wide swath of devestation around the Chantry where he endangered even more innocents.  Hell, given all the in game evidence, Elthina was quite innocent herself and the whole target of this mad terrorising bastard.  Anders is a murderer. 

But you can still kill and not have murdered anyone. 

Murder is almost subjective: it's unlawful killing, which would make what Anders did murder. But probably a lot of what Hawke does is murder as well (I'm thinking killing slavers trying to get back property).

Elthina ... seems to have been more aware of things than I would consider an innocent to be aware of (like Sister Peatrice's actions). She was also allowing Meredith to do what she did. I don't think anyone in power so far has been particularly innocent in that game, but I'd put my vote for Viscount Dumar being the nicest. So far.

That is only the current law's definition of murder, which is wrong. Murder is simply the killing of an innocent.

Yes, that's right... that means there are moral absolutes in the world not dependent on man's law at the time.  Very few, but murder is one of them.

[Kawamura]

Kabraxal wrote...


That is only the current law's definition of murder, which is wrong. Murder is simply the killing of an innocent.

Yes, that's right... that means there are moral absolutes in the world not dependent on man's law at the time.  Very few, but murder is one of them.

I ... imagine that's not the use of the word everyone has. And what counts as bad killing changes depending on the time and culture.

I also imagine that Elthina is probably not as innocent as you think she is (or, perhaps, we had different ideas of what counts as innocent). It seems like the point of this game is to cram as many not-bad-not-good choices in as possible.