709 réponses à ce sujet

[lizzbee]

Kabraxal wrote...

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. 

What is innocence, really?  If you look at things from the perspective of the Nuremburg judges, none who were part of the Chantry could really be considered innocent of persecuting and oppressing mages.  (Not that I necessarily condone that viewpoint...)

Elthina, on the other hand, was far from innocent.  She had the power to stop both Orsino and Meredith before things came to a head, and coming to a head was pretty much inevitable, no matter how much of a kick Anders gave things.  She could easily have removed both Meredith and Orsino from their positions of authority, and had a much more rational Cullen take over the Templars.  But she didn't.  On purpose.  She must have known that some kind of violence was inevitable, and if she didn't, she so deliberately blinded herself with Chantry dogma that she served as her own kind of catalyst for resistance.  If you have armed zealots on both sides, being a "calm moderate" isn't exactly rational, and it's not going to solve anything.

[Sable Rhapsody]

lizzbee wrote...
If you have armed zealots on both sides, being a "calm moderate" isn't exactly rational, and it's not going to solve anything.

THIS.  Seriously, who in their right minds thought Act 3 was going to end in anything but a massive bloodbath?  If Anders hadn't done something, Meredith would have, especially since she sent for the Right of Annulment on the Circle long before Anders blew up the Chantry.

I sympathize with Elthina, I do.  It's easier and more comfortable to just pretend time and patience will sort things out, that Kirkwall isn't going crazy in Act 3.  But she wielded enormous power and influence in the city, and willingly chose not to use it.  She was a good person, with good intentions, but that only carries you so far.  If you're not willing to make the decisions that are necessary with a position of power, you weren't worthy of wielding that power in the first place.  Dumar falls into that category, as does Elthina.

[bleetman]

You're looking at her decision from a logical standpoint, though. She makes it based on faith. The point being that she doesn't openly intervene because, to her, no mortal made argument could be more convincing than what the canticle of transfigurations contains. If the words of the Maker's divine bride aren't sufficient to sway them, what could she possibly say that would?

Besides, she wishes the status quo - a circle of magi overseen and guarded by Templars. By act three, neither side seem interested in continuing that. I think it's overestimated how much one person of influence could accomplish by then.

Modifié par bleetman, 17 avril 2011 - 03:49 .

[sestrensaz]

What Anders did is really not so different from what terrorists do in the real world. They have their cause they believe in, and are willing to die and cause death to show the world things need to change. We look on from a distance and see them as evil, misguided and dangerous - a threat to the way we live. They are bombing innocent people, after all... people who do not deserve death, right? The people in New York, London, Madrid... all other places where people have died in the name of a 'cause' deserved to die because the terrorists see them as complicit in their misery, the same way Anders saw the people of the Chantry as complicit in the plight of the mages.  Even though individually those people most likely never did anything to cause any harm directly to any mage.

But Anders had a point to make so it was ok for them to die, because it sent a message - it changed the world, right?

There are people who look at what Anders did and think, yeah, killing innocent people is sometimes needed - killing to make a point (as long as the point is sufficiently world changing enough) is justified. But I bet those same people wouldn't think the same way about 9/11.

Yeah, before someone flames me half to death, I know this is fiction and 9/11 most certainly wasn't but as a person who has made a career of observing human behaviour I can't help but draw the comparison when there seem to be quite a few people who support Anders' actions.

Certainly brings home the 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' adage, at the very least.

Modifié par sestrensaz, 17 avril 2011 - 04:35 .

[Sherbet Lemon]

pimple wrote...

*snipped that long article*

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.

No, no, not the same.  They are not even close to being the same.  Mages are not slaves.  Mages are NOT property.  Slaves do not belong to themselves, slaves are not considered people.  Mages are not items to be bought and sold, things to be traded like one goes out to buy shoes or food. 

Mages are more aptly described as prisoners, and moreover, prisoners who are locked up for crimes they may or may not commit.  I like to think of it being comparable to the film/short story "The Minority Report."  The wiki article hits at the theme of that particular world most assuredly as it highlights the "free will vs. determinism" dialogue and I maintain that that the notion of philosophical determinism could be considered the middle ground in the Dragon Age world.  But I would argue that the Chantry itself represents the notion of "predestination" (in some respects) and the mages represent the idea of "free will." 

Slavery is a social construct and deeply tied into economic sustainablity for the Tevinter Imperium.  It is an institution that exists to support a country (Fenris hints at this if you give him the Sword of Mercy).  The Circle was made in response to what, arguably, was once and on some levels, still is a very real threat. I disagree vehemently and maintain that your argument doesn't hold up. 

Mages are powerful enough to overthrow their "opressors."  They have access to some very real, very frightening abilities.  It is the reason why the Divine fears for what will happen in Kirkwall.  If we contrast this knowledge with  your discussion with Fenris and ask about slave rebellions, he'll tell you they are put down all of the time as the slaves lack the power to full do so.  They are not one in the same. 

Modifié par Village Idiot, 17 avril 2011 - 04:52 .

[Gamer Ftw]

I disagree the tranquil are slaves.

[Sherbet Lemon]

Gamer Ftw wrote...

I disagree the tranquil are slaves.

Owain would beg to differ.

"My capacity to feel differs from yours, but you also differ from all other beings. You are no more a person than others, and I am no less a person than you are."

And yet he still has the presence of mind to articulate this.  In a society where slavery is a prevalent form of economic sustainability, I suspect that slaves would keep this sort of mindset to themselves.  If you take Orana for example, I don't know if she'd be able to see herself in such a way.  That's a highly cerebral way of thinking that she doesn't have.

I'm not saying that being a tranquil isn't horrible.  I think it's terrible, but I don't think they're slaves.

Modifié par Village Idiot, 17 avril 2011 - 04:48 .

[sestrensaz]

Village Idiot wrote...

Slavery is a social construct and deeply tied into economic sustainablity for the Tevinter Imperium.  It is an instituation that exists to support a country (Fenris hints at this if you give him the Sword of Mercy). 

Slight OT, but this aspect of the story always reminded me of William Wilberforce and the counter argument to the abolision of the slave trade that he faced in the British Parliament.  The argument was that Britain wouldn't survive without the support of slave labour; the country's industries would go bankrupt and the whole economy would collapse as it was thought incapable of funding wages for the workforce.  This, of course, was not true... and I suspect the same would be true of Tevinter.

Tevinter, in some ways, reminds me of the British Empire and how smug and superior it was back then, only to be brought to it's knees by war.  Though, I guess Tevinter and Britain differ in that at least the wars that lost Britain it's empire had them fighting on the 'good' side.

Modifié par sestrensaz, 17 avril 2011 - 04:53 .

[Poetics124]

sestrensaz wrote...

What Anders did is really not so different from what terrorists do in the real world. They have their cause they believe in, and are willing to die and cause death to show the world things need to change. We look on from a distance and see them as evil, misguided and dangerous - a threat to the way we live. They are bombing innocent people, after all... people who do not deserve death, right? The people in New York, London, Madrid... all other places where people have died in the name of a 'cause' the terrorists see them as complicit in. It was ok for them to die, because it sent a message - it changed the world. Right?

There are people who look at what Anders did and think, yeah, killing innocent people is sometimes needed - killing to make a point (as long as the point is sufficiently world changing enough) is justified. But I bet those same people wouldn't think the same way about 9/11.

Yeah, before someone flames me half to death, I know this is fiction and 9/11 most certainly wasn't but as a person who has made a career of observing human behaviour I can't help but draw the comparison.

Certainly brings home the 'one mans terrorist is another mans hero' adage, at the very least.

Well, as they say, history is written by the victors.  Elthinia said herself when Sebastian questioned the logic of the Divine sending an Exalted March because it would harm and kill innocents that that is what Andraste did to grant herself and others freedom.  Andraste killed a lot of innocents in order to overthrow her overlords.  She lead many Exalted Marches as did many who followed her did after she died.   But she and her followers won so, to many of her current followers, it's much different that what Anders did.  When in actuality?  Not really.

If I were to take a real world example of who Anders reminds me of, it would have to be the American John Brown, an abolistionist who eventually lead a slave revolt, but was tried, killed, and made a martyr for the cause of freedom for the slaves in America.  That slave revolt enflamed both the North and South which eventually lead to the Civil War.  John Brown is still a very controversal figure in America.  Some see him as a hero who knew slavery had to end.  Other see him as a murdering psycho who took the law in his own hands.  But he did, without question, make sure there was no compromise when it came to slavery.

[Sherbet Lemon]

sestrensaz wrote...

Village Idiot wrote...

Slavery is a social construct and deeply tied into economic sustainablity for the Tevinter Imperium.  It is an instituation that exists to support a country (Fenris hints at this if you give him the Sword of Mercy). 

Slight OT, but this aspect of the story always reminded me of William Wilberforce and the counter argument to the abolision of the slave trade that he faced in the British Parliament.  The argument was that Britain wouldn't survive without the support of slave labour; the country's industries would go bankrupt and the whole economy would collapse as it was thought incapable of funding wages for the workforce.  This, of course, was not true... and I suspect the same would be true of Tevinter.

Tevinter, in some ways, reminds me of the British Empire and how smug and superior it was back then, only to be brought to it's knees by war.  Though, I guess Tevinter and Britain differ in that at least the wars that lost Britain it's empire had them fighting on the 'good' side.

Thanks for that information!  Always excited to learn something new!   That is true, but certainly I think that Tevinter owes some of their past glory to the utility of slave labor, and of course, as long as some of the magisters need willing sacrifices for blood magic, it will be hard to attempt something more viable, I guess?

The imperium has been at war with the Qunari for many, many years and I have to wonder how ripe they are for a true slave rebellion.  I am curious to how the events of Kirkwall will affect the rest of the world in that you might end up with an a potentially more agressive for Qunari to take over and mage rebellion, Orlais drama, and if Tevinter is weakened, a potential slave rebellion.  Thedas in flame...oh the drama!  

Gah...look at how I spelled institution! T_T...

[sestrensaz]

Poetics124 wrote...

sestrensaz wrote...

What Anders did is really not so different from what terrorists do in the real world. They have their cause they believe in, and are willing to die and cause death to show the world things need to change. We look on from a distance and see them as evil, misguided and dangerous - a threat to the way we live. They are bombing innocent people, after all... people who do not deserve death, right? The people in New York, London, Madrid... all other places where people have died in the name of a 'cause' the terrorists see them as complicit in. It was ok for them to die, because it sent a message - it changed the world. Right?

There are people who look at what Anders did and think, yeah, killing innocent people is sometimes needed - killing to make a point (as long as the point is sufficiently world changing enough) is justified. But I bet those same people wouldn't think the same way about 9/11.

Yeah, before someone flames me half to death, I know this is fiction and 9/11 most certainly wasn't but as a person who has made a career of observing human behaviour I can't help but draw the comparison.

Certainly brings home the 'one mans terrorist is another mans hero' adage, at the very least.

Well, as they say, history is written by the victors.  Elthinia said herself when Sebastian questioned the logic of the Divine sending an Exalted March because it would harm and kill innocents that that is what Andraste did to grant herself and others freedom.  Andraste killed a lot of innocents in order to overthrow her overlords.  She lead many Exalted Marches as did many who followed her did after she died.   But she and her followers won so, to many of her current followers, it's much different that what Anders did.  When in actuality?  Not really.

If I were to take a real world example of who Anders reminds me of, it would have to be the American John Brown, an abolistionist who eventually lead a slave revolt, but was tried, killed, and made a martyr for the cause of freedom for the slaves in America.  That slave revolt enflamed both the North and South which eventually lead to the Civil War.  John Brown is still a very controversal figure in America.  Some see him as a hero who knew slavery had to end.  Other see him as a murdering psycho who took the law in his own hands.  But he did, without question, make sure there was no compromise when it came to slavery.

That's a very good comparison, although I think the difference lies in that Anders didn't lead a revolt to claim freedom, he bombed a building full of innocent people.  If he had lead a revolt of the mages and took down all those trying to stop him then I think even I would see it differently.  But the fact he bombed a building at a comfortable distance just makes him a terrorist no different to those we see on the news at an almost daily rate in my mind. 

Anders doesn't even become a martyr either, in the epilogue it is the Champion the mages rally behind and look to for inspiration and leadership.  Perhaps it will be explored further in DA3, but it felt like what Anders did only caused Meredith to incite the right of anullment; it was Hawke who triggers the 'mage revolts' by choosing a side.

If Hawke and co. hadn't been there the mages would have been wiped out and it would have only served to solidify the Chantry's position in using the Templars to keep them locked up; they would have used Anders as proof that a free mage is a heinous evil thing that needs to be contained.  Heck, there would probably be mages that would agree too and the stranglehold would probably just get tighter across Thedas.

Before anyone says it, I don't think Anders had the foresight to know that events would go exactly as they did and that was his plan all along... that would be bordering on clairvoyance if he did! lol

[Kawamura]

sestrensaz wrote...


That's a very good comparison, although I think the difference lies in that Anders didn't lead a revolt to claim freedom, he bombed a building full of innocent people.  If he had lead a revolt of the mages and took down all those trying to stop him then I think even I would see it differently.  But the fact he bombed a building at a comfortable distance just makes him a terrorist no different to those we see on the news at an almost daily rate in my mind.

I don't think there's a distance component in the idea of what makes a person in a fight for freedom/right/etc

And... innocent is an interesting idea. There were Templars in there and the Grand Cleric is probably -- not innocent. If you listen to her carefully, there's certainly things going on that would sorta push her away from what I'd consider innocent. She's aware of a lot of things and she doesn't appear to be moving on them.

[sestrensaz]

Village Idiot wrote...

Thanks for that information!  Always excited to learn something new!

No worries.  If it interests you, I would wholly recommend the movie 'Amazing Grace'.

[Kawamura]

sestrensaz wrote...

Village Idiot wrote...

Thanks for that information!  Always excited to learn something new!

No worries.  If it interests you, I would wholly recommend the movie 'Amazing Grace'.

That... isn't exactly a historically accurate sort of thing, is it?

[sestrensaz]

Kawamura wrote...

I don't think there's a distance component in the idea of what makes a person in a fight for freedom/right/etc

And... innocent is an interesting idea. There were Templars in there and the Grand Cleric is probably -- not innocent. If you listen to her carefully, there's certainly things going on that would sorta push her away from what I'd consider innocent. She's aware of a lot of things and she doesn't appear to be moving on them.

The Chantry was a vast building (which you don't see much of in the game itself) there would have been many there, people who were studying to become lay sisters and brothers; priests and all other manner of people who might just be visiting for prayer and guidance.  In DAO you hear a lot about the good the Chantry does for people who are homeless and destitute, giving them another chance at life and to become a productive member of society.  The Chantry isn't perfect, but isn't wholly bad either.  Thus, just because one person was in there who possibly didn't do things she possibly should have to help the situation they all deserved to die?

Sorry, but I'm still not buying it.  If his beef was with Elthina he would have just killed her but it wasn't Elthina it was what the Chantry itself representated that Anders wanted destroyed.

[sestrensaz]

Kawamura wrote...

sestrensaz wrote...

Village Idiot wrote...

Thanks for that information!  Always excited to learn something new!

No worries.  If it interests you, I would wholly recommend the movie 'Amazing Grace'.

That... isn't exactly a historically accurate sort of thing, is it?

Never said it was, it's just an interesting film which covers the subject of a country and it's reliance on it's slave trade.  We're hardly having an academic discussion here talking about the ethical ambiguity of the plot of a video game, are we?

Modifié par sestrensaz, 17 avril 2011 - 05:30 .

[sestrensaz]

Bleh double post.

Modifié par sestrensaz, 17 avril 2011 - 05:29 .

[Kawamura]

sestrensaz wrote...

Kawamura wrote...

I don't think there's a distance component in the idea of what makes a person in a fight for freedom/right/etc

And... innocent is an interesting idea. There were Templars in there and the Grand Cleric is probably -- not innocent. If you listen to her carefully, there's certainly things going on that would sorta push her away from what I'd consider innocent. She's aware of a lot of things and she doesn't appear to be moving on them.

The Chantry was a vast building (which you don't see much of in the game itself) there would have been many there, people who were studying to become lay sisters and brothers; priests and all other manner of people who might just be visiting for prayer and guidance.  In DAO you hear a lot about the good the Chantry does for people who are homeless and destitute, giving them another chance at life and to become a productive member of society.  The Chantry isn't perfect, but isn't wholly bad either.  Thus, just because one person was in there who possibly didn't do things she possibly should have to help the situation they all deserved to die?

Sorry, but I'm still not buying it.  If his beef was with Elthina he would have just killed her but it wasn't Elthina it was what the Chantry itself representated that Anders wanted destroyed.

I don't know that the Chantry is filling those roles as well (the taking care of the poor and the like) in Kirkwall.

And I don't think I ever argued that he wanted just Elthina to be dead. Just, you know, if you're coming up with a group of innocents in that game, you might want to rethink it. The point seems to be about making you pick between groups that are not at at all innocent.

[Kawamura]

sestrensaz wrote...

Never said it was, it's just an interesting film which covers the subject of a country and it's reliance on it's slave trade.  We're hardly having an academic discussion here talking about the ethical ambiguity of the plot of a video game, are we?

Why send someone to learn from a film that might innacurately portray the country as well as the whole situation?

It seems... unkind, I guess.

[sestrensaz]

Kawamura wrote...

sestrensaz wrote...

Never said it was, it's just an interesting film which covers the subject of a country and it's reliance on it's slave trade.  We're hardly having an academic discussion here talking about the ethical ambiguity of the plot of a video game, are we?

Why send someone to learn from a film that might innacurately portray the country as well as the whole situation?

It seems... unkind, I guess.

I wasn't sending them to learn about a country, it was simply for the similarity in situation to Tevinter and the parallels that can be drawn; to help get a sense of how Tevinter could and should change.  Please don't put words in my mouth.

Also, the film, while not 100% accurate is still based on a real man, his real actions and the real events which occured as a result.  I did not feel the need to put a disclaimer since I imagine people are mature enough to understand that a film 'based on true events' still has elements of fiction and poetic licence.  Seriously, I don't see what your problem is.

Modifié par sestrensaz, 17 avril 2011 - 05:39 .

[sestrensaz]

Kawamura wrote...

I don't know that the Chantry is filling those roles as well (the taking care of the poor and the like) in Kirkwall.

And I don't think I ever argued that he wanted just Elthina to be dead. Just, you know, if you're coming up with a group of innocents in that game, you might want to rethink it. The point seems to be about making you pick between groups that are not at at all innocent.

The Chantry across Thedas (excluding Tevinter) is unified, and so yes, I would personally expect them to be doing the same kind of work as the Chantry in Ferelden.  The reason the Circle was so different from the Circle in Ferelden was because of Meredith - that's, ya know, kinda a major plot point of the game.

Anyway, even if they weren't I still find it interesting that people would agree that death is the correct response to Elthina's lack of intervention.  She had been brought up to fear mages, indoctrinated into a view that mages are dangerous and that their magic is a curse brought on by her precious Maker, yet she maintained a lenient position toward mages - doesn't that tell you quite a bit about her character alone?  Yes, I agree she should have acted to stop Meredith, but Elthina clearly was holding out for a peaceful solution that was never going to come.  A mistake, for sure... one punishable by death?  Not so much.

Perhaps innocent is the wrong word to use, undeserving perhaps. 

Modifié par sestrensaz, 17 avril 2011 - 05:48 .

[bleetman]

Her death had very little to do with her inaction anyway, no? Anders didn't destroy the chantry with her inside because of what she did or did not do. He does it to force the hand of the Templars into authorizing a slaughter, in order to trigger an uprising. The only thing she could've done to satisfy his goals was disband the circle of magi.

Which, obviously, she was in absolutely no position to do.

[Kawamura]

sestrensaz wrote...

Kawamura wrote...

sestrensaz wrote...

Never said it was, it's just an interesting film which covers the subject of a country and it's reliance on it's slave trade.  We're hardly having an academic discussion here talking about the ethical ambiguity of the plot of a video game, are we?

Why send someone to learn from a film that might innacurately portray the country as well as the whole situation?

It seems... unkind, I guess.

I wasn't sending them to learn about a country, it was simply for the similarity in situation to Tevinter and the parallels that can be drawn; to help get a sense of how Tevinter could and should change.  Please don't put words in my mouth.

Also, the film, while not 100% accurate is still based on a real man, his real actions and the real events which occured as a result.  I did not feel the need to put a disclaimer since I imagine people are mature enough to understand that a film 'based on true events' still has elements of fiction and poetic licence.  Seriously, I don't see what your problem is.

It seems like it's simplifying? I dunno. With complex things, it seems like a bad idea to point to the simple?

[Kawamura]

bleetman wrote...

Her death had very little to do with her inaction anyway, no? Anders didn't destroy the chantry with her inside because of what she did or did not do. He does it to force the hand of the Templars into authorizing a slaughter, in order to trigger an uprising. The only thing she could've done to satisfy his goals was disband the circle of magi.

Which, obviously, she was in absolutely no position to do.

Oh, I know. But -- just it seems like no one in the game is innocent. Coming up with an innocent seems... odd.

[Kawamura]

sestrensaz wrote...

Kawamura wrote...

I don't know that the Chantry is filling those roles as well (the taking care of the poor and the like) in Kirkwall.

And I don't think I ever argued that he wanted just Elthina to be dead. Just, you know, if you're coming up with a group of innocents in that game, you might want to rethink it. The point seems to be about making you pick between groups that are not at at all innocent.

The Chantry across Thedas (excluding Tevinter) is unified, and so yes, I would personally expect them to be doing the same kind of work as the Chantry in Ferelden.  The reason the Circle was so different from the Circle in Ferelden was because of Meredith - that's, ya know, kinda a major plot point of the game.

Anyway, even if they weren't I still find it interesting that people would agree that death is the correct response to Elthina's lack of intervention.  She had been brought up to fear mages, indoctrinated into a view that mages are dangerous and that their magic is a curse brought on by her precious Maker, yet she maintained a lenient position toward mages - doesn't that tell you quite a bit about her character alone?  Yes, I agree she should have acted to stop Meredith, but Elthina clearly was holding out for a peaceful solution that was never going to come.  A mistake, for sure... one punishable by death?  Not so much.

Perhaps innocent is the wrong word to use, undeserving perhaps. 

I do not see Chantry members in Dark Town. Er. I guess Peatrice was there, once, for the Qunari. Orphans, the ill, the poor in DT dont' seem to be ministered to by the Chantry. They've got Anders, Ellise, that woman in Ferelden Imports.

I don't think I ever said that death was the correct answer.

But I also don't think she's quite as nice as you think she is. i need to replay the Sister Peatrice parts again. And revisit her in between quests. She has interesting things to say that are easy to miss -- and don't really make her look all that good.