4350 réponses à ce sujet

[Dave of Canada]

I love hearing "DON'T JUDGE MAGES BY THE ACTIONS OF A FEW" and then seeing not soon after people doing the same about the Templar.

[Ryzaki]

*stares at the horrible yet oddly compelling mix mash of Sheploo and Miranda*

[In Exile]

Ryzaki wrote...

*stares at the horrible yet oddly compelling mix mash of Sheploo and Miranda*

Sheplonda Lawson?

[Plaintiff]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
You can read about him, cantya?   He's relevant because he's a much better real-world comparison to Anders and the Chantry bombing than al-Qaeda and 9/11 or any other popular example I've seen.  And his political motivations and target selection criteria are both well documented.

Can, but won't. If you're going to introduce a real-life comparison in your argument, it's really up to you to clarify it.

*blinks*

His argument is that working for an organization that commits actions he finds reprehensible makes them guilty by proxy, even if as individuals they took no direct part in committing them.  It is your position that you agree with his stance on this subject, then?

When put that vaguely? Yes, to a degree, I guess I do agree. Certainly, superior officers should be taken to task. It is their job to know what's going on with their subordinates so they're either ignorant, and thus incompetent, or aware, and thus guilty by association. But that is not to say I support the indiscriminate bombing of buildings.

But the situation still is not comparable. In the world of Dragon Age, it is extremely evident that the Chantry is directly responsible for the unconscienable situation. They created the culture of fear and bigotry and they reinforce it through ignorance and superstition. A major tenent of Andrastism is the "evils" of magic and mages. It is the backing of the Chantry that gives the Templars their political power. The Templars were founded by the Chantry, the vast majority follow its teachings and by 'divine right', they are given power of life and death over a group of people they have been taught from childhood to fear and hate.

Mages have little support and scant options in the fight for basic human freedoms. They have no clout whatsoever, even with their fantastic abilities. Any attempt at peaceful protest would see them jailed, if not tranquiled or killed outright. Their only option to effect any sort of lasting change is to strike the first blow and strike hard. The Chantry, and only the Chantry, is to blame for creating a climate where violence would be necessary in the first place.

[Xewaka]

I might be biased because I've lived in a country that had to (and still has to) deal with terrorism for 40 years, but Anders' strike against a public service, civil building constitutes the very definition of terrorism. By proxy, despite their failings, support to the Templars is the only morally correct option.

Modifié par Xewaka, 22 mai 2011 - 08:01 .

[Rifneno]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

What comes to mind for me is Alrik, Karras, Mettin, Varnell, and the countless unnamed templars they let run rampant to murder and rape.  The Chantry didn't deserve what it got... it deserved a hell of a lot more.

Were those men inside the Chantry when it was destroyed?  Otherwise:

"Think about the people as if they were storm troopers in Star Wars. They may be individually innocent, but they are guilty because they work for the Evil Empire."

—McVeigh reflecting on the deaths of victims in the bombing

"It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge." - Adolf Hitler

He's right about that, by the way. It's completely nonsensical to paint every single view a man had as wrong or evil because he committed evil deeds himself. Is this the crux of your argument, that he must be wrong because McVeigh had a similar view? Because perhaps you should think about where you'd be if good men never made hard choices and accepted collateral damage when necessary. Certainly not living free and enjoying the Internet. You think no innocents were harmed in stopping the sick bastard I quoted a minute ago?

In Exile wrote...

So you'd let Varnell, Alirk, Karras... all of them escape, to kill priests and nuns?

Way to dish out that justice.

Go twist someone else's posts. I'm not debating with anyone that clearly can't seperate a religious empire that rules by force from the nice peaceful church down the street.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

You can read about him, cantya? He's relevant because he's a much better real-world comparison to Anders and the Chantry bombing than al-Qaeda and 9/11 or any other popular example I've seen. And his political motivations and target selection criteria are both well documented.

LOL. No. Silfren's John Brown comparison is about 50 times more accurate.

*blinks*

His argument is that working for an organization that commits actions he finds reprehensible makes them guilty by proxy, even if as individuals they took no direct part in committing them. It is your position that you agree with his stance on this subject, then?

By your logic, a guy selling military grade weapons to a druglord isn't necessarily bad.

Xewaka wrote...

I might be biased because I've lived in a country that had to (and still has to) deal with terrorism for 40 years, but Anders' strike against a public service, civil building constitutes the very definition of terrorism. By proxy, despite their failings, support to the Templars is the only morally correct option.

Fight terrorism with terrorism, huh? When did two wrongs start to make a right? I must've missed that memo. I always forget to check my voice mail.

[EmperorSahlertz]

It is freightening how the pro-mages can generalize the entire chantry and every individual within the organization, and yet whine when we generalize mages.

[Xewaka]

Rifneno wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
I might be biased because I've lived in a country that had to (and still has to) deal with terrorism for 40 years, but Anders' strike against a public service, civil building constitutes the very definition of terrorism. By proxy, despite their failings, support to the Templars is the only morally correct option.

Fight terrorism with terrorism, huh? When did two wrongs start to make a right? I must've missed that memo. I always forget to check my voice mail.

Please explain me how siding with publicly authorized and validated law enforcement constitutes terrorism, because I don't see it.

Modifié par Xewaka, 22 mai 2011 - 11:13 .

[upsettingshorts]

Hah, that response is a laugh riot. John Brown? Who attacked a military installation? Fifty times you say? Brilliant. I'm thoroughly entertained. Especially since I don't particularly "endorse" the Templars or Mages and don't give a damn about the cause attached to the action.  The action is all that concerns the issues I intend to address, and all I'll bother addressing.

Why? 

I just want what Anders did to be properly labeled as terrorism. I'll save the stance taking in fiction for my characters - like Hawke and the Warden - that live in the world and have their own perceptions and biases and have to live with the consequences of their actions.  Some would support the mages, some would support the templars.  I don't support either because I don't live in Thedas. 

The reason I quoted Timothy McVeigh (terrorist) isn't to discredit the position.  It's to show that he held this opinion and used its rhetoric to explain the reasoning behind his choice of target.  It demonstrates that guilt-by-proxy arguments are used to justify terrorism.  Ergo, arguments that say that because the victims are guilty-by-proxy therefore it isn't terrorism don't hold water.  It still is, even if the victims are in the judgement of the perpetrators are guilty-by-proxy.

Why do I care about this?

Because the narrative intends this.  It intends for the cause of Meredith (stability and safety) to be corrupted and twisted into something vile and upsetting (the police state) through her escalating paranoia.  It intends for the cause of Anders (freedom and equality) to be corrupted and twisted into something vile and upsetting (terrorism) through his merger with Justice.  The line is intended to be blurred, and if one side is made to be more palatable than the other the choice loses its punch, its narrative weight.  That ultimately we swallow the bad medicine because we value the idealized version of what each represents - or given our character's position possibly embrace their methods as well as their motives - is a big part of what Act 3 is trying to do. 

Whether or not an individual personally is more willing to accept terrorism for the cause of freedom over the police state for the cause of safety is the crucial issue at stake, before the flavor of mages and templars even enters into it. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 mai 2011 - 12:08 .

[nos_astra]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It is freightening how the pro-mages can generalize the entire chantry and every individual within the organization, and yet whine when we generalize mages.

It's a very easy feat. Just divide into them (bad guys) and us (good guys).
Whatever we do to defeat them is justified because we are the good guys and we are the good guys because what we do is justified.

Circular reasoning works wonders.

Modifié par klarabella, 22 mai 2011 - 11:49 .

[Plaintiff]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It is freightening how the pro-mages can generalize the entire chantry and every individual within the organization, and yet whine when we generalize mages.

Supporting the subjugation of mages is a requirement of Andrastism, according to the Chantry. The only Chantry member who shows any inclination to free mages from imprisonment is Lily, and it's made pretty damn clear that she's going against the Chantry's teachings by doing so. All Chantry followers support the subjugation of mages because if they don't, then they are not following the teachings of the Chantry.

You might as well say that we generalize all Christians by saying they believe in Christ.

[Sylvianus]

klarabella wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It is freightening how the pro-mages can generalize the entire chantry and every individual within the organization, and yet whine when we generalize mages.

It's a very easy feat. Just divide into them (bad guys) and us (good guys).
Whatever we do to defeat them is justified because we are the good guys and we are the good guys because what we do is justified.

Circular reasoning works wonders.

Exactly. And it's very funny to read.  When this idea is implemented, there is nothing to discuss anymore. The attempt of some to debate is then, ridiculous against such logic. Silence is the best answer.

[Plaintiff]

Xewaka wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
I might be biased because I've lived in a country that had to (and still has to) deal with terrorism for 40 years, but Anders' strike against a public service, civil building constitutes the very definition of terrorism. By proxy, despite their failings, support to the Templars is the only morally correct option.

Fight terrorism with terrorism, huh? When did two wrongs start to make a right? I must've missed that memo. I always forget to check my voice mail.

Please explain me how siding with publicly authorized and validated law enforcement constitutes terrorism, because I don't see it.

Terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Is slaughtering the mages not violent? Does Meredith not attempt to intimidate Orsino, the city guard and nobles of Kirkwall into accepting her as defacto leader? Could it not be said that Meredith uses violence and intimidation for the political aim of "maintaining order" and consolidating authority?

The Templars are not and never were "publicly authorized and validated law enforcement", that status belongs to Aveline and the city guard of Kirkwall. Meredith's jurisdiction is mages and only mages. By interfering with the way Kirkwall is run, she has grossly overstepped her bounds and her methods of doing so are completely in line with the definition of terrorism I've outlined above.

Terrorism is not always illegal. Governments and other authorities have and will say anything to justify the use of terrorist tactics against political enemies.

[upsettingshorts]

Rifneno wrote...

Fight terrorism with terrorism, huh? When did two wrongs start to make a right? I must've missed that memo. I always forget to check my voice mail.

By those standards Anders must have missed that memo, too. 

Escalation is a brutal thing.  When it is unchecked, Kirkwall happens. 

And yeah, I do think what Meredith's Templars practice "state terrorism" - though I prefer the term police state because it seems to differentiate the two tactics better.  Broadly speaking they're similar. 

There's no way of proving this of course, but I think if Kirkwall had Greagoir as Knight Commander, Irving as First Enchanter and say, Wynne as the local healer instead of Anders... it probably doesn't turn into a total disaster.  At least, not as quickly.  The fact the veil is thin in Kirkwall tells me there shouldn't have been a Circle (and therefore, far less Templars) there in the first place, though.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 mai 2011 - 12:36 .

[dragonflight288]

It is freightening how the pro-mages can generalize the entire chantry and every individual within the organization, and yet whine when we generalize mages.

Quick fact. Those of us who support mages don't generalize templars and the chantry. We just state corruption has permeated the institution and it's there at almost every level. We recognize there are good mages, and there may be good priests and priestesses. We even name and support some (i.e. Thrask, Gregoir)

We even support the need for templars because of abominations, evil blood mages, insane mages, and etc. We recognize that mages aren't completely innocent of crimes.

We say the Chantry is corrupt and derives its power from the subjugation of mages and the fear they instilled into the general populace regarding mages. We say this system, not necessarily the people within it, but the entire system needs reformation.

[Xilizhra]

There's no way of proving this of course, but I think if Kirkwall had Greagoir as Knight Commander, Irving as First Enchanter and say, Wynne as the local healer instead of Anders... it probably doesn't turn into a total disaster. At least, not as quickly. The fact the veil is thin in Kirkwall tells me there shouldn't have been a Circle (and therefore, far less Templars) there in the first place, though.

I don't like any of them. Greagoir is willing to kill and Tranquilize as quickly as any templar (admittedly, Meredith isn't just any templar) and Irving is far too pliable. Orsino was a much better advocate for the mages, and I credit him with preventing Meredith's iron fist from getting too tight; it's true that he had less power than he should, but as First Enchanter, Meredith couldn't just kill him outright, and as a target he could take much more of Meredith's wrath than anyone else because of that.

[HSHAW]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

wow hours ago I thought this thread was starting to die. Good to see it isn't just yet.

With any luck it will hit 150 pages.

[Xilizhra]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I love hearing "DON'T JUDGE MAGES BY THE ACTIONS OF A FEW" and then seeing not soon after people doing the same about the Templar.

Most mages didn't choose to participate in demonology or necromancy. Every templar in Kirkwall (that we fight) chose to participate in the Annulment.

[upsettingshorts]

How many mages did Greagoir tranquil or plan to tranquil against their will?

I can only think of Jowan.

Orsino may have been a better advocate for mages but he was also complicit in necromancy at the very least, so his judgment is extremely suspect.

I just never got the impression from either Greagoir or Irving that they would consider violence their first move, and they both - given the gravity of their positions and the responsibilities they were both charged with - seem like reasonable people.   That Greagoir will accept Irving's recommendation if the Warden defers on the state of the Circle after Broken Circle has always struck me as particularly strong evidence of their relationship, despite being a contentuos one, as one that worked.  Greagoir even sends the Warden in based at least partially in the hope that he can settle the issue without either risking the lives of his Templars or killing every mage inside.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 mai 2011 - 01:35 .

[Hatchetman77]

yogolol wrote...

Suron wrote...

because Meredith is at least driven mad by an evil object...as dumb as it is....Orsino on the other hand CHOOSES to become an abomination PROVING what Meredith saying is true..that NO MAGE can be trusted...

You didn`t know at the time of making the decision that either of these things would happen.

And that's the whole problem with the story.  If the third part of the story was more of a detective yarn with Hawke finding clues to these things then the decision may have a more significant impact.  Of course in DA2 the story mostly involved Hawke being run around by every NPC in the game. Hawke being proactive and doing something on his own would have been out of character for him.  

[Xilizhra]

Orsino may have been a better advocate for mages but he was also complicit in necromancy at the very least, so his judgment is extremely suspect.

Note that some necromancy is spirit magic and not blood; spirit is probably the base, anyway. We have no idea how much about it he was directly complicit in (as for hiding Quentin, I believe it was the most sensible thing to be done, considering Meredith's... everything).

How many mages did Greagoir tranquil or plan to tranquil against their will?

I can only think of Jowan.

That's sort of like saying that there was only one person he planned to rape; it doesn't help much. Plus, Jowan is the only one the storyline showed us because that was the time period it took place in.

I just never got the impression from either Greagoir or Irving that they would consider violence their first move, and they both - given the gravity of their positions and the responsibilities they were both charged with - seem like reasonable people. That Greagoir will accept Irving's recommendation if the Warden defers on the state of the Circle after Broken Circle has always struck me as particularly strong evidence of their relationship, despite being a contentuos one, as one that worked. Greagoir even sends the Warden in based at least partially in the hope that he can settle the issue without either risking the lives of his Templars or killing every mage inside.

All that seems to show is that Greagoir likes/trusts Irving. He feels nothing for any other mage that I could see.

[upsettingshorts]

Xilizhra wrote...

That's sort of like saying that there was only one person he planned to rape; it doesn't help much.

It's more like saying that there was only one person he planned to execute for a capital crime.

Even the mages in Kirkwall only really seemed to get truly upset about Meredith's application of the Rite of Tranquility when it started being used on mages who had passed their Harrowing - eg, not been corrupted by demonic forces.  

Xilizhra wrote...

All that seems to show is that Greagoir likes/trusts Irving. He feels nothing for any other mage that I could see.

That's one interpretation.  It's still an improvement on Meredith. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 mai 2011 - 02:01 .

[Xilizhra]

It's more like saying that there was only one person he planned to execute for a capital crime.

True, assuming that the punishment is horribly inflated for that crime. Which it is.

That's one interpretation. It's still an improvement on Meredith.

Quentin is an improvement on Meredith.

[upsettingshorts]

I'm not sure what other punishment is appropriate given the power of a Blood Mage.

Imprisonment? Considering that if he/she finds any way to open a vein they could mount an escape attempt that seems problematic at best, an invitation to disaster at worst.