4350 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

Learning the stuff shouldn't be a crime anyway; it's using it that would be problematic. Given Enemies Among Us, it seems that mages are quite good at resisting the mind control potential of blood magic, as well as being good at breaking it.

[Silfren]

In Exile wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Templars are an army, mages are a biological category. Also, the templars started it.

Mages are, apparently, also an army, acting against a military target.

You can't both paint the mages as a single group, a militarized hive-mind acting with one aim toward independence and the entire institution of the Chantry as a military target, and then object (potentially) to the templars treating mages as prisoners of war.

Personally, I think their treatment is abhorent and their rebellion understandable.

But if anyone wants to whitewash Ander's action as military, then that has unforunate implications.

But the templars actually are an army.  That's not player opinion or perspective.  They actually are the military arm of the Chantry, an institution with considerable political power.  Calling it a military target doesn't mean that anyone who attacks them was a military force.

[nos_astra]

Very well spotted. The templars are the military arm of the Chantry. The chantry of Kirkwall, the Grand Cleric the brothers and sisters inside are civilians.

[Silfren]

SilentK wrote...

Hmmm... I rp that I saved all mages that didn't want to take part of the fighting, not just those 3 that showed up. Hmmm... and when I spoke with Meredith in the end I didn't agree that you had to kill all mages so I did it as pro-mage as I think my templar-ending could be. Think that Varric said something about Hawke that sounded pretty pro-mage for a templar ending. Or what I think I should hear.

Hmmm... I don't see it as sugar-coated, not at all. But then I don't see either of the ending as sugar-coated. People feel different about it I guess =)

However you choose to roleplay is fine, obviously.  The point is that the entire purpose of the Right of Annulment is total slaughter.  Yes, I know that three mages are optional.  That, however, doesn't change the fact that it's called Annulment for a reason: the belief is that none of the mages are redeemable, and the entirety of the Circle must be purged down to the last man, woman, boy, and girl.  All mages.  All.  Every. last. one.  No survivors.  Nada, zero, zip, zilch, none.  

So the thing about you roleplaying that you suddenly don't think it's necessary to kill all the mages...that's what people are objecting to. The Right of Annulment is supposed to be complete annihiliation, not a surgical strike that only cuts out the bad.  Completely aside from how individuals roleplay, a lot of people felt like it was a cheap move on Bioware's part to take away the emotional impact of the RIght of Annulment by giving players mages they can choose to save.

Also, the pro-templar ending isn't pro-mage at all.  Not sure where you got that, when Varric makes direct reference to the mages across Thedas seeing Hawke's attack on the Kirkwall Circle as a brutal reminder of their oppression.

[Silfren]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'm not one of those people that uses it as a buzzword, nor do I hate Anders or feel like describing his actions accurately constitutes an attack.

And when it comes to Anders and the Chantry, what comes to mind for me is Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing.

Why is it that you feel the need to come into any thread where the topic is raised, and enlighten us as to the definition?  Last time you said someone pointed you to the thread, but I'm beginning to think you do have some kind of internal radar that alerts you to the need to educate people with your obviously superior knowledge.

[Silfren]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Are you supporting or discrediting my argument? I'm Australian and TImothy McVeigh was executed before I hit puberty so you're going to have to forgive me for failing to comprehend his relevance to this debate.

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.

Plaintiff wrote...

If the victims of his bombing effort were indeed part of a fascist theocracy that allowed rape and toture to go on unpunished, they might well have deserved it. Without details, I can't say.

*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?

I'm an American, and I maintain that Anders is more akin to John Brown than either bin Laden or McVeigh.

[Silfren]

klarabella wrote...

Very well spotted. The templars are the military arm of the Chantry. The chantry of Kirkwall, the Grand Cleric the brothers and sisters inside are civilians.

Uh, NO.   You could say that about any worshippers inside the Chantry, but the Grand Cleric and any brothers and sisters?  No bloody way are they innocent civilians.  Especially not the Grand Cleric.

I'm...completely stunned that anyone could call her a civilian after conceding that the Chantry is a military target.  She's the bloody head of the Chantry in Kirkwall!

[upsettingshorts]

Silfren wrote...

Why is it that you feel the need to come into any thread where the topic is raised, and enlighten us as to the definition? 

I explain why in a previous post.  See below "Why do I care about this?"

Another way to put it is because I think it's an important point to make.  The same reason anyone makes a lot of posts on the same topic.

Silfren wrote...

I'm an American, and I maintain that Anders is more akin to John Brown than either bin Laden or McVeigh.

In terms of underlying motivation - to inspire people to revolt against institutional oppression (Though McVeigh himself would probably argue that he had a similar goal).  But I'm not talking about that, I don't think its relevant to my point.  Terrorists can be on the "right" side of an issue to me and still be terrorists.  I mean, it's certainly relevant to the overall argument about whether or not Anders "did the right thing" but I leave that discussion to IC, really.  

In terms of everything else?  Fails on several accounts.  Especially guilty-by-proxy (Chantry clergy, and anyone who happened to be worshipping there are part of the same institution as the Templars, but they are not Templars), soft target (The Chantry is not the Templar barracks), and even the specific nature of the attack (exploding a building vs. a raid). 

That being said, I won't begrudge anyone their favorite real life example as long as their favorite real life example is... another terrorist.  And I swear if someone says I must be clearly pro-slavery and anti-abolitionist if I say John Brown was a terrorist I will, well, probably just sigh to myself.

Silfren wrote...

 Completely aside from how individuals roleplay, a lot of people felt like it was a cheap move on Bioware's part to take away the emotional impact of the RIght of Annulment by giving players mages they can choose to save.

Pretty sure DG said that those mages would likely be Tranquil'd anyway.  The Right of Annullment as you correctly state isn't something that is applied conditionally.  It is thorough. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 mai 2011 - 02:55 .

[Silfren]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Why is it that you feel the need to come into any thread where the topic is raised, and enlighten us as to the definition? 

I explain why in a previous post.  See below "Why do I care about this?"

Another way to put it is because I think it's an important point to make.  The same reason anyone makes a lot of posts on the same topic.

Silfren wrote...

I'm an American, and I maintain that Anders is more akin to John Brown than either bin Laden or McVeigh.

In terms of underlying motivation - to inspire people to revolt against institutional oppression (Though McVeigh himself would probably argue that he had a similar goal).  But I'm not talking about that, I don't think its relevant to my point.  Terrorists can be on the "right" side of an issue to me and still be terrorists.  I mean, it's certainly relevant to the overall argument about whether or not Anders "did the right thing" but I leave that discussion to IC, really.  

In terms of everything else?  Fails on several accounts.  Especially guilty-by-proxy (Chantry clergy, and anyone who happened to be worshipping there are part of the same institution as the Templars, but they are not Templars), soft target (The Chantry is not the Templar barracks), and even the specific nature of the attack (exploding a building vs. a raid). 

Read your post already.  You'll excuse me if I've already read your posts on The True Definition of Terrorism According to Me three times now and have no pressing need to read it yet again.  I don't think your opinion is the end-all be-all, so your need to go around to every single thread to enlighten people doesn't mean much to me.  

There is no single agreed upon definition of terrorism.  It has already been pointed out that it varies according to nations.  I'm not going to get into yet another debate about legalistic/denotative terms versus their emotional/connotative counterparts. 

The Chantry is NOT a soft target.  One Dr Vile has explained why better than I ever could, so I'll just link to them instead.

[upsettingshorts]

Silfren wrote...

There is no single agreed upon definition of terrorism. 

Nope, but it seems pretty obvious to me what the writers were going for.  Unless you think they intended Anders to be the "good" revolutionary who leads the sympathetic cause by blowing up the building full of bad people, and the other option to be the "evil" one where you side with the monster for no good reason and happily massacre hundreds of innocents.  I don't think DA2 was going for black vs. white morality or they wouldn't have bothered showing reasonable Templars or tons of Blood mages/abominations.  Yet they did. 

If it's any consolation I am getting a bit sick of the topic.  Still, habits die hard.

Silfren wrote...

The Chantry is NOT a soft target.  One Dr Vile has explained why better than I ever could, so I'll just link to them instead.

Am I allowed to pull out the "I read it already" and "I Don't Agree With His Definition" arguments too?

...also I'd throw in "yes, and his explanation of Anders' choice of target isn't at odds with my interpretation" for good measure, but that wouldn't be as snarky.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 mai 2011 - 03:09 .

[TJPags]

Silfren wrote...

klarabella wrote...

Very well spotted. The templars are the military arm of the Chantry. The chantry of Kirkwall, the Grand Cleric the brothers and sisters inside are civilians.

Uh, NO.   You could say that about any worshippers inside the Chantry, but the Grand Cleric and any brothers and sisters?  No bloody way are they innocent civilians.  Especially not the Grand Cleric.

I'm...completely stunned that anyone could call her a civilian after conceding that the Chantry is a military target.  She's the bloody head of the Chantry in Kirkwall!

I've actually seen people argue that the worshippers - and even the janitors and such - in the Chantry as as culpable/guilty/deserving of what happens to them as you feel the Grand Cleric is.

[Xilizhra]

Nope, but it seems pretty obvious to me what the writers were going for. Unless you think they intended Anders to be the "good" revolutionary who leads the sympathetic cause by blowing up the building full of bad people, and the other option to be the "evil" one where you side with the monster for no good reason and happily massacre hundreds of innocents. I don't think DA2 was going for black vs. white morality or they wouldn't have bothered showing reasonable Templars or tons of Blood mages/abominations. Yet they did.

Why does what the writers intended matter so much, especially since they've admitted they screwed up with overdoing the mage issue? Even though that was just presentation problems and not really supporting the templar side (plus, the only reasonable templars we met were ones who opposed the system).

[upsettingshorts]

Xilizhra wrote...

Why does what the writers intended matter so much, especially since they've admitted they screwed up with overdoing the mage issue?

Why doesn't it matter?

And where did they admit "screwing up?"  I've seen DG comment that they deliberately emphasized certain aspects to counteract what they felt were predominantly modern, Western sensibilities but nothing that they seemed to categorize as a mistake of some kind.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 mai 2011 - 03:18 .

[Xilizhra]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Why does what the writers intended matter so much, especially since they've admitted they screwed up with overdoing the mage issue?

Why doesn't it matter?

And where did they admit "screwing up?"  I've seen DG comment that they deliberately emphasized certain aspects to counteract what they felt were predominantly modern, Western sensibilities but nothing that they seemed to categorize as a mistake of some kind.

Simply put, the writers don't exist in the universe. We can't consult their intentions in-character. We have to determine things from what exists in the game, unless it's blatant gameplay/story segregation. In any case, the writers have never given us a full manifesto on their intentions, so just guessing at what they wanted seems less than reliable.

[EmperorSahlertz]

They never admitted to any screw up. They admitted that they showed a larger than usual amount of crazy mages, which is explained by the lore.

[upsettingshorts]

Xilizhra wrote...

Simply put, the writers don't exist in the universe. We can't consult their intentions in-character.

I'm gonna stop ya there.  I'm not talking about in-character.

If you wanna talk in character, that introduces a whole host of other issues like perspective, bias, consequences for the individual and people he/she cares about, living in the world those choices created, etc.  And a big part of the fun in that, at least to me, is coming up with characters who would feel differently about these things than each other.

Out of character we can discuss writer intent, can we not?

Xilizhra wrote...

We have to determine things from what exists in the game, unless it's blatant gameplay/story segregation.

I haven't seen that term applied in that way before.   Gameplay/story segregation exists entirely within a game.  This discussion is more.... meta-fan wanking, isn't it?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 mai 2011 - 03:25 .

[Silfren]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Silfren wrote...

There is no single agreed upon definition of terrorism. 

Nope, but it seems pretty obvious to me what the writers were going for.  Unless you think they intended Anders to be the "good" revolutionary who leads the sympathetic cause by blowing up the building full of bad people, and the other option to be the "evil" one where you side with the monster for no good reason and happily massacre hundreds of innocents.  I don't think DA2 was going for black vs. white morality or they wouldn't have bothered showing reasonable Templars or tons of Blood mages/abominations.  Yet they did. 

If it's any consolation I am getting a bit sick of the topic.  Still, habits die hard.

Silfren wrote...

The Chantry is NOT a soft target.  One Dr Vile has explained why better than I ever could, so I'll just link to them instead.

Am I allowed to pull out the "I read it already" and "I Don't Agree With His Definition" arguments too?

...also I'd throw in "yes, and his explanation of Anders' choice of target isn't at odds with my interpretation" for good measure, but that wouldn't be as snarky.

1. If you can do it, so can I. 

2. I don't give a flip what the game writers intended.  My interpretation is my interpretation, independent of Bioware.  Should I bother pointing out that they admitted to deliberately skewing the presentation of mages in DA2?  They did, but I still manage to see the skewing as a natural outgrowth of the story presented to us in Kirkwall.  

3. I don't think Bioware intended things to be completely black and white, despite their admitted skewing, although one does wonder at how they hoped to avoid black/white polarization after said skewing, and I don't see the situation as black and white myself, but I do see what Anders did as completely justified, and I do consider his action to be less an act of terrorism and more an act of war.  Chantry, soft target?  Not naw but hell naw.

You don't have to see a situation as entirely black and white to think one side has the moral high ground, which is getting quite a ways away from the initial point, but there you go.

[Xilizhra]

Out of character we can discuss writer intent, can we not?

We can, but why should we adhere to it? Should we stop using our own interpretations and enslave ourself to writer intent?

I believe that siding with Meredith is the most evil act a PC can perform in either game, and one of the most evil in the entire series; aside from Meredith ordering the Annulment in the first place, the only thing that concretely beats it is Arl Howe's combined annihilation of the Cousland household and later purge of the Alienage. If the writers disagree, then good for them.

[Silfren]

TJPags wrote...

Silfren wrote...

klarabella wrote...

Very well spotted. The templars are the military arm of the Chantry. The chantry of Kirkwall, the Grand Cleric the brothers and sisters inside are civilians.

Uh, NO.   You could say that about any worshippers inside the Chantry, but the Grand Cleric and any brothers and sisters?  No bloody way are they innocent civilians.  Especially not the Grand Cleric.

I'm...completely stunned that anyone could call her a civilian after conceding that the Chantry is a military target.  She's the bloody head of the Chantry in Kirkwall!

I've actually seen people argue that the worshippers - and even the janitors and such - in the Chantry as as culpable/guilty/deserving of what happens to them as you feel the Grand Cleric is.

I've seen the same,, and I can appreciate the reasoning they're using to make that assertion.  But that isn't to say I agree--I don't.  I don't put the worshippers or janitors in the same category as the Grand Cleric. 

That said, however, I still don't think that many innocents were killed.  Of course, that just leads us into how many is acceptable, is it okay if only one innocent person gets killed, territory.  But again, when the Chantry gets jenga'd, the only people we actually see in the building is the Grand Cleric and a few templars.  So you could actually argue that Anders specifically timed his explosion to take out only the culpable parties.  There's just enough room for player interpretation in that scene.

[nos_astra]

Silfren wrote...
Uh, NO.   You could say that about any worshippers inside the Chantry, but the Grand Cleric and any brothers and sisters?  No bloody way are they innocent civilians.  Especially not the Grand Cleric.

I'm...completely stunned that anyone could call her a civilian after conceding that the Chantry is a military target.  She's the bloody head of the Chantry in Kirkwall!

I've never conceded anything of that sort. I would concede that the Grand Cleric's status is a bit blurry, due to the lack of a clear seperation between the civilian and military part, but that doesn't make the Kirkwall chantry a military target for me.

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree.

Modifié par klarabella, 22 mai 2011 - 03:34 .

[upsettingshorts]

Xilizhra wrote...

We can, but why should we adhere to it? Should we stop using our own interpretations and enslave ourself to writer intent?

No, of course not.   But I do think that author intent should be treated as more significant than player opinion, and that includes mine. 

Xilizhra wrote...

I believe that siding with Meredith is the most evil act a PC can perform in either game, and one of the most evil in the entire series; aside from Meredith ordering the Annulment in the first place, the only thing that concretely beats it is Arl Howe's combined annihilation of the Cousland household and later purge of the Alienage. If the writers disagree, then good for them.

Heh, my first Hawke - this is IC - would disagree vehemently.  But then he basically failed the second the Chantry went boom anyway.   The most IC option for him would probably have been to stab Anders and then leave the city.  My second Hawke - again IC - would probably be more evil considering she kills Anders with the intent of exploiting his memory and intends to lead the revolution in eventually enslaving and exploiting mundanes.  It's all relative. 

I personally am not sure how I feel.  In a perfect world, I'd have simply assassinated Meredith and turned Anders over to Cullen.  Or not had a Circle in Kirkwall at all.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 mai 2011 - 03:35 .

[Deztyn]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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. 

QFL. <3

You know, I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue seriously, from an out of universe perspective, that Meredith was completely justified. Most on the pro-templar side support the general templar position, the RoA over helping mages escape (but would have walked away, or wouldn't have invoked the Right if given real choices) and explicitly do not support Meredith or the abuses that happen in Kirkwall.

[Xilizhra]

No, of course not. But I do think that author intent should be treated as more significant than player opinion, and that includes mine.

I disagree. I believe that author intent is simply one more opinion, and if they really wanted to make sure that everyone followed it, they should do a better job of convincing us next time.

[Xilizhra]

Most on the pro-templar side support the general templar position, the RoA over helping mages escape

And this is where we oppose you. You enable Meredith's madness until she turns on you, and participate in genocide.

[Deztyn]

Yep. I kill all the innocent little mage babies, when forced to choose between helping the RoA or helping mages escape.

I was going to edit and add that I found it bizarre that some of the pro-mage crowd could support Anders actions 120%.

Modifié par Deztyn, 22 mai 2011 - 03:41 .