4350 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

I don't know if she was completely justified but her position was hopeless. A large part of that by Act 3 was of her own making. But a greater part of it was the absurdly dangerous setting - for mages - of Kirkwall itself.

If I had to condense my position on Meredith to the basics: She was about the worst person to place in that command, and there isn't a reasonable Templar that I can imagine existing who could have prevented Kirkwall from becoming a complete and utter nightmare at some point. 

The confluence of "the system" as it is called, the way magic works in Thedas, and the thin Veil in the region all basically determine, at least in my view - that the situation is ultimately untenable.

Meredith seems like someone who would have made a solid internal affairs type officer. But like putting the hard-line trigger happy shoot-first-ask-questions-later captain in charge of a first contact mission, placing her in Kirkwall was a truly bad fit. Her reaction to the escalating danger of abominations and blood mages in the area was to match that escalation with more violence, tightening her grip on the mages and forcing them down the path they did. That she never seemed to question why the mages were becoming remarkably problematic - either in response to her actions or because of the situation itself - is where she went wrong.

She is blinded and doomed by her own prejudice and paranoia. And she takes Kirkwall down with her.

Xilizhra wrote...

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

Eh.  Hawke-who-sided-with-Templars viewed it as an attempt at triage.  Especially if that Hawke feels like the revolution Anders sparks will be one in which the overwhelmingly outnumbered mages will all be killed.  This fails, obviously, and the revolution spreads anyway but he doesn't know the future. 

That's not much of a comforting distinction, I'm well aware.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 mai 2011 - 03:50 .

[Silfren]

klarabella wrote...

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.

What makes the Chantry and the Grand Cleric civilian targets, then?  The Grand Cleric is directly in charge of the templars and Meredith.  Case in point: When there's an acting Grand Cleric around, she is the one who authorizes the Right of Annulment.  Barring a case where the Grand Cleric's been blown into so many bits, the Knight Commander can't simply up and decide to enact one.  They have to have authorization, and the first person to seek out for it is the Grand Cleric, the next step being the Divine.  

The Grand Cleric has the acting authority over the templars and their commander.  So I fail to see how she is not an acceptable military target.

[Rifneno]

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.

As soon as you explain to me what legality has to do with anything.  Remember those stories about how Hussein's sons would just pick out some random woman they liked and basically rape her?  Then if she made a fuss, they'd have her family killed?  Yeah, it turns out that when evil writes the laws, legal doesn't have much to do with morality.

Meredith sends a death squad (not my wording, Bioware's), a group of armed soldiers, to murder an unarmed woman who gave her starved and tortured mage cousin one meal and one night of crashing on the couch. The templars are one small step from having swastikas on their uniforms and you're talking about legality? Good God.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

And you still don't seem to understand that there's always innocent deaths in any war or rebellion. Do you think no innocent bystanders were killed by allied forces in WWII? Are we all terrorists for doing what had to be done to stop those monsters?

Perhaps more importantly, the McVeigh quote doesn't fit Anders because he never says such a thing! In fact he clearly feels the opposite. If Hawke calls him a murderer and talks about all the blood on his hands now, he just grimly says "I know." Then when it comes time to decide whether to execute him, he starts off by saying "There isn't anything you can say to me that I haven't already said to myself" in a sorrowful tone. He clearly feels remorse for his crime, whereas McVeigh did not and used that "guilt by proxy" argument you're talking about.

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.

I agree. But... well to be blunt, so what? Yes, that's what the writers intended. I, and many others, feel they simply failed. This wasn't a situation they could reasonably make a blurry morality. If they were instead writing about the McVeigh incident you brought up, would you just swallow it if they painted the workers of that building as child molesters or something to make a grey moral choice where there simply isn't one?

Sylvianus wrote...

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.

Well silence definitely beats "she wasn't doing anything wrong because she's old." But then again, what doesn't?

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

Under duress, more or less.  He says (after having just admitted his role in it, so he has no reason to lie) that he only kept Quentin a secret after finding out about his depravity because Meredith would've used it as ammunition to come down even harder on the Circle. I'm not saying he's blameless, but Meredith and Elthina definitely share the blame. Any system that discourages reporting violent killers to the proper authorities is a catastrophically broken system.

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.

Elthina is a civilian in the same respect that Saddam Hussein was a civilian. She doesn't do the killing on her own, but she's in charge of the people who do.

[nos_astra]

Silfren wrote...
What makes the Chantry and the Grand Cleric civilian targets, then?

I thought their main concern is to spread the Chant to all four corners of the world and keep the eternal flame going. I assume they also provide education, conduct weddings and support orphans, widows and the poor.

The Grand Cleric is a chantry official, more like a politician, but not a military leader. She has a say in who becomes Knight-Commander and can veto the RoA, so there are some entanglements.

[Rifneno]

klarabella wrote...

Silfren wrote...
What makes the Chantry and the Grand Cleric civilian targets, then?

I thought their main concern is to spread the Chant to all four corners of the world and keep the eternal flame going. I assume they also provide education, conduct weddings and support orphans, widows and the poor.

The Grand Cleric is a chantry official, more like a politician, but not a military leader. She has a say in who becomes Knight-Commander and can veto the RoA, so there are some entanglements.

She talks down to Meredith, telling her to basically go to her room "like a good girl" and Meredith bitterly bows and does as she's told.  I'd say it's pretty clear she has power over Meredith.

[nos_astra]

Rifneno wrote...

klarabella wrote...

Silfren wrote...
What makes the Chantry and the Grand Cleric civilian targets, then?

I thought their main concern is to spread the Chant to all four corners of the world and keep the eternal flame going. I assume they also provide education, conduct weddings and support orphans, widows and the poor.

The Grand Cleric is a chantry official, more like a politician, but not a military leader. She has a say in who becomes Knight-Commander and can veto the RoA, so there are some entanglements.

She talks down to Meredith, telling her to basically go to her room "like a good girl" and Meredith bitterly bows and does as she's told.  I'd say it's pretty clear she has power over Meredith.

As I said, the lines are blurred as there are some entanglements.

[upsettingshorts]

Rifneno wrote...

As soon as you explain to me what legality has to do with anything. 

It is an element of Just War theory.  However, a common - and legitimate criticism - of said theory is that it fails to adaquetely accomdate rebellions.  

Still, Just War theory despite its flaws is a fairly decent checklist - generally speaking... and my final paragraph in this post kinda touches on a part of it I would definitely mention in some arguments.

Rifneno wrote...

And you still don't seem to understand that there's always innocent deaths in any war or rebellion. Do you think no innocent bystanders were killed by allied forces in WWII? Are we all terrorists for doing what had to be done to stop those monsters?

Oh I understand.  I've even said that the US 8th Air Force and UK Bomber Command's carpet bombing of German cities in order to "demoralize" the population and undermine popular support for the war effort is an example of state terrorism.  Dresden is a good example.  As are Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I think maybe you're assuming my whole definition thing is narrow and that Anders fits some extremely specific criteria or something?   Or that I'd condemn any use of terror tactics regardless of motivation?  That's not really the case.  That I don't think the details of the motivation is relevant to evaluating if something is terrorism doesn't mean that I'm not aware of it being used in a variety of ways for a variety of reasons in a variety of settings, some of which I might agree with.

Rifneno wrote...

Perhaps more importantly, the McVeigh quote doesn't fit Anders because he never says such a thing!

No but the forums do, quite a bit.

Anders' justification - that he shoots off to Meredith, Orsino, Hawke, etc - isn't all that different from many other examples I've read from various other terrorists whether their cause would be considered just by any reasonable people or not.  Being unable to live with the status quo, death first, a change must be forced, nothing else can be done, I do this with my eyes open knowing I will be punished, etc.

Rifneno wrote...

In fact he clearly feels the opposite. If Hawke calls him a murderer and talks about all the blood on his hands now, he just grimly says "I know." Then when it comes time to decide whether to execute him, he starts off by saying "There isn't anything you can say to me that I haven't already said to myself" in a sorrowful tone.

There's another McVeigh quote for that, ironically.  He called his bombing of the OKC Federal building "state assisted suicide."

Rifneno wrote...

 If they were instead writing about the McVeigh incident you brought up, would you just swallow it if they painted the workers of that building as child molesters or something to make a grey moral choice where there simply isn't one?

Well I think a better hypothetical would be:  Do you think the US Government acted responsibly and justly at Waco and Ruby Ridge?  If your answer is no, then it's already about as gray as the Anders scenario to me.  Given the understood cavaet that I obviously do not endorse Timothy McVeigh, but I figure I should point that out.

Rifneno wrote...

Any system that discourages reporting violent killers to the proper authorities is a catastrophically broken system.

True enough.  I think broad reform might be have been possible, but it certainly wasn't going to start in Kirkwall.  And not with any of those people in charge.  That's kind of what I imagined my Hawke trying to do, gain the power and influence needed to bring about real reform.  Anders... kind of ruined that for him.  But unlike Anders - who clearly succeeded - there would never be any guarantee that even given the opportunity that Hawke would succeed in making real changes.

If I was really going to throw myself into the anti-mages (at least, anti-Anders) position in this thread or others, my first step would be, or usually is, that Anders isn't a legitimate authority and if anyone is going to be declaring war on the Chantry it should have been the Cumberland council of elder mages Wynne mentioned in DA:A.  But that's a reaaally long argument that I'm too tired to get into right now.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 mai 2011 - 04:31 .

[Silfren]

klarabella wrote...

Silfren wrote...
What makes the Chantry and the Grand Cleric civilian targets, then?

I thought their main concern is to spread the Chant to all four corners of the world and keep the eternal flame going. I assume they also provide education, conduct weddings and support orphans, widows and the poor.

The Grand Cleric is a chantry official, more like a politician, but not a military leader. She has a say in who becomes Knight-Commander and can veto the RoA, so there are some entanglements.

Riiiight, and that main concern leads to the Chantry commanding its own army in the leading of Exalted Marches.  Trying to claim that they aren't a military force because they attach a spiritual veneer to their ostensible motivation is ludicrous.  The Chantry not only commands its own standing army, but also wields considerable political influence throughout Thedas.  Not for no reason do people compare it to the Vatican--in particular the Vatican of the Middle Ages.  That the Chantry also conducts birth and marriage rites and sometimes provides succor to the needy doesn't change any of that. 

[Deztyn]

Rifneno wrote...

If Hawke calls him a murderer and talks about all the blood on his hands now, he just grimly says "I know." Then when it comes time to decide whether to execute him, he starts off by saying "There isn't anything you can say to me that I haven't already said to myself" in a sorrowful tone. He clearly feels remorse for his crime, whereas McVeigh did not and used that "guilt by proxy" argument you're talking about.

Anders claims to feel guilty? So what? What else does Anders claim about setting his magic bomb?

"I cannot tell you how good it feels for a spirit to fulfill its function. The waiting is over. I am finally seeking justice. And he is exultant. There is no ecstasy humankind can feel to match."

Yeah. Not moved by Anders later 'guilt.'

Another thing Anders says: "I'm a liar."

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
If I had to condense my position on Meredith to the basics: She was about the worst person to place in that command, and there isn't a reasonable Templar that I can imagine existing who could have prevented Kirkwall from becoming a complete and utter nightmare at some point. 

I don't know. The Circle in Kirkwall lasted for more than a thousand years. Unless the veil keeps getting thinner and thinner, but quite frankly I think this is just a poor excuse to explain what happened, but I digress.

I think that a KC who did not usurp political power, worked hard on public relations and increasing Templar popularity, respected the nobility, and tried to collaborate with mages as much as possible and not be an incompetent hard liner, that the situation would have been mostly stable. And if it did blow up, I think it would have been less disastrous. 

That said, I believe the entire Chantry system is beginning to fail, like any other system, and what could be done at best is extend its lifespan and delay the inevitable.

[upsettingshorts]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Unless the veil keeps getting thinner and thinner

I wouldn't rule that out, especially given all the doomsaying prophecies of various characters about the state of the world as far back as, well, Witch Hunt I suppose.

[ipgd]

Rifneno wrote...

[snip]

"Terrorism" and "completely morally unjustifiable" are not synonymous.

I think the point is that trying to distance Anders from that label because the flanderized western "definition" of terrorism makes you uncomfortable is doing a disservice to the narrative.

There is certainly an argument for whether or not his actions are justifiable (and in a consequentialist line of thinking, I would personally say that they are, if it does ultimately lead to a successful mage revolution), but he is certainly a terrorist. You can argue strict technical distinctions that paints Elthina and the Chantry as a military target, but I think the writers' and Anders's intentions point more towards terrorism than a military attack. He would have attacked the templar barracks outright if that were the point -- but he wasn't attempting to solve the local Kirkwall problem, he was making a far reaching statement. He wasn't just attacking Kirkwall's Chantry, he was symbolically attacking the entire religious institution it represents. He wasn't just attacking Elthina, he was symbolically attacking The Compromise she represents.

And in killing Elthina, he knew he was giving Meredith the power to invoke the Right, and his plan was contingent on it; in a way, he is just as responsible for it as Meredith, though he "invokes" by proxy it in order to reveal and highlight its unjustness.

As a whole, I can't help but feel that this whole argument is a semantic one that operates off inaccurate emotionally charged associations rather than an actual objective distinction.

[Deztyn]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
If I had to condense my position on Meredith to the basics: She was about the worst person to place in that command, and there isn't a reasonable Templar that I can imagine existing who could have prevented Kirkwall from becoming a complete and utter nightmare at some point. 

I don't know. The Circle in Kirkwall lasted for more than a thousand years. Unless the veil keeps getting thinner and thinner, but quite frankly I think this is just a poor excuse to explain what happened, but I digress.

I think that a KC who did not usurp political power, worked hard on public relations and increasing Templar popularity, respected the nobility, and tried to collaborate with mages as much as possible and not be an incompetent hard liner, that the situation would have been mostly stable. And if it did blow up, I think it would have been less disastrous. 

That said, I believe the entire Chantry system is beginning to fail, like any other system, and what could be done at best is extend its lifespan and delay the inevitable.

I mentioned in a post a few pages back that the Kirkwall Circle has been annulled before.

And in addition to the thin veil you have the circle's size being bloated due to the Starkhaven mages, the Resolutionists making trouble, the Qunari attack, the refugees, the Crazy-times idol ... there's so much going on in Kirkwall that contributes to the problems that I don't think it's fair to hold up Kirkwall as an example of the failure of the Chantry overall. It's an absolute worst case scenario. It highlights some of the problems in the system. But the situation as presented relies on so many different factors and so much general incompetence from the people in power it's not even close to being a fair representation of any side.

[TEWR]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Unless the veil keeps getting thinner and thinner

I wouldn't rule that out, especially given all the doomsaying prophecies of various characters about the state of the world as far back as, well, Witch Hunt I suppose.

What was that statue's quote? "The prison is breached"? Could that refer to the Veil separating spirits and mortals growing increasingly thinner in more places than Kirkwall?

[Xilizhra]

Deztyn wrote...

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%.

More or less. The amount of dirt on one's own hands does not change the total amount of dirt.

[ipgd]

Deztyn wrote...

Anders claims to feel guilty? So what? What else does Anders claim about setting his magic bomb?

"I cannot tell you how good it feels for a spirit to fulfill its function. The waiting is over. I am finally seeking justice. And he is exultant. There is no ecstasy humankind can feel to match."

Yeah. Not moved by Anders later 'guilt.'

Another thing Anders says: "I'm a liar."

He's an extremely mentally unstable manic-depressive. He has episodes. I have no suspicion that he's misleading the player with his guilt post-Chantry because of previous manic upswings.

[Xilizhra]

I've never heard that line. Is it rivalry?

[In Exile]

Rifneno wrote...
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.

Which peaceful church? You're the one inventing fiction - I only refered to killing priests because, well, that's what Anders did when he blew up the Chantry. I was actually taking the most cordial interpretation - the one where the Chantry blows up and kills only the implicated, i.e. the ordained Chantry and the Grand Cleric.

They're the priests and nuns. You're saying that for what the templars did, these priests and nuns are reponsible (i.e. the ones in the Chantry that Andrs killed).

What the templars did is abhorent... but you seem to focus far more on what the Chantry did to enable it. So I'm curious - just how exactly should the actual rapist get punished?

[TEWR]

Technically you're not so much helping mages escape to live a life of freedom so much as you're helping them escape the tyranny of the Templars so they can warn the other Circles.

That's how I view it anyway. Just because a mage is outside of the Circle doesn't mean he's going to go on a killing spree.

[TEWR]

In Exile wrote...

Rifneno wrote...
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.

Which peaceful church? You're the one inventing fiction - I only refered to killing priests because, well, that's what Anders did when he blew up the Chantry. I was actually taking the most cordial interpretation - the one where the Chantry blows up and kills only the implicated, i.e. the ordained Chantry and the Grand Cleric.

They're the priests and nuns. You're saying that for what the templars did, these priests and nuns are reponsible (i.e. the ones in the Chantry that Andrs killed).

What the templars did is abhorent... but you seem to focus far more on what the Chantry did to enable it. So I'm curious - just how exactly should the actual rapist get punished?

Make him Tranquil then give him a slow death.

[Xilizhra]

In Exile wrote...

What the templars did is abhorent... but you seem to focus far more on what the Chantry did to enable it. So I'm curious - just how exactly should the actual rapist get punished?

Well, most of them are on the opposite side of a war now, so that problem is likely self-solving.

[In Exile]

Plaintiff wrote...
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.

I think labeling Meredith's military government as terrorism undermines just how extra-legal (by Thedas standards). Meredith was empowered to guard mages and presided over rampant violations of their rights. She looked to expand templar military control over a civilian government.

What she did is much closer to a dictatorial police state than anything.

More generally, Meredith does not actually pursue a political agenda in the way a terrorist would because she's repressing and not overthrowing.  In the same way that not calling what Anders did terrorism would whitewash his crimes, calling what Meredith did terrorism whitewashes hers.

[The Baconer]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Make him Tranquil then give him a slow death.

Shouldn't he be made tranquil after long periods of... Discomfort?

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...
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.

Jowan was a blood mage. The thing to keep in mind is, Jowan was actually guilty of what (by Chantry law) is the worst possible kind of offence. The only other tranquil we talked to (Owain) undertook the Rite of Tranquility of his own volition.

Tranquility is horrible, and I do and will always think execution is more humane a hundred times over, but they did not fabricate the case against Jowan.

Moreover, Jowan was not a harrowed mage, and that's who Meredith was targeting.

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

Gregoire wanted to save the mages, in that he outright rejected Cullen's call for a culling (Ha-ha; I made a funny).

[Xilizhra]

Jowan was a blood mage. The thing to keep in mind is, Jowan was actually guilty of what (by Chantry law) is the worst possible kind of offence. The only other tranquil we talked to (Owain) undertook the Rite of Tranquility of his own volition.

So yes, Greagoir played by his organization's own, evil rules. Kudos.

Gregoire wanted to save the mages, in that he outright rejected Cullen's call for a culling (Ha-ha; I made a funny).

[
Irving and company were already safe, and Cullen had clearly lost it by that point.