4350 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

Ryzaki wrote...

Then how did he not murder Elthina? Since plotting and aiming directly for her with the nitent to kill is somehow not murder when his life was in no immediate danger from her. (Or anyone's life considering she was in the Chantry as usual). 

Refer to GavrielKay's comment above.  That you were using "murder" as an epithet and trying to trigger an emotional response instead of a dispassionate one, as they so much more eloquently put it than me, is what I thought you were doing.  I misunderstood you to be asking me if her death was murder from an emotional standpoint, not the legalistic one.  But I already did point out that I consider "murder" to imply that the death was not deserved, which I think rules out her death as murder because she very much did deserve it.  And we already hashed it out once over the question of connotation versus legal definition and how that varies depending on where you are.

Nope. I reely admit my Hawke has murdered innoent people. Some of it for the better some of it for the worse. It's just an action. 

Then I respectfully ask that you qualify that up front, next time, because like it or not, most applications of the word contradict your position that it is "just an action."  It carries a very specific connotation that cannot be ignored if we are going to have a coherent discussion.  This is why people usually take the time to differentiate between killing and murder, since the former is a general term that can include murder as one of its uses, but the latter does not hold true in reverse.  If you're going to defy the popular application of the word's connotations, it would be very helpful for you to do that at the beginning.  I should have asked for clarification--and clarified myself, as well, from the start.  I'm perfectly happy to argue within the confines of set parameters, but if they aren't given, I tend to default on general, popular usage.

Modifié par Silfren, 06 mai 2011 - 11:04 .

[GavrielKay]

Ryzaki wrote...

Both sides committ horrible atrocities and kill innocents. Neither side has any moral high ground. That's what I like about the conflict. Whitewashing removes that and tries to pretend one side has a moral high ground. 

There are more than two sides.  Anders claims to fight for the freedom of circle mages, but he isn't one of them.  Meredith belongs to the Templars and sort of the Chantry, but you could argue in her idol-maddened state she doesn't really represent them. 

The side that seems to get the least representation in the game is the innocent circle mages, however many there are, that we never even get to meet.  If anyone has any sort of high ground in this, it's the mages who've suffered through what happens in the Gallows and retained their sanity and for lack of a better word - purity.

[Ryzaki]

So Silfren you would say that Anders' according to the laws of Thedas murdered Elthina? Without any moral judgements involved?

[Ryzaki]

GavrielKay wrote...
There are more than two sides.  Anders claims to fight for the freedom of circle mages, but he isn't one of them.  Meredith belongs to the Templars and sort of the Chantry, but you could argue in her idol-maddened state she doesn't really represent them.  

The side that seems to get the least representation in the game is the innocent circle mages, however many there are, that we never even get to meet.  If anyone has any sort of high ground in this, it's the mages who've suffered through what happens in the Gallows and retained their sanity and for lack of a better word - purity.

Which is where my biggest issue from him plunging them into a war comes from. That said Anders was a circle mage. He just escaped the circle. 

We do meet circle mages. Emile, Huon and that chick were all circle mages. Orsino was a circle mage. Alain and Grace and Decimus were all circle mages. (Just not originally from Kirkwall's circle). 

That said yes I'd say the innocent bystanders (both mages and nonmages) are the ones who will suffer the most. As in most wars. 

[GavrielKay]

Silfren wrote...

Refer to GavrielKay's comment above.  That you were using "murder" as an epithet and trying to trigger an emotional response instead of a dispassionate one, as they so much more eloquently put it than me, is what I thought you were doing.

Thank you for calling me eloquent 

And just to make it simpler, I'm a "she." 

[TEWR]

Ryzaki wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
well, I don't downplay his flaws. But I do justify him.

You're assuming though that there were kids in that Chantry. While this is something the Chantry does, I remember two sisters/mothers/something saying how the orphans refused Chantry aid and were living in Darktown.

Children are given to become chantry sisters/brothers at a very young age. (Hi Alistair) Like with the gallows these children are never shown. (And if you don't let Bethany become a mage you're never even aware of them). So yeah...I'm pretty sure there's children in the chantry.

Some of the children ran off but I doubt all of them ran. There's usually gonna be a few that take the help.

I don't mind justication. It's whitewashing that bothers me.

Both sides committ horrible atrocities and kill innocents. Neither side has any moral high ground. That's what I like about the conflict. Whitewashing removes that and tries to pretend one side has a moral high ground.

Yea I like how you can see where each side is coming from in both their views and their actions, but neither of them are in the right.

As for the children, I'll concede that there were probably a few children in there just as there definitely were mage children in the Gallows.

edit: stupid typo

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 06 mai 2011 - 10:46 .

[Dave of Canada]

Silfren wrote...


But I already did point out that I consider "murder" to imply that the death was not deserved, which I think rules out her death as murder because she very much did deserve it. 

Who decides the "deserving"? The killer? Funny how that works, guess all killers are innocent of wrong doing.

[Silfren]

LobselVith8 wrote...


Technically speaking, you could consider the American revolutionaries terrorists as well. However, Silfren has a point: the definition of terrorism has proven to be controversial because not everyone sees it the same way. There are various legal systems and government agencies that use different definitions of "terrorism" as a result.

What's always been very telling to me on the issue is when politicians, having used a specific definition to condemn one group's actions suddenly find themselves in a scary position when a vocal supporter they've praised, or a group they fund, or a group they've vocally celebrated, suddenly commits an action that falls under the definition they used.

All of a sudden you see all sorts of hedging going on to explain how, well, no, that wasn't terrorism, not really.  Or they just go drastically out of their way to avoid mentioning that person or group at all so that they can avoid having to address the problem at all.  Or they deflect by saying "Lookit this guy!  We can ALLL agree that they're a terrorist without offending people who don't matter anyone!"

That right there rather clearly illustrates just how fluid definitions are can be.  Because if there was a singular, agreed upon definition, people would laugh those excuses into the ground.  But that's never what happens. (Edit: Changed "are" to "can be" for the sake of precision because I just know someone will leap on my choice of words there in order to beat me to death with my own point).

Modifié par Silfren, 06 mai 2011 - 11:21 .

[Ryzaki]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Yea I like how you can see where each side is coming from in both their views and their adtions, but neither of them are in the right.

As for the children, I'll concede that there were probably a few children in there just as there definitely were mage children in the Gallows.

That's what makes it so much fun. 

Yeah there was defintely mage children. And the templars most likely killed many of them (if you try to spar the mages who surrender) or all of them (if you kill em all). 

No one's hands were clean in that mess. 

[Xilizhra]

Except for the mages getting wiped out in the Gallows.

[Ryzaki]

Xilizhra wrote...

Except for the mages getting wiped out in the Gallows.

Them and those civilians that needed to be protected by the guards as well. 

[Dave of Canada]

Xilizhra wrote...

Except for the mages getting wiped out in the Gallows.

And the templar simply being told to do their job.

[LobselVith8]

Sylvianus wrote...

Now I hope you understand why YOUR mage view, can not necessarily be interpreted in the same way that those who are in no side and the side of anyone, even people.

The mage perspective is that forcing men, women, and children to live in a dictatorship where they can be killed in an act of genocide is probably not the best solution, particularly when we see that the Chantry controlled Circles have lead to a revolution among the Circles of Magi.

Sylvianus wrote...

You tolerate this act of terrorism in your name and those of the Magi, you tolerate and justify the murder, do not expect that others are necessarily agree.

People are addressing the death of one person who did nothing about the injustices she was told about, even though she was Knight-Commander Meredith's superior and could command templars (like she did when she ordered the templars to send Orsino to his cell).

Sylvianus wrote...

YOU consider that Eltina is guilty of inertia, just as bin Laden has decided that Americans were guilty of inertia, have allowed their government for doing stupid things.

Grand Cleric Elthina is guilty of allowing crimes to happen when she's the superior of the Knight-Commander and the templars under Meredith's command. She did nothing about them, even when Hawke informed her about them.

[Xilizhra]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Except for the mages getting wiped out in the Gallows.

And the templar simply being told to do their job.

I don't glorify their deaths. They're an unfortunate necessity. However, the templars are soliders, and soldiers on the aggressor side. I believe that killing them in defense isn't as bad as murdering civilians, especially since the majority of the Order survives anyway.

[Ay01]

The problem I had was the options you are given throughout the game. I played through as the good big brother for Bethany while still shutting down blood mages and sending people to the circle. You never get to change anything in the game. It's like someone said Hawke is just there to cleanup. In DA:O you pushed the story and made decisions based on your final goal(kill archdemon) and to me that was more of a rise to power then DA:II. You see the things that could be changed but never really get to deal with those issues. In this game it was more of a go with the flow until you beat the game. There could have been so much more done with this story, but I can say it was still fun playing. It just sucks that you don't really change anything with the decisions you make.

[LobselVith8]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Except for the mages getting wiped out in the Gallows.

And the templar simply being told to do their job.

Their job is to kill an entire population of men, women, and children who have magical ability.

[Silfren]

Ryzaki wrote...

Yeah well justice doesn't exactly resurrect all those people (kids included) that he killed. 

I just dislike the fact that people are trying to downplay the fact that he's a terrorist and a murder. I understand why people like him really I do but the whole thing smacks of this. 

And it cheapens it. 

The point of justice isn't to bring back people from the dead.

That said, I think part of the problem is that you are separating words like murder and terrorism from their emotional components, but most people simply do not do that.

If it were actually true that terrorist was a totally neutral term, you'd be spot on.  But it is an inescapable fact that words like "terrorist" have very specific connotations of evil for the vast majority of people--and this is a deliberately manufactured reaction because it serves politically expedient purposes, I might add.  This is precisely why, as I addressed in another comment, that politicians tend to shy away from the word when they find themselves screwed by it because something connected to them qualifies as terrorism under definitions they've endorsed.

I avoid calling Anders a terrorist and specify why I do not see him as such, not because I'm trying to downplay his actions, but because anyone who sees me say "I endorse Anders' terrorism" is most likely going to conclude that I am an evil person supporting and promoting evil actions that are completely and totally unjustified.  They're most likely not going to care if I bother to qualify why I think his terrorism was justified, because for most people, the connotation of terrorism is such that it negates any concept of justification.  Once you say "I support his terrorism because X, Y, and Z..." you're ****ed, because all people are going to actually hear--or read--is "I support terrorism."  From there, their preconceived ideas about terrorism will take over, and any attempt at rational discussion has been shot clear in the head.

Modifié par Silfren, 06 mai 2011 - 11:24 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Terrorism for the sake of terrorism is where you should want to put a bullet (or dagger) in the person's head (Osama).

Except he is not doing terrorism for the sake of terrorism either. I've never heard of a group who want to terrorize just for the sake of it.

He might have idiotic goals, coupled with idiotic methods to bring it about (exactly like Anders). But he still had goals.

[GavrielKay]

Ryzaki wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...
There are more than two sides.  Anders claims to fight for the freedom of circle mages, but he isn't one of them.  Meredith belongs to the Templars and sort of the Chantry, but you could argue in her idol-maddened state she doesn't really represent them.  

The side that seems to get the least representation in the game is the innocent circle mages, however many there are, that we never even get to meet.  If anyone has any sort of high ground in this, it's the mages who've suffered through what happens in the Gallows and retained their sanity and for lack of a better word - purity.

Which is where my biggest issue from him plunging them into a war comes from. That said Anders was a circle mage. He just escaped the circle. 

We do meet circle mages. Emile, Huon and that chick were all circle mages. Orsino was a circle mage. Alain and Grace and Decimus were all circle mages. (Just not originally from Kirkwall's circle). 

That said yes I'd say the innocent bystanders (both mages and nonmages) are the ones who will suffer the most. As in most wars. 

That isn't quite what I said.   Not innocent bystanders, but innocent mages.  The bystanders are, for lack of a better word, attacked by only one person:  Anders.  And that's using attacked loosely, because he committed a terrorist act designed to make sure that one person ended up dead and with the complete understanding that others would be killed as well.  Whether this is justified has been argued in a zillion other posts so I'll ignore it for now.

The circle mages aren't so much bystanders as fully involved members of the conflict.  The "guilty" circle mages generally include the ones that you call out in your response. 

The "innocent" circle mages are fully part of the conflict.  They are suffering due to a lack of action on the part of Elthina and others.  They are innocent by way of not committing terrorism or becoming blood mages or abominations.  We don't meet very many of them.  They are the ones who will either be undeservedly killed by the RoA or saved by Hawke if s/he defies Meredith.  These few or many (we don't know) who haven't done anything except bear their suffering while waiting for something to change are the "moral high ground."

It may not be Hawke & Co.  and I really don't think it's Meredith & Co.  but the "right" is there.

[sugasugaki]

wulfsturm wrote...

I think the entire point of the ending is that neither side was right in the end. Makes for a moral dilemma and all.

When moral dilemma hinges on the irrational, inexplicable stupity of a major character (Orsino), it's a dilemma that's not very compelling.

[Dave of Canada]

sugasugaki wrote...

When moral dilemma hinges on the irrational, inexplicable stupity of a major character (Orsino), it's a dilemma that's not very compelling.

Right, nobody sided withTemplar until the event that happened 20 minutes later.

/notserious

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 06 mai 2011 - 11:00 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Silfren wrote...
If it were actually true that terrorist was a totally neutral term, you'd be spot on. 

It does have an academic definition as close to objective as possible. But it's not followed up on because human history would become even more unpleasant than it actually is for most (I like it just fine personally). And it ends up being too broad as to lose practical significance (and by that I mean media shock and political punch lines).

I understand and sympathize with wanting to avoid using heavy and politicized terms like terrorism (and genocide). But if terrorism has an objective definition, it can be reasonably argued that Anders' action is a certain form of terrorism. But the definition would be too broad I think, that it would lose much of its significance.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 mai 2011 - 11:01 .

[GavrielKay]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Who decides the "deserving"? The killer? Funny how that works, guess all killers are innocent of wrong doing.

Generally "deserving" is decided in two separate courts:  legal and public opinion.  The two answers sometimes differ.  I don't think anyone considers the killer's opinion on whether s/he is justified to be the gold standard.

[Ay01]

I'm just disappointed with the decisions you get in the game because nothing you do really changes anything. The Right of Annulment sucks, along with the way the mages are being treated. And knowing that your cousin(the Hero of Fereldan in my case) saved everyone from the 5th blight, I wanted to change things for Bethany after she went to the circle. But these choices are not there, you can't even become a templar. I just wish you had an actual rise to power instead of just going with the flow of the game. Fun story to play through, but it left so much to the imagination in the end. And killing the innocent is wrong even if its for the the greater good.

[Dave of Canada]

GavrielKay wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Who decides the "deserving"? The killer? Funny how that works, guess all killers are innocent of wrong doing.

Generally "deserving" is decided in two separate courts:  legal and public opinion.  The two answers sometimes differ.  I don't think anyone considers the killer's opinion on whether s/he is justified to be the gold standard.

So Elthina didn't "deserve" to be killed because legally / public opinion would never have deemed it so, only Anders and pro-mage extremists.