4350 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

GavrielKay wrote...
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.

Small problem. More than just innocent mages are being unjustly attacked and killed. Unless you think those citizens fleeing from demons and abominations are all being attacked by Anders. 

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."

You simply said Circle mages. You said nothing about innocent or guilty. That said you're righton that we don't know anythingabout the "innocent" circle mags (other than people like Emile and Ellie who we met for a split second). 

Does that not count for the innocent civilians as well? The one whose city is one fire? THe ones who might've been hit by the debris if not by the demons and abominations running rampant? 

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

The only right people are those trying to live their lives. Circle mage or no. 

[Ryzaki]

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

It's not I never said it would. I don't find death to be justice. I never have. At best it can be used to prevent new atrocites. But never will it be actual justice. 

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 an 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.

And my issue with only trying to use it for "evil" cases is just who decides what's evil? Osama Bin Laden isn't evil to many people. Is he no longer a terrorist? 

That said yeah I understand where you're coming from even if I don't agree with it. 

[Silfren]

Ryzaki wrote...

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

By the laws of Thedas, yes.  I fully concede that the law is most likely going to label him a murderer.

And if you were hoping for a point blank yes/no answer, then sorry, but I'm
not done yet.

It is because I do not agree with any law's assessment that his killing of Elthina was murder, I am always, always going to follow that statement with my personal opinion on Anders' action, because to not do so will leave people under the (mis)impression that I'm calling him a murderer because I personally believe he is one, not because I'm maintaining a strictly legal denotation.  This is a direct result of most people considering murder not by its legal definition, but by its personal, connotative one.

[Sylvianus]

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

no problem with this mage view. I said, I support the Magi, but our interests and what we considers important may vary. If mages threaten what I consider important is that you can give me the right to disagree? Understand that your  mage views, which justifies this terrorism and murder is not universal.

A revolution must be done well, it needs the support of the people, sorry but without him, mages will not go away. No, do not kill priests and priestesses, people inside Chantry, those who do nothing. It goes too far.

The priests and priestesses are simply believers, they can not threaten you, even if you do not like their beliefs. Attack those who have swords, etc

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).

Eltina was not only that, Eltina was another popular dimension in Kirkwall and you know it, Anders knew it. And There was not only Eltina within the chantry, there were children of believers, priests and priestesses. He killed them all. He blow up a building.

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.

Need I remind that the case of the Magi is neglected throughout Thedas? Which takes into account this problem? The system lasts for years, do you really think that right now, people will suddenly say it is bad? The case of the Magi is not yet in their minds. You killed an innocent in their eyes, not yours yes.

And I still do not accept the senseless murder of a helpless person, when there was Meredith, when there were many Templars to kill. Yes I know the symbol. Cowardice.

Eltina in fact it was one of the least aggressive against you and all know that, that revenge has only one purpose, intelligence, a reason only at your eyes.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 06 mai 2011 - 11:15 .

[Ryzaki]

Silfren wrote...


By the laws of Thedas, yes.  I fully concede that the law is most likely going to label him a murderer.

And if you were hoping for a point blank yes/no answer, then sorry, but I'm
not done yet.

It is because I do not agree with any law's assessment that his killing of Elthina was murder, I am always, always going to follow that statement with my personal opinion on Anders' action, because to not do so will leave people under the (mis)impression that I'm calling him a murderer because I personally believe he is one, not because I'm maintaining a strictly legal denotation.  This is a direct result of most people considering murder not by its legal definition, but by its personal, connotative one.

Close enough.  

He will remain a murderer to me in both the lawful and personal form of the word. Among other things for dragging people into his mess while he expected to be martyr'd for it. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 06 mai 2011 - 11:15 .

[Silfren]

GavrielKay wrote...

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." 

You're welcome.  And thanks.  I thought you probably were, but I prefer to use neutral pronouns and err on the side of caution.  :happy:

[Silfren]

Dave of Canada wrote...

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.

Which I think factors into the larger discussion.  Murder is not strictly an emotional term, but it definitely has a popular connotation as such that is quite separate from its legalistic expression.

[GavrielKay]

Ryzaki wrote...

You simply said Circle mages. You said nothing about innocent or guilty. That said you're righton that we don't know anythingabout the "innocent" circle mags (other than people like Emile and Ellie who we met for a split second). 

actually:

GavrielKay wrote...

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.

Does that not count for the innocent civilians as well? The one whose city is one fire? THe ones who might've been hit by the debris if not by the demons and abominations running rampant? 

The only right people are those trying to live their lives. Circle mage or no. 

I included my original post above for you.  I perhaps failed to emphasize the phrase properly, but it was there.

Yes, innocent civilians are "right" too in as much as they're not wrong.  But it you want to create some sort of artificial scale of moral right-ness, I'd put the circle mages who stayed innocent despite what they were suffering at a higher level than the random rank and file going about their business up until the last moment.

[KnightofPhoenix]

GavrielKay wrote...
But it you want to create some sort of artificial scale of moral right-ness, I'd put the circle mages who stayed innocent despite what they were suffering at a higher level than the random rank and file going about their business up until the last moment.

Such power you have.

[Ryzaki]

GavrielKay wrote...
I included my original post above for you.  I perhaps failed to emphasize the phrase properly, but it was there.

Yes, innocent civilians are "right" too in as much as they're not wrong.  But it you want to create some sort of artificial scale of moral right-ness, I'd put the circle mages who stayed innocent despite what they were suffering at a higher level than the random rank and file going about their business up until the last moment.

 

Why are they somehow more right than other people? 

Also what do you mean stayed innocent? You mean by not trying to kill other people? I hope that list is considerably whittled down because I only recall a handful of mages not attacking me. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 06 mai 2011 - 11:28 .

[LobselVith8]

Sylvianus,

I don't believe I've given my opinion on Anders in this debate. I honestly wonder whether sparing Anders will lead to his participation in the Mage Revolution (particularly his knowledge of that specific explosive that would be useful in a battle against templars) or whether killing him will mean Sebastian will make Starkhaven a pro-mage city-state if he sided with a pro-mage Hawke. That's what I think could result from either choice, if the writers permit the choice to have meaning at all in DLC, an expansion, or sequels.

As for Grand Cleric Elthina, my comments merely addressed that I consider her responsible for doing nothing with her authority, when she was Meredith's superior.

While the Chantry controlled Circles have existed for nearly a thousand years since Empeor Drakon I created them, this mage revolution could mean their perpetual independence from the Chantry and the templars. If Hawke is a hero of the mages (as Cassandra claims in the pro-mage ending) he may finally be pro-active in participating by the success of this revolution.

[GavrielKay]

Dave of Canada wrote...

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

I understand the point you are making. 

However, a key issue here is that both legality and public opinion change over time.  Sometimes for the better, sometimes not.  Runaway slaves were breaking the law not too many years ago.  Helping them was illegal.  Killing one of them was often perfectly legal. 

Anders, and the pro-mage extremists as you refer to them are trying to build a future where having a Grand Cleric stand by while mages are tortured isn't considered legal or popular.  In that world, Elthina's death under those conditions might still be illegal - as the expectation would be a fair trial and court decided penalty rather than getting blown up.  But perhaps someday it migth not be considered so evil in the court of public opinion. 

Oppressing the mages is a fully accepted part of the culture for most citizens of Kirkwall.  I do not concede however that it must therefore be "right."  Elthina is a popluar and well loved Grand Cleric, but I do not concede that she was innocent of the mess in Kirkwall.

[Silfren]

And my issue with only trying to use it for "evil" cases is just who decides what's evil? Osama Bin Laden isn't evil to many people. Is he no longer a terrorist? 

That said yeah I understand where you're coming from even if I don't agree with it. 

That feeds into my entire point.  Definitions are rarely static. 

[GavrielKay]

Ryzaki wrote...

Why are they somehow more right than other people? 

Also what do you mean stayed innocent? You mean by not trying to kill other people? I hope that list is considerably whittled down because I only recall a handful of mages not attacking me. 

It's a personal opinion, take it as you wish.  I think staying good in the face of rape and torture is harder than staying good while playing cards with your best friends in the tavern in the evening.  So, I give it more credit.  It's a construct anyway - I don't claim that either group of innocents deserves to die.  Therefore I dont' support the Right of Annulment when Meredith asks me to.

We have no idea how many innocent mages are in the circle.  I believe it could be as many as 1000 - but that was all argued many pages ago and we all admit that the game never tells us.  However many there are, I believe they should be allowed to live.

[TEWR]

Silfren wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

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." 

You're welcome.  And thanks.  I thought you probably were, but I prefer to use neutral pronouns and err on the side of caution.  :happy:

I use it. Last thing you want to do is ****** off someone from the gender of "other"

[Ryzaki]

Silfren wrote...

And my issue with only trying to use it for "evil" cases is just who decides what's evil? Osama Bin Laden isn't evil to many people. Is he no longer a terrorist? 

That said yeah I understand where you're coming from even if I don't agree with it. 

That feeds into my entire point.  Definitions are rarely static. 

Except the problem with the word evil is that it really doesn't discribe an action. It describes morals which are relative from person to person. A word like terrorist isn't supposed to be taken as a moral word (even if people have twisted it into one). 

[GavrielKay]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I use it. Last thing you want to do is ****** off someone from the gender of "other"

Well, now that you mention it... 

*giggle*

[Ryzaki]

GavrielKay wrote...
It's a personal opinion, take it as you wish.  I think staying good in the face of rape and torture is harder than staying good while playing cards with your best friends in the tavern in the evening.  So, I give it more credit.  It's a construct anyway - I don't claim that either group of innocents deserves to die.  Therefore I dont' support the Right of Annulment when Meredith asks me to.

We have no idea how many innocent mages are in the circle.  I believe it could be as many as 1000 - but that was all argued many pages ago and we all admit that the game never tells us.  However many there are, I believe they should be allowed to live.

I don't think staying good matters all that much when if you don't stay good you'll be killed or lobotmized. 

That said I see what you're trying to say. 

Indeed they should. Which is why the ones that to me prove they're truely innocent end up living in my games. 

[Silfren]

Ryzaki wrote...

Except the problem with the word evil is that it really doesn't discribe an action. It describes morals which are relative from person to person. A word like terrorist isn't supposed to be taken as a moral word (even if people have twisted it into one). 

Therein lies the rub.  What a word is supposed to mean is rarely the same as what it's popularly come to mean, and so on and so forth.

Modifié par Silfren, 07 mai 2011 - 12:03 .

[Sylvianus]

Sylvianus,
I don't believe I've given my opinion on Anders in this debate. I honestly wonder whether sparing Anders will lead to his participation in the Mage Revolution (particularly his knowledge of that specific explosive that would be useful in a battle against templars) or whether killing him will mean Sebastian will make Starkhaven a pro-mage city-state if he sided with a pro-mage Hawke. That's what I think could result from either choice, if the writers permit the choice to have meaning at all in DLC, an expansion, or sequels.

I also hope we will see in the DLC, the results of our real choices, I'm also very insterested by what will do Sebastian.

As for Grand Cleric Elthina, my comments merely addressed that I consider her responsible for doing nothing with her authority, when she was Meredith's superior.

She is also clearly responsible for the mess at Kirkwall by not acting, I've never denied it.

While the Chantry controlled Circles have existed for nearly a thousand years since Empeor Drakon I created them, this mage revolution could mean their perpetual independence from the Chantry and the templars. If Hawke is a hero of the mages (as Cassandra claims in the pro-mage ending) he may finally be pro-active in participating by the success of this revolution.

In any case it will be interesting.

[GavrielKay]

Ryzaki wrote...

I don't think staying good matters all that much when if you don't stay good you'll be killed or lobotmized. 

That said I see what you're trying to say. 

Indeed they should. Which is why the ones that to me prove they're truely innocent end up living in my games. 

I have no doubt that some mages stay away from blood magic and demos out of fear of the consequences.  The same can be said for non-mages as well.  There are people who do the right thing because they believe it's right and worth the effort though.

I wonder about your last sentence then...  the Right of Annulment isn't about letting any mages live, even innocent ones.  A RoA is only supposed to be called when the circle has been declared beyond redemption and all mages will be killed just in case.

Does your Hawke oppose Meredith and defend the mages?  Or do you go along with the Right for appearance sake but envision saving some mages in defiance of the stricter definition?

[Silfren]

Sylvianus wrote...


She is also clearly responsible for the mess at Kirkwall by not acting, I've never denied it.

You never did address my question about how her not wanting to do her job--not wanting to deal with it or hear about it, to use your own exact words--does not mean that she is corrupt. 

Anyway, I don't really follow one's logic how, if she is considered responsible for the Kirkwall mess by not acting, she can in the same breath be called innocent.

[Ryzaki]

GavrielKay wrote...
I have no doubt that some mages stay away from blood magic and demos out of fear of the consequences.  The same can be said for non-mages as well.  There are people who do the right thing because they believe it's right and worth the effort though.

I wonder about your last sentence then...  the Right of Annulment isn't about letting any mages live, even innocent ones.  A RoA is only supposed to be called when the circle has been declared beyond redemption and all mages will be killed just in case.

Does your Hawke oppose Meredith and defend the mages?  Or do you go along with the Right for appearance sake but envision saving some mages in defiance of the stricter definition?

Indeed some do. 

It is. Meredith was abusing the rite for her own paranoia. 

Yes my Hawkes go along with the rite for their heads sake (I don't fancy taking on an army with a few mages who are unused to combat) but they do defy her by refusing to kill all mages. 

[Sylvianus]

Silfren wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...


She is also clearly responsible for the mess at Kirkwall by not acting, I've never denied it.

You never did address my question about how her not wanting to do her job--not wanting to deal with it or hear about it, to use your own exact words--does not mean that she is corrupt. 

Anyway, I don't really follow one's logic how, if she is considered responsible for the Kirkwall mess by not acting, she can in the same breath be called innocent.

 Corrupted, it means she is mixed with the Meredith's desire to hurt to the Magi, or does not disagree like some you said to me. And yet she desagrees.

Her only responsibility is not to act. Eltina is morally responsible, yes. I never thought otherwise. Some think it is more than that, mixed with unhealthy intentions of Meredith. That innocent person who is overwhelmed by the situation, guilty in the eyes of mages, powerless or other to me.

Being morally responsible for a crazy situation does not mean she is considered guilty. Eltina considers that it is not within her powers to resolve the conflict, She's wrong, the Chantry, must remain neutral in her eyes when our eyes it is just madness or cowardice or other. She ignores the problem.

Being morally responsible for a situation who exceeded her character, does not mean she is considered guilty and desserves death. She has failed to be a part of the solution and it is a mistake. We don't kill someone incompetant in an area.

It is much too simplistic, as a neutral person (I do not speak of the Magi who have reasons) to think that we should kill her because she did not act and i doubt that her influence was very huge. Myself to the beginning, i didn't care mage. Many people have sinned, and Hawke is also morally responsible.
 
For doing nothing during all these years to resolve the conflict. He is a fool and i hate him for that. And please do not tell me about these side quests insignificants

It settles a dispute and it is as Eltina. It'only at the end that he acts.

Should we kill Hawke?

Modifié par Sylvianus, 07 mai 2011 - 12:48 .

[GavrielKay]

Ryzaki wrote...

Indeed some do. 

It is. Meredith was abusing the rite for her own paranoia. 

Yes my Hawkes go along with the rite for their heads sake (I don't fancy taking on an army with a few mages who are unused to combat) but they do defy her by refusing to kill all mages. 

So the main difference in practice between us is that my Hawke openly defies Meredith and hopes for the best survival wise.

Modifié par GavrielKay, 07 mai 2011 - 12:53 .