350 réponses à ce sujet

[Pileyourbodies]

If you use magic and you're not in the circle then it is a crime and you have broken the law. Just because you don't know you're committing a crime doesn't mean its a crime.

[LobselVith8]

If they were allowed to leave when they come of age, Anders wouldn't have run away several times.

[Pileyourbodies]

Greigor lets Wynne leave. Anders just can't be trusted, something made evident in his story.

[Randy1012]

Pileyourbodies wrote...

If you use magic and you're not in the circle then it is a crime and you have broken the law. Just because you don't know you're committing a crime doesn't mean its a crime.

That's ridiculous. You can't enforce laws on something people are naturally born with. If magic were an unnatural occurrence that no person could utilize without breaking some kind of outside assistance, then yes, that would make sense. But mages are born with the talent for magic. It's like South Africa back in the days of apartheid; black South Africans were disenfranchised simply because they were born different from the people who were then in power. Some laws, such as those which discriminate against those who are born different, are both illegal and unethical, and so they should be ignored.

That said, I can't justify Vengeance's actions. What he did was an act of terrorism. I don't support terrorism of any kind, no matter the excuse. Terrorism is never the right choice.

[Riona45]

TcheQ wrote...
Mages are not slaves.  They are allowed out of the circle when they come of age (as in DAO). 

Well, they are allowed out with permission (and I haven't seen any lore saying it's right when they come of age), and with few exceptions they are expected to return at some point in the future.  Even aside from the issue of whether or not it's slavery, it is essentially house arrest.

[Pileyourbodies]

Randy1083 wrote...

Pileyourbodies wrote...

If you use magic and you're not in the circle then it is a crime and you have broken the law. Just because you don't know you're committing a crime doesn't mean its a crime.

That's ridiculous. You can't enforce laws on something people are naturally born with. If magic were an unnatural occurrence that no person could utilize without breaking some kind of outside assistance, then yes, that would make sense. But mages are born with the talent for magic. It's like South Africa back in the days of apartheid; black South Africans were disenfranchised simply because they were born different from the people who were then in power. Some laws, such as those which discriminate against those who are born different, are both illegal and unethical, and so they should be ignored.

That said, I can't justify Vengeance's actions. What he did was an act of terrorism. I don't support terrorism of any kind, no matter the excuse. Terrorism is never the right choice.

I can choke you to death or beat you to death with nothing more than stuff i've been born with.

[Ingu]

Pileyourbodies wrote...
I can choke you to death or beat you to death with nothing more than stuff i've been born with.

You're equating using magic with murder. There's really more to it than that.

[Randy1012]

Pileyourbodies wrote...

I can choke you to death or beat you to death with nothing more than stuff i've been born with.

Okay, first of all: creepy.

Second: is it more likely that you might someday want to beat/choke me to death because I took you away from your family when you were a young child, and held you captive without ever giving you the chance to see your family or live a normal life, because I believed that you might one day be able to beat/choke me to death? Or is it more likely that you'd never feel the desire to beat/choke me to death if I'd simply left you alone to live your life in peace?

Modifié par Randy1083, 27 mars 2011 - 06:07 .

[Deztyn]

First I didn't say anyone who supports Anders supports terrorism. I said people who support Anders refuse to acknowledge what he did is terrorism because they don't want to support a terrorist. There is a distinction there.

Second, the only thing I'm ascribing to him is what he says throughout the game. If you really want to argue that what Anders says he's doing is not what he actually means to do, then go ahead. It should be interesting.

Anders 2.0: "Soon everyone in Kirkwall will have to choose a side."

Anders 2.0: "There can be no peace."

Anders 2.0: "I've removed the chance for compromise, because there is no compromise."

Anders 2.0: "We were already doomed. A quick death now or a slow one later. I'd rather die fighting"  (Implied: It doesn't matter what you or the other mages want, Orsino, only I know what's right for mages)

You agree with him. That's fine. I don't. One of my Hawke's does. But trying to shy away from the word because of it's unpleasant associations does not change the fact that he uses terrorist tactics.

Modifié par Deztyn, 27 mars 2011 - 06:18 .

[Demx]

Anders didn't do it for the mages, he did it for himself. Right before you kill him, he starts talking about how famous he'll be for what he has done. I wanted to stab him twice for that.

[LobselVith8]

Deztyn, Anders wants to free his people from subjugation. He's no different than the people who fought wars against tyrants and oppressive governments for freedom. By your line of thought, any group that fought against a tyrannical government is a terrorist, like the American revolutionaries. And all your quote tells me is that Anders thought there should be no compromise when the choice is between slavery and freedom.

[Randy1012]

Vengeance's actions were intended to incite fear in the populace in order to spark a war that he hoped would ultimately end with the freedom of all mages from Chantry subjugation. He willingly disregarded the safety of any innocent people who might have been in or near the Chantry when he destroyed it, because he knew their deaths would ultimately further his goal of trying to free mages. That is absolutely, unequivocally, an act of terrorism.

Vengeance wasn't a revolutionary or a hero. He was a zealot and an ideological extremist.

[Ingu]

Deztyn wrote...

First I didn't say anyone who supports Anders supports terrorism. I said people who support Anders refuse to acknowledge what he did is terrorism because they don't want to support a terrorist. There is a distinction there.

Second, the only thing I'm ascribing to him is what he says throughout the game. If you really want to argue that what Anders says he's doing is not what he actually means to do, then go ahead. It should be interesting.

Anders 2.0: "Soon everyone in Kirkwall will have to choose a side."

Anders 2.0: "There can be no peace."

Anders 2.0: "I've removed the chance for compromise, because there is no compromise."

Anders 2.0: "We were already doomed. A quick death now or a slow one later. I'd rather die fighting"  (Implied: It doesn't matter what you or the other mages want, Orsino, only I know what's right for mages)

You agree with him. That's fine. I don't. One of my Hawke's does. But trying to shy away from the word because of it's unpleasant associations does not change the fact that he uses terrorist tactics.

The whole thing is that we see him more as a freedom fighter, in different people's eyes it's definitely terrorism, but the thing is it doesn't really matter in the end. Not all of us even supports his 'terrorist' actions. This debate over terrorism/freedomo fighting is like capital punishment - murder or justice? It's just a matter of perspective.

To us it doesn't matter that what he did can count as terrorism, it's the cause.

And as for being a hero, the guy's trying to feel better about dying, I forgive him.

[Randy1012]

Ingu wrote...

To us it doesn't matter that what he did can count as terrorism, it's the cause.

The ends never justify the means. Just because he's fighting to liberate mages, that doesn't mean he was right to destroy the Chantry and murder Grand Cleric Elthina and who knows how many other people.

[Ingu]

@ Randy1083

Then that's a matter of perspective, I'm not saying your beliefs aren't legitimate. I'm just saying that other people approach the whole thing differently, and come to different conclusions.


--------------------

On a side note. can I just  redirect to tvtropes? This pretty much explains my point.

Click me for structured argument written by someone else 


Highlights:
The ragtag band of plucky rebels fighting against the evil Empire will see themselves as freedom fighters, regardless of the methods they use. Those who support the rebels' cause will agree with them: La Résistance are freedom fighters in their eyes, not terrorists. But to the lawful government of the Empire, on whose side the law (such as it is) sits, the "plucky rebels" are nothing more than a criminal terrorist group. And a lot of the Empire's citizens, whose primary philosophy of life is "go along to get along", will agree with the government... especially when the rebel group causes collateral damage or intentionally goes after "collaborators".

During these kinds of situations, the simple distinction outlined above as regarding targeting combatants vs. targeting non-combatants is often deliberately ignored or blurred over by propagandists on both sides of a conflict, each seeking to make a particular side look either better than or worse than they actually are. It is this contradiction, the fact that one side sees the terrorists as freedom fighters, while the other side sees the freedom fighters as terrorists, regardless of how the multitudinous definitions of terrorism might label La Résistance that is the point of this trope.

Modifié par Ingu, 27 mars 2011 - 06:41 .

[Randy1012]

I understand your point. I just disagree with it. I don't think Vengeance was wrong to fight for a cause--heck, I support the liberation of mages--I think he was wrong to fight for it in the manner he chose.

[Ingu]

Mm, I agree, though I'm left wondering what else could've been done to bring about drastic. Anders chose to start a war, and his methods reflected that - a war he did get. But what would be the alternative?

[Randy1012]

He could have chosen to find a peaceful resolution, which was still possible. But that was off the table the moment he destroyed the Chantry, and what's worse, he knew it. But he still did it. That's why I can't support him.

Anyway, this whole thing has kept me up way past my bedtime, so I'm afraid I'll have to duck out here. Thanks for the interesting discussion, all.

[Demx]

Ingu wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

First I didn't say anyone who supports Anders supports terrorism. I said people who support Anders refuse to acknowledge what he did is terrorism because they don't want to support a terrorist. There is a distinction there.

Second, the only thing I'm ascribing to him is what he says throughout the game. If you really want to argue that what Anders says he's doing is not what he actually means to do, then go ahead. It should be interesting.

Anders 2.0: "Soon everyone in Kirkwall will have to choose a side."

Anders 2.0: "There can be no peace."

Anders 2.0: "I've removed the chance for compromise, because there is no compromise."

Anders 2.0: "We were already doomed. A quick death now or a slow one later. I'd rather die fighting"  (Implied: It doesn't matter what you or the other mages want, Orsino, only I know what's right for mages)

You agree with him. That's fine. I don't. One of my Hawke's does. But trying to shy away from the word because of it's unpleasant associations does not change the fact that he uses terrorist tactics.

The whole thing is that we see him more as a freedom fighter, in different people's eyes it's definitely terrorism, but the thing is it doesn't really matter in the end. Not all of us even supports his 'terrorist' actions. This debate over terrorism/freedomo fighting is like capital punishment - murder or justice? It's just a matter of perspective.

To us it doesn't matter that what he did can count as terrorism, it's the cause.

And as for being a hero, the guy's trying to feel better about dying, I forgive him.

It's a nice thought, but the idea of actually doing the right thing should be what makes him feel better about dying. Not the idea of being famous, if he wants to be a hero/freedom fighter.

[Statulos]

Ingu wrote...

The whole thing is that we see him more as a freedom fighter, in different people's eyes it's definitely terrorism, but the thing is it doesn't really matter in the end. Not all of us even supports his 'terrorist' actions. This debate over terrorism/freedomo fighting is like capital punishment - murder or justice? It's just a matter of perspective.

To us it doesn't matter that what he did can count as terrorism, it's the cause.

And as for being a hero, the guy's trying to feel better about dying, I forgive him.

When perspective means mass-murdering people the implications are deeper than just intellectual discussion.

The problem with Anders is that he´s completely convinced that freedom will have to be cemented with blood, even his own blood. Which in the end defeats the very idea that animates the spirit living in him: justice is by definition a selfless act.

Anders performed an act of massive selfishnes by blowing up the chantry. If he does not care about dying for his actions, why is he entitled to make others loose theirs, mages in particular, due to his very personal inclinations?

Probably because of an impeding approach of "I am right, you all are not" and to my knowledge, that falls more on the side of pride than justice. In the Fade, pride is the feeling that breeds the most dangerous deamons.

[LobselVith8]

He addressed his death would motivate the mages, because Anders sees the Circles as "an injustice" and "a slow death." He has no problem putting his life on the line to protect the mages of Kirkwall from an act of genocide if Hawke spares his life.

[Deztyn]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Deztyn, Anders wants to free his people from subjugation. He's no different than the people who fought wars against tyrants and oppressive governments for freedom. By your line of thought, any group that fought against a tyrannical government is a terrorist, like the American revolutionaries. And all your quote tells me is that Anders thought there should be no compromise when the choice is between slavery and freedom.

*Headdesk*

You can call him a freedom fighter, a revolutionary, a rebel with a cause, a would-be matyr whatever you like. You are not necessarily wrong for doing so. But his methods are those of a terrorist. And you're doing exactly what I said his supporters tend to do, weasel around the "T" word any way they can because it makes them too uncomfortable.

It has nothing to do with his ultimate goals and how righteous they may be. It has everything to do with his methods.

And that quote is part of where Anders explains why he's blown up the sisters-- to provoke a war where the only options for mages are "live free or die." As a New England girl I can appreciate that as a personal choice. Not so much when the choice is being made for me. It kind of invalidates the whole "free" part.

Ingu,
The article you link to on that evil, evil website is actually agreeing with me.

[Ibby1kanobi]

Actually, its completely related to modern "terrorism". The Anders and Mages/Templar issue is 100% the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. An established super power which treats others as slaves and sub-human. The established power is generally militarily superior. The underrepresented are weak and have to resort to these types of actions to strike back, and hope to draw other disenfranchised people to their cause.

They do this because people are generally ignorant of the situation and/or do very little to intercede on behalf of the mistreated. After enough time, the subjugated people get sick of their ignored plight and take it to the next level. The chantry is directly superior to the Templars, they control them, and their ignorance to the mage plight makes them directly responsible. Same situation as in Israel, every citizen serves in the military and perpetuates the subjegation of the Palestinian people. Frequently, the Templars/Isrealis kill women, children, and innocent, which causes the other sides ranks to swell. Look at what the Templars did at the end of the game. Regardless of what happened, they were willing and ready to kill ALL mages for the actions of a few (or even one).

I won't say whether it's right or wrong. But eventually people who are mistreated, and ignored by society at large get fed up, and begin to strike back against their oppressors any way possible.

Modifié par Ibby1kanobi, 27 mars 2011 - 08:02 .

[Ingu]

Deztyn wrote...
Ingu,
The article you link to on that evil, evil website is actually agreeing with me.

Then maybe I agree with you and is just too busy saying it's not 'necessarily bad of us' to come out and state it...

[Ingu]

Ibby1kanobi wrote...

Actually, its completely related to modern "terrorism". The Anders and Mages/Templar issue is 100% the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. An established super power which treats others as slaves and sub-human. The established power is generally militarily superior. The underrepresented are weak and have to resort to these types of actions to strike back, and hope to draw other disenfranchised people to their cause.

They do this because people are generally ignorant of the situation and/or do very little to intercede on behalf of the mistreated. After enough time, the subjugated people get sick of their ignored plight and take it to the next level. The chantry is directly superior to the Templars, they control them, and their ignorance to the mage plight makes them directly responsible. Same situation as in Israel, every citizen serves in the military and perpetuates the subjegation of the Palestinian people. Frequently, the Templars/Isrealis kill women, children, and innocent, which causes the other sides ranks to swell. Look at what the Templars did at the end of the game. Regardless of what happened, they were willing and ready to kill ALL mages for the actions of a few (or even one).

I won't say whether it's right or wrong. But eventually people who are mistreated, and ignored by society at large get fed up, and begin to strike back against their oppressors any way possible.

Um... maybe not 100%? You're right on the rest, but I'm not sure your representation of the whole Palestinian/Israeli conflict is entirely accurate or fair...

Though in this sense you can say the Chantry is pretty much the UN in this situation, though with much more influence.

Modifié par Ingu, 27 mars 2011 - 09:42 .