1927 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

Wozza78 wrote...

So we live in a world where being the victims of terrorism is an everyday possibility for millions of people and what I'm getting is that if we believe in something then acts of terrorism that put our points accross even though innocent people may be hurt or killed, then its ok? I know its just a game but the questions raised are very pertinent to todays real world. Im actually kind of on the fence here, because if I was in a heavily persecuted minority I dont know what I'd be capable of to protect those I love, and improve our way of life.

 
I don't believe an act of terrorism like the one Anders did is ever justified no matter what the reasons.  That said I do understand his reasons, but that's not enough to save him from high justice, Champion of Kirkwell style.

I much would have rather gone in and killed the Grand Cleric openly for her criminal failue to do her damn job, but it wouldn' have been nearly as politically potent, and Abomination/Terrorist Anders stopped caring about innocent lives (at least not enough to do anything about it).  One more reason to kill him.

-Polaris

[AlexXIV]

Wozza78 wrote...

So we live in a world where being the victims of terrorism is an everyday possibility for millions of people and what I'm getting is that if we believe in something then acts of terrorism that put our points accross even though innocent people may be hurt or killed, then its ok? I know its just a game but the questions raised are very pertinent to todays real world. Im actually kind of on the fence here, because if I was in a heavily persecuted minority I dont know what I'd be capable of to protect those I love, and improve our way of life.

I think it depends on the situation really. Generalisations are always bad, and probably more so on sensitive topics. Can there be a justification for an act of terror? I think not. Can an act of terrorism be a lesser evil to enduring a status quo? Maybe. I think someone could write a setting where someone is doing the same thing Anders does and everyone regards him as a hero. I mean some people think that annulling the circle of ferelden was a good thing. I wouldn't know why 'normal' people qualify more for 'innocence' than mages. The only group I don't see as innocents are the templars. They chose to be soldiers. Unlike those who never had a choice.

[Sabariel]

AlexXIV wrote...

Wozza78 wrote...

So we live in a world where being the victims of terrorism is an everyday possibility for millions of people and what I'm getting is that if we believe in something then acts of terrorism that put our points accross even though innocent people may be hurt or killed, then its ok? I know its just a game but the questions raised are very pertinent to todays real world. Im actually kind of on the fence here, because if I was in a heavily persecuted minority I dont know what I'd be capable of to protect those I love, and improve our way of life.

I think it depends on the situation really. Generalisations are always bad, and probably more so on sensitive topics. Can there be a justification for an act of terror? I think not. Can an act of terrorism be a lesser evil to enduring a status quo? Maybe. I think someone could write a setting where someone is doing the same thing Anders does and everyone regards him as a hero. I mean some people think that annulling the circle of ferelden was a good thing. I wouldn't know why 'normal' people qualify more for 'innocence' than mages. The only group I don't see as innocents are the templars. They chose to be soldiers. Unlike those who never had a choice.

Not all Templars have a choice. Alistair didn't.

[Deztyn]

So why did Alistair need Duncan to invoke the right of conscription?

Edit:  Sneaky.

Modifié par Deztyn, 03 avril 2011 - 12:22 .

[sphinxess]

Deztyn wrote...

So why did Alistair need Duncan to invoke the right of conscription?

Edit:  Sneaky.

Pretty sure the chantry knew they had the bastard son of Maric and weren't about to let him go - dont forget he was given to the chantry

[Deztyn]

And if Alistair can be given to the chantry why assume that everyone else chose it?

Edit: Here's an applicable quote from Sebastian, "You were given to the Circle. I was given to the Chantry. Hawke was driven from home by the darkspawn. None of us are free."

Modifié par Deztyn, 03 avril 2011 - 12:30 .

[Benu5]

Alistair had no choice in joining the Chantry, he did choose to become a Templar. But to judge him on that would be wrong. Just like Anders deciding that all templars are bad, and all mages need freedom, without regard for the wishes of individuals in each group is wrong.

[sphinxess]

Benu5 wrote...

Alistair had no choice in joining the Chantry, he did choose to become a Templar. But to judge him on that would be wrong. Just like Anders deciding that all templars are bad, and all mages need freedom, without regard for the wishes of individuals in each group is wrong.

I'm not sure what else you can be in the chantry - you sure cant be a mother superior - though Alaster would look cute in a dress - do they have regular guards?

[AlexXIV]

Yeah well not all templars are volunteers maybe. Some are forced by some circumstances.

I don't judge templars or soldier as bad people. Just saying the term innocents does not really apply to them. They chose this way of life which is dangerous. But they knew that before.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 03 avril 2011 - 12:40 .

[Vormaerin]

sphinxess wrote...

I'm not sure what else you can be in the chantry - you sure cant be a mother superior - though Alaster would look cute in a dress - do they have regular guards?

Well, I believe Leilana mentions lay brothers in her DAO stories.   I would assume that men find roles just like women find non clergy roles in the Catholic church.

[IanPolaris]

What can you be in the chantry as a guy? Other than a templar, you can be a Vested Brother of the Chantry who can do many of the same duties as a Sister but can not be in charge of a flock (like RCC Deacons). You apparently can rise up the ranks as asistants to the Clergy, however, in a role that is largely like what we would consider Monks.

Bros Genetievi is a vested brother in the Chantry for example.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Vormaerin wrote...

sphinxess wrote...

I'm not sure what else you can be in the chantry - you sure cant be a mother superior - though Alaster would look cute in a dress - do they have regular guards?

Well, I believe Leilana mentions lay brothers in her DAO stories.   I would assume that men find roles just like women find non clergy roles in the Catholic church.

Yes in a role largely equivalent to Monks/Nuns in the RCC which apparently (can) include vows and a life of study and contemplation (see Bros. Genetievi).

-Polaris

[Bmeszaros]

I still think it was wasn't "inevitable". The Templars in Kirkwall are different beats than elsewhere in Thedas. Its the center of Templar power in the Eastern Thedas and have been years of prejudices from even non mages against them (Strong Arming the Viscount seat, replacing him and basically having him at Arm's reach) Meredith's predecessor (I forget the name) was actually executed publically for speaking out against the Viscount's injustices, right?

Meredith cracked down harder than ever because she wanted to preserve Chantry Law and Order, even if it meant stripping away freedoms.

I still think Anders would been in control of Justice "taking over" if he had still been with the Wardens or even almost anywhere else in Thedas, outside of Tevinter.

Ultimately, it was Ander's "Anger" that warped Justice and Ultimately, Anders blew up the Chantry, not Justice.

One could argue, like him or not, (I personally don't like him in DA2) that Anders would have fought back the best way he could if it wasn't for Meredith's extreme policies, sticking to the lower places in Kirkwall, healing refugees and running a haven for Mages trying to leave the Circle. Ultimately, no one is responsible for Anders reaction but himself.

Modifié par Bmeszaros, 03 avril 2011 - 01:10 .

[Deztyn]

AlexXIV wrote...

Yeah well not all templars are volunteers maybe. Some are forced by some circumstances.

I don't judge templars or soldier as bad people. Just saying the term innocents does not really apply to them. They chose this way of life which is dangerous. But they knew that before.

Either they chose and are 'guilty', or they were forced and are 'innocent'. You can't have it both ways.

Would you consider murdering Alistair for being a templar justified? Just because the same organization has people like Alrik?

[Danjaru]

Justified? in his mind it is, and to many mages it is.

After centuries of oppression it was clear that just fighting the templars and having some brave mages go rogue didn't cut it. They needed an all out war where every mage was forced into the conflict to finally be able to liberate themselves. It goes back to the saying "those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable".

Taking down the Chantry was a good way to create such a situation, as the places the Templars are in there's mages as well, so taking down the gallows would kill his fellow mages as well. Even though some of the priests might've not deserved it (except Elthina, she deserved it). It was justified in the grand theme of things as it might finally liberate the mages from oppression.

[catabuca]

Danjaru wrote...

Justified? in his mind it is, and to many mages it is.

After centuries of oppression it was clear that just fighting the templars and having some brave mages go rogue didn't cut it. They needed an all out war where every mage was forced into the conflict to finally be able to liberate themselves. It goes back to the saying "those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable".

Taking down the Chantry was a good way to create such a situation, as the places the Templars are in there's mages as well, so taking down the gallows would kill his fellow mages as well. Even though some of the priests might've not deserved it (except Elthina, she deserved it). It was justified in the grand theme of things as it might finally liberate the mages from oppression.

Yep, this is exactly how I feel as well (and I love the saying you quote).

The system was broken, and it was beyond repair. Regardless of which side of the debate you come down on, there were abuses happening on both sides, although of course you can argue that either side pushed the other to it.

But when something is broken and cannot be repaired, all you can do is break it down and start from scratch. This is what this war will do. It will be brutal, nasty, and many will die - such is life.

[stobie]

I guess we're supposed to think it was an extreme act... Ok... it was.  But after that scabby old bat said that evil Petrice 'erred in her judgement' when she *murdered* Seamus - I'd be blowing the place up, too.  The Chantry itself seems just plain evil. They're like a passive-aggressive Imperium, this swollen, bloated thing that controls too much.  The act of making anyone Tranquil, other than by personal request, should condemn them to explosions all over.  (Clearly, I never side with the Templars.)  They drug their own minions - they're bad.  Their method of dealing with bad mages is to control all mages - that's bad.  The old woman with the creepy eyes speaks in an 'I can't take sides' manner, while being an arm of something that is in control.  Their actions back even good mages into dark acts - that's on the Chantry's head, too.

So - a shame he didn't give a moment's heads up to let people get out, but there's no way I'd turn against him after seeing what they've done so far. 

[youngzman]

Sammyjb wrote...

He was unjustified. He had no quarrel with the chantry, just the knight-commander and the templars. Blow up Meredith's base if you must.

Honestly, with that crapload of power that destroyed the Chantry, it would've made more sense to destroy Templar's Hall, sure it'd be harder due to every corridor having a squad of Templars, but it would've caused more unrest.
No Knight Commander= Chantry/Templar disorder. Disorder=Time. Time could've been used to unite the Circles. I'd rather die fighting than submit to become a martyr.

[LPPrince]

David Gaider wrote...

LPPrince wrote...
Please relate this to the birthing process of qunari.

I'm sorry-- what?

EXACTLY.

[Plaintiff]

I think he was perfectly justified. The Chantry seems to me less like the "benevolent mother" Elthina claims it is and more like the "scolding father" or whatever the other option was in the metaphor she uses to (very, very poorly, in my opinion) justify her refusal to take a side.

It's odd to me that people interpret Elthina as "defending" the mages, because I did not get that at all. She claims to feel sympathy for them, but she makes no move to actually better their situation. If she was really interested in "defending" the mages from Meredith's abuses, she could've just got rid of Meredith. She has the power. The Templar Order is the military branch of the Chantry. Her authority supercedes Meredith's. She could have booted her out and replaced her with just about anyone and the situation would've improved drastically. It would not have been that much work.

Anders was right that there could be no compromise. There was no compromise. The Chantry controls everything without contest, and it's biased against mages, it's that simple. Meredith is the most visible problem, but her power comes from the Chantry. I don't consider his actions terrorism in the least. The Chantry is a bigoted, oppressive institution and while Elthina may not have directly caused any mage to suffer, she allowed it to continue unabated. I felt that she deserved what she got.

My only issue with the situation is that Anders felt the need to lie to me despite the fact that we were in a romance and I'd consistently supported mages and expressed dislike for the Chantry throughout the entire game. But then it seems like no matter what you do, everyone suddenly turns retarded in Act 3 and decides you're working for Meredith, despite the mountains and mountains (and mountains) of evidence to the contrary.

[Plaintiff]

youngzman wrote...

Sammyjb wrote...

He was unjustified. He had no quarrel with the chantry, just the knight-commander and the templars. Blow up Meredith's base if you must.

Honestly, with that crapload of power that destroyed the Chantry, it would've made more sense to destroy Templar's Hall, sure it'd be harder due to every corridor having a squad of Templars, but it would've caused more unrest.
No Knight Commander= Chantry/Templar disorder. Disorder=Time. Time could've been used to unite the Circles. I'd rather die fighting than submit to become a martyr.

Meredith's base is the same building as the Gallows, where all the mages are kept. He would've killed not only her and all the templars, but also all the mages he was trying to free.

And Meredith's power comes from the Chantry. She has power over mages because The Chantry gave it to her. Killing Meredith merely scratches the surface. Ultimately, the Chantry is the real problem.

[tmp7704]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Zealots don't really believe in the concept of a noncombatant or innocent. Sides have been or must be chosen.

You can see that pretty well earlier in the game where he blows the fuse and nearly kills the mage girl he was just trying to protect, and does it simply because she's all like "stand back you scary freak" rather than "yay, dead templars!!1one".

[Wulfram]

Plaintiff wrote...

Meredith's base is the same building as the Gallows, where all the mages are kept. He would've killed not only her and all the templars, but also all the mages he was trying to free.

He did that anyway.

[TJPags]

So, what have we learned while I was sleeping?

1.  Mages aren't slaves.
2.  Tranquil mages aren't slaves.
3.  Meredith did indeed have the authority to invoke the Rite of Anullment.
4.  Codex entries aren't always completely accurate.

So, I guess that line of discussion is over, no? 

[darkmage84]

Foryou wrote...

Okay say what you will about Anders blowing up the Chantery, but was Anders Justified for what he did even if it was wrong. I mean is he justified for blowing up the chantery. Due to him thinking that it was the only way to solve the Mage Templar Problem.
To be honest I think he is justified I mean he thought that the end would justify the means. To add on he took complete responsiblity for his action and didn't put up a fight when he confessed to what he did. He was fine with being killed as well.

No because the ends doesn't justify the means.  His actions started a war that could free thousands of mages, but will likely result in tens of thousands of deaths