297 réponses à ce sujet

[stobie]

My problem with Anders isn't so much that he's a murderer. It's his goal. He's tried to create a situation, maybe successfully, where mages either win all or lose all. If they win, what then? Unless some Wynne type takes over (and she won't - in this scenario, she'd be dead fast) - there will be a hard line mage type gov't. This means Anders is busily creating a land where mages lead and have the power - which means Tevinter. In no way is that better for the whole, for everyone. It just switches the balance of power. If they lose, however, they're worse off than they are now - people like my nice little elf-mage Warden, who tried to help the circle AND every other group in Ferelden, are out. She wouldn't support a mage coup.

Anders says mages don't want to rule (ignoring all the mages we see that *do* want immense power & control over others.) His methods say he considers mages superior and that, not only should they have reasonable freedom, but that they should be free to do utterly as they please. A victory almost has to mean 'rule.' He doesn't want it personally, obviously, but that's his apparent world view.

If he wanted a better life for mages, more freedoms, the Circles to become more Hogwarts than Prison, he just shot that in the foot for a long time to come.

This is why my Hawke-rogue deleted herself & restarted with Fenris!

[Yellopranda]

stobie wrote...

My problem with Anders isn't so much that he's a murderer. It's his goal. He's tried to create a situation, maybe successfully, where mages either win all or lose all. If they win, what then? Unless some Wynne type takes over (and she won't - in this scenario, she'd be dead fast) - there will be a hard line mage type gov't. This means Anders is busily creating a land where mages lead and have the power - which means Tevinter. In no way is that better for the whole, for everyone. It just switches the balance of power. If they lose, however, they're worse off than they are now - people like my nice little elf-mage Warden, who tried to help the circle AND every other group in Ferelden, are out. She wouldn't support a mage coup.

Anders says mages don't want to rule (ignoring all the mages we see that *do* want immense power & control over others.) His methods say he considers mages superior and that, not only should they have reasonable freedom, but that they should be free to do utterly as they please. A victory almost has to mean 'rule.' He doesn't want it personally, obviously, but that's his apparent world view.

If he wanted a better life for mages, more freedoms, the Circles to become more Hogwarts than Prison, he just shot that in the foot for a long time to come.

This is why my Hawke-rogue deleted herself & restarted with Fenris!

An excellent point. Part of Ghandi's rationale as to why he didn't sieze the opportunity to free India forcefully from Britain in World War 2 when the british were busy elsewhere was that he was worried what kind of leaders a violent revolution would produce. Now things weren't exactly peaceful after India was freed, but it could have been worse. At least India and Pakistan didn't break into fullfledged war.

I think you are right. A violent revolution is much more likely to produce violent leaders.

[Rifneno]

stobie wrote...

My problem with Anders isn't so much that he's a murderer. It's his goal. He's tried to create a situation, maybe successfully, where mages either win all or lose all. If they win, what then? Unless some Wynne type takes over (and she won't - in this scenario, she'd be dead fast) - there will be a hard line mage type gov't. This means Anders is busily creating a land where mages lead and have the power - which means Tevinter. In no way is that better for the whole, for everyone. It just switches the balance of power. If they lose, however, they're worse off than they are now - people like my nice little elf-mage Warden, who tried to help the circle AND every other group in Ferelden, are out. She wouldn't support a mage coup.

Anders says mages don't want to rule (ignoring all the mages we see that *do* want immense power & control over others.) His methods say he considers mages superior and that, not only should they have reasonable freedom, but that they should be free to do utterly as they please. A victory almost has to mean 'rule.' He doesn't want it personally, obviously, but that's his apparent world view.

If he wanted a better life for mages, more freedoms, the Circles to become more Hogwarts than Prison, he just shot that in the foot for a long time to come.

This is why my Hawke-rogue deleted herself & restarted with Fenris!

You have no basis for claiming mages winning their freedom would mean Tevinter Imperium, and no basis for claiming he considers mages "superior."  Your own conjecture on how it would play out does not guarantee as such.  I guess you think the slave rebellions in Tevinter are a bad idea too?  They should just all peacefully ask their masters to be treated better while they're being sacrificed?

And FYI, Chantry bombs aside, Fenris is every bit as bad as Anders.  He's a complete extremist who absolutely will not budge on his views.

[stobie]

That seems to be the case, historically. And I'm afraid I'm a real life pacifist, so it's hard to go with the 'only war can fix stuff' mentality. I also hate the idea of such a huge decision made on my behalf (I tend to link myself to my elf mage-warden) - I would imagine she'd be horrified. First of all, I don't think she considered herself Mage Before Anything, however the game treated her. She was a person first, then woman, then elf, then mage. (one picks race & gender before class, after all!) So I believe she'd try to have the interests of all in mind, even if she recognized it's easier to see and understand those situations you know personally. Anders just goes against all of that - he doesn't seem to care about any group other than 'rebellious circle mages.' He doesn't care about Merrill's non-Chantry beliefs, nor Dalish mages, for instance. (who seem far better off, & much smarter, other than her mirror-focus.) He doesn't show empathy for a mundane slave, such as Fenris (and apparently even gives approval if you send Fenris back to his smarmy master - Anders lost +100 approval from ME there. (I do have my own inner system there - ya, you gave me 5 rivalry, pal? Here's what I think of YOU!")

[stobie]

Rifneno wrote...


You have no basis for claiming mages winning their freedom would mean Tevinter Imperium, and no basis for claiming he considers mages "superior."  Your own conjecture on how it would play out does not guarantee as such.  I guess you think the slave rebellions in Tevinter are a bad idea too?  They should just all peacefully ask their masters to be treated better while they're being sacrificed?

And FYI, Chantry bombs aside, Fenris is every bit as bad as Anders.  He's a complete extremist who absolutely will not budge on his views.

Other than the zinc-lipped mage who says this is exactly what she wants, you mean?  Fenris has strongly held beliefs.  He doesn't start a war over them.   'Chantry bombs aside' is cute & all, but that started a war, after killing a bunch of innocent people.  That makes Anders worse.  

Mages aren't slaves - they're not all treated as badly as those in Kirkwall.  Given Anders's treatment of non-mages, I have every reason to believe he does, in fact, consider them superior. 

[Yellopranda]

stobie wrote...

Mages aren't slaves - they're not all treated as badly as those in Kirkwall.

They're not slaves, but they are prisoners. In Kirkwall, badly treated prisoners and in the Ferelden circle, judging from my living quarters and freedom of movement within the tower, well-treated prisoners, but prisoners nonetheless.

[Toastedsnow]

I think you're reading too much into this mate. Sure, you can analyze the motives and the characters to death but I'll be lightning struck if BioWare created this game to make a political statement. In truth, there's very little moral choice here because both sides are on such extreme ends of the spectrum that they come back around to meet each other on the starting line. The moral choices in this game only come down to playing the game twice...or in this case, five times. Once to choose all the peace dialogue, once to choose all the angry dialogue, once to choose all the "witty" dialogue (although most of them make me want to cave in Hawke's skull with a length of lead pipe), and once to side with both mages and templars.
Speaking as one who's picked both sides, I found very little to tip the scales in either's favor - the little I did find was less based upon morals than it was upon personal interest. My warrior sided with the mages because I was curious whether I could loot Meredith's armor and my mage went with the templars in the (vain) hope of nicking Orsino's staff. The party I did side with both times around was the Chantry - "both sides make good points...but in the end it is the people who will suffer," a point that was blown to hell at the end of Act 3. Ironically enough, my mage was also the one who romanced Fenris. My warrior went with Merrill.

At the end of the day when the credits roll, this is all moot. I'm not sitting there wondering about the state of my moral compass and whether I need to go scourge myself in absolution or kowtow before an idol of Satan's mighty todger. I'm asking myself whether this game was interesting enough for me to keep or whether I should return it before the 10 days expire. And I expect that BioWare is happy to hear that this game falls into the former category - it kept me interested enough to amuse and also consider investing in a sequel should one appear. Exactly the same train of thought when I finished inFamous (ended up keeping that one too).

But then again, I'm one of those hopeless cases. Those unspeakable people who consider voting to be as idiotic as the little signs on matchboxes that say "Caution: May cause fire" and those spastic wankers who wear MoonShoes. One of the strange people you cross the street to avoid who really couldn't care less how many babies are aborted in the country as long as the doctor and abortees pay their taxes and don't commit any felonies. And one of those odd blokes who really wouldn't notice if the folks in Alabama or whatever bleeding state it is nailed their Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall because in the end...just words, nothing else.

Enjoy the game mate. Stab Anders for me, willyer?

[Rifneno]

stobie wrote...

That seems to be the case, historically. And I'm afraid I'm a real life pacifist, so it's hard to go with the 'only war can fix stuff' mentality.

Wait, hold the phone.  You're complaining because a character in a video game about fighting did something violent and that conflicts with your real world philosophy?  Do you realize how silly that is?  I'm not trying to crap on anyone's beliefs, but you can't go out and pick up a form of entertainment that directly conflicts with your beliefs and then complain.

I also hate the idea of such a huge decision made on my behalf (I tend to link myself to my elf mage-warden) - I would imagine she'd be horrified.

And yet, enough mages did agree that every single Circle rebelled.

Anders just goes against all of that - he doesn't seem to care about any group other than 'rebellious circle mages.'

And this seperates him from just about every other human being how?  Do you know why Michael J Fox does charity work for Parkinson's research and not, say, kids in Africa with TB?  Because he's not a kid in Africa with TB.  And that doesn't make him a bad person, it makes him a human being.  We empathize more with suffering that we ourselves have endured than similar levels of suffering that we know nothing about.

He doesn't show empathy for a mundane slave, such as Fenris (and apparently even gives approval if you send Fenris back to his smarmy master - Anders lost +100 approval from ME there. (I do have my own inner system there - ya, you gave me 5 rivalry, pal? Here's what I think of YOU!")

Fenris is a massive ass to him, of course he's not going to show empathy for him.  I hate my ex.  She was a rape victim at one point.  Does this mean that I don't care about rape, or that I think that one particular woman is a ****?  Congrats on your approval.  Anders gets +100 from me for doing what needed to be for a very long time.

stobie wrote...

Other than the zinc-lipped mage who says this is exactly what she wants, you mean?

Not going to pretend "zinc-lipped" makes any sense nor to know whom you're refering to, but it's a moot point.  Rendon Howe had the Couslands and their basic castle staff with minimal remaining guard butchered.  Rendon Howe has black hair.  Therefor, we shouldn't let people with black hair free.

Fenris has strongly held beliefs.  He doesn't start a war over them.   'Chantry bombs aside' is cute & all, but that started a war, after killing a bunch of innocent people.  That makes Anders worse. 

"Chantry bombs aside" was in direct response to your opening line: "My problem with Anders isn't so much that he's a murderer. It's his goal."  You said you're talking about his goal, not his methods.  What is Fenris' goal?  When Hawke tries to stop Meredith's completely uncalledfor Right of Annulment on a Circle that includes his sister, Fenris says "Don't do it.  These mages would become magisters if they could."

Mages aren't slaves - they're not all treated as badly as those in Kirkwall.  Given Anders's treatment of non-mages, I have every reason to believe he does, in fact, consider them superior. 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but don't expect people to take it seriously if you can't support it.  And by Anders' treatment of non-mages, you mean the countless lives he's saved by running a free clinic in a slum, thus putting his neck on the line for non-mages that he doesn't know and doesn't benefit him in any way?  Yeah, I didn't think so.  Lastly, I never said mages were slaves.  I compared it to a similarly just rebellion.

[Yellopranda]

Toastedsnow wrote...

I think you're reading too much into this mate. Sure, you can analyze the motives and the characters to death but I'll be lightning struck if BioWare created this game to make a political statement. In truth, there's very little moral choice here because both sides are on such extreme ends of the spectrum that they come back around to meet each other on the starting line. The moral choices in this game only come down to playing the game twice...or in this case, five times. Once to choose all the peace dialogue, once to choose all the angry dialogue, once to choose all the "witty" dialogue (although most of them make me want to cave in Hawke's skull with a length of lead pipe), and once to side with both mages and templars.
Speaking as one who's picked both sides, I found very little to tip the scales in either's favor - the little I did find was less based upon morals than it was upon personal interest. My warrior sided with the mages because I was curious whether I could loot Meredith's armor and my mage went with the templars in the (vain) hope of nicking Orsino's staff. The party I did side with both times around was the Chantry - "both sides make good points...but in the end it is the people who will suffer," a point that was blown to hell at the end of Act 3. Ironically enough, my mage was also the one who romanced Fenris. My warrior went with Merrill.

At the end of the day when the credits roll, this is all moot. I'm not sitting there wondering about the state of my moral compass and whether I need to go scourge myself in absolution or kowtow before an idol of Satan's mighty todger. I'm asking myself whether this game was interesting enough for me to keep or whether I should return it before the 10 days expire. And I expect that BioWare is happy to hear that this game falls into the former category - it kept me interested enough to amuse and also consider investing in a sequel should one appear. Exactly the same train of thought when I finished inFamous (ended up keeping that one too).

But then again, I'm one of those hopeless cases. Those unspeakable people who consider voting to be as idiotic as the little signs on matchboxes that say "Caution: May cause fire" and those spastic wankers who wear MoonShoes. One of the strange people you cross the street to avoid who really couldn't care less how many babies are aborted in the country as long as the doctor and abortees pay their taxes and don't commit any felonies. And one of those odd blokes who really wouldn't notice if the folks in Alabama or whatever bleeding state it is nailed their Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall because in the end...just words, nothing else.

Enjoy the game mate. Stab Anders for me, willyer?

Actually, my original post was more directed towards the people i've seen on this forum that seem to condone the actions of these characters, on the extreme end of the spectrum as you say (and i agree), than the characters themselves. I find the characters in DA2 to be enjoyable from a gameplay perspective. I was just suprised to see so many people agreeing with them. Not only within the context of the Dragon Age world, but generally agreeing based on their own values.

The discussion quickly left that behind though and for the last 8 pages or so we've been discussing the characters within the context of the Dragon Age world.

I don't have an issue with the characters behaving the way they do. It's a game after all. Extreme characters can be fun.

In my second playthrough i played a character who killed just for the fun of it or when someone annoyed me, constantly told my companions how useless they were and had sex with everyone (my favourite moment being when i told Anders how i loved him and that we would always be together or some such thing, then had sex with him and dumped him right afterwards).

I don't have a problem playing like that, it's the people who think that the actions of the aforementioned characters are justified that i take issue with.

It's gradually dawning on me though that i could probably have made that clearer. So thanks for your post. I think you made me realize that.

And you're hardly hopeless. I see a glimmer of wisdom in your attitude towards the signs on matchstick boxes that i think we can build upon

Also, sorry, but i can't stab Anders. I promised his girlfriend that i'd treat him better. (some posts up)

[Toastedsnow]

You're not supposed to break promises....? God dammit, is that what I've been doing wrong all this time?
And fine, then don't stab him. Crucify him. Everybody knows that crucifixion is better than stabbing (shameless Monty Python quip)

[StableZaner]

The mages that were commiting crimes and causing trouble wouldn't have listen to Elthina either way and their actions would still fuel the 'right' of the Templars to round them up.
I wonder though if Elthina were to directly tell Meredith to stand down, would Meredith take heed. I think she would, I can't picture her refusing a direct request.

But when Elthina was murdered by Anders, I believe personally that Meredith wasn't glad, of having now an opportunity to fully execute all the mages of Kirkwall. Whatever Meredith wanted, I doubt she wanted that.

[Steve236]

Id like to think this was all a simple misunderstanding.

[Alamar2078]

Yellopranda wrote...
Elthina; what can possibly be wrong with her? She's such a wise and gentle soul, always kind and caring. seemingly standing above the chaos and destruction in her own little part of heaven, untouched by the world's corruption. An angel watching over us. Except she doesn't do that, does she? She doesn't watch over anyone, she simply observes. She's someone with the power and influence to, possibly, prevent all that follows, yet she does nothing. That suggests to me one of three things, either she likes the way events are transpiring, she doesn't care or she's spineless. We should judge by actions, but remember that inaction is also a choice. While not stopping the falling axe isn't as bad as actually holding it, it's still bad.

In terms of Elthina I get the feeling that she is trying to do a lot behind the scenes but isn't getting anywhere.  I recently got to Act 3 again and she breaks up the initial confrontation nicely and even tells Meredith "to go back to her office like a good little girl".   Note Elthina indicates that she's going to meet with both of them later.  This isn't the action of someone that doesn't care, is spineless, etc. ....

My interpretation is that she is the right person but in the wrong position.  She believes at her core that she needs to get people to understand each other and not to "force" them to live with each other.   Her problem is that she holds this belief so closely that she is BLINDED by that fact that this situation NEEDS someone to use force to get this resolved with a minimum of bloodshed.  [Note caps used for emphasis .. not shouting]

Now while the GC may not be directly responsible she is the one person that could have and should have nipped this in the bud before things got this bad.  In terms of blame she still has tons of it ....

[Nimrodell]

As Kreya or Meredith or Anders in Awakening would say - Apathy is death. That's all I can say about Elthina.

[Alamar2078]

Nimrodell wrote...

As Kreya or Meredith or Anders in Awakening would say - Apathy is death. That's all I can say about Elthina.

Elthina isn't apathetic ... she does care and tries to actively talk people down.   The GC's great failing is taking those beliefs to the extreme and not taking the level of action that is required -- I.E. "talking" doesn't work on everyone.

[Sabariel]

Of course there's an excuse for murder: "They hit me first."

[Girl on a Rock]

Rifneno wrote...

Whew.  Had to head over to urban dictionary to see what "totes" meant.  Luckily one of the times I managed to get out without ending up curled up in the fetal position weeply openly.  Anyway, well put about the true believers.  That's how the Chantry got so bad.  =/  Unfortunately I'm not sure we'll see Par Vollen.  It's too strange a place for a simple DLC and I'm not sure how well a game based entirely around the qunari would be recieved.  Then again I never would've thought they'd give us something as incredible as the Primordial Thaig and then just write it off after the main character used it to get rich.

LOL! I'm glad you made it out alive! I think maaaybe we could see Par Vollen if they went back to a more DA:O style of traveling from place to place. I mean, granted, we never left Ferelden, but we did get to see Haven and Orzammar, which were pretty different culturally than the rest of the land. Maybe Par Vollen could just be a stop on the Northern Tour?  

And word, the Primordial Thaig was so gorgeous. It made me even madder at the rest of the game! 

Well darkspawn are interesting in their own way.  Maybe that's just because I don't believe the Chantry's story about Tevinter creating them from the Golden City.  They'd be a lot less interesting if their origins and nature were known.  The qunari are certainly interesting though, yes.  I'm not holding my breath on seeing Par Vollen but it would be nice if we could see some of the non-military ones.  Maybe not the aforementioned bard though.  Seeing a 9 foot tall horned giant singing isn't really on my to-do list.  

Oh, I'm not buying the Golden City line, either, but that's mostly because I apply my same beliefs about religion in the real world to the religions of Thedas: they're all trying to articulate some common Thing in very, very different languages. The darkspawn creep me out because they look like zombies and have rape camps to make themselves. Creeeeeeepy! 

Though dude, I can't say how much money I'd pay to see Sten of the Beresaad and the Arishok in an episode of Glee. I don't even like Glee, or musicals, and I'm saying. I'd pay to see it. !!!

[Girl on a Rock]

Yellopranda wrote...

Girl on a Rock wrote...

You say we should not judge the Arishok according to traditional western values, but then go on to judge the other characters discussed in this thread, by those same values. I wonder what special status you accord the Arishok that he should be the exception.

The same reason I try not to judge the actions of people who lived in ancient Rome or Greece or China by the same standards that I live by today - because removing something from its cultural and historical context will inevitably lead it to be deemed unworthy. By judging Qunari cullture and the Arishok from a Westernized ethnocentric purview will inevitably leave them wanting, because the Qun values different things than the West, particularly America. Whereas American culture - the one from which I think the writers of the game come, if I'm not mistaken - is a culture that values the individual above all else, there are other cultures that see that as selfish and corrupt. So if you're going to judge the Qun by the standard of how much individual freedom its followers have, it's going to fall short. If you judge the Qun by how happy its followers are, or how much good it does (how safe its followers are, how much peace its followers enjoy within their own lands, how content the populace is in general) you may find something quite different.

That's all fine and good, but that wasn't what i was asking. I wondered why the Arishok should not be judged according to western values, then go on (in your first post on this thread) to judge Meredith and Anders by what seems to me, at least, to be western values. I was curious about this inconsistency.

But I just said it - I think that the Arishok should be judged in the context of his own culture, or one like it, as opposed to Meredith and Anders, who are being judged in the context of their own culture, and one like it.

[Girl on a Rock]

Yellopranda wrote...

Girl on a Rock wrote...

You seem to say with regards to the Arishok that we should be tolerant. I find it interesting that the qunari culture is one of the most intolerant fictional cultures i've ever come across. To be tolerant of intolerance is not tolererance, in my book. If one accepts intolerance and do not oppose it, one becomes guilty, in much the same way Elthina was, of allowing it to spread unchecked.

You haven't seen any real evidence of this, other than the Arishok saying Kirkwall was a festering pit of corruption and foulness, which, hey, it kind of was/is. One can tolerate the Qunari's beliefs and the Arishok, and even respect them, without allowing them to cross the boundaries into interfering with the rights of others as more Western values perceive them. But that's going to lead to war. However, I don't think anybody needs to act like Fereldens or Kirkwallers have never gone to war for the sake of conquest, and probably with far less noble goals than the Arishok.

Well, as said other places in this thread, Sten says that the qunari aim to conquer all of Thedas. According to one of the codices; the last time the Qunari invaded, people in the conquered territories where give the option of either converting to the Qun, sent to prison camps or executed. Now i personally don't think that's much of a choice. When you're sent to prison camp or killed if you want to hold on to your religion then the only problem i see with using the word intolerant, is that it doesn't seem quite strong enough.

Also, haven't said that Fereldens or Kirkwallers are saints either. As many have pointed out Thedas isn't exactly Pleasantville.

I'm not saying that I want to go convert to the Qun, or even that Qunari practices are awesome - however, it doesn't make sense to me to condemn them for these behaviors when everybody in Thedas, pretty much, seems to engage in pretty awful behaviors in one way or another. I don't see how a culture that condones slavery (Tevinter) or feudal servitude (which basically equates to slavery, Orlais) or even the systematic oppression of certain classes or races of people (Dwaves, anywhere with an alienage) are all that much better. People die in wars all the time; often they're raped or otherwise brutalized in the process. The Qunari don't seem any worse than anyone else in that regard, to me. In fact, I'd probably rather be killed for not converting than gang raped to death for being on a farm that some thug in a uniform wanted to take over - or in an alienage that some lordling wanted to flex his will over. 

Just sayin'.

[Girl on a Rock]

Yellopranda wrote...

Girl on a Rock wrote...

Oh, come on. "Violence, war, subjugation, and forceful conversion"? That sounds a whole lot like the Chantry to me - except the Qun don't try to cover it up with the "loving mother" tripe that the Chantry tries to feed you. The Qunari are honest, and I respect that, too. You really don't know anything about the Arishok other than what you assume about him, and what you project onto him, and the same goes for your knowledge of the Qun - we're given very little information about the Qun and the Qunari, and you appear to have decided to fill in all the blanks with your own opinions and biases. Which is cool, and your right. I'm starting to think that not too much more will be accomplished by continuing this thread of conversation.

Yes, the chantry is guilty of that too, and i can't remember saying otherwise. I find it strange that you say "oh, come on", like i'm being totally hopeless, then go on to, it seems, to agree with what i say about the qunari, then say that: but so does the chantry, which isn't really a defense, but more of a condemnation (in my opinion) as the chantry are misguided religious zealots as well.

You say that the qunari are at least honest about it. I don't see how that helps. At least not for the victims.

You claim i know nothing about the qunari or the qun, and i'll readily admit that there's a lot i don't know. I do know something though, and what i've seen, i don't like. Still, i'd be willing to consider an argument that i should reserve judgement until i know more.

What's strange is that if we know nothing about the qunari and the qun, as you say, then you wouldn't have any basis for your respect of them either, which would make you just as biased as you say i am. Unless, of course, you claim to know more about them than i do.

Lastly, when it comes to the point of continuing this thread of conversation it may be best it we didn't. If i'm going to be accused of forming ill-informed opinions and being biased then this is no longer a healthy conversation. When people can't stand being disagreed with to such an extent that the personal attacks start, it's best to call it a day.

I am sorry for the undue snark in my tone, but it has seemed in your posts that you've missed the point of what I was saying several times; this may be because I wasn't clear or succinct enough. Either way, it wasn't my intention to personally attack you, I just find certain modes of debate to be kind of exasperating. I have no problem with you disagreeing with what I think, and in fact, I enjoy a good discussion. And I will admit that I tend to get touchy about topics related to culture because I think a lot of the time, people do tend to be very ethnocentric without even realizing they're doing it. It's not a matter of personal attack, it's just a matter of approach.

To say you know nothing about the Qunari and the Qun is a misstatement - however, both of us have highly limited knowledge of the subject, and we each have chosen to interpret that knowledge in different ways. At this point, if you want, we can leave it at that. Either way, again, I am sorry if you felt I personally attacked you, because that really wasn't my intent.

[stobie]

Rifneno wrote...


Wait, hold the phone.  You're complaining because a character in a video game about fighting did something violent and that conflicts with your real world philosophy?  Do you realize how silly that is?  I'm not trying to crap on anyone's beliefs, but you can't go out and pick up a form of entertainment that directly conflicts with your beliefs and then complain.
.

Ignoring all the other stuff, I was *not* 'complaining because a character did something violent.'  I'm saying I that I think Anders wanted a war. (maybe because he says he wants a war)   I don't find that sympathetic - he's removing choice from as many people as he possibly can - stuffing his world view onto the Wynnes & other such mages who might not want this - and who might very probably have an MLK solution in the works.  It's really rather offensive to have someone reinvent what I said, though.  So let's not.

Modifié par stobie, 13 avril 2011 - 05:25 .

[Joy Divison]

Yellopranda wrote...

I guess it's always good to properly define the terms and in what meaning they were used in any discussion so as to avoid confusion.

I used defend to mean support in the face of critisism.

Sympathize was used to describe an intellectual accord with the characters in question. (I guess i may have confused that by using the word sympathy in another meaning in my previous post. I used it then to describe a state where one shares the feelings of another person.)

Agree was used as in agreeing with an opinion/opinions.

I'd like to point out that i said mass-murderers, religious fanatics, dictators OR (not and) terrorists. I'm not saying all the characters i mentioned are all these things.

OK.

I don't think support  = defending X in the face of criticism.  It's easy to criticize the Germans for bad stuff in the First World War.  I find most of the critcisms overstated, a rehashment of British propaganda, or baseless when compared with their opponents and say so.  This does not mean I support the Germans, it means I am challenging simpisitic thinking. 

I also don't think an intellectual accord (an ambiguous phrase to begin with) is necessarily the same as sympathize (it also sounds like you mean empathize which is a much stronger term.  I've read the Communist Manifesto.  I understand its arguments.  I understand the logic of its arguments.  I understand why these arguments were made and what they were purported to solve.  That to me sounds a lot like an intellectual accord.  I also think the Communist Manifesto is a bunch on nonsense.

In your OP, you clearly inferred the Arishock was a militant mass murderer.  How many people did he murder?  Two?  The Viscount and an accomplice since he allowed one of his soldiers to break the neck of a whiney noble.  I also wouldn't characterize the Arishock as militant; he says as much and I agree with that assessment.  I am not saying he is someone I would invite to dinner, but to suggest he was not provoked to act as he did does not strike me as being fair or observant.

While I do not necessarily agree or condone the actions of the people you listed, I do believe a logical argument/defense can be made for all of them. 

Kirkwall very much had a blood mage problem, mages who were conspiring to overthrow the Knight-Commander which is clear treason, a First Enchanter who practiced blood magic, and a mage who blew up the chantry (undoubtedly an unprecedented occurrence).  If there ever was a place and time for the Rtie of Anullment to be implemented, it was right there and then.

The Arishock made no miltiary, cultural, or economic advances or even threats for 4 years but was repaid in kind with Kirkwall fanatics who stole their technology, murder his people, incite hatred, and were complicit in stealing a holy artifact.  Wars have started over fewer and lesser offenses.

Anders has a typical revolutionary profile.  Educated, membership or storng identification with a group that feels itself wrongfully oppressed, belief that dynamic action has power to alter history, and an uncompromising agenda.  Aside from the fact he is an abomination, there really isn't anything unusual about him that I don't see when reading about France in 1789 or Russia in 1917.  To deny there is a coherence and logic to his actions is to ignore the many people in history who have believed as he does.

Elthina is a weak leader who believes she can play both sides of the fence and assuage radicals and prevent violence.  Again, her profile is a dime a dozen in history, whether Catherine de' Medici in 16th century France or Neville Chamberlain in 1938.  Peace and the attempt to relax tensions is an admirable goal; it just that it is not always possible.  And it's not easy to know when exactly a line in the sand has been crossed.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 13 avril 2011 - 05:47 .

[stobie]

I just thought Anders was modeled on Che Guevara, down to the charm. Maybe a little John Brown. Depending on what you think of their cause, & whether or not you think the right result required war, they're either hero or villain. Making Anders possessed was something of an out (though I keep feeling sorry for Justice, who I rather liked in Awakening.) The thing is, with his choice, he removes choice for a lot of people, who might have gotten the same place without the bloodshed (including the old GC)

I'm not sure why Justice is pinned on mages - other than that he resides in Anders. He should be equally appalled by the casteless dwarves, elves, poor people - anything of that sort. (It might be an interesting twist if he was rotten all along & thought, 'ah, here's a live one!' upon meeting Anders - but I liked him too much to want to think that.)

The Arishok seemed to see a mess, & finally decide to clean it up, Qunari style. I wouldn't want to live under their rules - but he doesn't seem like a villain to me, either. A lot of people, though, in this game, are pushed to extremes. I don't imagine he landed thinking to take over - he was pushed to it by another fanatic. Fanatics seem to be shoving each other all over the place (including these forums) in want of power & control, I suppose. I notice that his dialogue gets more and more fanatic, culminating in crazy-Qun-talk during your fight. (where I reveal my crazy-hawke-powers to consider being totally impaled a mere flesh wound)

The neat thing about Hawke, for me, is that she's trying to make sense of things, be fair, keep her crazy companions safe, while trying to understand them. (and being thankful for the relative sanity of Varrick & Isabella.) I think at the end she'd be, like Varrick, very sick of both templars & mages. Granted, you can play Hawke as a fanatic, too, but the poignancy of the game, to me, was trying to stem a tide of madness. Maybe with rival romanced Merrill, & friend-romanced Fenris, Hawke would make a little progress - otherwise, it's just a person caught in a tide of insanity.

Maybe that's what Hawke's apparent idol-reistance meant - a person less apt to crazy. I guess that works.

[Taritu]

Just a quick aside. In most western democracies, almost all of the demands of the Communist manifesto have been met.

A little less crazy than most people think, and if you lived in the conditions of most of the lower class in the Victorian era, odds are pretty high you'd think it was a great idea. It's easy to say "it all worked out" and ignore that entire generations lived and died while it was being worked out and that working it out included a ton of violence on both sides.

Oh, and my favorite Marx quote?  "I am not a Marxist".

As for the Circle, what is clear is that the more Meredith cracks down, the more mages turn to blood magic. She is clearly causing much of her own problem. I believe Nietzche said it best, "those who fight monsters, in so doing, often become monsters themselves." That's Meredith.

Perhaps Kirkwall had an out of control problem, but until you can Meredith and put someone who isn't making it worse in charge, then see if you've still got a problem, you don't know if the problem is substantially Meredith or if the mages really are out of control.  I might turn to blood magic too, if I saw my friends being turned Tranquil for petty reasons and feared I might be next.

Modifié par Taritu, 13 avril 2011 - 06:26 .

[stobie]

That's a good twist, I thought - a lot of the problems people face are caused by their own actions, situations made worse by what they do. I like that - it gets around the One Super Villain, and makes it all the more real. That quote could apply even to the Arishok - pretty good!