297 réponses à ce sujet

[Girl on a Rock]

[quote]Rifneno wrote...

Very true.  Though I can't imagine what the purpose would be unless there was war with the qunari and the PC is taking it to their homeland.  Then again I can't imagine how Orsino goes harvester for no particular reason, so what do I know?

[/quote]

Word! LOLOL I was like, really, Orsino? REALLY???

[quote]

I bet it tastes like chicken.  ... 

[/quote]

It looks like caaandy... sweet, sweet crazy candy... >.>

[quote]I haven't the slightest idea what the red and blue lyrium is about.  The bits we saw in DAO were always red (well the raw lyrium, not potions) but now...  Then again it's possible one of those isn't lyrium at all.  We're just assuming that's what those veins on the walls are.[/quote]

Well, in DA:O, in the Fade the lyrium was that pretty cyan color - but then again, that was the Fade, who can trust it? IT'S ALL LIES. But that's another thing, lyrium does provide a link to the Fade, which is full of dreams and spirits and all kinds of strangeness... I have no idea where I'm going with this. LOLOL.

[quote]

Ahh, I do love overanalyzing these things.  That's one nice thing DA2 gives us.  DAO left us woefully short on puzzles we can't complete, had to go to ME for some reaper speculation for that.  Now we've got dozens of loose ends.   [/quote]

Isn't that why we're here? To overanalyze things?  Otherwise I'm at the wrong party... >.> You know, I never played ME the First, so all the "writers didn't know what the reapers were" stuff goes right over my head. Esplain plz?  

[quote]

It really doesn't make any sense all-round.  If the Wardens were the only ones who knew, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot (with a MIRV missile I might add) if they didn't warn at least the dwarves about it.  Stopping women from getting abducted should be the absolute top priority.  

[/quote]

Seriously. I know it brings up the old sexism issue, but there is always the off chance that any warrior, no matter how awesome and mighty, can have a bad day. If it's a dude, he's lunch. If it's a lady, it's so, so much worse. And on top of that, you become a darkspawn makin' machine. The Wardens should be shouting that stuff from the rooftops, or at least to any military force that goes within a mile of a darkspawn sighting.


[quote]

Tentatively, the qunaris may not take well to meeting something bigger and uglier than they are.

[/quote]

You know LOLOL I kind of think the Qunari and the elcor would get along. But maybe that's just the sick nutjob in me that now wants a Qunari/elcor sitcom. LOLOL. Oh man, I need to stop. 

[quote]
[quote]
Now this is an interesting point. I generally agree with you, but I recently got into a really long discussion with a good friend that spilled over into another relatively long discussion about personal freedom versus the good of the community. It was her argument that advocating for the individual above all else - personal freedom - undermines the larger goals of equality and social justice for the community/state/nation at large, because the individual will inevitably put his or her own goals above and ahead of the good of the many. Now, I definitely took the opposite tack, but she made some really thoughtful and interesting points.[/quote]

It begins a slippery slope though.  When one group of people loses some of their freedoms it sets a precedent which almost inevitably will be used to restrict others.  ....  I don't know why I'm adding to this.  I can't help myself.   [/quote]

Because you're a troublemaker!  

And because I am as well, just to play devil's advocate, you could also say it's a slippery slope that if you value personal freedom above all else, it leads to a society where the weak are killed and eaten, and abuses are piled upon them; those in power stay in power, and those that could threaten that power or are of no use to it are oppressed and treated as underclasses, if not casually abused and/or killed. >.>

Just sayin'. LOLOL oh man WHY DO I DO THIS THING.

[quote]
[quote]
I'm not entirely clear that the Qunari don't value human rights - we haven't heard any stories of Qunari using torture or wantonly raping/pillaging. I'm not clear on the role of women in their society other than that they can't be warriors, which is not that cool, but I can't really gauge much else.
[/quote]

It's possible that qunari women are more different from men that they simply aren't viable as warriors.  With humans the variance between the sexes isn't all that much but with a few species it is.  For example, bald eagles.  Those massive majestic ones you always see pictures of?  All females.  The male of the species is a scrawny little thing by comparison.  Though I doubt this is the case with qunari since Sten's list of which gender gets which job doesn't indicate a significant physical difference.  Women can be blacksmiths or farmers, very physically demanding jobs.

[/quote]

Maybe the Qunari are onto the whole broodmother thing? Hahaha, no, no, they don't even know about the Blight. But clearly there are kossith broodmothers, since there are ogres. I'm curious to hear the justification/rationalization.

[quote]As for wanton raping and pillaging, the Tal-Vashoth do their share of pillaging.  And humans are an exception that proves the rule when it comes to sex.  Very few species do it for anything other than reproduction.  Though psychologists often say rape is about power, but even if that's true (I take pretty much everything psychologists say with a grain of salt) then I doubt a qunari in human lands needs to resort to... that to feel power over another.[/quote]

Ah, but the Tal-Vashoth aren't Qunari, they're just kossith. They're a whole different kettle of fish, because the principles of the Qun don't apply to them (or they've rejected them). It's true that in the game we haven't seen sexual assault perpetrated by anyone but humans (well, and the darkspawn - eugh), if I recall correctly.

BUT, rape is about power, generally speaking. Sexual desire can be satisfied any number of places pretty easily - there's no need to rape somebody to get satisfaction. Sexual conquest has long been a way for one person to lay claim to another, and this methodology still exists in many cultures. It's a means of control, a means of asserting physical and/or emotional superiority - it's pretty complicated, though, and not really the most joyous of topics, so I'll leave it alone...

[stobie]

And here's an image no one needs, but animals do, in fact, rape for power & domination. Bunnies, for instance, are among the worst.

There - that's my grim thought for the day.  (just to say that many, many animal species use sex for reasons other than reproduction.  Primates do as well.  Horses do. FEMALES of various species, including dogs, do this, to show dominance, &  not because they think some other is cute.)

No, this image isn't bad enough. Allow me to add that female cows (I guess that's redundant) do this, & it's not a pretty sight.

Modifié par stobie, 13 avril 2011 - 10:49 .

[Girl on a Rock]

stobie wrote...

And here's an image no one needs, but animals do, in fact, rape for power & domination. Bunnies, for instance, are among the worst.

There - that's my grim thought for the day.  (just to say that many, many animal species use sex for reasons other than reproduction.  Primates do as well.  Horses do. FEMALES of various species, including dogs, do this, to show dominance, &  not because they think some other is cute.)

No, this image isn't bad enough. Allow me to add that female cows (I guess that's redundant) do this, & it's not a pretty sight.

You are so right, and I completely forgot about that. LOLOL I knew this. Dolphins have sex for fun, completely. Chimps have gay sex, and so do ducks and dolphins, I hear, which clearly is not reproductive. A dog will totally hump another dog of the same gender to show him who's boss.

Also, I knew about the bunnies. Particularly why if a boy bunny and a girl bunny have some baby bunnies, the daddy bunny needs to be taken out of the space where the babies are being kept because of the horrible, horrible things he'll do.

Good call, stobie.



Edited to add: Cows? Really? Eugh...

Modifié par Girl on a Rock, 13 avril 2011 - 10:59 .

[Alamar2078]

FYI: You can't excuse murder per-se. Then again definitions of "justifiable homicide" may make something that seems like a murder not a murder.

In this particular game it seems like virtually everyone has a lot of blame for what happens.

Isabella saved her own skin and got hundreds of people killed indirectly but predicatbly. The political uncertainty that caused helped hasten the Templar vs. Mage wars. Arishock in modern day terms is a religious fanatic who is leading a crusade to find his holy relic and to "educate" the populace about the one true way to live. I'm sure you can go on & on & on ....

[Camenae]

Uhhhh, what are we talking about now? O_o

[Alamar2078]

Camenae wrote...

Uhhhh, what are we talking about now? O_o

I assume the thread topic of Murder can not be forgiven, cultural relativism, etc. ... or was that rhetorical??

[Yellopranda]

@ Girl on a Rock and Rifneno

Since you discussed qunari women. Seems to me the separation of tasks applies to the individual as much as gender, but i've read that even should one individual show great apptitude for something he/she will still not be given tasks suited to those talents, but ones that the qunari think that a person of that gender should perform. So the qunari must have quite specific ideas on men and women seeing as that kind of thinking seemingly goes against their philosophy in that it's wasteful.

We may be unhappy that women aren't allowed to be soldiers, but they hold all administrative tasks tho, which men aren't allowed to do. And being the Tamassrans they raise, educate and decide what all qunari do with their lives. David Gaider says that to an outsider it might seem like female qunari rule their society, but that the qunari don't quite look on ruleship (as he calls it. Is that a word?) the same way.

And rifneno. They don't look scrawny to me 

img196.imageshack.us/i/femqunari.jpg/sr=1

And a thread here that contains a lot of information. with lotsa replies from Mary Kirby (who wrote Sten among other things) and David Gaider. You may have read it already, but i'm posting it anyway

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/3308675/1&lf=8

[Camenae]

Alamar2078 wrote...

Camenae wrote...

Uhhhh, what are we talking about now? O_o

I assume the thread topic of Murder can not be forgiven, cultural relativism, etc. ... or was that rhetorical??

Yeah it was a rhetorical question, but it was referring to the tangent that the thread went down right before my post.

[Alamar2078]

Camenae wrote...

Alamar2078 wrote...

Camenae wrote...

Uhhhh, what are we talking about now? O_o

I assume the thread topic of Murder can not be forgiven, cultural relativism, etc. ... or was that rhetorical??

Yeah it was a rhetorical question, but it was referring to the tangent that the thread went down right before my post.

Nevermind ... I thought you were referring to my post

[Yellopranda]

Camenae wrote...

Uhhhh, what are we talking about now? O_o

If you're talking about what we've been talking about lately it seems like we're a little off-topic

[Yellopranda]

Alamar2078 wrote...

FYI: You can't excuse murder per-se. Then again definitions of "justifiable homicide" may make something that seems like a murder not a murder.

In this particular game it seems like virtually everyone has a lot of blame for what happens.

Isabella saved her own skin and got hundreds of people killed indirectly but predicatbly. The political uncertainty that caused helped hasten the Templar vs. Mage wars. Arishock in modern day terms is a religious fanatic who is leading a crusade to find his holy relic and to "educate" the populace about the one true way to live. I'm sure you can go on & on & on ....

Yeah. there's a lot of blame to go around. I just brought up some of the worst offenders, (in my opinion
obviously, since so many seem to disagree with me[smilie]../../../../images/forum/emoticons/smile.png[/smilie]) that i saw people sympathize with. Don't take that to mean however, that no one else in the game has ever done a bad thing.

When i say murder i don't mean just killing someone. Some people (don't think that goes for you, Alamar) seem to think that they're one and the same. I agree with you though, what exactly constitutes a murder, may in some cases be quite difficult to determine.

Edit: corrected spellink

Modifié par Yellopranda, 13 avril 2011 - 11:39 .

[Urazz]

Wulfram wrote...

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.

Or she's taking sensible action behind the scenes working for compromise rather than pointlessly provoking a war by backing Meredith into a corner.

Elthina didn't have to do that really though.  She didn't even have to support the mages.  She could've went against Meredith with the reasoning that she's causing things to get worse with her more extreme actions and could cause a Right of Annulment to be called if things degrade even more.

All Elthina had to do was have Meredith stop her more extreme measures and clean house of the more corrupt templars like Alrik in Acts 1 and 2.  In Act 3, she could told her to step down from ruling Kirkwall and let a new Viscount get elected.

I'm not saying Elthina deserved to die but she clearly wasn't doing all that she could do to prevent the situation.  It was the same in Act 2 with the Qunari.  She could've easily stopped Petrice and stop things from escalating as fast as they did.

Modifié par Urazz, 13 avril 2011 - 11:35 .

[Alamar2078]

As for the GC there's enough evidence as early as Act 1 [IIRC] that should have caused the GC to have been more proactive in changing how things were going. The GC's inability to go beyond her personal beliefs and do what had to be done led everyone on this course.

[Camenae]

It's not ALL on Elthina, but I do think the course of, uh, action, that she chose contributed to the negative spiral.

[Alamar2078]

Hmmm .. Did the Chantry know for sure that the veil was thin around Kirkwall??? If so how responsible is the Chantry for putting a Mage Circle in the "demon ground zero" of Thedas??? With more corrupting forces available it should have been forseeable that the Templars would try to crack down which would lead to more problems and a runaway escalation of events ....

Modifié par Alamar2078, 13 avril 2011 - 11:45 .

[Girl on a Rock]

Camenae wrote...

Uhhhh, what are we talking about now? O_o

Well, we kind of went to the "why do you defend the Arishok" thread and then from there jumped to "the Qunari have different cultural standards than Kirkwallers and Fereldens" to how some people just back up the Arishok because Qunari are badass and all their bad behavior is excused because they have to follow the Qun to how darkspawn are also kind of badass and have to follow the Archdemon, but they're creepy because of broodmothers, and that led, ultimately, to bunny rape.

So you see?  Not that tangential at all... >.>

[Girl on a Rock]

Yellopranda wrote...

@ Girl on a Rock and Rifneno

Since you discussed qunari women. Seems to me the separation of tasks applies to the individual as much as gender, but i've read that even should one individual show great apptitude for something he/she will still not be given tasks suited to those talents, but ones that the qunari think that a person of that gender should perform. So the qunari must have quite specific ideas on men and women seeing as that kind of thinking seemingly goes against their philosophy in that it's wasteful.

We may be unhappy that women aren't allowed to be soldiers, but they hold all administrative tasks tho, which men aren't allowed to do. And being the Tamassrans they raise, educate and decide what all qunari do with their lives. David Gaider says that to an outsider it might seem like female qunari rule their society, but that the qunari don't quite look on ruleship (as he calls it. Is that a word?) the same way.

And rifneno. They don't look scrawny to me 

img196.imageshack.us/i/femqunari.jpg/sr=1

And a thread here that contains a lot of information. with lotsa replies from Mary Kirby (who wrote Sten among other things) and David Gaider. You may have read it already, but i'm posting it anyway

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/3308675/1&lf=8

Yellopranda, this link to the Qunari thread has made me so, so, so, so happy. There are no words to describe my joy. Thank you! 

[Rifneno]

[quote]Girl on a Rock wrote...

Word! LOLOL I was like, really, Orsino? REALLY???
[/quote]

I still think the best way to handle things, since they're obviously dead set of making Hawke fight both Orsino and Meredith, would've been to have the final battle be a three-way battle.  =/

[quote]

It looks like caaandy... sweet, sweet crazy candy... >.>
[/quote]

Like pot brownies, except with evil!

[quote]
Well, in DA:O, in the Fade the lyrium was that pretty cyan color - but then again, that was the Fade, who can trust it? IT'S ALL LIES. But that's another thing, lyrium does provide a link to the Fade, which is full of dreams and spirits and all kinds of strangeness... I have no idea where I'm going with this. LOLOL.

[/quote]

None of us have any idea where we're going with lyrium theories hehe.  They gave us 250 pieces of a 500 piece puzzle.

[quote]
Isn't that why we're here? To overanalyze things?  Otherwise I'm at the wrong party... >.> You know, I never played ME the First, so all the "writers didn't know what the reapers were" stuff goes right over my head. Esplain plz?  
[/quote]

Writers didn't know?  I just meant we didn't know.  When the game ends, very little is known about the reapers except that they come around every 50,000 years and invoke the Right of Annulment.  Questions like "where did they come from/who built them?" and "what are they doing this for?" were left in everyone's minds.  The latter still hasn't been fully addressed I don't think.  The people milkshake thing is scary and all, but they could attain that end through much easier means.

[quote]

Seriously. I know it brings up the old sexism issue, but there is always the off chance that any warrior, no matter how awesome and mighty, can have a bad day. If it's a dude, he's lunch. If it's a lady, it's so, so much worse. And on top of that, you become a darkspawn makin' machine. The Wardens should be shouting that stuff from the rooftops, or at least to any military force that goes within a mile of a darkspawn sighting. 
[/quote]

Exactly my thoughts.  I don't get it.  Hmm.  I wonder if the qunari have any idea.  They might start their own campaign against the darkspawn if they knew what ogres were.

[quote]

You know LOLOL I kind of think the Qunari and the elcor would get along. But maybe that's just the sick nutjob in me that now wants a Qunari/elcor sitcom. LOLOL. Oh man, I need to stop.[/quote]

I can see that.  Like how Sten and Shale got along so well.  Ahh Shale...  she'd be the perfect character if not for the bird hate.  

[quote]
Because you're a troublemaker!  

And because I am as well, just to play devil's advocate, you could also say it's a slippery slope that if you value personal freedom above all else, it leads to a society where the weak are killed and eaten, and abuses are piled upon them; those in power stay in power, and those that could threaten that power or are of no use to it are oppressed and treated as underclasses, if not casually abused and/or killed. >.>

Just sayin'. LOLOL oh man WHY DO I DO THIS THING.[/quote]

Hmm.  That's one way to look at it.  I've always looked at it more as "equality vs public safety" rather than "personal freedom vs public safety."  Equality wouldn't lead to the same problems provided law and order is kept.

[quote]stobie wrote...

....
[/quote]

Oh God.  My brain is on fire!

[quote]Girl on a Rock wrote...

Also, I knew about the bunnies. Particularly why if a boy bunny and a girl bunny have some baby bunnies, the daddy bunny needs to be taken out of the space where the babies are being kept because of the horrible, horrible things he'll do.

[/quote]

Very likely, yes.  I had some guinea pigs when I was a kid and wound up having to get a seperate cage for each gender after the 2nd generation of the poor little inbred fluffballs.

[quote]Camenae wrote...

Uhhhh, what are we talking about now? O_o[/quote]

Yeah, this thread has kind of derailed.  Into a wall.  I'm not complaining though, it's much more enjoyable than the usual debates.

[quote]Girl on a Rock wrote...
Yellopranda, this link to the Qunari thread has made me so, so, so, so happy. There are no words to describe my joy. Thank you! 

[/quote]

Really?  Wow, and I thought my life was boring.  

Modifié par Rifneno, 14 avril 2011 - 01:17 .

[stobie]

Girl on a Rock wrote...

stobie wrote...

And here's an image no one needs, but animals do, in fact, rape for power & domination. Bunnies, for instance, are among the worst.

There - that's my grim thought for the day.  (just to say that many, many animal species use sex for reasons other than reproduction.  Primates do as well.  Horses do. FEMALES of various species, including dogs, do this, to show dominance, &  not because they think some other is cute.)

No, this image isn't bad enough. Allow me to add that female cows (I guess that's redundant) do this, & it's not a pretty sight.

You are so right, and I completely forgot about that. LOLOL I knew this. Dolphins have sex for fun, completely. Chimps have gay sex, and so do ducks and dolphins, I hear, which clearly is not reproductive. A dog will totally hump another dog of the same gender to show him who's boss.

Also, I knew about the bunnies. Particularly why if a boy bunny and a girl bunny have some baby bunnies, the daddy bunny needs to be taken out of the space where the babies are being kept because of the horrible, horrible things he'll do.

Good call, stobie.



Edited to add: Cows? Really? Eugh...

Ya, sorry.  That was generally foul.  But indeed, in a natural-setting herd, horses will also form same sex bonds, where - for instance - the males will exhibit female 'come hither' motions. (we shall not go further than that)

I completely forget the point, other than to say humans aren't as unique as we'd perhaps like to think - and as for sex, we may be a bit tame.   Emotional bonds between animals can be incredibly touching, too, so as to point out that side, too!

And... yup, it's my duty to bring such info here!  Done & done!

[Joy Divison]

Yellopranda wrote...

You seem to say, and please correct me if i'm wrong, that a word or concept can only have one distinct meaning, and that i should be using your definition. Sadly, language is such an imperfect tool that words, phrases and sentences can have many differing interpretations, depending on prevailing language norms, the characteristics of users and the situation in which they occured.

Defend, for instance, can be used to mean several things. In the famous debate between Bertrand Russell and Father Copelston in 1948 on the existence of God a significant portion of the debate was dedicated to arriving at definitions of the concepts discussed that both could agree on. The aim was not to establish definite definitions of these concepts, but rather to ensure a productive debate and that they would be discussing the same things so as to avoid pseudoagreement or pseudodisagreement.

As such, my definition of, say, defend, was not meant to be  an absolute definition of the word, but rather an explanation of the way in which i used it, so as to better help you understand my meaning. Defend, after all, can mean many things, such as defend against an attack, to act as an attorney, or defend a title in a sport. I guess i could have included definitions of all the words i used in my OP, but then it would have become more of a doctoral thesis than a post in a game forum. If i am to write a doctoral thesis i'd like it to be something a little more worthwhile.

Now on to some other points you made. I think our definitions of accord must be different, and if so, we're arguing at cross purposes. To me an accord is being in agreement. You may be thinking of the verb, which can mean something else entirely. Intellectual accord is to me not ambiguous at all. If you like me to explain my definition of intellectual accord you can take it to mean "to agree with, intellectually". I hope that is less ambiguous to you.

I think you may have meant that i implied that the Arishok was a militant mass murderer, not inferred, unless our understanding of those words are different as well, but that's beside the point i guess. As for the Arishok killing people, i hold him responsible for all the deaths he caused during the war, not just those he personally killed, as he was the commander of the qunari. When it comes to calling him militant, one could say he is militant in two meanings of the word, warlike or engaged in warfare and having an aggressive, combative attitude.

The Arishok was provoked, but by people like Isabela and rogue elements within the Chantry. To punish an entire city for the actions of a few is not only cruel and unusual, but illogical. To say that wars have started over fewer and lesser offences is not really a defense. That says more about those wars than it is a justification for this one.

Sure. Anders is not unique from a historical perspective. I'm not sure how that defends his actions however. Because other people have done things just as bad doesn't make Anders' actions any better. It's interesting that you should bring up the french and russian revolutions. The first one turned into the Reign of Terror until a totalitarian general proclaimed himself emperor and brought much of Europe into a very destructive war, while the second one wasn't exactly bloodless, and in the years that followed millions of people would die in the siberian gulags. If what Anders did sets off something that follows these historical patterns then one could argue that he has caused untold violence and suffering, but that remains to see of course.

I find the comparison of Elthina to Neville Chamberlain to be an apt one.

That's actually a poignant response.  I have been trained, mostly because I am writing a doctoral thesis but also because I have become increasingly persuaded as I have gotten older, that words do in fact have power and meanings beyond their dictionary definitions.  This is why Russell-Copelston felt it important to agree on diction.  This does not mean I believe they hold one absolute definition, but I do think the choice to use them have meanings beyond randomly picking one from a list shift-F7.  Words such as terrorist, militant mass murderer, and dictators are pregnant with implications.  If your use of them was intended to spark a response from people you knew would object, then well played.  I am not one of those people who object to calling a spade a spade, but I do not think any of the four characters in the game fit in quite as nicely to those politicized simplisitic characterizations, hence my response.

I am not defending Anders, merely pointing out because there is a logic and coherence to his actions that have been shared by so many would be revolutionaries, that your assertion "it suprises me to see so many people defend, sympathize and even agree with" is astounding.  By making such a statement, you are either refusing to acknowledge that perspectives you do not hold are somehow valid or are unaware just how many people did and do not share your perspectives.  As "so many people defend, sympathize and even agree with what are obviously mass-murderers, religious fanatics, dictators or terrorists," perhaps it is not obvious that Anders, the Arishock, Elthina, and Meredith are mass-murders, religious fanatics, dictators or terrorists.  In your mind, maybe they are.  But do you hold that there is some Platonic truth that is irrefutably true and that everyone should abide by your conceptions?  In your OP, that is what is sounded like you were saying.

Eric Hobsbawm, probably one of the most talented historians of the 20th century and someone probably more intelligent than you and I combined, was a dedicated Marxist and was once asked on national television if Stalin, the purges, and the Gulag system which killed some 20 million would have been justified if the Soviet experiment to create a Communist utopia succeeded, Hobsbawn paused for just a second and unequivocally replied, "yes."

You and undoubtedly others may hold the Arishock responsible for all the deaths "he caused."  He?  I have never been sympathetic to the argument that history unfolds because of the actions of a "great man" or that a "great man" is somehow responsible for it.  With the theft, murder, slander, and sacrilege committed against the Qunari after 4 years as ideal tenants, that to me is a casus belli considering Thedas is not 21st century Earth with its UN and Geneva Conventions.  Whether what happened to Kirwall was cruel, it was most certainly not unusual as it's story is a dime a dozen in the pages of history and being illogical in your opinion does not necessary make it so.  Saying there have been other wars like it is, again, not a defense, but an acknowledgment that your assessment that is was unusual or a case of mass murder is overly reductionist and lacks context.



 

Modifié par Joy Divison, 14 avril 2011 - 03:47 .

[Blastaz]

I for one was deeply unhappy with the options you had to combat the Arishock.

I had friended Isabella and got the relic so she ran back and gave him the book in the final confrontation. His response was right, I'm taking you and then I'm off, bye. The options you were allowed were "see you" and "no you can't have my Isabella you must duel me for her." The option I wanted was you have declared war on Kirkwall, slain its townfolk, burnt its buildings and desecrated the body of its ruler, now Orsino, Meredith and I are here to give you that war, queue epic battle with allies on both sides. All that happened was I killed him and the rest of the Quarani left. There was no sense of retribution for the random violence the Quarni had unleased.

The Arishock just sat on his arse for three years in the docks. He never tried to find the book. He never asked you, or anyone else, to help him. Then when he got tired of the bland colour pallete of the docks he just went schitzo. His boredom and inaction were no excuse for his declaration of war. The tensions between Quarni and Kirwall were the result of him sitting with an army on its doorstep for three years being enigmatic about its purpose. His incompetence and provocation really justified a whole higher level of arse kicking than you were allowed to bring. And the random guy in hightown expecting you to bring him his swords back for free 'because it is a worthy task' really deserved the murder knife, if it's a worthy task then shouldn't you be doing it youself?

Modifié par Blastaz, 14 avril 2011 - 11:28 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

You know you can refuse to duel him, right? Then the fight you wanted starts.

[Crow_22]

Well, to the question(s) that started all this. The tension that the Chantry instilled with the mages by locking them up with Templars without any representation, or lack thereof, shows that it would break eventually. It's like the French Revolution, people were pushed around, treated unfairly, and were taken advantage of. It's not surprising to see mages attack the Templars, and Anders has seen the worst of it. He's not backed by religious ambition, he's backed and driven by his desire to see a independent mage soceity, one where mages are not restricted severely like they are currently.

I do disagree strongly with what Anders did, and although I couldn't bring myself to kill him.... That won't stop anyone else and I wouldn't stop anyone else from killing him, it was his choice and he even accepted his fate if he had to die, he was willing to pay the ultimate price TO ensure the future of mages, but instead he created one that will probably end in slavery. And if anyone joined the Templars, the Massacure in Kirikwall will push any other mages and apostates to sheer revolution and war will break out. Chantry will try to regain control, thus begins a mass genocide.

Do I think Murder is right? Senseless without cause murder yes. A solider defending his home, a man protecting his family, and a father protecting that which he loves? No, I don't think that is condemnable. And I think you should try to avoid Murder if you can.... Killing is something that I would hate to do, but I would do it if it meant to protect people I love.

And as for Isabella, she truly regreted what she did (Thanks to your handiwork xD) and comes back. That intself is couragous, and admirable. She stole it yes, and she regreted it, but I think it's debateable to say she deserved any fate the Arishok had in store for her.

And I hate to say it.... But reason could not be found with him. He was the awfulest face religion could have, and I'm a good Christian person, I disagree very strongely with what he stood for. He was, however, like any citizen from North Korea, or China. Qunari knows only the Qun, and that's what they choose to believe because they want to follow something, they hunger for some role in their life, something to do. And amazingly, despite what I say, the Qun fills that void to them it seems.

Modifié par Crow_22, 28 avril 2011 - 03:27 .