297 réponses à ce sujet

[Rifneno]

Kabraxal wrote...

I'm glad more people are confused at how so many people can stand behind terrorists and murderers and feel justified and good about sticking up for such atrocity.

Still... the fact that there are so many is the reason this real world sucks. People actually do this bull in the real world and condone all the murder and death because of a delusional justification.

Because life isn't black and white, life isn't fair.  No war has ever been won by refusing to attack an enemy with any innocents around.  Especially when "innocent" is such a loaded term.  To some people, innocents are totally unrelated and neutral bystanders.  To some people, fools who buy into the Chantry's garbage but don't actively engage in criminal activity are innocent.  You'll even find some people who argue that an enemy soldier who is really a good person and doesn't necessarily condone his superior's actions is an innocent.  It's a very relative term.

But really, anyone arguing the extremist "they're all mass murderers!" angle...  are you also over in the Mass Effect forums preaching against Arrival?

Satyricon331 wrote...

For all we know, over the 7 years that passed, she had schemes that actually made the situation much better than it would have been w/o her.  Perhaps that's true of anyone, but given her position as an important religious-office holder it seems substantially more plausible than for others.  I mean, why would she tell Hawke of a backroom scheme if she didn't have to?

It seems substantially less plausible for her than others in my view.  She always goes on about how we don't need to hurry for eternity and patience is a virtue, the Maker will solve everything.  Sure, she could be doing more than we see.  But I say the same thing against her now as I did in her defense when the theory of her being involved in Petrice's schemes came up: There is no evidence to support it.

Oneiropolos wrote...

Feel like David Gaider yet with the way some people twist his posts?

Ugh.  I sympathize for him.  At least when someone twists something I say, it's forgotten by the time it's off the front page because I don't matter.  Everything he says is etched in stone and preserved for future generations to overanalyze and condemn.

Super_Fr33k wrote...

<Lots of great insight, but I ramble enough to make a 3 page post without that much quoting>

Very well said.  I applaud you, sir.

Sabriana wrote...

With his action, he also scares the general populace even more, and those who started thinking that mages may have a point, will reverse that decision on the spot when they realize that a mage blew up the chantry. So with his action, he not only killed innocents (the raining debris can hardly have been healthy), he also dooms the mages, rips apart any hope that the general population will relax their fear, and he paves the way for Meredith.

I don't know about that.  It's also quite likely that people will realize that he was one wacko and see the templars for what they are after they try to commit genocide because of one man who wasn't even part of their target.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Temples, Mosques, and Churches has always been consdiered sanctuaries, especially during war time, where the non-combatants would seek shelter within. Even to this day it is illegal to directly target such a place (it is however legal to target the road outside, and since bombs got a bit drift....). But yeah, some particularly bloodthirsty invaders, or just adhernts to a different belief, like the vikings raiding churches, don't really care about the sanctuary of such buildings.

Somehow I'm thinking that doesn't apply when the religious organization itself is actually responsible for one side of the conflict.  But hey, since we're taking real life international law into it...  What do you think the UN would have to say about the Right of Annulment?  Let's take a look at what they think of "genocide."

I especially like the part of it titled "stages of genocide and influences leading to genocide."  Let's take a look at them point by point, shall we?

1. classification People are divided into "us and them".

Huh.  Circle of Magi, anyone?

2. Symbolization "When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups..."

I'm guessing those tranquil didn't band together and decide they really like that tattoo on their foreheads.

3. Dehumanization "One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases."

"Mages arem't people like you and me!" - Cullen.  Next.

4. Organization "Genocide is always organized... Special army units or militias are often trained and armed..."

Do I even need to explain this one?

5. Polarization "Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda..."

The Chantry pretty much teaches that magic is evil.  I'm sure someone will argue with me on this because they didn't see it, but it's quite there.  Off the top of my head, Anders mentions it and there's a girl in the Tower in DAO praying for the Maker to cleanse her of her "curse."  She's seriously befuddled if you don't automatically know that magic is the curse.

6. Preparation "Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity..."

See #1.

7. Extermination "It is "extermination" to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human."

Back to the whole "not people like you and I" thing?

8. Denial "The perpetrators... deny that they committed any crimes..."

"The right of annulment is perfectly legal omg!"

It's funny how this thing reads like they wrote it about the Chantry and not just genocidal lunatics in general.  Wait, am I confusing funny with horrifying again?

OldMan91 wrote...

Yes, forum posters who might agree or not care about what a fictional videogame character has done are clearly responsible for all the attrocities that are committed in the real world. Their attitudes to a videogame reflect 100% what they would do in real life.

Lord, I hope not!  I need a blood test pronto if that's the case...

Modifié par Rifneno, 11 avril 2011 - 11:42 .

[Yellopranda]

nightscrawl wrote...

As far as the Arishok goes, I find him and the Qunari in general to be an interesting race of people. In the same way that I find Klingons and Samurai to be interesting. These are groups who have a specific way of life based on a thought process and a way of being that dictates all of their actions. You call the Arishok a mass murderer, but he didn't think of it that way. He thought of it as putting down a group of rabid dogs: they fight each other and spread their rabies until they all eventually die of the sickness. In his mind, he was actually doing a good thing. You might argue that this is the same excuse ("doing a good thing") that was given for the Crusades, and you might not be far off, however when it comes to churches in our human society there are many more factors involved (not appropriate for these forums) that don't come into play for the Qunari. They live by the Qun and that is all.

The main mistake in comparing the Qunari with anything you know is making the comparison in the first place. It is a completely structured and ordered society that can only exist in a fictional world. If it really existed, I have no doubt that people from all over would flock to the Qun for structure, just as they do in DA2.

A couple of final points to consider: our characters are living in a different time. You might compare it to our own 11th century. The law and justice was what the people living in isolated communities made for themselves for the most part. Life was hard, the people were tough, and they did what they had to do to protect their families and communities.

You have to remember that this is a game world. I take justice into my own hands when I kill the Magistrate's son for killing elven children, but I can't and wouldn't do that in real life. So when people are advocating for these characters and their actions, it doesn't necessarily mean that they would praise those same actions were they to happen in the real world.

One of the points in my initial post was that someone should be judged for their actions. A murder is still a murder even if they don't think about it that way or whatever words they use to explain themselves afterwards. As the Arishok i'm sure many religious fanatics responsible for horrendous acts have thought they were doing a good thing. That they think so doesn't make it so.

As far as comparing the Qunari with anything i know, that this is a game world and that a better comparison than our world would be the 11th century, i partially adressed that in my previous post, but i have some other points to add.

That Thedas is different is a valid point and something we should consider, but as mentioned in my previous post, the world we live in is our point of reference and that's hard to ignore. Even the writers of fantasy have a hard time doing that. Dragon age is supposed to be technologically similar to our own late middle ages, but still things like Shale mentioning genes happen (a word that didn't exist before 1909). 

I'd go so far as to say that not only Dragon Age, but most fantasy ever written, is more similar to our world than the middle ages. From the way people talk (or at least write, since we don't know how they talked)  their values, attitudes and ideas to more concrete things, like no sewage flowing freely in the streets, hardly anyone living past the age of 40, families having 10-12 kids out of whom most died before adulthood and disease running rampant.

I willing to consider that this world is different from our own, but i don't feel it's such a stretch to apply our own thinking to it. It's not after, all an actual world existing in another dimension or our medieval world, but a world that flowed out of the minds of writers living in this world, here and now, just like we do.

[Morroian]

Satyricon331 wrote...

I haven't read the entire thread, so I apologize if I'm repeating someone, but Oneiropolis seems on-target to me w/r/t Elthina.  We really don't know much about her or her position's powers to form judgments.  If I had to judge her on the information I have (admittedly prolly less than what's available since I've finished only once), I'd codemn her, but the situation seems too uncertain to me that I don't see a need to rush to judgment.  For all we know, over the 7 years that passed, she had schemes that actually made the situation much better than it would have been w/o her. 

Problem with thatr is that even Sebastian is imploring her to do something. If she was doing something already he'd know about it.

[Poetics124]

Yellopranda wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

As far as the Arishok goes, I find him and the Qunari in general to be an interesting race of people. In the same way that I find Klingons and Samurai to be interesting. These are groups who have a specific way of life based on a thought process and a way of being that dictates all of their actions. You call the Arishok a mass murderer, but he didn't think of it that way. He thought of it as putting down a group of rabid dogs: they fight each other and spread their rabies until they all eventually die of the sickness. In his mind, he was actually doing a good thing. You might argue that this is the same excuse ("doing a good thing") that was given for the Crusades, and you might not be far off, however when it comes to churches in our human society there are many more factors involved (not appropriate for these forums) that don't come into play for the Qunari. They live by the Qun and that is all.

The main mistake in comparing the Qunari with anything you know is making the comparison in the first place. It is a completely structured and ordered society that can only exist in a fictional world. If it really existed, I have no doubt that people from all over would flock to the Qun for structure, just as they do in DA2.

A couple of final points to consider: our characters are living in a different time. You might compare it to our own 11th century. The law and justice was what the people living in isolated communities made for themselves for the most part. Life was hard, the people were tough, and they did what they had to do to protect their families and communities.

You have to remember that this is a game world. I take justice into my own hands when I kill the Magistrate's son for killing elven children, but I can't and wouldn't do that in real life. So when people are advocating for these characters and their actions, it doesn't necessarily mean that they would praise those same actions were they to happen in the real world.

One of the points in my initial post was that someone should be judged for their actions. A murder is still a murder even if they don't think about it that way or whatever words they use to explain themselves afterwards. As the Arishok i'm sure many religious fanatics responsible for horrendous acts have thought they were doing a good thing. That they think so doesn't make it so.

As far as comparing the Qunari with anything i know, that this is a game world and that a better comparison than our world would be the 11th century, i partially adressed that in my previous post, but i have some other points to add.

That Thedas is different is a valid point and something we should consider, but as mentioned in my previous post, the world we live in is our point of reference and that's hard to ignore. Even the writers of fantasy have a hard time doing that. Dragon age is supposed to be technologically similar to our own late middle ages, but still things like Shale mentioning genes happen (a word that didn't exist before 1909). 

I'd go so far as to say that not only Dragon Age, but most fantasy ever written, is more similar to our world than the middle ages. From the way people talk (or at least write, since we don't know how they talked)  their values, attitudes and ideas to more concrete things, like no sewage flowing freely in the streets, hardly anyone living past the age of 40, families having 10-12 kids out of whom most died before adulthood and disease running rampant.

I willing to consider that this world is different from our own, but i don't feel it's such a stretch to apply our own thinking to it. It's not after, all an actual world existing in another dimension or our medieval world, but a world that flowed out of the minds of writers living in this world, here and now, just like we do.

Just to jump in really quick.

But I think that, yes, you can apply some real world current day standards to the game but I also think that the creators of Dragon Age are trying to take you out of that view point for the hours you are playing the game as well.  That is what makes Hawke's choices in the game so hard because put in that situation, where there is no compromise, what should you do?  Should you let the terrorist live?  Should you side with templars and the chantry who are not above slaughtering innocents, mage and unmage alike?  Should you side with mages who have dangerous powers and are tempted a could unleash unholy hell on the population and the world?   These choices aren't easy and they are meant to be so.  That's one of the reasons I like Dragon Age because, as Flemeth says, it gets no easier.

And Hawke him/herself is someone, depending on the player, who is morally ambigious.  He/she was either in a smuggling ring or a a merc gang for a year, basically killing, beating, and enforcing for hire. Yes, it's out of a need to get the family into a better place, but Hawke still does it.  A lot of people would see him/her as a murderer in our world for those actions, but in this video game, Hawke is the hero of the tale.   

[blothulfur]

You spilled my pint! See perfect excuse for murder, and maybe even a bit of torture before hand.

[Yellopranda]

Super_Fr33k wrote...

Lastly, it should be pointed out that life is a cheap currency in DA games. It's a violent, ugly world, and diplomacy and mercy are luxuries. The Warden, and Hawke, killed many, many people. Some of them could have been redeemed or reasoned with. And yet we do not have that luxury, because there are big problems out there and we can't leave too many potential enemies alive. Violence is the undeniable answer in many circumstances in DA. Contrary to the thread title, there is an excuse for murder... rather frequently, it turns out.

Some good points here.

Many people seem to say that because Hawke kills so many people then what i've said about the other characters is suddenly invalid (not sure if that's true for you, Super_Fr33k). I can't remember ever condoning Hawke's actions in this game, so i can't see how that applies.

I'm aware though that we can't completely ignore that this is a game. People think differently about it than they would about real life situations. I know that when i watch Clint Eastwood being a mass murdering psycopath in one of his films, i think he's completely awesome. In real life however i would think quite differently about it.

Hawke does kill a lot of people and while it can be argued that, if played a certain way, it's always in self-defense, i agree with others that that excuse grows a little thin. But, as mentioned, we have to remember this is a game, and it's a game in which combat was to play a big part. Thus a lot more combat takes place than it probably would have, if the story was told in a book instead of a game. And in turn Hawke kills a lot more people. (Indeed, that would probably be quite a boring book, if every time the characters went somewhere there would be 4-5 fights with generic antagonists playing out in a very similar fashion).

However, even with that in mind, you can't say that Hawke is a saint. In my ideal game i would like to have the option to play like that, even had i chosen not to, but DA2 is still plenty good enough that i'll play it over and over even if i don't have complete freedom when playing my character.

Lastly, when you say that there is an excuse for murder rather frequently, you must operate out of a different definition of murder than i do. I don't think that, for instance self-defense can be classified as murder. As far as i know it's possible to play Hawke in such a manner that the worst thing he/she could be convicted of was manslaughter, not murder. Though i guess the 43243267547. time Hawke was dragged before a court accused of manslaughter, people would start thinking something was up.

We can ignore all that though and instead ask the question: What makes Hawke the final arbiter on questions of morality. Just because Hawke does it, doesn't make it ok.

[Yellopranda]

GearRust wrote...

See.

The statement "There is no excuse for Murder".

It sounds like a challenge.

I kinda chose that title because i was trying to get more people to read my post. A cheap trick, i know :innocent:

[EmperorSahlertz]

Rifneno wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Temples, Mosques, and Churches has always been consdiered sanctuaries, especially during war time, where the non-combatants would seek shelter within. Even to this day it is illegal to directly target such a place (it is however legal to target the road outside, and since bombs got a bit drift....). But yeah, some particularly bloodthirsty invaders, or just adhernts to a different belief, like the vikings raiding churches, don't really care about the sanctuary of such buildings.

Somehow I'm thinking that doesn't apply when the religious organization itself is actually responsible for one side of the conflict.  But hey, since we're taking real life international law into it...  What do you think the UN would have to say about the Right of Annulment?  Let's take a look at what they think of "genocide."

I especially like the part of it titled "stages of genocide and influences leading to genocide."  Let's take a look at them point by point, shall we?

1. classification People are divided into "us and them".

Huh.  Circle of Magi, anyone?

2. Symbolization "When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups..."

I'm guessing those tranquil didn't band together and decide they really like that tattoo on their foreheads.

3. Dehumanization "One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases."

"Mages arem't people like you and me!" - Cullen.  Next.

4. Organization "Genocide is always organized... Special army units or militias are often trained and armed..."

Do I even need to explain this one?

5. Polarization "Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda..."

The Chantry pretty much teaches that magic is evil.  I'm sure someone will argue with me on this because they didn't see it, but it's quite there.  Off the top of my head, Anders mentions it and there's a girl in the Tower in DAO praying for the Maker to cleanse her of her "curse."  She's seriously befuddled if you don't automatically know that magic is the curse.

6. Preparation "Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity..."

See #1.

7. Extermination "It is "extermination" to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human."

Back to the whole "not people like you and I" thing?

8. Denial "The perpetrators... deny that they committed any crimes..."

"The right of annulment is perfectly legal omg!"

It's funny how this thing reads like they wrote it about the Chantry and not just genocidal lunatics in general.  Wait, am I confusing funny with horrifying again? 

Nice try at bringing real world politics into the discussion again. However, as you probably know, there are no mages in our world, so how the UN would ever view them is total speculation from all parties. However, I am of the belief they would view the same way as they view countries who obtain unsanctioned weapons of mass destruction.

[Rinji the Bearded]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Temples, Mosques, and Churches has always been consdiered sanctuaries, especially during war time, where the non-combatants would seek shelter within. Even to this day it is illegal to directly target such a place (it is however legal to target the road outside, and since bombs got a bit drift....). But yeah, some particularly bloodthirsty invaders, or just adhernts to a different belief, like the vikings raiding churches, don't really care about the sanctuary of such buildings.

Somehow I'm thinking that doesn't apply when the religious organization itself is actually responsible for one side of the conflict.  But hey, since we're taking real life international law into it...  What do you think the UN would have to say about the Right of Annulment?  Let's take a look at what they think of "genocide."

I especially like the part of it titled "stages of genocide and influences leading to genocide."  Let's take a look at them point by point, shall we?

1. classification People are divided into "us and them".

Huh.  Circle of Magi, anyone?

2. Symbolization "When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups..."

I'm guessing those tranquil didn't band together and decide they really like that tattoo on their foreheads.

3. Dehumanization "One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases."

"Mages arem't people like you and me!" - Cullen.  Next.

4. Organization "Genocide is always organized... Special army units or militias are often trained and armed..."

Do I even need to explain this one?

5. Polarization "Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda..."

The Chantry pretty much teaches that magic is evil.  I'm sure someone will argue with me on this because they didn't see it, but it's quite there.  Off the top of my head, Anders mentions it and there's a girl in the Tower in DAO praying for the Maker to cleanse her of her "curse."  She's seriously befuddled if you don't automatically know that magic is the curse.

6. Preparation "Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity..."

See #1.

7. Extermination "It is "extermination" to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human."

Back to the whole "not people like you and I" thing?

8. Denial "The perpetrators... deny that they committed any crimes..."

"The right of annulment is perfectly legal omg!"

It's funny how this thing reads like they wrote it about the Chantry and not just genocidal lunatics in general.  Wait, am I confusing funny with horrifying again? 

Nice try at bringing real world politics into the discussion again. However, as you probably know, there are no mages in our world, so how the UN would ever view them is total speculation from all parties. However, I am of the belief they would view the same way as they view countries who obtain unsanctioned weapons of mass destruction.

What, suddenly you're the expert on the UN?  Because your opinion is correct, bringing up real world politics is correct in that case and that case only?

It's my opinion that the UN would as ineffective about Mages as they are about everything else involving peacekeeping, but hey you said it -- Real world politics don't work here, right?

So your argument is also irrelevant by your own logic. 

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 11 avril 2011 - 01:19 .

[Yellopranda]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Temples, Mosques, and Churches has always been consdiered sanctuaries, especially during war time, where the non-combatants would seek shelter within. Even to this day it is illegal to directly target such a place (it is however legal to target the road outside, and since bombs got a bit drift....). But yeah, some particularly bloodthirsty invaders, or just adhernts to a different belief, like the vikings raiding churches, don't really care about the sanctuary of such buildings.

Somehow I'm thinking that doesn't apply when the religious organization itself is actually responsible for one side of the conflict.  But hey, since we're taking real life international law into it...  What do you think the UN would have to say about the Right of Annulment?  Let's take a look at what they think of "genocide."

I especially like the part of it titled "stages of genocide and influences leading to genocide."  Let's take a look at them point by point, shall we?

1. classification People are divided into "us and them".

Huh.  Circle of Magi, anyone?

2. Symbolization "When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups..."

I'm guessing those tranquil didn't band together and decide they really like that tattoo on their foreheads.

3. Dehumanization "One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases."

"Mages arem't people like you and me!" - Cullen.  Next.

4. Organization "Genocide is always organized... Special army units or militias are often trained and armed..."

Do I even need to explain this one?

5. Polarization "Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda..."

The Chantry pretty much teaches that magic is evil.  I'm sure someone will argue with me on this because they didn't see it, but it's quite there.  Off the top of my head, Anders mentions it and there's a girl in the Tower in DAO praying for the Maker to cleanse her of her "curse."  She's seriously befuddled if you don't automatically know that magic is the curse.

6. Preparation "Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity..."

See #1.

7. Extermination "It is "extermination" to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human."

Back to the whole "not people like you and I" thing?

8. Denial "The perpetrators... deny that they committed any crimes..."

"The right of annulment is perfectly legal omg!"

It's funny how this thing reads like they wrote it about the Chantry and not just genocidal lunatics in general.  Wait, am I confusing funny with horrifying again? 

Nice try at bringing real world politics into the discussion again. However, as you probably know, there are no mages in our world, so how the UN would ever view them is total speculation from all parties. However, I am of the belief they would view the same way as they view countries who obtain unsanctioned weapons of mass destruction.

Again. This notion that David Gaider and company is completely divorced from our world, living in their own reality so different and alien from ours that the mere attempt at trying to understand it from our point of view is doomed to fail.

Modifié par Yellopranda, 11 avril 2011 - 01:26 .

[BigEvil]

There is no excuse for murder. What about all those bandits and mercenaries we kill throughout the game. At least some of them must have just been doing what they could to survive and get by like Hawke was. At least some of them were just hired to do a job and were desperate for the coin. There are children waiting at home for parents who will never return because we killed them. And then we looted their corpses.

[Dean_the_Young]

Rifneno wrote...

So Elthina is a metagamer, or are we now taking the stance that someone in charge shouldn't do anything about a subordinate committing atrocities because there might be a mutiny?

False delimma.

There's a very good reason why it's Meredith, and not Elthina, who is acknowledged as the most powerful figure in Kirkwall, and that's because it's Meredith who has the real power.

Elthina is nominally in command, but in reality she isn't: if she were, she would be the most powerful person in Kirkwall. That this came to be is not something Elthina can really be blamed for, nor is it something that replacing Elthina with another Grand Cleric would fix. By the time Meredith goes off the handle, the Chantry only has nominal control... and losing a confrontation with Meredith can and almost certainly would be much worse for everyone involved than not taking a losing stand and pushing Meredith to the '**** you' point.

[The Baconer]

BigEvil wrote...

There is no excuse for murder. What about all those bandits and mercenaries we kill throughout the game. At least some of them must have just been doing what they could to survive and get by like Hawke was. At least some of them were just hired to do a job and were desperate for the coin. There are children waiting at home for parents who will never return because we killed them. And then we looted their corpses.

I wouldn't be so as hasty to think that. All the bandits I fought were considerate enough to bring their extended families with them.

[Rifneno]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Nice try at bringing real world politics into the discussion again. However, as you probably know, there are no mages in our world, so how the UN would ever view them is total speculation from all parties. However, I am of the belief they would view the same way as they view countries who obtain unsanctioned weapons of mass destruction.

Nice try at covering up the fact it was in response to you yammering about real world legality of attacking religious sanctuaries.  Okay, I lie, it was a very poor try.  Still not as poor as the WMD comparison though.  You are just laughable ignorant of what WMD is, as is anyone else who uses that comparison.  Compare Meredith's "my sister abomination killed 70 people" sob story to 1,000 times that lost at Hiroshima.  Now consider that 1) Hiroshima was hardly the most densely populated area 2) that was one of the weakest, sissiest nukes ever built.  In 1961 the Russians tested one over 3,000 times the power.  3,000 times.  Did I mention that it was originally to be twice that yield, but they realized such a nuke would also devestate their own enviorment even if used across the world?  Yeah, it's that powerful.  Or biological weapons?  The plague killed a third of mankind at one point.  That particular disease can now be killed with antibiotics, but plenty of virus-based diseases couldn't.  And a lab-made one could be as virulent as the bubonic plague yet still as resistant to treatment as... well, just about any virus.

Wanna be taken seriously?  Stop making mountains out of anthills.  A mage is comparible more to a common assault rifle than a WMD.

[Rinji the Bearded]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

So Elthina is a metagamer, or are we now taking the stance that someone in charge shouldn't do anything about a subordinate committing atrocities because there might be a mutiny?

False delimma.

There's a very good reason why it's Meredith, and not Elthina, who is acknowledged as the most powerful figure in Kirkwall, and that's because it's Meredith who has the real power.

Elthina is nominally in command, but in reality she isn't: if she were, she would be the most powerful person in Kirkwall. That this came to be is not something Elthina can really be blamed for, nor is it something that replacing Elthina with another Grand Cleric would fix. By the time Meredith goes off the handle, the Chantry only has nominal control... and losing a confrontation with Meredith can and almost certainly would be much worse for everyone involved than not taking a losing stand and pushing Meredith to the '**** you' point.

She has the support and love of the people, how was she not the most powerful person in Kirkwall?  Perhaps she was too doddering to see that herself?  And obviously, she had enough control over Meredith to keep her from using the Right of Annulment.  As soon as Elthina died, Meredith no longer had to try and skirt around her to get permission from the Divine.

[5ubzer0]

Yellopranda wrote...

I invite people who sympathize with these people to examine their
actions. Look past their words, their heartfelt emotions, their stern
(or soft) demeanor, or goddamn amazing armor in one case and see what
cruelty and terror they have wrought upon the world. They are not worthy
of respect. They should be despised, and maybe pitied for having become
such a sorry excuse for a human being (or abomintion, or qunari or what
have you).

To me, it all boils down to one question: How far would you go to protect those you care about?

Of the four people you mention, two are military leaders, one is a powerful religious figure, and then we have Mr. Nobody Renegade Mage. You cannot judge their behaviour without taking into account the power differential.

What would you do, if you knew that based on your role/status in society you had no chance of getting justice? Obviously, the circle mages can't stand up to their oppressors without risking being made tranquil. So who is going to be their advocate?

How many mages would you allow to be lobotomized, while you entertain the idea that 'competent' leaders will eventually search for a peaceful solution? Inaction is a choice. Unfortunately, often others have to pay the price.

"All the perpetrator asks is that the bystander do nothing. He appeals to the universal desire to see, hear, and speak no evil. The victim, on the contrary, asks the bystander to share the burden of pain. The victim demands action, engagement, and remembering." (from Judith Herman's "Trauma and Recovery.")

Let's assume you are not the hero, champion, or the most popular person in Kirkwall. How would you end this system of oppression peacefully?

Modifié par 5ubzer0, 11 avril 2011 - 02:12 .

[Yellopranda]

BigEvil wrote...

There is no excuse for murder. What about all those bandits and mercenaries we kill throughout the game. At least some of them must have just been doing what they could to survive and get by like Hawke was. At least some of them were just hired to do a job and were desperate for the coin. There are children waiting at home for parents who will never return because we killed them. And then we looted their corpses.

Feel like i've already answered this adequately, but you would have to read the entire thread. Or at least some of my later posts.

[BigEvil]

The Baconer wrote...

BigEvil wrote...

There is no excuse for murder. What about all those bandits and mercenaries we kill throughout the game. At least some of them must have just been doing what they could to survive and get by like Hawke was. At least some of them were just hired to do a job and were desperate for the coin. There are children waiting at home for parents who will never return because we killed them. And then we looted their corpses.

I wouldn't be so as hasty to think that. All the bandits I fought were considerate enough to bring their extended families with them.

So your Hawke killed children? That's rather disturbing.

[Girl on a Rock]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Temples, Mosques, and Churches has always been consdiered sanctuaries, especially during war time, where the non-combatants would seek shelter within. Even to this day it is illegal to directly target such a place (it is however legal to target the road outside, and since bombs got a bit drift....). But yeah, some particularly bloodthirsty invaders, or just adhernts to a different belief, like the vikings raiding churches, don't really care about the sanctuary of such buildings.

In modern times, perhaps, but this wasn't so during the Crusades, which is a closer parallel to the DA universe than the present day. In fact, throughout history, until very recently, especially when the warring cultures didn't share the same religious views, houses of worship were not viewed as especially sacred by the opposing side. Evidence of this by way of ruins of houses of worship/religious icons exists all over the world. So houses of worship being targets was hardly the exception.  Further, when you consider that the mages rebelling against the Chantry could hardly be considered adherents to the religion, and that the religion is the oppressive force against which they're fighting, it's not really a fair comparison, especially when the church is what commands perhaps the largest military force in the known world.

Comparing the Chantry, implicitly or explicitly, to a little local church where the poor and helpless are takign refuge isn't really telling the whole story.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Rifneno wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Nice try at bringing real world politics into the discussion again. However, as you probably know, there are no mages in our world, so how the UN would ever view them is total speculation from all parties. However, I am of the belief they would view the same way as they view countries who obtain unsanctioned weapons of mass destruction.

Nice try at covering up the fact it was in response to you yammering about real world legality of attacking religious sanctuaries.  Okay, I lie, it was a very poor try.  Still not as poor as the WMD comparison though.  You are just laughable ignorant of what WMD is, as is anyone else who uses that comparison.  Compare Meredith's "my sister abomination killed 70 people" sob story to 1,000 times that lost at Hiroshima.  Now consider that 1) Hiroshima was hardly the most densely populated area 2) that was one of the weakest, sissiest nukes ever built.  In 1961 the Russians tested one over 3,000 times the power.  3,000 times.  Did I mention that it was originally to be twice that yield, but they realized such a nuke would also devestate their own enviorment even if used across the world?  Yeah, it's that powerful.  Or biological weapons?  The plague killed a third of mankind at one point.  That particular disease can now be killed with antibiotics, but plenty of virus-based diseases couldn't.  And a lab-made one could be as virulent as the bubonic plague yet still as resistant to treatment as... well, just about any virus.

Wanna be taken seriously?  Stop making mountains out of anthills.  A mage is comparible more to a common assault rifle than a WMD.

You don't really know what defines a wmd do you? Just because there are some wmds which are more powerful does not invalidate all the lesser powerful. The chemical gass Hussein used on the Kurds is still a wmd even though we got hydrogen bombs. Where as 1 mage alone may not be one, 100 mages can reasonably be expected to be able to cause just as much destruction.

[Dean_the_Young]

RinjiRenee wrote...

She has the support and love of the people, how was she not the most powerful person in Kirkwall?

She didn't have an army of her own or the tools of governance.

To be popular, and to have power, are entirely separate things.

And obviously, she had enough control over Meredith to keep her from using the Right of Annulment.  As soon as Elthina died, Meredith no longer had to try and skirt around her to get permission from the Divine.

She had enough control to keep Meredith from applying the Right of Annulment as long as Meredith respected it. If Meredith wouldn't respect her, for whatever reason, she'd be up the creek without a paddle. Just like how most the Templars would seen throw off Chantry oversight as well once they stopped caring.

If Meredith didn't respect her, Meredith could well ignore her, rendering what little she could do irrelevant. And if Meredith thought that the Grand Cleric was a victim of blood magic, because surely only such a thing would force the Grand Cleric to turn against her...

Trying to overrule Meredith is not cost free. Failure is even worse.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Girl on a Rock wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Temples, Mosques, and Churches has always been consdiered sanctuaries, especially during war time, where the non-combatants would seek shelter within. Even to this day it is illegal to directly target such a place (it is however legal to target the road outside, and since bombs got a bit drift....). But yeah, some particularly bloodthirsty invaders, or just adhernts to a different belief, like the vikings raiding churches, don't really care about the sanctuary of such buildings.

In modern times, perhaps, but this wasn't so during the Crusades, which is a closer parallel to the DA universe than the present day. In fact, throughout history, until very recently, especially when the warring cultures didn't share the same religious views, houses of worship were not viewed as especially sacred by the opposing side. Evidence of this by way of ruins of houses of worship/religious icons exists all over the world. So houses of worship being targets was hardly the exception.  Further, when you consider that the mages rebelling against the Chantry could hardly be considered adherents to the religion, and that the religion is the oppressive force against which they're fighting, it's not really a fair comparison, especially when the church is what commands perhaps the largest military force in the known world.

Comparing the Chantry, implicitly or explicitly, to a little local church where the poor and helpless are takign refuge isn't really telling the whole story.

I also stated than when the warring factions weren't of the same religion, the sanctuary of such places (usually) had little meaning. But if it were christians warring on christians, or if the leaders were particularly honorful, they tried to avoid harming the churches and the people within. Not really because they didn't want to hurt non-combatants, but because they feared the wrath of God.

[The Baconer]

BigEvil wrote...

So your Hawke killed children? That's rather disturbing.

I think you're the crazy one for thinking the little sods are all innocent. They called me a child killer in Fallout as well, but they were stealing my stuff! It's not my fault one or two just happened to steal a live grenade from my pack.

[Girl on a Rock]

Yellopranda wrote...

The Qunari certainly are principled and disciplined, but i fail to see how that makes their religion any less vile. That they are well equipped to conquer, subjugate Thedas peoples and institute their fanatical religious dictatorship is not a good thing, it just makes them even more frightening.

I honestly don't see the vileness. I think we don't know enough about the Qun or the Qunari to fully understand either, and it's been said in codices that to truly understand Qunari culture, one must see a Qunari city. Thus far, they've been keeping to themselves on Par Vollen, and while there have been murmurs that they're coming for Thedas someday, I think that this stems from them seeing serious problems in Thedas. And they're not wrong. The Arishok talks about how Kirkwall is "diseased," and I think a strong reaction to this stems not from it being a falsehood, but the fact that an outsider has said so. Kirkwall is diseased, or was at that time, at least. Corruption in the nobility, the Chantry, the templars, and the mages was running rampant, and the Arishok was disgusted by it. The Qunari taking over, to be quite honest, probably would have led to an improvement in the lives of the majority of the people living in Kirkwall, given what we've seen of the conditions under which the people in Lowtown and Darktown are living. But honestly, that's all just speculation, and your assessment that their "fanatical religious ddictatorship" would not be a good thing as well. It may frighten you because it's alien to you, but that doesn't make it bad or wrong.

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.

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.

I have a hard time seeing how the Arishok can be respected. He does not think for himself, but blindly follows the tenets of the Qun. These tenets are set in stone, and they teach violence, war, subjugation and forceful conversion. He is a robot, not an actual person, programmed to act in a certain way. Maybe some people feel a certain allure towards having their free will and freedom taken away since they can be so hard to deal with. For my own part i prefer to hold onto them, even if that means i sometimes have to make difficult decisions.

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.

Finally i'd like to ask you something that i have a hard time seeing. You, and others in this thread, seem to be saying that the worst thing about Anders act was his betrayal of you. That all the deaths he cause was inconsequential next to that. I hope this is not the case and please educate me if i'm wrong, but that just seems extraordinarily selfish, that the fact that he hurt your feelings was much worse than what he did to those people.

I don't know if it was the worst thing, but it's a separate issue from the deaths the explosion caused. I think many people don't see the deaths he caused with the explosion as really being all that bad, and for that reason, focus more on the personal betrayal. I think the deaths are bad, however, they are a separate political issue. Was it an act of war? Was it an act of terrorism? Is Anders a freedom fighter or a mass murderer? I think the language of your original post is very loaded and skewed in a certain direction, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter that there's a lot of moral ambiguity in Anders' act. I don't think it was conscionable and I dont' justify it in any way, but to not discuss the personal betrayal involved would be ludicrous. 

Modifié par Girl on a Rock, 11 avril 2011 - 03:02 .

[Girl on a Rock]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I also stated than when the warring factions weren't of the same religion, the sanctuary of such places (usually) had little meaning. But if it were christians warring on christians, or if the leaders were particularly honorful, they tried to avoid harming the churches and the people within. Not really because they didn't want to hurt non-combatants, but because they feared the wrath of God.

OK, I may have misinterpreted what you were saying originally, but I thought your reason for bringing that up was to relate it to the Chantry's conflict with the mages. The reason why I brought up these other examples was because it seems pretty clear to me that Anders doesn't seem to have much faith, at least as far as the Chantry's religion is concerned, so to him, he's not really concerned with the wrath of the Maker (and to be fair, how much worse could it really get  for mages in Kirkwall?). If I'm confused about what we're talking about, my apologies!