297 réponses à ce sujet

[Girl on a Rock]

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.

See, this blanket dismissal of what was actually a pretty well-composed argument makes me wonder. I think you have the opportunity to make a good argument against the UN genocide argument, actually, but instead, you just kind of blow it off, which makes it look like you can't. Which is sadface.

[barryl89]

Girl on a Rock 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.

See, this blanket dismissal of what was actually a pretty well-composed argument makes me wonder. I think you have the opportunity to make a good argument against the UN genocide argument, actually, but instead, you just kind of blow it off, which makes it look like you can't. Which is sadface.

He is pretty much spot on IMO. It is massively irrelevant to the discussion.

[Girl on a Rock]

barryl89 wrote...

Girl on a Rock 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.

See, this blanket dismissal of what was actually a pretty well-composed argument makes me wonder. I think you have the opportunity to make a good argument against the UN genocide argument, actually, but instead, you just kind of blow it off, which makes it look like you can't. Which is sadface.

He is pretty much spot on IMO. It is massively irrelevant to the discussion.

I disagree entirely, though. The discussion of genocide is a fascinating point. It's not a flawless argument, but that's part of why it could add so much to discourse about ethics and morality, such as in the conversation we're having here. No one can deny that DA is heavily influenced by real world philosophy, psychology, and to some extent, political and social history - why, if the person who brings it up can explain the relevance, should it be deemed as irrelevant?  That just seems silly.

Plus, not to split hairs, but that response of his was in response to a response to him bringing real-world politics into the discussion by talking about how in the real world, churches and houses of worship are considered sanctuaries - so you can't really allow the real-world example when it suits your argument, then dismiss it when it doesn't.

Modifié par Girl on a Rock, 11 avril 2011 - 03:18 .

[barryl89]

I disagree entirely, though. The discussion of genocide is a fascinating point. It's not a flawless argument, but that's part of why it could add so much to discourse about ethics and morality, such as in the conversation we're having here. No one can deny that DA is heavily influenced by real world philosophy, psychology, and to some extent, political and social history - why, if the person who brings it up can explain the relevance, should it be deemed as irrelevant? That just seems silly.

Plus, not to split hairs, but that response of his was in response to a response to him bringing real-world politics into the discussion by talking about how in the real world, churches and houses of worship are considered sanctuaries - so you can't really allow the real-world example when it suits your argument, then dismiss it when it doesn't.

I really don't care what he said before. I think any comparison to reality is irrelevant due to the simple and obvious fact that there is no comparable historical situation.

If pressed to present a historical event... I would say look at the Witch Hunts. There is no magic in our world, but people still tried to convict magic users. Imagine the paranoia if magic did exist and a mage led empire had ruled over Europe for a millenium.

[Poetics124]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

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.

Actually Christians have done this often.  The sack of Rome in 1527 and the partial destruction of the Vatican (and Pope Clement the III almost lost his life) cost many innocent lives and most were priests, nuns, and adhererers to the faith.  Their attackers were a mixture of Catholics and newly formed Protestants that wanted nothing but to rape, pillage, and murder anything that stood for papal domaninance in the region.

[BigEvil]

The Baconer wrote...

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.

Fallout's different, that's more like mercy-killing.

[The Baconer]

BigEvil wrote...
Fallout's different, that's more like mercy-killing.

And this is Kirkwall. From my point of view, it's the same thing.

[BigEvil]

The Baconer wrote...
And this is Kirkwall. From my point of view, it's the same thing.

You could be right there.

[Rifneno]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
You don't really know what defines a wmd do you?

Do you?  Because there's no absolute definition on it, people have been fighting over what it means for ages and its generally accepted meaning has changed drastically over time.  But when you say WMD to a random guy on the street, he thinks of nuclear weapons for the most part.  That's why I go with that assumption on the response.  It's true that chemical weapons are often in the WMD category, but not ALL chemical weapons qualify under even the most liberal interpretation.  When you get right down to it, pepper spray can be called a chemical weapon.  So where do you draw the line?  That's a rhetorical question, BTW.

Girl on a Rock wrote...

It may frighten you because it's alien to you, but that doesn't make it bad or wrong.

It's not alien to us.  While it's not exactly the same, it's close enough to communism that you can call the Arishok a "pinko bastard" without noticing his ridiculous armor.  And no, it being strange doesn't make it bad or wrong.  That they convert to their religion by way of force and murder is what makes it bad and wrong.

Sten says flat out in DAO that the Qunari are planning to invade Thedas.  It's not just Kirkwall, and they know so little of Thedas that they don't even know what the Blight is.

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.

<wipes away a tear of joy>

barryl89 wrote...

I really don't care what he said before. I think any comparison to reality is irrelevant due to the simple and obvious fact that there is no comparable historical situation.

You don't really care when person A does something, but you feel the need to voice an opinion about person B doing the same thing?  Forgive me if I doubt your motivations.  Not to mention, it wasn't the same.  I was focusing on an expert's analysis of what genocide is.  This is relevant as it shows the Chantry is clearly going down the same basic steps that are classic of genocide not as a legal crime but as a cultural action.

If pressed to present a historical event... I would say look at the Witch Hunts. There is no magic in our world, but people still tried to convict magic users. Imagine the paranoia if magic did exist and a mage led empire had ruled over Europe for a millenium.

Oh, yes yes.  Let's also imagine these accusations were made by sane, healthy people.  The Salem Witch Trials were not.  There's a variety of theories on why it happened, but the most common seems to be that their grain was infested with the same fungus which LSD is derived from.  They were tripping and didn't know it.  Generally speaking, people with crazy chemicals in their brains don't tend to act as rational as people without them.  Now also consider if half the populace has had a family member saved from life-threatening injury or illness by a mage.  The witch hunts were conducted under the belief that magic was always harmful, whereas there's a lot of beneficial magic in Thedas.

[Girl on a Rock]

barryl89 wrote...

I disagree entirely, though. The discussion of genocide is a fascinating point. It's not a flawless argument, but that's part of why it could add so much to discourse about ethics and morality, such as in the conversation we're having here. No one can deny that DA is heavily influenced by real world philosophy, psychology, and to some extent, political and social history - why, if the person who brings it up can explain the relevance, should it be deemed as irrelevant? That just seems silly.

Plus, not to split hairs, but that response of his was in response to a response to him bringing real-world politics into the discussion by talking about how in the real world, churches and houses of worship are considered sanctuaries - so you can't really allow the real-world example when it suits your argument, then dismiss it when it doesn't.

I really don't care what he said before. I think any comparison to reality is irrelevant due to the simple and obvious fact that there is no comparable historical situation.

If pressed to present a historical event... I would say look at the Witch Hunts. There is no magic in our world, but people still tried to convict magic users. Imagine the paranoia if magic did exist and a mage led empire had ruled over Europe for a millenium.

LOL O OK

[Girl on a Rock]

Rifneno wrote...

Girl on a Rock wrote...

It may frighten you because it's alien to you, but that doesn't make it bad or wrong.

It's not alien to us.  While it's not exactly the same, it's close enough to communism that you can call the Arishok a "pinko bastard" without noticing his ridiculous armor.  And no, it being strange doesn't make it bad or wrong.  That they convert to their religion by way of force and murder is what makes it bad and wrong.

Sten says flat out in DAO that the Qunari are planning to invade Thedas.  It's not just Kirkwall, and they know so little of Thedas that they don't even know what the Blight is.

Aw, I was referring more directly to the OP. And I do agree, I don't like their methods of conversion - but I'm reserving judgment on the Qunari until we get a fuller picture of them. And I think the Arishok is maybe the most morally principled character in the whole game! LOLOL But yeah, I know I'm preaching to the choir here (hahaha), but we have already seen the Chantry kill people just for entertaining religious ideas different than their own...

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.

<wipes away a tear of joy>

<3<3<3! 

Rifneno wrote...

barryl89 wrote...

I really don't care what he said before. I think any comparison to reality is irrelevant due to the simple and obvious fact that there is no comparable historical situation.

You don't really care when person A does something, but you feel the need to voice an opinion about person B doing the same thing?  Forgive me if I doubt your motivations.  Not to mention, it wasn't the same.  I was focusing on an expert's analysis of what genocide is.  This is relevant as it shows the Chantry is clearly going down the same basic steps that are classic of genocide not as a legal crime but as a cultural action.

If pressed to present a historical event... I would say look at the Witch Hunts. There is no magic in our world, but people still tried to convict magic users. Imagine the paranoia if magic did exist and a mage led empire had ruled over Europe for a millenium.

Oh, yes yes.  Let's also imagine these accusations were made by sane, healthy people.  The Salem Witch Trials were not.  There's a variety of theories on why it happened, but the most common seems to be that their grain was infested with the same fungus which LSD is derived from.  They were tripping and didn't know it.  Generally speaking, people with crazy chemicals in their brains don't tend to act as rational as people without them.  Now also consider if half the populace has had a family member saved from life-threatening injury or illness by a mage.  The witch hunts were conducted under the belief that magic was always harmful, whereas there's a lot of beneficial magic in Thedas.

Oh, Rifneno, you are rapidly becoming one of my faves! 

Modifié par Girl on a Rock, 11 avril 2011 - 03:50 .

[AlexXIV]

Kind of funny how the thread title is 'there is no excuse for murder' and people jump the bandwagon and agree and then turn around and try to justify genocide.

[Plaintiff]

barryl89 wrote...

I disagree entirely, though. The discussion of genocide is a fascinating point. It's not a flawless argument, but that's part of why it could add so much to discourse about ethics and morality, such as in the conversation we're having here. No one can deny that DA is heavily influenced by real world philosophy, psychology, and to some extent, political and social history - why, if the person who brings it up can explain the relevance, should it be deemed as irrelevant? That just seems silly.

Plus, not to split hairs, but that response of his was in response to a response to him bringing real-world politics into the discussion by talking about how in the real world, churches and houses of worship are considered sanctuaries - so you can't really allow the real-world example when it suits your argument, then dismiss it when it doesn't.

I really don't care what he said before. I think any comparison to reality is irrelevant due to the simple and obvious fact that there is no comparable historical situation.

If pressed to present a historical event... I would say look at the Witch Hunts. There is no magic in our world, but people still tried to convict magic users. Imagine the paranoia if magic did exist and a mage led empire had ruled over Europe for a millenium.

That's... not really true, actually. Magic may not exist, and maybe such slaughters don't happen on as large a scale, but there are always those baying for the blood of individuals who represent something they fear or misunderstand.

[Plaintiff]

AlexXIV wrote...

Kind of funny how the thread title is 'there is no excuse for murder' and people jump the bandwagon and agree and then turn around and try to justify genocide.

It is a bit odd.

"ANDERS IS A JERK, SO EVERY MAGE MUST DIIIIIIIIIIIE"

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

This whole game basicaly says that, when you (the player) murder someone, you always have some kind of excuse and you are above any morale.
Anders, Arishok, Meredith murder people, while Hawke murders them. Who's the high top murderer?

[Satyricon331]

Good read of a thread, guys.  I'd jump in more but I'm short on time today...

Rifneno wrote...

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.

That reply doesn't really address my position, which simply says on the information we have, she seems guilty, but there's no particular reason to cast judgment at this point.  Recognizing someone looks bad doesn't mean condemning the person in the absence of evidence.  And yes, it is more plausible for her than for other characters.  If she were trying to resolve the situation without a mage-templar confrontation, telling people to have patience would seem to be a likely move.  

And Morroian, I don't have the Sebastian dlc, but why would she confide in him?  Does he become a Chantry officeholder of some sort?  I thought he just stayed an exiled prince?  I mean, if he's in a position where she'd likely have to use his powers somehow I could see it. 

[Addai]

The OP is right in that the game tries to engage you emotionally with the characters so that the ramifications mean more to you and the stakes are higher. This is what a good story will do. If you empathize with a character, it's easier to excuse their actions, but why is this a bad thing? You know the old saying, walk a mile in a man's shoes...

[Plaintiff]

DamnThoseDisplayNames wrote...

This whole game basicaly says that, when you (the player) murder someone, you always have some kind of excuse and you are above any morale.
Anders, Arishok, Meredith murder people, while Hawke murders them. Who's the high top murderer?

Murder is such a loaded word, and I think people should remember that it has its own specific definition and isn't purely interchangeable with "killing". It has to be "unlawful", and from what I understand of the laws of Thedas, Hawke's actions don't fall under the definition of "murder" most of the time.

When Hawke kills the Arishok, it's either as part of a lawful duel, or in defense of the city that the Arishok declared war upon. That's not murder anymore than killing an enemy soldier in a war is murder. It's lawful

Killing Meredith is self-defense. By that point she's gone completely batty and started flying around bringing statues to life and ****, she's attacking everyone indiscriminately. Also lawful. And you don't actually kill meredith anyway, she gets turned into stone.

Anders is the only one I'd consider "murder", although funnily enough a lot of people don't see it that way. Yes, it's an "execution" and some people may feel it's justified, but the fact is that Hawke is not a judge or in any sort of authoritative position to make that call, he's simply leader of the group, and the one Anders chooses to submit to for justice. Whether his death is deserved or not is one thing, but it's not lawful.

[Rifneno]

Girl on a Rock wrote...

Aw, I was referring more directly to the OP. And I do agree, I don't like their methods of conversion - but I'm reserving judgment on the Qunari until we get a fuller picture of them. And I think the Arishok is maybe the most morally principled character in the whole game! LOLOL But yeah, I know I'm preaching to the choir here (hahaha), but we have already seen the Chantry kill people just for entertaining religious ideas different than their own...

I agree we shouldn't judge the entire race yet, but I'm also not holding out much hope that their society can co-exist peacefully with ours (well, Ferelden and such).  I'm really starting to wonder if qunari have a similar basic emotions.  We've never seen one express any emotion unless you count disgust.  Alistair said it very well in regards to Sten, "I don't think regret means the same thing to us as it does to him."  He acknowledges what he did was wrong and unforgivable.  He accepts his punishment and doesn't defend his crime.  He does not, however, seem to express guilt or remorse.  And it's not just Sten, we never see any qunari express much guilt or any other emotion.  Although partially due to Bioware's unwillingness to make a female qunari model, we never see one show any signs of feeling love.  That they willingly give their children to the priesthood shows they clearly don't have the same parental instincts as humans.

I ramble too much.  Basically I'm just weary that while their society may work very well for their natural mind it wouldn't necessarily work well with others.

Oh, Rifneno, you are rapidly becoming one of my faves! 

Right back atcha.  

AlexXIV wrote...

Kind of funny how the thread title is 'there is no excuse for murder' and people jump the bandwagon and agree and then turn around and try to justify genocide.

You, sir, have perfectly summed up this thread in one sentence.  Congratulations.

Satyricon331 wrote...

That reply doesn't really address my position, which simply says on the information we have, she seems guilty, but there's no particular reason to cast judgment at this point.  Recognizing someone looks bad doesn't mean condemning the person in the absence of evidence.  And yes, it is more plausible for her than for other characters.  If she were trying to resolve the situation without a mage-templar confrontation, telling people to have patience would seem to be a likely move.

Fair enough.  I'll admit we don't exactly have enough evidence to put her on trial, were such a thing possible.  Still, I find it difficult not to hold her responsible for ultimately letting Meredith run amok.  At the very least she could've sent word to the Divine.  Clearly Meredith has already made her case to the Divine.

And Morroian, I don't have the Sebastian dlc, but why would she confide in him?  Does he become a Chantry officeholder of some sort?  I thought he just stayed an exiled prince?  I mean, if he's in a position where she'd likely have to use his powers somehow I could see it. 

She basically raised him from what I understand.  It's not so much informing a colleague as it is confiding in a close family member.  Though I agree she might not necessarily inform him.

[Girl on a Rock]

Rifneno wrote...

Girl on a Rock wrote...

Aw, I was referring more directly to the OP. And I do agree, I don't like their methods of conversion - but I'm reserving judgment on the Qunari until we get a fuller picture of them. And I think the Arishok is maybe the most morally principled character in the whole game! LOLOL But yeah, I know I'm preaching to the choir here (hahaha), but we have already seen the Chantry kill people just for entertaining religious ideas different than their own...

I agree we shouldn't judge the entire race yet, but I'm also not holding out much hope that their society can co-exist peacefully with ours (well, Ferelden and such).  I'm really starting to wonder if qunari have a similar basic emotions.  We've never seen one express any emotion unless you count disgust.  Alistair said it very well in regards to Sten, "I don't think regret means the same thing to us as it does to him."  He acknowledges what he did was wrong and unforgivable.  He accepts his punishment and doesn't defend his crime.  He does not, however, seem to express guilt or remorse.  And it's not just Sten, we never see any qunari express much guilt or any other emotion.  Although partially due to Bioware's unwillingness to make a female qunari model, we never see one show any signs of feeling love.  That they willingly give their children to the priesthood shows they clearly don't have the same parental instincts as humans.

I ramble too much.  Basically I'm just weary that while their society may work very well for their natural mind it wouldn't necessarily work well with others.

No way, I like the rambling! It's all sensible and thoughtful. I have the feeling that the Qunari do have similar basic emotions, but their radically different value system and their social training has made them manifest differently. There are some seriously stoic people out there in the world, and I got the sense that the Qunari are trained to view their emotions as agents of chaos, and to let them get the better of them is to be weak and/or fail the Qun in some way. 

I would say, though, that their willingness to give their children to the priesthood isn't that different than what the ancient Romans did for Vestal virgins (priestesses who were dedicated by their parents to Vesta at the age of 6, I think), and fostering their kids out in medieval times, and things of that nature - kids growing up with their parents isn't necessarily a given in all cultures. I mean hell, even today, parents be sending their kids off to boarding school.

That said, I hate to say it, but it is hard to imagine the Qunari culture/way of life being compatible with the Ferelden/Marcher way of life. They are pretty hard core to the man, and compromise doesn't seem to interest them. The way that plays out is going to be really interesting. I still like and respect them, though! 

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

Hawke's actions don't fall under the definition of "murder" most of the time.

Uhuh. Like killin all those templars, or "renegade guards", or making a clearly assasination mission for Sebastian, or "paragon" solution of killing mad mayor's son, or slaying templars which lawfuly obide to their duty to annul the Circle, or.. oh c'mon, even without going deep into debate about moral superiority of "lawful" stabbin people and "murdering" people, Hawke virtually baths himself in blood.
This game does't deserve discussion like that, as it promotes killing as the only solution to any situation, it forces player into thinkin that killing is artsy, fun and cool, and anyone who attacks Hawke is a bad guy and unlawful because they have those nasty names, like "blood something", or "fallen guards", or "not good templars", and Hawke kills stuff, and they even pay him for that, "Yes, yes, you killed those half a hundred mercenaries, have your gold, and we will pay you if you'll kill another hundred of nameless NPC's, cause they are nameless, you know, these NPCs are not people, they're bad guys, you can kill bad guys".
Damn, I should stop thinking about that game, it just like cabbage that is rotten inside, the more leaves are taken out, the more **** you can see. Damn.

[Rifneno]

Girl on a Rock wrote...

No way, I like the rambling! It's all sensible and thoughtful. I have the feeling that the Qunari do have similar basic emotions, but their radically different value system and their social training has made them manifest differently. There are some seriously stoic people out there in the world, and I got the sense that the Qunari are trained to view their emotions as agents of chaos, and to let them get the better of them is to be weak and/or fail the Qun in some way.

Hmm.  That's quite possible.  Or perhaps they just train their soldiers as such.  After all we've only seen the military arm of the qunari.  It reminds me of a conversation Leliana had with Sten.  "I don't know. You don't seem like very musical people to me."  "You base this on me? I am a soldier. The ansaam does not do battle with lutes."  Obviously music isn't the same thing (although come to think of it, any good music does seem to carry an emotional intent) but it could be a similar situation.  I guess it'd be a double standard for me to judge the qunari based on the bunch of soldiers we see while still defending the Circle citing that just because we see a ton of blood mages doesn't mean they're representative of the whole.  Still...  very leery...

I would say, though, that their willingness to give their children to the priesthood isn't that different than what the ancient Romans did for Vestal virgins (priestesses who were dedicated by their parents to Vesta at the age of 6, I think), and fostering their kids out in medieval times, and things of that nature - kids growing up with their parents isn't necessarily a given in all cultures. I mean hell, even today, parents be sending their kids off to boarding school.

A good point.  I hadn't really considered it from the aspect of older cultures.

That said, I hate to say it, but it is hard to imagine the Qunari culture/way of life being compatible with the Ferelden/Marcher way of life. They are pretty hard core to the man, and compromise doesn't seem to interest them. The way that plays out is going to be really interesting. I still like and respect them, though!

Agreed.  Well, mostly.  I still don't like them, but you definitely presented the first case that made me view them in a better light than I had before.  Most of the folks that like the qunari just swoon over how "badass" they are or just flatly forgive their methods because "the Qun tells them to" rather than make a good rationale.

[Super_Fr33k]

@ Yellopranda

I guess my only real point is that every major character in the game is guilty of over-relying on violence. I guess you could think of it as a handicap in golf -- everyone seems to be starting at a low point. I try to evaluate the characters relative to other characters in game. Condemning them solely through using RL, modern views on morality and politics (which I'm not accusing anyone of doing) doesn't totally work. DA is socially much more primitive. Like I was kinda saying, I try to play DA with a "find the lesser evil" mindset.

With this mindset, it's much less clear which major player is worse. It hinges partially on a judgment of credibility. Do you believe Anders when he says a more open society will work? Do you believe Meredith when she says mages can never be trusted? And so on...

On another matter, I notice a lot of people really hating on the Arishok. Again, invoking lesser evil mentality, keep in mind how awful most people have it in Kirkwall. You've got future-less refugees in Darktown, the bare-bones poor in Lowtown, and rampant criminals throughout all parts of the city. The Qunari poignantly and rightly note that Kirkwall's freedom is really synonymous with neglect. Most people can do and think what they want, because the odds are good it won't matter. The Arishok demands we question the value of freedom when social mobility is mostly an illusion.

It makes me think of one of Meredith's best lines, IMO, which could easily have been the Arishok's: If you have no alternative, do not label me a tyrant.

As many characters point out, no one in Kirkwall is truly free: the Qunari simply try to force a role on people that's actually useful.

Lastly, a general observation: seemingly opposed political and economic systems often share the same goal: the most prosperous and productive society possible. In an ideal capitalist society, everyone works to the best of their ability in productive ways, and are rewarded appropriately for their efforts. A communist society (actual, theoretical communism, not the all-too common dictatorships) has the same goal. Anarchy and collectivism also share a goal: self-actualization for as many people as possible. The difference is trust or rejection of centrallized, bureaucratic direction in pursuit of those ends.

As in real life, all the factions in DA want the same thing: a better world. They simply differ in methods, and who they would have pay the price for their idealized society.

[Obadiah]

There are some real issues with these Dragon Age games and murder. I'm not sure why the devs gave the players so many of these characters as companion options. The following ally characters could all be considered murderers:
- The Warden depending on the Origin (and the murder knife choices)
- Leliana
- Morrigan
- Zevran
- Duncan (could have just let Jory go and renounced him as a liar)
- Shale (and unapologetic)
- Sten
- Loghain (arguably)
- Oghren (practically a drunk driver)
- Valena
- The Champion (if he worked for the Mercenary group)
- Fenris
- Anders (well obviously)

Maybe it's just a really brutal setting.

Modifié par Obadiah, 12 avril 2011 - 06:39 .

[SexBomb]

Played right, a good character should evoke sympathy or understanding in the audience. "Justified extremist" characters should be able to bring about a sense of understanding, despite their often violent, desperate acts. Unfortunately, in my opinion, DAII did not evoke any sense of sympathy in me for any of the characters. I wanted to feel on the edge of agreement with Anders; I wanted to experience his pain and understand his position and the plight of the mages, but I don't think the story was executed properly in order for me to. That being said, in most cases there is no excuse for murder, but in many cases it should lead to an emotional struggle for the audience.