43 réponses à ce sujet

[Rifneno]

DeathStride wrote...

Avilia wrote...

@Rifneno - or even just an 'interrupt' with no sides picked. Meredith winds up for the big swing *button push!* *block* - "I don't think so sweetheart, this mah man/friend/pita, I decide what's what with him." Or alternatively *interrupt lights up* *ignores it* - Player: "Kill him! Kill him now! I want to see if Anders' head is bouncier than the Viscount's"

"This mah pita, b*tch!"

He's a pain in the ass?  There's all kinds of oils and creams and techniques that help with that, guys.

....

What?  </Varric>

[DeathStride]

Rifneno wrote...

DeathStride wrote...

Avilia wrote...

@Rifneno - or even just an 'interrupt' with no sides picked. Meredith winds up for the big swing *button push!* *block* - "I don't think so sweetheart, this mah man/friend/pita, I decide what's what with him." Or alternatively *interrupt lights up* *ignores it* - Player: "Kill him! Kill him now! I want to see if Anders' head is bouncier than the Viscount's"

"This mah pita, b*tch!"

He's a pain in the ass?  There's all kinds of oils and creams and techniques that help with that, guys.

I was thinking more food-related pita, hence my amusement.

[TJPags]

Why not prison?

Because DA2 requires the player to choose between supporting the Templars in their attempt to Anull the Circle, or supporting the mages in defending against that attempting Anullment.

Actually punishing Anders would prevent that, because then, you know, the actual terrorist will have been, you know, punished.  Making the choice somewhat, well, less important.

That said, IMO, prison is not where Anders belongs.  I believe in capital punishment for capital crimes.  And, IMO, this qualifies.

[Rifneno]

TJPags wrote...

Why not prison?

Because DA2 requires the player to choose between supporting the Templars in their attempt to Anull the Circle, or supporting the mages in defending against that attempting Anullment.

Actually punishing Anders would prevent that, because then, you know, the actual terrorist will have been, you know, punished.  Making the choice somewhat, well, less important.

That said, IMO, prison is not where Anders belongs.  I believe in capital punishment for capital crimes.  And, IMO, this qualifies.

Damn, and I thought I use too many commas.  I see you're still whipping out "terrorist" after ranting about other people overusing far more apt words though.  

[TJPags]

Rifneno wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Why not prison?

Because DA2 requires the player to choose between supporting the Templars in their attempt to Anull the Circle, or supporting the mages in defending against that attempting Anullment.

Actually punishing Anders would prevent that, because then, you know, the actual terrorist will have been, you know, punished.  Making the choice somewhat, well, less important.

That said, IMO, prison is not where Anders belongs.  I believe in capital punishment for capital crimes.  And, IMO, this qualifies.

Damn, and I thought I use too many commas.  I see you're still whipping out "terrorist" after ranting about other people overusing far more apt words though.  

Hey, got to combat "gestapo" and "genocide" somehow. 

[DeathStride]

Rifneno wrote...

I see you're still whipping out "terrorist" after ranting about other people overusing far more apt words though.  

The "common definition of terrorism" from Wikipedia:

"Violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies."

-Violent act: check
-Intended to create fear(in Templars & general populace to bring about open war): check
-Ideological/political goal: check
-Deliberately target non-combatants/disgregard safety of civilians: check
-non-gov agency: check

Any of this sound familiar?

Modifié par DeathStride, 20 avril 2011 - 11:52 .

[kaispan]

JesterPsychotica wrote...

Yes, I expect it to be quite ghastly, and essentially a place left to rot and kept in the most abysmal conditions. Even the Templars who are hired are probably the worst of the lot. convicts are willing to fight/kill each other for food. Unspeakable experiments performed on the possessed and normal mages to see the limits they can be pushed to.

Probably something akin to the Tower of London in its worst days, and worse.

Or they would end up that way. The Lucifer Effect, anyone? The Circle Tower always brought to mind the Stanford Prison Experiment for me.

And yeah, Aeonar reminded me of Azkaban, too. xD

[TJPags]

DeathStride wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Damn, and I thought I use too many commas.  I see you're still whipping out "terrorist" after ranting about other people overusing far more apt words though.  

The "common definition of terrorism" from Wikipedia:

"Violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies."

-Violent act: check
-Intended to create fear(in Templars & general populace to bring about open war): check
-Ideological/political goal: check
-Deliberately target non-combatants/disgregard safety of civilians: check
-non-gov agency: check

Any of this sound familiar?

Shhh - pointing out that Anders action actually meets the definition of terrorism makes people who use terms like gestapo and genocide feel bad.

[JesterPsychotica]

It just seems like killing Anders would fall into exactly want he wanted- years from now he would become a martyr to those who felt he was right all along. In fact, he says exactly that to Hawke.

Sending him to the Aeonar would be a punishment, the mages he would be forced to live with would not care about what went on in the outside world. They would not care about making emotional ties with him, or his political opinions. It would be purely about self-preservation and at the lowest level of depravity. Anders thinks he has seen the worst of it, but he has not been in a place like the Aeonar.

Edit: For more thoughts and clarifications.

Modifié par JesterPsychotica, 21 avril 2011 - 12:21 .

[Teddie Sage]

Hehehehe... In my canon story he survives and I flee with him. Try to stop us, templars... *snickers*

[Rifneno]

DeathStride wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

I see you're still whipping out "terrorist" after ranting about other people overusing far more apt words though.  

The "common definition of terrorism" from Wikipedia:

"Violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies."

-Violent act: check
-Intended to create fear(in Templars & general populace to bring about open war): check
-Ideological/political goal: check
-Deliberately target non-combatants/disgregard safety of civilians: check
-non-gov agency: check

Any of this sound familiar?

The Chantry makes and enforces laws, and has a military.  I don't know what you think governing means, but the Chantry is one.

[DeathStride]

Rifneno wrote...

The Chantry makes and enforces laws, and has a military.  I don't know what you think governing means, but the Chantry is one.

Read again, good sir. The non-gov agency is the qualification for the attacker, not target.

[Rifneno]

DeathStride wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

The Chantry makes and enforces laws, and has a military.  I don't know what you think governing means, but the Chantry is one.

Read again, good sir. The non-gov agency is the qualification for the attacker, not target.

Ahh.  Apologies for the snide tone, getting too used to responding to types like TJPags regarding the subject.  Guess I have to stop and smack myself upside the head every now and then to not snap at people.  Anyway, yes, under the more liberal definitions he does fit the description.  But they also make a point of noting that the word has over 100 documented definitions due to its political nature.  He fits some, he doesn't fit others.  I didn't mean that he fits none, just that "genocide" is more apt to the Right of Annulment than "terrorist" is to Anders.

[JabbaDaHutt30]

Avilia wrote...

@Rifneno - or even just an 'interrupt' with no sides picked. Meredith winds up for the big swing *button push!* *block* - "I don't think so sweetheart, this mah man/friend/pita, I decide what's what with him." Or alternatively *interrupt lights up* *ignores it* - Player: "Kill him! Kill him now! I want to see if Anders' head is bouncier than the Viscount's"

And what happens then? You fight Meredith there? Or you fight her there for a while then she just leaves you to her 'lackeys' and runs off?

I agree that it's weird letting Anders live btw.

[JabbaDaHutt30]

DeathStride wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

I see you're still whipping out "terrorist" after ranting about other people overusing far more apt words though.  

The "common definition of terrorism" from Wikipedia:

"Violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies."

-Violent act: check
-Intended to create fear(in Templars & general populace to bring about open war): check
-Ideological/political goal: check
-Deliberately target non-combatants/disgregard safety of civilians: check
-non-gov agency: check

Any of this sound familiar?

Did you miss this part? 

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[3] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”.[4][5] The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities to delegitimize political or other opponents,[6] and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).[6][7]

Modifié par JabbaDaHutt30, 21 avril 2011 - 12:46 .

[TJPags]

Rifneno wrote...

DeathStride wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

The Chantry makes and enforces laws, and has a military.  I don't know what you think governing means, but the Chantry is one.

Read again, good sir. The non-gov agency is the qualification for the attacker, not target.

Ahh.  Apologies for the snide tone, getting too used to responding to types like TJPags regarding the subject.  Guess I have to stop and smack myself upside the head every now and then to not snap at people.  Anyway, yes, under the more liberal definitions he does fit the description.  But they also make a point of noting that the word has over 100 documented definitions due to its political nature.  He fits some, he doesn't fit others.  I didn't mean that he fits none, just that "genocide" is more apt to the Right of Annulment than "terrorist" is to Anders.

OoO, I'm a type?  Cool. 

Anyway, let's define, shall we?

from Dictionary.com, for both:



ter·ror·ism 
 /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show IPA

–noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Anders uses violence to intimidate or coerce.  He meets definition 1.



gen·o·cide   /ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/ Show IPA

–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Mages are not a national, racial, or political group.  While they could likely qualify as a cultural group, the Right of Anullment acts against 1 Circle.  It is not an attempt to exterminate all mages.  It doesn't even target non-Circle mages.

So, which definition is more accurate?

*edit - terrorism definition posted odd . . .fixed it

Modifié par TJPags, 21 avril 2011 - 01:15 .

[DeathStride]

Rifneno wrote...

Ahh.  Apologies for the snide tone, getting too used to responding to types like TJPags regarding the subject.  Guess I have to stop and smack myself upside the head every now and then to not snap at people.  Anyway, yes, under the more liberal definitions he does fit the description.  But they also make a point of noting that the word has over 100 documented definitions due to its political nature.  He fits some, he doesn't fit others.  I didn't mean that he fits none, just that "genocide" is more apt to the Right of Annulment than "terrorist" is to Anders.

No worries, I wasn't exactly the model of politeness with my ending question.:innocent:

As for the RoA, I am vehemently against it, passionately pro-mage freedom, and had discussed the oppressive nature of the Circle with friends from Origins itself, way before DA2 came out. I don't know if I'd call the RoA genocide though- it's horrendous, incredibly unjust, and what the mages did in 2 is the only reasonable response to it IMO, but I wouldn't call it genocide simply because the population of a Circle isn't really big enough to justify the term.

If the RoA is conducted say, nation-wide in Ferelden, or over all of the Free Marches, then definitely, it would certainly qualify as a genocide, but for one circle, I'd say it doesn't. Again, that doesn't make it any less abhorrent, I just think that specific term isn't an accurate description.

But anyway, as I said, I have both feet planted rock-solid in the mage camp in divided Thedas we see are told about in the ending of DA2. I just think that being pro-mage freedom etc most definitely does not come as a package deal with condoning Anders' atrocious actions.

Modifié par DeathStride, 21 avril 2011 - 01:42 .

[DeathStride]

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...

Did you miss this part? 

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged, and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”. The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities to delegitimize political or other opponents, and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).

The entire reason I specifically went and quoted "common definition" is because of the varying nature of any single one.

Secondly, I am NOT trying to delegitimize mages in any way or form, nor am I in the least condoning any of the actions of the Templars, after what Anders' did, or before, during the "peaceful" times. As I mentioned in my previous post, I am passionately pro-mage freedom but that belief does NOT come as an all-or-nothing package with supporting Anders' abhorrent behavior.

Modifié par DeathStride, 21 avril 2011 - 01:21 .

[Avilia]

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...

Avilia wrote...

@Rifneno - or even just an 'interrupt' with no sides picked. Meredith winds up for the big swing *button push!* *block* - "I don't think so sweetheart, this mah man/friend/pita, I decide what's what with him." Or alternatively *interrupt lights up* *ignores it* - Player: "Kill him! Kill him now! I want to see if Anders' head is bouncier than the Viscount's"

And what happens then? You fight Meredith there? Or you fight her there for a while then she just leaves you to her 'lackeys' and runs off?

I agree that it's weird letting Anders live btw.

Bit of an argument perhaps, where you have to convince her you will deal with it?  Not saying that idea is perfect btw - I'm more in favour of her just killing him out of hand tbh.  It makes more sense to me than her "I'll leave you to deal with this Hawke" and wandering off to her mage slaughtering.