1207 réponses à ce sujet

[Phoenix_Loftian]

Corto81 wrote...

How can anyone be happy?

It's akin to the Twin Towers.
You just don't massacre hundreds and thousands of civilians because of your political agenda (even if Anders - which IMO he wasn't, especially after the "martyr remembered in history" comment).

My biggest problem with the scene is that I hated the whiny wimp he turned into after Awakening, and I couldn't stand the guy.
Yet no matter what I did, I couldn't ditch him and regardless of the fact I never talked to him apart from his quests, or never had him in the party otherwise, apparently my Hawke's been bros with him for 7 years.

Awesome.

There are actually two different types of terrorism identified by those schooled in politics. There is "Terrorism", a act of destruction including murder done for the sake of a political cause. And then there is al Qaeda's version of terrorism, "New Terrorism", which is acts of destruction for the intent to murder as many civilians as possible.

Anders was the former. He was symbolically destroying an icon of peace to demand freedom for the mages. He's more like the American revolutionists than anything. It can even be argued he's more like a freedom fighter intent on ridding the world of a form of slavery.

Yes, innocents died but they weren't the target, the building was. And unfortunately, innocents always die in war. To believe otherwise is naive especially if you've brushed-up on your history regarding wars.

[nos_astra]

Phoenix_Loftian wrote...
There are actually two different types of terrorism identified by those schooled in politics. There is "Terrorism", a act of destruction including murder done for the sake of a political cause. And then there is al Qaeda's version of terrorism, "New Terrorism", which is acts of destruction for the intent to murder as many civilians as possible.

Am I the only one who thinks this definition is a bit arbitrary? Good old, kind of okay-ish terrorism vs. new totally despicable terrorism? Really?

Edit: People who die couldn't care less if their death was intentional or a casualty.

Modifié par klarabella, 02 juin 2011 - 07:50 .

[IanPolaris]

klarabella wrote...

Phoenix_Loftian wrote...
There are actually two different types of terrorism identified by those schooled in politics. There is "Terrorism", a act of destruction including murder done for the sake of a political cause. And then there is al Qaeda's version of terrorism, "New Terrorism", which is acts of destruction for the intent to murder as many civilians as possible.

Am I the only one who thinks this definition is a bit arbitrary? Good old, kind of okay-ish terrorism vs. new totally despicable terrorism? Really?

Not really.  The "new" Terrorism arose when terrorists figured out that human lives in the eyes of "Weak Western Democracies" (and frankly that IS how a lot of Terrorists view this) get more attention and can gain more leverage than any amount of symbolic damage.

So the traditional terrorist uses unconventional warfar to "take out" a symbolic target.

The more modern terrorist deliberately tries to kill as many innocents as possible because innocent lives ARE his (or her) target and his (or her) way to gain leverage over his or her enemies.

I think the distinction is a very appropriate one.

-Polaris

[nos_astra]

I'm not convinced there's anything new about it, the bigger the target the more people will be affected.

Modifié par klarabella, 02 juin 2011 - 08:00 .

[Corto81]

Phoenix_Loftian wrote...

There are actually two different types of terrorism identified by those schooled in politics. There is "Terrorism", a act of destruction including murder done for the sake of a political cause. And then there is al Qaeda's version of terrorism, "New Terrorism", which is acts of destruction for the intent to murder as many civilians as possible.

Anders was the former. He was symbolically destroying an icon of peace to demand freedom for the mages. He's more like the American revolutionists than anything. It can even be argued he's more like a freedom fighter intent on ridding the world of a form of slavery.

Yes, innocents died but they weren't the target, the building was. And unfortunately, innocents always die in war. To believe otherwise is naive especially if you've brushed-up on your history regarding wars.

I've "brushed" up on my history.
And I've also lived through a war.
I like to believe I know about wars and what comes with them.

And no, there's absolutely no excuse for targeting non-military targets in wars.
Because they WILL cause civilian casualties.

We have absolutely no knowledge of how many people died at the Chantry, but (even though portrayed poorly) Kirkwall is supposed to be a fairly large city.
I assume there was a significant number of civilian casualties.

Targeting buildings, and icons?
Twin Towers was an icon of corporative, capitalist America, does that excuse Al Quaeda?
It's not an excuse.

In the end, Gaider even said he drew some inspiration from modern-day terrorism.

[IanPolaris]

klarabella wrote...

I'm not convinced there's anything new about it, the bigger the target the more people will be affected.

I am and I've seen it.  There is a big difference between what in legal terms we'd call depraved indifference of civilian life, and the DELIBERATE targeting of civilian life.

IRL for example, it used to be policy that Airline personelle and passengers should cooperate with hijackers because it reflected the best chance to get out alive (becasue the hijackers generally wanted to make a political statement and go to friendly country for aslylum).

Now?  Many are saying you are better off resisting even if it means the death of all aboard the airline especially post 9/11.  That's because modern terrorists kill innocents for the sake of killing innocents and it's a big difference.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Corto81 wrote...

And no, there's absolutely no excuse for targeting non-military targets in wars.
Because they WILL cause civilian casualties.

The charred ghosts of Tokyo and Dresden would like to have a word with you.

-Polaris

[Corto81]

IanPolaris wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

And no, there's absolutely no excuse for targeting non-military targets in wars.
Because they WILL cause civilian casualties.

The charred ghosts of Tokyo and Dresden would like to have a word with you.

-Polaris

What word?

Does the fact that those bombings were carried out by the winning side (and as a conequence are not remembered as acts of monstrocity like they would've been had the other side done them) change my view on  that?
Germany bombing London was awful. And it was.
But allies bombing Dresden was "justified"? 25,000 people died, most of them civilians.
And while some of the factories (which were suppose to be one of the goals) remained intact, the city's cultural centre was oblitorated.
The war was nearing its end btw (it was 1945, German army was retreating all over Europe).

So, no, it doesn't matter to me if the winning or the losing side targets civilian buildings/areas.

Targeting civilians is a vile act of terrorism as far as I'm concerned.
I've seen it done in the war here, and no, there's no excuse for it.
And it doesn't matter to me if Anders, Allies, Axis or whoever did... The act stays the same.

[IanPolaris]

Carto,

I disagree. Civilians especoally civilians engaged in wartime industries are very much valid targets of war. This is why Strategic bombing is NOT a war crime and is NOT terrorism. Targetiong civilians simply for the sake of targeting civilians is a different matter.

-Polaris

Edit:  FWIW, I consider what Anders did an act of Terrorism because he showed reckless disregard for innocent life, but you CAN see it as an act of war (which it certainly was as well).  Just because your motives are basically good ones does not mean you can't be a terrorist.  However it IS important to note that Anders did not deliberately try to kill as many people as possible so it's not the same sort of Terrorism as 9/11 or even the "double bombs" you hear about in places in Israel (where the terrorists will plant two bombs...with the second timed to go off five minutes after the first to get as many rescue workers as possible).

Modifié par IanPolaris, 02 juin 2011 - 08:57 .

[Corto81]

IanPolaris wrote...

I disagree. Civilians especoally civilians engaged in wartime industries are very much valid targets of war. This is why Strategic bombing is NOT a war crime and is NOT terrorism. Targetiong civilians simply for the sake of targeting civilians is a different matter.

-Polaris

  However it IS important to note that Anders did not deliberately try to kill as many people as possible so it's not the same sort of Terrorism as 9/11 or even the "double bombs"

I really don't want to get into the 9/11 thing here, but I think it's fairly obvious the planes were targeting well-known buildings in the US that represent corporative America or the goverment, as well as just people.
It's not an excuse.

As for Dresden...
Had it been done by the other side, it would've been called a monstrocity.
Like I said, there were numerous plants and factories that remained intact (where different industries took part in making military equipment etc.), yet the city's cultural centre was completely destroyed.

Not all of the communications infrastructure, such as the
bridges, were

in fact targeted, nor were the extensive industrial areas
outside the

city centre. It is argued that Dresden was a cultural
landmark of little or no military significance, a "Florence on the
Elbe" (Elbflorenz), as it was known, and the attacks were indiscriminate
area bombing and not proportionate to the commensurate military gains]

The whole thing is very sketchy (strategic bombing of non-military targets) that it has to be rock-solid proof that there weren't any other targets hit and everything was done to avoid civilian casualties... Which is hardly ever the case.

In our war here, we had a (civilain) hospital bombed, and hundreds of people die under the fire.
The excuse was "there were also soldiers there, and they would've gone back to fighting after they healed up".
So, strategic bombing?

There are wars where no side is right.
There are wars with obvious good guys and baddies (WWII).

But both sides usually commit horrible war crimes and violent acts against civilians.
The only difference is the winning side proclaims what was justified and what wasn't.

Reading books is one thing.
Seeing it in person is another.
And having had that experience, I can't agree with any act of targeting civilian targets - or at least 99% of it.
There are very few of those that are both researched and done properly

Modifié par Corto81, 02 juin 2011 - 09:18 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

klarabella wrote...

Phoenix_Loftian wrote...
There are actually two different types of terrorism identified by those schooled in politics. There is "Terrorism", a act of destruction including murder done for the sake of a political cause. And then there is al Qaeda's version of terrorism, "New Terrorism", which is acts of destruction for the intent to murder as many civilians as possible.

Am I the only one who thinks this definition is a bit arbitrary? Good old, kind of okay-ish terrorism vs. new totally despicable terrorism? Really?

Edit: People who die couldn't care less if their death was intentional or a casualty.

I kinda wish someone close to Hawke had died when the Chantry blew. It's too easy to say  'Poo-poo, civilians die
in war all the time, you just have to accept that as a fact of life. It's for the greater good!' when you don't know any of the victims, or their families or friends.

And no, I wasn't happy over Anders' decision in Act III. Mostly because I refused to distract Elthina for him and then found out my choice(!) didn't mean a damn thing, but seeing people idolise his actions and say Elthina deserved to die doesn't impress me either.

Thank goodness you couldn't kill her in person like you could Isolde, or spray her with the blood of her congregation a la Anora. I get the feeling some players (separate from their characters) would have enjoyed it a little too much.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 02 juin 2011 - 11:08 .

[AndreaDraco]

IanPolaris wrote...
 However it IS important to note that Anders did not deliberately try to kill as many people as possible [...]

Exactly. The definition of terrorism should be a criminal activity geared toward increasing fear in the general population by ruthlessly killing as many people as possibile during their bombing. Anders did nothing of the sort. He targeted the Chantry, at night, only to strike at Grand Cleric Elthina and her compromise policy.

[Corto81]

AndreaDraco wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
 However it IS important to note that Anders did not deliberately try to kill as many people as possible [...]

Exactly. The definition of terrorism should be a criminal activity geared toward increasing fear in the general population by ruthlessly killing as many people as possibile during their bombing. Anders did nothing of the sort. He targeted the Chantry, at night, only to strike at Grand Cleric Elthina and her compromise policy.

So, if Al Quaeda had struck at midnight, at Pentagon, that would not have been terrorism?

I'm sorry, but that logic simply doesn't stand.
Anders did kill people and unless the Chantry was in a big huge giant clearing in the desert - and it wasn't, the debris and the fires killed more people than just the explosion.
(tbh the lighting in that scene is so bad I didn't even notice it was night - I thought it was daytime /shrug)

As for the definition:

There is no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal
law definition of terrorism.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only
to those 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

Modifié par Corto81, 02 juin 2011 - 11:35 .

[OldMan91]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

klarabella wrote...

Phoenix_Loftian wrote...
There are actually two different types of terrorism identified by those schooled in politics. There is "Terrorism", a act of destruction including murder done for the sake of a political cause. And then there is al Qaeda's version of terrorism, "New Terrorism", which is acts of destruction for the intent to murder as many civilians as possible.

Am I the only one who thinks this definition is a bit arbitrary? Good old, kind of okay-ish terrorism vs. new totally despicable terrorism? Really?

Edit: People who die couldn't care less if their death was intentional or a casualty.

I kinda wish someone close to Hawke had died when the Chantry blew. It's too easy to say  'Poo-poo, civilians die
in war all the time, you just have to accept that as a fact of life. It's for the greater good!' when you don't know any of the victims, or their families or friends.

And no, I wasn't happy over Anders' decision in Act III. Mostly because I refused to distract Elthina for him and then found out my choice(!) didn't mean a damn thing, but seeing people idolise his actions and say Elthina deserved to die doesn't impress me either.

Thank goodness you couldn't kill her in person like you could Isolde, or spray her with the blood of her congregation a la Anora. I get the feeling some players (separate from their characters) would have enjoyed it a little too much.

It doesn't impress me when you make assumptions about forum posters and players you don't know personally... on the internet.

[Rifneno]

CalJones wrote...

As for Anders, a lot of people enjoy his character development and like having him in party or as a romance option. You didn't, which is fair enough. It's all down to personal preference. But for those that liked Anders as a party member and/or romance, the Chantry bomb added a delicious bitter-sweet twist. Whether you view this as dramatic or melodramatic is, again, a matter of personal perspective.

I just worry that those of us who didn't condemn him for finally striking back aren't going to see him again because the by far most common route was executing him. And why pay for more writing, VAing, models, ect. for a character barely anyone will see. =/

Phoenix_Loftian wrote...

Anders was the former. He was symbolically destroying an icon of peace to demand freedom for the mages. He's more like the American revolutionists than anything. It can even be argued he's more like a freedom fighter intent on ridding the world of a form of slavery.

Yes, innocents died but they weren't the target, the building was. And unfortunately, innocents always die in war. To believe otherwise is naive especially if you've brushed-up on your history regarding wars.

Agreed with everything except "icon of peace." But yeah, I'm continually shocked how many people think you can fight a war as a paragon of virtue without ever harming an innocent. Especially as the massive underdog. There's a reason people say things like "War is Hell." It's because war is Hell. The bad guy in war isn't the guy that killed 100 civilians to save 5,000, it's the let 5,000 die because he didn't have the testicular fortitude to make the hard decision and kill 100. What good is it if your hands are clean when the ground is stained with blood?

klarabella wrote...

I'm not convinced there's anything new about it, the bigger the target the more people will be affected.

Not always the case. Say someone blew up the Statue of Liberty (Hi, FBI!). It doesn't kill many people at all, but it's an incredible symbolic target. Hence why every alien movie ever involves destroying it. Even that thing in Cloverfield broke it. Now say someone else hit a Wal-Mart in Nowhere, Kansas. Half the population of Nowhere is in that thing at any given time. Both of these scenarios would have a big impact, but indeed one is a "symbolic" target and the other is a "kill lots of people" target.

Corto81 wrote...

I've "brushed" up on my history.
And I've also lived through a war.
I like to believe I know about wars and what comes with them.

And no, there's absolutely no excuse for targeting non-military targets in wars.
Because they WILL cause civilian casualties.

Well brush up some more, because you believe very, very wrong. Ever hear of "cutting off the enemy's supply line?" War should always be a last resort. But once it comes to that last resort, a good man does not place his own morality and lives of the enemy's few above the lives of his own's many.

Corto81 wrote...

I really don't want to get into the 9/11 thing here

Then here's an idea: Don't bring it up. It was at best an extremely exaggerated analogy anyway. Sadly, still far more reasonable than the "mages are walking nuclear bombs omgz!" thing people keep using. Do they not teach what "nuclear bomb" means in school these days? Do people think "nuclear" is a brand name? Nuclear, Inc. out of Arizona?

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

I kinda wish someone close to Hawke had died when the Chantry blew. It's too easy to say 'Poo-poo, civilians die
in war all the time, you just have to accept that as a fact of life. It's for the greater good!' when you don't know any of the victims, or their families or friends.

Wouldn't that require someone close to Hawke to have actually survived that long?

And no, I wasn't happy over Anders' decision in Act III. Mostly because I refused to distract Elthina for him and then found out my choice(!) didn't mean a damn thing, but seeing people idolise his actions and say Elthina deserved to die doesn't impress me either.

Thank goodness you couldn't kill her in person like you could Isolde, or spray her with the blood of her congregation a la Anora. I get the feeling some players (separate from their characters) would have enjoyed it a little too much.

You know what doesn't impress me? People who judge others for having a strong opinion about a story in a post on a forum about that story.

[Corto81]

Rifneno wrote...
Well brush up some more, because you believe very, very wrong. Ever hear of "cutting off the enemy's supply line?" War should always be a last resort. But once it comes to that last resort, a good man does not place his own morality and lives of the enemy's few above the lives of his own's many.

Again, as someone who's been through a war - and lived war for 5 years, I certainly understand the strategic attacks on certain civilian aspects of the enemy.

However, like I was replying to Ian Polaris (a poster who I respect), it's not black and white.
(we talked about the Dresden bombing and how justified or not it was - bombing the city centre instead of the industrial area on the city outskirts etc.).

Anyway, without getting too much into politics etc. on a gaming forum....
Anders' action had nothing to do with any military planning or anything like that.
It was an act to destroy, kill and provoke further killing.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Corto81 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...
Well brush up some more, because you believe very, very wrong. Ever hear of "cutting off the enemy's supply line?" War should always be a last resort. But once it comes to that last resort, a good man does not place his own morality and lives of the enemy's few above the lives of his own's many.

Again, as someone who's been through a war - and lived war for 5 years, I certainly understand the strategic attacks on certain civilian aspects of the enemy.

However, like I was replying to Ian Polaris (a poster who I respect), it's not black and white.
(we talked about the Dresden bombing and how justified or not it was - bombing the city centre instead of the industrial area on the city outskirts etc.).

Anyway, without getting too much into politics etc. on a gaming forum....
Anders' action had nothing to do with any military planning or anything like that.
It was an act to destroy, kill and provoke further killing.

I disagree. It was a symbolic act... one that might start a war, true, but this war has far more similarities with a pre-civil-war-era slave revolt than any modern war, and I think that's a key factor that most people neglect to consider. Was the US Civil war a horrible, bloody, brother against brother struggle? Yes. Would it have been better if it never happened? I'm going to say no. Anders actions are more akin to John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry than any modern act of terror - foolish, bloody, but born out of desperation and a deep sense of the injustice of slavery.

In modern times, we have far more alternatives to violence, which is what makes violence so repugnant to many of us. But there wasn't even a word for terrorism prior to 1795, because terrorism is only a really relevant concept in a world where there are other ways to change the future.

Viewing Anders actions strictly in the context of modern war is incomprehensible to me, as is viewing his attack in a similar manner as one would view an attack on a democratic or representative state. Anders attack is against a fascist state, and people who are rebelling against fascism have far fewer options than those who are rebelling against a modern progressive state.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

OldMan91 wrote...

It doesn't impress me when you make assumptions about forum posters and players you don't know personally... on the internet.

My opinions on users are formed by their posts on this forum. If someone says (in all seriousness, and not from a roleplaying perspective) they cheered gleefully when a character died or felt deep satisfaction at spattering Anora with the blood of her father, I reserve the right to form certain thoughts about that person. If they don't want me or others to form an idea as to their personal character by their words, then they shouldn't be posting in a public forum.

Or on Facebook. Or Twitter. Or just about anywhere, really.

Anyway, I can't say it bothers me if this impresses you or not, but you're welcome to feel that way of course. *shrug*

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 02 juin 2011 - 01:45 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

OldMan91 wrote...

It doesn't impress me when you make assumptions about forum posters and players you don't know personally... on the internet.

My opinions on users are formed by their posts on this forum. If someone says (in all seriousness, and not from a roleplaying perspective) they cheered gleefully when a character died or felt deep satisfaction at spattering Anora with the blood of her father, I reserve the right to form certain thoughts about that person. If they don't want me or others to form an idea as to their personal character by their words, then they shouldn't be posting in a public forum.

Or on Facebook. Or Twitter. Or just about anywhere, really.

Anyway, I can't say it bothers me if this impresses you or not, but you're welcome to feel that way of course. *shrug*

I've seen far, far more people express that kind of rage when it comes to killing Anders than killing Elthina. I'd say I've noticed it in something like... a 20:1 ratio or higher, with people expressing glee at being able to marderknife Anders vastly outnumbering those who think that killing Elthina was satisfying. I've actually only seen someone say that about Elthina once or twice, while I've seen people say it about Anders hundreds of times.

I'm pretty much the strongest explicit supporter of Anders I know, and I still think the fact that the Chantry had to go up was sad. I don't want to see anyone killed... but it's sad in the way Les Miserables is sad, a tragic incident that was necessary in the struggle for freedom.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 02 juin 2011 - 01:54 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I've seen far, far more people express that kind of rage when it comes to killing Anders than killing Elthina. I'd say I've noticed it in something like... a 20:1 ratio or higher, with people expressing glee at being able to marderknife Anders vastly outnumbering those who think that killing Elthina was satisfying. I've actually only seen someone say that about Elthina once or twice, while I've seen people say it about Anders hundreds of times.

That doesn't surprise me, and I find it just as repugnant to be honest--though I'd take all of these posts with a grain of salt. Saying "I enjoyed killing Anders because he was a crappy character and I hated we were railroaded into his stupid quest" is just videogame rage, and IMO vastly different to "I enjoyed killing Anders because he deserved to die for being cruel to Merrill, who was always super nice."

It all depends.

Some people get extremely vehement and defensive about their justification for enjoying 'righteous' killing. That's what I don't like.

I'm pretty much the strongest explicit supporter of Anders I know, and I still think the fact that the Chantry had to go up was sad. I don't want to see anyone killed... but it's sad in the way Les Miserables is sad, a tragic incident that was necessary in the struggle for freedom.

It is sad. Even Anders knew he'd killed people who didn't deserve to die. It was a symbol, knocking over the sandcastle to make way for something new, and while he went on about being a martyr afterwards at least he never claimed what he'd done was good. If he'd believed otherwise, that he wasn't going to commit an atrocity, he would have invited Hawke to help him with a 'clean' conscience.

[Soul Cool]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
I'm pretty much the strongest explicit supporter of Anders I know, and I still think the fact that the Chantry had to go up was sad. I don't want to see anyone killed... but it's sad in the way Les Miserables is sad, a tragic incident that was necessary in the struggle for freedom.

Yes, struggling much in the way that an insect struggles to not be crushed under the heel of a giant. He's gone and started a fight with the proverbial 800 ton gorilla in the room, and everybody's going to lose. But you know what? It doesn't matter, he did what was Right and Just for FREEDOM.

Because blowing up churches and killing innocents shows that you deserve to be treated like people who deserve the rights that they feel have been denied to them. But never mind that, as well, he was obviously pushed to the point of taking drastic action because the Chantry wasn't going to listen to him anyway. It's not like mages have demostrated a history of being unfathomably evil [explicative deleted] people who oppress all who oppose them in cruel and horrifying fashion. They've never done that before. I mean, it's not like the whole reason the Chantry exist was because of evil, oppressive mages, or anything. But turnabout isn't fair play, right? Well, sucks. That's what happens when you let the people you already conquered form an army and crush you.

Modifié par Soul Cool, 02 juin 2011 - 02:33 .

[Shadow Raziel]

Corto81 wrote...

Anders' action had nothing to do with any military planning or anything like that.
It was an act to destroy, kill and provoke further killing.

You are absolutely on the mark... the symbolic target was the Chantry it's self. an attack on the beliefs of the Chantry. without ANY regard for collateral damage. The chantry would have very little military value. An attack on the Templar hall would be considered a military target.

He took a huge risk... Conflict usually leads to solidarity, an attack like that could not only reinforce sterotypes about how dangerous mages are.  but could also further solidify the resolve of the Chantry and Templars. Not to mention turning the tide of public opinion against your cause. To the everyday Joe they only know the devastation left by his actions.

[Rifneno]

Corto81 wrote...

Again, as someone who's been through a war

You keep saying that. Is it supposed to have some sort of significance? ;I sure hope it's not supposed to make your point have some extra merit. I prefer a rational counterpoint to a suspect claim of expert knowledge.

However, like I was replying to Ian Polaris (a poster who I respect), it's not black and white.

Really. Because that's kind of the opposite of what you've been saying. "there's absolutely no excuse for targeting non-military targets in wars." sounds pretty black and white to me.

Anyway, without getting too much into politics etc. on a gaming forum....
Anders' action had nothing to do with any military planning or anything like that.
It was an act to destroy, kill and provoke further killing.

Destroying and killing is pretty much the point of military planning. And yes, he did it with the intent of starting a widespread rebellion. It worked too. And if it ends the Chantry's 1,000 year reign of violent oppression across multiple nations (and it certainly looks like it will), it will have saved many times the lives it cost. Which is why I refuse to condemn him.

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

My opinions on users are formed by their posts on this forum. If someone says (in all seriousness, and not from a roleplaying perspective) they cheered gleefully when a character died or felt deep satisfaction at spattering Anora with the blood of her father, I reserve the right to form certain thoughts about that person. If they don't want me or others to form an idea as to their personal character by their words, then they shouldn't be posting in a public forum.

Or on Facebook. Or Twitter. Or just about anywhere, really.

Anyway, I can't say it bothers me if this impresses you or not, but you're welcome to feel that way of course. *shrug*

You can sit there and form opinions about people for hatemongering, we'll sit here and form them about you for your self-righteous judgmental nature. Deal? This is a video game. The people they're rejoicing over getting what they feel they deserve are NOT REAL. This is one of the great things about video games. They let people vent some of that emotion on fiction rather than real people. If you react like this to someone condemning a character like Anora, then my God, I can't imagine your reaction to a Grand Theft Auto board.

P.S. Please don't try to claim you know when someone is being "in all seriousness." The fact tone doesn't translate through text has caused more Internet fighting than Chuck Norris jokes. I know it'll get in the way of all that judging, but try that whole benefit of the doubt thing once in a while.

[Ryzaki]

Soul Cool wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
I'm pretty much the strongest explicit supporter of Anders I know, and I still think the fact that the Chantry had to go up was sad. I don't want to see anyone killed... but it's sad in the way Les Miserables is sad, a tragic incident that was necessary in the struggle for freedom.

Yes, struggling much in the way that an insect struggles to not be crushed under the heel of a giant. He's gone and started a fight with the proverbial 800 ton gorilla in the room, and everybody's going to lose. But you know what? It doesn't matter, he did what was Right and Just for FREEDOM.

Because blowing up churches and killing innocents shows that you deserve to be treated like people who deserve the rights that they feel have been denied to them. But never mind that, as well, he was obviously pushed to the point of taking drastic action because the Chantry wasn't going to listen to him anyway. It's not like mages have demostrated a history of being unfathomably evil [explicative deleted] people who oppress all who oppose them in cruel and horrifying fashion. They've never done that before. I mean, it's not like the whole reason the Chantry exist was because of evil, oppressive mages, or anything. But turnabout isn't fair play, right? Well, sucks. That's what happens when you let the people you already conquered form an army and crush you.

 

You know...reading this just makes me think this is a whole ugly cycle that is not gonna stop. The need to keep their power safe and secure is gonna lead to both sides constantly trying to dominate each other and constantly coming to blows over it. 
I don't see anything changing until there's a means to equate magical beings with non-mages. (Most likely as a nother poster said guns and the like). Until then fear and oppression are gonna keep going in a cycle. 

[Soul Cool]

Rifneno wrote...
Destroying and killing is pretty much the point of military planning. And yes, he did it with the intent of starting a widespread rebellion. It worked too. And if it ends the Chantry's 1,000 year reign of violent oppression across multiple nations (and it certainly looks like it will), it will have saved many times the lives it cost. Which is why I refuse to condemn him.

Provoking a war with the single most powerful entity/organization in the entire in-game universe will certainly save more lives than if you had struggled through to make your point peacefully. Ever seen photos of Dresden, Hirshima, or Nagasaki? Imagine that sort of destruction inflicted on cities around the in-game world, but inflicted with swords and magic. I cannot fathom how you make the leap from "Rebellion against monlithic entity" to "less suffering".

Do people really think the Chantry is just going to give up and die off because the other side has the cause of Righteousness?

Modifié par Soul Cool, 02 juin 2011 - 02:53 .