1207 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

I agree with KoP. At the very worst Hawke and his friends were TRICKED into helping Anders. That means they aren't allies (and in a modern court of law likely would be found not-guilty of conspiracy because of that). There is NO evidence that Anders had any true, knowing allies for his little act of Chantry Bombing. [The Resolutionists would have been the logical source of help, but there is no reason to think they have any ties with Kirkwall's circle.]

-Polaris

[Ryzaki]

@LobselVith8: And it's still an issue he can have no allies period.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juin 2011 - 03:59 .

[LobselVith8]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Yet there are people who support Anders, which means their respective Hawkes can support Anders, which means Anders can have allies. I suppose Nathaniel has a point - I'm simply not a fan of oversimplications.

Can. Not does. It's not canonical and Anders proceeds with what he does regardless.

True, which is why I specifically chose to say "can have allies."

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Furthermore, you cannot argue that Hawke was an ally in bombing the Chantry because he had no idea what Anders was planning. That's what I am referring to.

I did not argue that Hawke was an ally in the bombing, I argued that Hawke can be an ally to Anders. That's specifically what I'm referring to.

[LobselVith8]

Ryzaki wrote...

@LobselVith8: And it's still an issue he can have no allies period.

Of course that's an issue, but Anders can have an ally in Hawke (who will be supported by the companions who side with him).

[Ryzaki]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

@LobselVith8: And it's still an issue he can have no allies period.

Of course that's an issue, but Anders can have an ally in Hawke (who will be supported by the companions who side with him).

 

Yet he still does the same exact thing while having *no* allies at all. 

Though you're right he can have an ally. He also can have none. 

[LobselVith8]

Ryzaki wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

@LobselVith8: And it's still an issue he can have no allies period.

Of course that's an issue, but Anders can have an ally in Hawke (who will be supported by the companions who side with him).

 

Yet he still does the same exact thing while having *no* allies at all. 

Though you're right he can have an ally. He also can have none. 

Of course Anders does.

But the possibility that Anders can have allies means it's not a certainty that he has none.

[KnightofPhoenix]

LobselVith8 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Yet there are people who support Anders, which means their respective Hawkes can support Anders, which means Anders can have allies. I suppose Nathaniel has a point - I'm simply not a fan of oversimplications.

Can. Not does. It's not canonical and Anders proceeds with what he does regardless.

True, which is why I specifically chose to say "can have allies."

You said it now. I got a different impression from this

LobselVith8 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Didn't Joe Brown have allies?

You mean like Hawke and his moiety crew?

At first glance, that seems to mean that you think Anders does have allies.
But I guess we are going in semantics.

And really, seeing how Anders degenerates to the worse, I am not sure it's that accurate to say that Anders' allies from even Act 2, understand or realize what he became in Act 3. Which at best, makes them ignorant allies, and ones who are not really doing anythign to help him or mages (by that point, most of the help was really superficial). 

[Ryzaki]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Of course Anders does.

But the possibility that Anders can have allies means it's not a certainty that he has none.

 

But my issue is the comparison to Joe Brown is Anders period. Anders doesn't always have allies unlike Joe Brown. We don't know what Joe Brown would've done if he hadn't had any allies. We do know Anders does the same thing regardless. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juin 2011 - 04:14 .

[Speakeasy13]

Phoenix_Loftian wrote...

Everyone keeps throwing 'terrorism' around every which way. How many of you realize that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter? Don't believe me? Look at the American revolution. The Founders of America were considered terrorists to the legitimate government of the King at the time.

What's an army again? Terrorists with a government.

[LobselVith8]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

You said it now. I got a different impression from this

LobselVith8 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Didn't Joe Brown have allies?

You mean like Hawke and his moiety crew?

At first glance, that seems to mean that you think Anders does have allies.
But I guess we are going in semantics.

I addressed Hawke and the companions who side with the Champion because it addresses that Anders can have allies. And one can argue that semantics are important.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And really, seeing how Anders degenerates to the worse, I am not sure it's that accurate to say that Anders' allies from even Act 2, understand or realize what he became in Act 3. Which at best, makes them ignorant allies, and ones who are not really doing anythign to help him or mages (by that point, most of the help was really superficial). 

Maybe the Rivanni witches would understand what's become of Anders, if Brother Genitivi is correct about the seers merging with spirits.

[LobselVith8]

Ryzaki wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Of course Anders does.

But the possibility that Anders can have allies means it's not a certainty that he has none.

 

But my issue is the comparison to Joe Brown is Anders period. Anders doesn't always have allies unlike Joe Brown. We don't know what Joe Brown would've done if he hadn't had any allies. We do know Anders does the same thing regardless. 

I only stated Anders can have allies, not that he always has allies. There's enough opinion provided in this thread alone to show that people in both camps have their own views on Anders and what he did, and there are Hawkes who are an ally to Anders.

[Silfren]

Beerfish wrote...

Kind of ironic that the people trying to link up mages in a tower to slavery as an excuse for Anders actions often seem to be happy about the Disney land of magedom, Tevinter where slavery is rampant and accepted.

I've never once ever suggested anything remotely close to that about Tevinter, so nice try, but no cigar.

[KnightofPhoenix]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I addressed Hawke and the companions who side with the Champion because it addresses that Anders can have allies. And one can argue that semantics are important.

But Ryzaki didnt' say "Couldn't Brown have allies?". She said "Didn't he have allies?".
So your sentence (that Hawke and crew are those allies) doesn't follow and required you to be more specific. Specifically, say that Anders can have allies.

Maybe the Rivanni witches would understand what's become of Anders, if Brother Genitivi is correct about the seers merging with spirits.

So once again Hawke is going to be inactive as he is trying to babysit a nitwit. And what Genetivi said does ot imply that those who merge with spirits know how to "unmerge".

[IanPolaris]

Speakeasy13 wrote...

Phoenix_Loftian wrote...

Everyone keeps throwing 'terrorism' around every which way. How many of you realize that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter? Don't believe me? Look at the American revolution. The Founders of America were considered terrorists to the legitimate government of the King at the time.

What's an army again? Terrorists with a government.

Er, no.  Terrorism is classically defined to be unconventional warfare designed to attack 'soft' targets (i.e.targets that won't have a lot of protection because they have low conventional military value) in order to generate a disporportionate emotional response.  Example would include but aren't limited to bombing churches, schools, hospitals, and the like.  They usually involve reckless disregard for civilian life, but the MODERN (vs traditional) terrorist will often try to target as many non-combatants as possible to maximize the emotional effect.  In all cases, the terrorist has a massive disadvantage in classic military strength.

By contrast, even insurgents usually do what is classically known as guerilla warfare which is also the tool of one with massive conventional military inferiority.  In the case of guerilla warfare, militarily important targets of opporunity are attacked using unconventional methods.  Sometimes there will be a reckless disregard for non-combatant life but not always.  The distinction here is that a clear hard military objective (no matter how minor) is sought and any additional emotional or psychological impact is gravy.  Examples would include bombing train stations, military barracks, mining roads, sabotaging train tracks and telecommunication networks,etc.

Armies around the world do train soldiers in both techniques (if only how to fight them) but generally speaking, it's not true that an army is a terrorist organization with the backing of a govt.  There ARE terrorist organizations with the backing (usually covert) of govts but they aren't armies in the classic sense.

-Polaris

[Ryzaki]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I only stated Anders can have allies, not that he always has allies. There's enough opinion provided in this thread alone to show that people in both camps have their own views on Anders and what he did, and there are Hawkes who are an ally to Anders.

 

Again my original issue was the comparison to Brown who always had allies. He and Anders aren't the same on that front. 

And I'm aware that Hawkes can ally with Anders. (Just like Anders can choose to ally with Hawke). My issue is that unlike Brown this is not a set definite and can't really be said he (Brown) would've acted without allies like Anders choose to do so. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juin 2011 - 04:31 .

[Ryzaki]

Silfren wrote...
Oh, for the love of God...!  I can and have made on-topic comparisons between the two, but that is not what going into a detailed and long discussion of the American Civil War would involve and you bloody well know that.  And you can call it invalid all you like, I don't consider it to be invalid, and that's all there is to it.  

I'm not responding to any further posts from you on this subject.  Done.  Deal with it. 

 

Riiight. 

Okay then. 

I do hope you remember the difference between her and you at least. 

[GavrielKay]

From the Wikipedia article on terrorism:

Among the non-utilitarian philosophers, Michael Walzer argued that terrorism can be morally justified in only one specific case: when "a nation or community faces the extreme threat of complete destruction and the only way it can preserve itself is by intentionally targeting non-combatants, then it is morally entitled to do so"

This thread and others have thrown the terrorism word around like crazy. I think it is used mostly for its perjorative value, rather than for any kind of legal definition. In this day and age, we mostly live in societies that consider themselves "in the right" and generally we don't think any terrorist acts against us are justified. I tend to agree, in the player's world, there are ways to get things done that don't involve blowing up churches. I believe CulturalGeekGirl has made several eloquent posts to this effect.

But, Anders lives in a world where the dominant religion and nearly every gov't are keeping mages prisoner or worse, just because of an accident of birth. With 1000 years of oppression and no end in sight... with mages getting Tranquiled, raped, whipped etc and finally the spectre of annulment on the horizon...

Isn't it possible to eventually get to the point where an act that would in any other circumstances be completely inexcusable, becomes not only excusable, but perhaps even necessary? Does it really do any good to sit back and say there isn't any reason anywhere that could possibly justify what Anders did?

Plus, I still don't believe Elthina had a Chantry full of people after being warned by the Seekers that an Exalted March might be called. And, I'm not convinced that the crazy pink suspended building bits explosion was real vs. Varric's exaggeration.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ryzaki wrote...
I do hope you remember the difference between her and you at least. 

You know, you said that several times, and I don't really understand what you mean.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I think a distinction should be made between "terrorism" as it's conventionally defined, and "terror". Terror was *always* and will always be a part of warfare. There is no avoiding it, who wouldn't want to frighten an enemy and yes even an enemy population?

Strategic bombing was often referred to as "terror bombing", even by its advocates (others said plainly that their aim was to reduce morale, which is really terrorizing them). But that would not fall under the conventional definition of "terrorism".

Now whether you think there should be a difference in how either act are judged morally, or if ultimately there is a significant academic reason to make that distinction, is up to you.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 juin 2011 - 04:48 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

GavrielKay wrote...
Isn't it possible to eventually get to the point where an act that would in any other circumstances be completely inexcusable, becomes not only excusable, but perhaps even necessary?

In this case no, and I would not trust an insane abomination to know what is necessary.

Does it really do any good to sit back and say there isn't any reason anywhere that could possibly justify what Anders did?

A false dichotomy, implying that what Anders did was the only way possible. A notion I utterly reject.

Was violence necessary? Most likely. But well calculated, legitimate (or less controversial) violence within a larger plan that does not obsess over what ultimately is but one facet of the larger picture.

Magic as its own agenda can go nowhere, unless something extra-ordinary happens (like what Sandal is implying. That magic will return and everyoen will be like they once were).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 juin 2011 - 04:53 .

[Addai]

Silfren wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Sorry, but I have to laugh at this.  Anders is Exhibit A why mages should be locked up and, if they're even suspected of being abominations or blood mages, killed outright before they kill many others.  At least, that is what people are going to say after the bomb.  A lot of people.  And those people have a very good point.

Only for people who refuse to examine WHY Anders chose to allow himself to be possessed in the first place, which is entirely relevant to the question.  

I'll concede that a lot of people won't look that deeply into the matter, that's a given.  But people's perceptions won't change that fact. 

It doesn't matter why.  When demons lure people into possession, they always have either a plea ("I just want to be free, to experience life") or a bargain.  Anders may have had good intentions, but this is Magery 101 and the whole reason that mages are put through a Harrowing.  Hawke should have at least have had the option of killing him the minute he turns blue.

[Ryzaki]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Magic as its own agenda can go nowhere, unless something extra-ordinary happens (like what Sandal is implying. That magic will return and everyoen will be like they once were).

 

The only reason this makes me excited is because we might get some dual classing. I wanna play a 2HD with some spells. 

[Ryzaki]

Wait...so its okay to call the RoA genocide according to present day definitions but not to call Anders actions terrorism on the same definitions?  

[GavrielKay]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

A false dichotomy, implying that what Anders did was the only way possible. A notion I utterly reject.

I wasn't so much saying that I thought it was the only way...  I was saying that the opposite claim that it could NEVER be justified ever never ever it's always bad to blow up a church no matter what etc...  was just as bad in the other extreme. 

There are justifications.   Each player will have to decide whether they think the situation warranted what happened, but I think the moral absolutism of "it can't possibly be right, ever" is just as wrong as saying "get the marshmallows, the Chantry, she's a burnin'!"

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ryzaki wrote...

Wait...so its okay to call the RoA genocide according to present day definitions but not to call Anders actions terrorism on the same definitions?  

I think Anders' act is terrorism personally.