131 réponses à ce sujet

[SirGladiator]

Anders was perhaps somewhat out of his mind by the end, who knows, but certainly what he did was extremely evil, he was a terrorist and killed a bunch of completely innocent people, and not even just innocent people but also some of the best people in that town, and ironicly the only ones (other than Hawke of course) capable of protecting the very people he claimed to be trying to help through his evil deeds. I'm sure in some twisted way he thought of himself as a martyr, but in reality he was just another terrorist madman. I never really liked him going back to Awakenings, but I certainly wouldn't have expected him to do something like that. I'd figure that the spirit effected his mind to some degree, but then again maybe he really was just plain crazy all along, who knows.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

BHRamsay wrote...

*sarcastic*

I could not agree more, its a comfort to know who will be shoving me up against the wall when the revolution comes --- Several posters have already got my vote for the role of official Robespierre yet another person for whome THE CAUSE became more important then THE PEOPLE it was intended to help.

It's funny that it's always the opposition that assumes this quote is a justification for violence, when it is not. Rather, it is an explanation as to why, thus far, change has been so difficult. It is not designed to incite, rather it informs the central problem of all social progress: a false middle, and a smug idealization of 'neutrality.'

It is not a quote justifying violence. The quote itself has absolutely nothing to do with violence. It is identifying a problematic thought process endemic to many moderates in times when the oppressed group is a minority. It is not about putting anyone up against the wall, nor does it imply that it supports such things. By assuming it does you obviously miss the central message of the quote: that supporting "waiting for the right time" is not significantly more helpful than actively supporting the status quo and endorsing those in power. Saying "yes it's a shame, but nothing can be done" is not morally superior to saying "no, the oppression is just."

However, if you do want a quote from the same passage that explains further why I think violence occurred, here it is:

"The {mage} has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the {Chantry}; {...} -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: 'Get rid of your discontent.' Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action."

Individual mages have no way to take nonviolent direct action. They have no way to asseble without Chantry supervision, to march, to nonviolently oppose the status quo. They have no way to make themselves visible, to express their discontent publically. If the Chantry allowed for forms of passive public resistance by mages, if they allowed forms of expression that would reach the general populace, if mages could openly assemble and protest without beind imprisoned or made tranquil, then there would be a clear means to achieve progress nonviolently, and I would welcome it.

Imagine a world where writing a letter from jail would result in a civil rights leader being made tranquil. Imagine a world where it was illegal for any civil rights leader to pen a letter to the public, or set foot outside of prison. Imagine a world in which marching down the street resulted not in a few nights in jail, but in a life sentence with no chance of freely communicating with the outside world again. That is the situation in Thedas. The viability of passive resistance relies on the ability of its practitioners to live freely and communicate. That is why all the examples of nonviolent resistance that people try to render as analgous fall flat: imagine if Martin Luther King Jr. had been jailed for life after the first bus protests, never allowed to write or speak publically again.

It is by creating a society where nonviolent public protest is impossible, the Chantry has channeled all the revolutionary forces into a very narrow possible means of expression.

In a world where passive resistance is always punished by life imprisonment or death, how do you have a passive resistance movement? If the mages had a level of freedom that allowed for passive resistance and open communication with the rest of the world we would not be having this discussion, this conflict at all.

[Ryzaki]

I love how the fact that those tranquilizations were illegal goes completely over people's head.

[Rifneno]

BHRamsay wrote...

*sarcastic*

I could not agree more, its a comfort to know who will be shoving me up against the wall when the revolution comes --- Several posters have already got my vote for the role of official Robespierre yet another person for whome THE CAUSE became more important then THE PEOPLE it was intended to help.

It's also a comfort to know there's people so delusional that they think people posting on a video game forum are going to "shove them up against the wall when the revolution comes" and compare them to brutal dictators.

The Baconer wrote...

HopeVessel wrote...
And im wary of people who kill people to do "good," or do violence to stop violence.

Templars?

Oh SNAP!  

SirGladiator wrote...

Anders was perhaps somewhat out of his mind by the end, who knows, but certainly what he did was extremely evil, he was a terrorist and killed a bunch of completely innocent people, and not even just innocent people but also some of the best people in that town

Almost funny, but then you realize someone actually thinks of the Chantry and Elthina Bathory as completely innocent and awesome people. Then it's just

Ryzaki wrote...

I love how the fact that those tranquilizations were illegal goes completely over people's head.

I love how the fact a law doesn't matter if it's not enforced goes over some people's heads.

[Ryzaki]

Ah nevermind. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 06 juillet 2011 - 07:01 .

[maxernst]

River5 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

BHRamsay wrote...
 

I really can't fathom Anders suddenly wishing to lead a group that would start executing every person (Chantry sisters, Kings, Queens, nobles, workers, peasants) that would refuse to actively side with mages, or consider ever offering them equal rights.

You're assuming it's up to Anders.  I could totally see Justice doing it.

[River5]

maxernst wrote...

River5 wrote...

I really can't fathom Anders suddenly wishing to lead a group that would start executing every person (Chantry sisters, Kings, Queens, nobles, workers, peasants) that would refuse to actively side with mages, or consider ever offering them equal rights.

You're assuming it's up to Anders.  I could totally see Justice doing it.

Well, Anders and Justice were acting "as one" on my play through (full friendhip), with Anders seemingly having the upper hand.

If you side with the Templars, it becomes a non issue, as all outcomes have Anders dying one way or another (executed, in combat, or by his own hand).

The only place where it could represent a risk would be on a rival play through with Hawke deciding to support mages...  As Anders could either be sent away, or remain with you.

Even so, unless Justice manages to take over COMPLETELY (as in never allowing Anders the control of his own thoughts or body anymore), Anders would probably fight to stop him. 

Or, they would never be able to be perceived by others as leaders anyway; as one moment, Anders would be going "No, this is wrong, don't do that!", and the next, he'd have blue eyes and glowing skin and be saying "All of those opposing us MUST DIE!".  Lol! Lol! Lol!

Anders would probably kill himself before letting something like that happen anyway.