443 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

No I'm not.

Could have fooled me.  I seem to rememeber someone very much like you defending Cullen's statement that mages were weapons and not people and couldn't be treated as people.

I guess it was someone else?

-Polaris

Nope, that is me. I'm still not the one joinning the black hats though.

Really?  So a person that slaughters a group of people for a crime they aren't guilty of is joining the white hats then?

Could have fooled me.

-Polaris

[nitefyre410]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Oh here we go again...

I know right  


*brings  popcorn  and various refreshments* 

[Dave of Canada]

IanPolaris wrote...

Really?  So a person that slaughters a group of people for a crime they aren't guilty of is joining the white hats then?

Could have fooled me.

-Polaris

Contrary to popular opinion, not everything is black and white.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 08 août 2011 - 12:11 .

[nitefyre410]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

No I'm not.

Could have fooled me.  I seem to rememeber someone very much like you defending Cullen's statement that mages were weapons and not people and couldn't be treated as people.

I guess it was someone else?

-Polaris

Nope, that is me. I'm still not the one joinning the black hats though.

Really?  So a person that slaughters a group of people for a crime they aren't guilty of is joining the white hats then?

Could have fooled me.

-Polaris

Didn't you know - if you don't think about it will make some kind of sense eventually.  

[KotorEffect3]

Dave of Canada wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Really?  So a person that slaughters a group of people for a crime they aren't guilty of is joining the white hats then?

Could have fooled me.

-Polaris

Contrary to popular opinion, not everything is black and white.

Meredith didn't get that memo

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

No I'm not.

Could have fooled me.  I seem to rememeber someone very much like you defending Cullen's statement that mages were weapons and not people and couldn't be treated as people.

I guess it was someone else?

-Polaris

Nope, that is me. I'm still not the one joinning the black hats though.

Really?  So a person that slaughters a group of people for a crime they aren't guilty of is joining the white hats then?

Could have fooled me.

-Polaris

Who talked about the white hats?

[IanPolaris]

Dave of Canada wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Really?  So a person that slaughters a group of people for a crime they aren't guilty of is joining the white hats then?

Could have fooled me.

-Polaris

Contrary to popular opinion, not everything is black and white.

Contrary to popular opinion, somethings are definitionally black or white.  Murdering men, women, and children for a crime they didn't commit is never a grey thing.

-Polaris

[Sharn01]

Dave of Canada wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Really?  So a person that slaughters a group of people for a crime they aren't guilty of is joining the white hats then?

Could have fooled me.

-Polaris

Contrary to popular opinion, not everything is black and white.

Weird, I guess you guys have had enough arguments back in the origins forums that now you just bate them into ranting?

[Dave of Canada]

IanPolaris wrote...

Contrary to popular opinion, somethings are definitionally black or white.  Murdering men, women, and children for a crime they didn't commit is never a grey thing.

-Polaris

End justifies the means certainly does make it grey.

There's a lot of ends that are possible when siding with the Templar.

[Dave of Canada]

Sharn01 wrote...

Weird, I guess you guys have had enough arguments back in the origins forums that now you just bate them into ranting?

Na, tired of repeating the same arguments over and over when they are ignored by calling us monsters or something.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 08 août 2011 - 12:22 .

[IanPolaris]

Dave of Canada wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Contrary to popular opinion, somethings are definitionally black or white.  Murdering men, women, and children for a crime they didn't commit is never a grey thing.

-Polaris

End justifies the means certainly does make it grey.

There's a lot of ends that are possible when siding with the Templar.

Not always.  Ends justifies the means MIGHT make it grey.  It can make it black.  In this case backing Meridith is the clearly evil choice.  You are killing INNOCENTS while ignoring the clearly guilty party including women and children.  That's evil.  Full stop.  The fact you are doing it for your own gain makes your character a moral monster no matter how much you try to justify it.  It's bad writing on the part of BW (not that that ever happens in Act III sarc).

-Polaris

[Erani]

Dave of Canada wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Contrary to popular opinion, somethings are definitionally black or white.  Murdering men, women, and children for a crime they didn't commit is never a grey thing.

-Polaris

End justifies the means certainly does make it grey.

There's a lot of ends that are possible when siding with the Templar.

Well murder is murder no matter one's intention. So if the murder of innocent mages/supporters is a means to whatever end (order, righteousness, etc) the Templars seek, there is still nothing morally ambiguous about it (grey). One can try and make the case that something wrong is necessary, but it sounds like some of the pro-Templar arguments in this thread don't even recognize killing the mages as murder or wrong.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Murder is only murder if it is an unlawful killing... Just saying.. (the annulment was legal)

[Dave of Canada]

IanPolaris wrote...


Not always.  Ends justifies the means MIGHT make it grey.  It can make it black.  In this case backing Meridith is the clearly evil choice.
-Polaris

Unless you believe otherwise.

For example:
Does the pro-mage person siding with the Templar because they believe the only way to "liberate" mages is by changing it from the inside count as evil?

Does the Champion who's devoted to protecting Kirkwall at all costs and wants to protect the non-mages (which won't happen by fighting authority) count as evil?

Does the mage who believes that siding with the Templar and gaining influence (it's been suggested that even mage Hawke can become viscount) will help mages across Thedas at the cost of the 50-100~ individuals in the Kirkwall Circle count as evil?

Hell, does the Hawke that doesn't want to go on a suicide mission by defending 50-100 individuals from an army count as evil? It's selfish, yes. Though you can't call the person evil because almost everybody in today's world would do the same.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 08 août 2011 - 12:34 .

[IanPolaris]

Dave of Canada wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...


Not always.  Ends justifies the means MIGHT make it grey.  It can make it black.  In this case backing Meridith is the clearly evil choice.
-Polaris

Unless you believe otherwise.

For example:
Does the pro-mage person siding with the Templar because they believe the only way to "liberate" mages is by changing it from the inside count as evil?

Yes.  You are killing innocent people for your own gain.  Their blood is on your hands.  You will find Nuremburg also agrees with this basic stance.

Does the Champion who's devoted to protecting Kirkwall at all costs and wants to protect the non-mages (which won't happen by fighting authority) count as evil?

Yes.  Again, the moment you slay innocents (esp when ignoring the clearly guilty) for your own ends, you've crossed the line.

Does the mage who believes that siding with the Templar and gaining influence (it's been suggested that even mage Hawke can become viscount) with help mages across Thedas at the cost of the 50-100~ individuals in the Kirkwall Circle count as evil?

Yes.  You are still willfully killing innocents.  You can't get past that.

Hell, does the Hawke that doesn't want to go on a suicide mission by defending 50-100 individuals from an army count as evil? It's selfish, yes. Though you can't call the person evil because almost everybody in today's world would do the same.

You should be given the option to walk away.  THAT would be the true morally grey (but morally defensible) option since this really isn't your fight.  However, absent that, then the only morally justified choice is to protect the innocent.  Period.  Full stop.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Murder is only murder if it is an unlawful killing... Just saying.. (the annulment was legal)

Murder can also be defined as immoral or unjustified killing.  For example the deaths in WWII concentration camps were perfectly legal, but the commandants were still tried for murder (among other things) because the laws themselves were immoral.  Same here.

-Polaris

[Dave of Canada]

I don't give a damn about innocents and care more for the greater good, I'd kill 100 innocents to spare 1000. I'd kill 1000 innocents to spare 10000. I'd kill 10000 to stop a war.

I'm sure those dead mind being killed, though those alive certainly don't mind the sacrifices.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 08 août 2011 - 12:42 .

[KotorEffect3]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Murder is only murder if it is an unlawful killing... Just saying.. (the annulment was legal)

I am pretty sure the person being killed doesn't really care about legalese or the technical definition.  All they know is they are being killed for what they are not what they have done.

[LobselVith8]

What greater good is there in murdering hundreds of men, women, and children simply to appease a hypothetical mob, all for the actions of a man who openly confessed and is standing right in front of the Knight-Commander? The same man who Meredith proceeds to ignore almost entirely.

[IanPolaris]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I don't give a damn about innocents and care more for the greater good, I'd kill 100 innocents to spare 1000. I'd kill 1000 innocents to spare 10000. I'd kill 10000 to stop a war.

I'm sure those dead mind being killed, though those alive certainly don't mind the sacrifices.

That is the position of a moral monster.  In fact Ieosef Stalin said almost the same thing when he commented that, "Killing a few people is murder; killing millions is a statistic."  I am sure that Stalin felt that all his murders were "justified" too and I view your position in exactly the same light.

The fact is you DON'T KNOW what the greater good is, or that you will for an absolute fact save anyone, and thinking otherwise is playing God which IMHO definately is black-hat behavior.

-Poalris

Edit:  Moral Monster is pretty strong language but I think it's justified:  Once you start down the path of, "well murder is bad, but if 'X' occures, then it's justified...." then you are walking down the slippery slope of justifying any murder for any reason at all (which is the point of my Stalin example).

Modifié par IanPolaris, 08 août 2011 - 12:48 .

[London]

My ideal choice would have been to confront Meredith immediately after she invoked the RoA, but this was not an option.

As wrong as following through with the RoA felt, my Templar-Hawke really believed that as Leliana commented, if Kirkwall fell to mages, many people all around Thedas were going to die. (That everyone starts an uprising regardless wasn't really known at the time). The reality of the situation is that Templar-Hawke only ended up killing about 15 or so mages, the rest had turned themselves into abominations or became corrupted by demons (such as the desire demon who was manipulating an entire room full of mages and templars). Those people at this point would have needed to be put down anyway. Orsino himself even killed a large group of the mages himself in the Templar playthrough for his ritual. Meanwhile, the mages on the loose ended up killing numerous civilians, who had nothing to do with the battle. I didn't count the bodies, but it probably exceeded the number of mages Hawke actually killed.

What I don't understand is why Pro-Mage Hawke & Party would have needed to flee Kirkwall entirely if he sided with the Mages. The more I think about it, the Mages at the time were not starting a revolution, they were merely defending their lives against the RoA. Obviously Cullen didn't agree with the RoA, and he also turned on Meredith and helped kill her. I don't know why the fallout from siding with the mages in Kirkwall's eyes was so dramatic. The only reason I would see to need to flee would be by helping Anders out of the city, not necessarily defending the mages when you didn't believe in the RoA.

[Sepewrath]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I don't give a damn about innocents and care more for the greater good, I'd kill 100 innocents to spare 1000. I'd kill 1000 innocents to spare 10000. I'd kill 10000 to stop a war.

I'm sure those dead mind being killed, though those alive certainly don't mind the sacrifices.

Problem with that kind of logic is anyone can use it to justify their actions, AKA Anders. He was doing it for the good of all mages, if he has to kill everyone in a church, Qunari destroy an entire city, the slaughter of the Elves, its all for the greater good. You have to remember, whats good, whose innocent, its all very subjective.

[IanPolaris]

The point is if BW wanted a REAL "choice" that was "really" morally neutral, then Hawke should have had the option to play Pontios Pilate and walk away from both sides. Not heroic, but at least arguably morally justifiable.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 08 août 2011 - 12:50 .

[KotorEffect3]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I don't give a damn about innocents and care more for the greater good, I'd kill 100 innocents to spare 1000. I'd kill 1000 innocents to spare 10000. I'd kill 10000 to stop a war.

I'm sure those dead mind being killed, though those alive certainly don't mind the sacrifices.

First of all there is no proof that anulling the circle saves lives.  If anything everything went batcrap crazy after Meredith invoked the right of annulment.  The mages won't stand back and not defend themselves.  Second of all you can't kill innocents because it MIGHT save lives, it isn't even a fact that lives will be saved by killing innocents just because they happen to be mages.

[Dave of Canada]

Sepewrath wrote...

Problem with that kind of logic is anyone can use it to justify their actions, AKA Anders. He was doing it for the good of all mages, if he has to kill everyone in a church, Qunari destroy an entire city, the slaughter of the Elves, its all for the greater good. You have to remember, whats good, whose innocent, its all very subjective.

And I can understand where they come from, too.

My (canon) Hawke hates Anders not because of what he did, just that he disagrees with it and it's against his own goals and objectives (keeping the peace, trying to loosen mage restrictions by changing it from the inside). Fighting the Templar wouldn't serve much purpose with his goals, therefore he believes killing the mages will ease it and he'll still hopefully be capable of controlling the situation before it goes out of hand (mage rebellion shows he failed).

Same thing with the Qunari, I mostly agreed with the Arishok. When he questioned what I'd do in his shoes, I pretty much supported him rather than putting my shoes on his feet because that's what my Hawke would do in his position.