386 réponses à ce sujet

[Arquen]

So, this is the thread everyone is making fuss over? All this fuss over a silly, inept old lady who gets Maruuuurrdeerredd (thanks seb).

Honestly I didn't feel Elthina getting involved would solve anything. Her place attitude is a type of ineffectual leadership called... Laissez-Faire. This leadership type solves no problems, and basically causes more things to escalate.

We have to remember that Elthina as "innocent" as we portray her to be was serving as a ruling figure for a group. Both Meredith and Orsino looked to her as a balance of power. It was her job and duty to mediate between the Templars and the Mages. She failed miserably by only being a silent observer. Had she stepped in and told Meredith to "go back to the Gallows like a good girl." Meredith would have done it. There was compromise to be made by Elthina just stepping in and saying "Hey guys this is getting out of hand." She is the hand of the Divine, don't tell me she couldn't throw her weight around a little and gotten some results.

Now, I like how whenever people talk about her it inevitably leads to the "ZOMg BOMB MURdderrr" discussion. I'm just going to not dwell on the bomb. It all comes down to one simple argument -- that being do you think the ends justify the means.

To quote code geass -- "ideals alone cannot change the world!"

[leggywillow]

TeenZombie wrote...
I really think you need to watch the cutscene again.  It looks like half the city was destroyed by the debris and explosion.

It wasn't that big of an explosion.  Lowtown, the docks, and Darktown are still standing (...if you could ever call them "standing" in the first place), though the panicking and rioting weren't doing them any favors, I'm sure.  Hightown took most of the damage, and we see that Hawke's estate and the buildings around it are still standing three years later.  Yes, we can assume there was damage that needed to be repaired, but if the bomb had actually destroyed half the city, the Hawke estate wouldn't still be standing.  It's not like the owner hung around long enough to foot the bill for repairs.  Well... I guess Hawke stayed for a while if you did the viscount ending, but there are still several reasons why Hawke wouldn't be spending money to rebuild a blown-up estate from the ground-up in that scenario.

[Masako52]

Addai67 wrote...

Masako52 wrote...

More like, protect the innocent public from the Chantry's corruption?

I always think the "ANDERS BLEW UP INNOCENT PEOPLE" argument is a little exaggerated. I mean, there were probably five people in the Chantry, all of them nuns/priests/mothers/sisters/whatever they are. Including Elthina. Who had it coming. *points to thread's actual topic* I'm not saying what he did was not a big deal, but sometimes this argument makes it out to be like there were thousands of casualties, most terrible act in the game, etc. In the entirety of DA2, Anders' fireworks display is hardly a drop in the bucket of sh*t going down and people dying.

That's a bit spurious.  Regardless of who actually died in the explosion- and of the WTFery of setting off a massive explosion in a city square- Anders intends to start a war.  So innocent people are going to die, and probably a lot of them.

But feel free to edit my words:  I wish there had been a hero to protect the innocent public from mages (or abominations as the case may be) intent on blowing things up and starting wars.

Well, I too wish there was a hero who could stop the starting of the wars, and save all those people from dying. But I don't think Anders alone started it - the Templars and the Mages were already about to go to war. Honestly, I don't think Anders did that much to change anything that wasn't already going to happen, besides maybe jumpstart Meredith slaughtering mages and mages going abomination by... a few days tops. Anders didn't "start" the war. His actions just served as a catalyst.

It would be nice if Hawke could have somehow mediated the situation, and been the hero that stopped an almost inevitable war in Kirkwall. But then, of course, the game would be really f*cking boring.

[Melca36]

TeenZombie wrote...

Masako52 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
So basically Anders big mistake, if indeed he made one, was in trusting heroes to do what is right.

Like protect the innocent public from mages blowing things up?  I do wish there had been a hero around to do that.

More like, protect the innocent public from the Chantry's corruption?

I always think the "ANDERS BLEW UP INNOCENT PEOPLE" argument is a little exaggerated. I mean, there were probably five people in the Chantry, all of them nuns/priests/mothers/sisters/whatever they are. Including Elthina. Who had it coming. *points to thread's actual topic* I'm not saying what he did was not a big deal, but sometimes this argument makes it out to be like there were thousands of casualties, most terrible act in the game, etc. In the entirety of DA2, Anders' fireworks display is hardly a drop in the bucket of sh*t going down and people dying.

I really think you need to watch the cutscene again.  It looks like half the city was destroyed by the debris and explosion.  And after the Rite of Annulment is called (it would not have been done unless the Chantry was destroyed), you have abominations and demons all over the place throughout the city.  Any innocent people in the streets that night would be at risk.  I would say at the very least, hundreds of innocent people died that day in Kirkwall.

But even if *only* five innocent people other than Elthina (who does not deserve to die for being ineffective) are murdered, from the perspective of anyone who is effected, that's still five people killed by an abomination who can no longer discriminate right from wrong.  Maybe the history books will look at Anders differently, but that hasn't been determined yet.

Cassandra is interviewing Varric in the Hawke Estate. How close was that to the Chantry??
The explosion spread upwards not outwards.

Modifié par Melca36, 12 août 2011 - 06:44 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I see preventing the mage/templar war as akin to preventing the American Civil War, or the Revolutionary War. If you prevented them by maintaining the status quo, the world would be significantly worse off today than otherwise.

Sometimes you have to fight a war. Sometimes the alternative is letting some evil son-of-a-guns get away with some seriously awful crap. Most wars are bad, but I'm generally OK with wars that exist to keep some evil dictator from running amok across a continent, or to free a people from subjugation, or to establish a more participatory government. Generally, I think, it's better for those kinds of wars to happen than for everything to stay the same.

And for the war where you gain your independence to happen, if you think there's a chance but no guarantee of victory, maybe the war has to start anyway. Maybe you have to TRY.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 12 août 2011 - 06:59 .

[Melca36]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I see preventing the mage/templar war to be akin to preventing the American Civil War, or the Revolutionary War. If you prevented them by maintaining the status quo, the world would be significantly worse off today than otherwise.

Sometimes you have to fight a war. Sometimes the alternative is letting some evil son-of-a-guns get away with some seriously awful crap. Most wars are bad, but I'm generally OK with wars that exist to keep some evil dictator from running amok across a continent, or to free a people from subjugation, or to establish a more participatory government. Generally, I think, it's better for those kinds of wars to happen than for everything to stay the same.

And for the war where you gain your independence to happen, if you think there's a chance but no guarantee of victory, maybe the war has to start anyway. Maybe you have to TRY.

 I sure would be interested in knowing how many physicians are in Thedas to treat the population. If every mage is killed whether through the Right of Anulment or some other purging, who will be healing the citizens of Thedas?

How many physicians are there in Thedas?

Modifié par Melca36, 12 août 2011 - 07:05 .

[Sinaxi]

There's 1. His name is Anders, the friendly neighborhood terrorist.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

One of the major reasons why they don't drown all mages at birth (as Orsino sarcastically suggests) is that they are absolutely vital to national defense. An army of thousands of soldiers can be crippled by a few dozen mages, and that's without blood magic. The fact that most of Thedas has trained mages capable of independent thought and action is the only reason we were able to defeat the Qunari. It's the only advantage anyone has against them, at this point.

If Orlais or Kirkwall decided to annul all their mages, they'd be easy pickings for the Imperium, or the Qunari. In an international conflict, the side with mages would have a huge advantage. That's why they keep them around.

[ReiSilver]

Melca36 wrote...

Cassandra is interviewing Varric in the Hawke Estate. How close was that to the Chantry??
The explosion spread upwards not outwards.

That was always something I noticed. I got spoiled for 'OMG Anders does something terrible' so my expectations of awful were pretty darn high. Then I saw all the jenga bits of the Chantry lifting up above the city and shooting out. And the people shown in the chantry were mothers/sisters and a couple of templars if I remember correctly... it didn't look like a mass was being held which was half what I expected from the fan reaction.
If anything the magic of the explosion seemed to confine the damage to the Chantry and limit the damage to the surrounding area of the city.
so, errr... yay magic rather then mundane explosion???

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I also expected something so much worse. I was playing through Awakening when I heard about it, actually... and I expected something really truly abominable. I almost laughed in relief when I found out what it was.

Also, I'd like to point out that Commander Shepard does [END OF ARRIVAL SPOILER] and pretty much nobody bats an eye about that. That was some heavy duty stuff, right there. But pretty much nobody calls ol' Shep a Terrorist. (I would like to note that I love Shepard more than pretty much anyone else. Yes, even more than Anders.) Still, from outside of Shep's own head, [END OF ARRIVAL SPOILER] looks pretty god-damned horrific.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 12 août 2011 - 07:14 .

[miraclemight]

Perhaps because Shepard didn't did the 'end of Arrival spoiler' to start a revolution which results could still be achieved with less casualty.

Instead of blowing up the Kirkwall Chantry, one could blow up the one in Val Royeaux. If being symbolic was what Anders had in mind, then that place would have been a better candidate. Just my opinion, and I'm sure there could have been other way to end the status quo without blowing things up. An example in the lore itself is mages' refusal to lit the cathedral's candles.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Fewer casualties is debatable: the casualties of the chantry could be anywhere from a half dozen to a hundred or so. Nothing we see in game makes anything more than a few dozen seem very likely, to me.

The Val Royeaux idea is ludicrous for a number of reasons.

Firstly, part of the reason it had to be Kirkwall was that it was the place where the worst abuses against mages (that we know of) happened, including some which were in direct violation of chantry law, but which the chantry did nothing to prevent. Kirkwall is proof that the chantry cannot or will not even follow its own guidelines where mages are concerned.

Secondly, there's no way for him to get there, or get the opportunity. It's a miracle that he's free in Kirkwall, after all this time. This is probably the only time that an apostate will have this kind of opportunity.

Thirdly, the mages of Kirkwall are in danger now. Meredith has sent to the Divine for the Right of Annulment, going over Elthina's head. Anders has no reason to believe the Divine will reject this request, the only way to save the lives of any of the mages is to involve Hawke. The only way to involve Hawke is to make sure that Hawke is present when Meredith announces that she's calling the Right. The only way to ensure that is... well you get the idea.

Are there other ways to end the status quo? Theoretically, yes. Were there any that seem plausibly achievable at the time? Not really.

One of the big things that the Chantry does is prevent mages from communicating with each other openly. This prevents them from organizing widespread peaceful protest movements between circles. If one circle tries it on their own, they get smashed as an example to the others. Unless they all do it at the same time, there's no chance it will work.

Also bear in mind that the only reason the 'refusing to light the candles' gambit worked was that that particular Divine had some advisors who were less irredeemably insane than she was... since her first impulse was to declare an Exalted march on her own chantry. Seeing as the Divine was already considering an exalted march on Kirkwall, it doesn't seem like they've grown any less... exalted march happy since then.

You will recall that Anders spend the last seven years trying various plausibly achievable methods to effect change, from his underground railroad to his manifesto. His major flaw was the inability to just give up and accept that life sucks and there's nothing you can do about it. A normal person does that every day: you read in the news about poverty and despair, you feel bad about it for a few hours, then you get on with your life. Anders is physically incapable of just getting on with his life. That is a horrible handicap, to be unable to shut yourself off from the injustice in the world, unable to say "well there's no clear easy fix without a downside, so I'd better just not try."

There are always alternatives to killing. At one point, during a particular war, a famous advocate for nonviolence suggested that one side (the side usually historically considered to be the 'good' one) should surrender, instead of fighting. He thought that continuing the cycle of violence was a bad idea, instead they should surrender, let the invading country take their homes and lands. If the invading country tried to kill them, they should just let it happen. This nonviolence would surely end the war. Now, the country in question didn't take the advocate's advice, and that's probably for the best. Sometimes, the completely nonviolent way is the wrong one.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 12 août 2011 - 11:29 .

[berelinde]

leggywillow wrote...

TeenZombie wrote...
I really think you need to watch the cutscene again.  It looks like half the city was destroyed by the debris and explosion.

It wasn't that big of an explosion.  Lowtown, the docks, and Darktown are still standing (...if you could ever call them "standing" in the first place), though the panicking and rioting weren't doing them any favors, I'm sure.  Hightown took most of the damage, and we see that Hawke's estate and the buildings around it are still standing three years later.  Yes, we can assume there was damage that needed to be repaired, but if the bomb had actually destroyed half the city, the Hawke estate wouldn't still be standing.  It's not like the owner hung around long enough to foot the bill for repairs.  Well... I guess Hawke stayed for a while if you did the viscount ending, but there are still several reasons why Hawke wouldn't be spending money to rebuild a blown-up estate from the ground-up in that scenario.

Go to sleep for a few hours and look what happens.

But you're right, leggywillow, the explosion was hardly the apocalypse some of the more... excitable... people portray. The explosion went straight up. Whoever designed the chantry must have spent the early portion of his career building explosive storage sheds, because if one of them were to go up, it would look exactly the same. It's done to prevent damage to surrounding buildings, I understand.

No, the fires you see throughout the city were set by looters and rioters. People who were probably not mages, but who decided to take advantage of the chaos immediately following the blast to break into their neighbors' houses and shops and make off with everything that isn't nailed down. That's what Donnic and the other guardsmen are doing: trying to prevent the looters from destroying the city. Aveline tells you this specifically. She does not say that the city guard is setting up field hospitals and treating the wounded because there is no need for such measures. The blast may have been colorful, but it was self-contained. The panic and chaos that ensued was not, but you can blame a lot of that on ignorance and greed, qualities which are hardly unique to mages. If you doubt this, take a look at the burning barricades throughout the city. There is not an explosion known to man capable of setting logs down on top of each other to build a wall. Not in strategic locations across streets. You do see pockets of mages fighting templars throughout the city. If I were a mage and a pack of templars were bearing down on me, I'd fight for my life, too. Not all of them turn into abominations, either. The pack of mages you see in the street behind the Hanged Man never do.

Anyway, people will continue to believe what they want. If they will not see what the game is showing them in the first place, they will not see it better after an explanation, especially not when they hold no respect for the source.

[Knight of Dane]

Masako52 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
So basically Anders big mistake, if indeed he made one, was in trusting heroes to do what is right.

Like protect the innocent public from mages blowing things up?  I do wish there had been a hero around to do that.

More like, protect the innocent public from the Chantry's corruption?

I always think the "ANDERS BLEW UP INNOCENT PEOPLE" argument is a little exaggerated. I mean, there were probably five people in the Chantry, all of them nuns/priests/mothers/sisters/whatever they are. Including Elthina. Who had it coming. *points to thread's actual topic* I'm not saying what he did was not a big deal, but sometimes this argument makes it out to be like there were thousands of casualties, most terrible act in the game, etc. In the entirety of DA2, Anders' fireworks display is hardly a drop in the bucket of sh*t going down and people dying.

It's funny how insane it makes you seem when you still cling on to "It's no big deal," you don't really have a grasp of how such a explosion woul affect the surroundings..
We never even get to see hightown after the bomb. we can only guess as to how destructive it really was.

[syllogi]

Yeah...I like Anders, I have a Hawke who romanced Anders and spared him, and I even have drawn Anders. (I don't draw characters I don't like, srsly.) But that doesn't prevent me from concluding that indiscriminately killing innocent bystanders, even if the result down the road is positive, is a bad thing.

The debris from the Chantry explosion went straight up...and what, turned into confetti and drifted down gently afterwards? Yes, it probably did not destroy *half* of Kirkwall, but the cutscene did depict the debris falling on to an area that was substantial. And as I said before, any innocents, and even mages and templars, who were killed afterwards, died because of the actions of Anders. Again, semantics, but saying that it's not "that many" doesn't make the act better.

[ReiSilver]

Knight of Dane wrote...

Masako52 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
So basically Anders big mistake, if indeed he made one, was in trusting heroes to do what is right.

Like protect the innocent public from mages blowing things up?  I do wish there had been a hero around to do that.

More like, protect the innocent public from the Chantry's corruption?

I always think the "ANDERS BLEW UP INNOCENT PEOPLE" argument is a little exaggerated. I mean, there were probably five people in the Chantry, all of them nuns/priests/mothers/sisters/whatever they are. Including Elthina. Who had it coming. *points to thread's actual topic* I'm not saying what he did was not a big deal, but sometimes this argument makes it out to be like there were thousands of casualties, most terrible act in the game, etc. In the entirety of DA2, Anders' fireworks display is hardly a drop in the bucket of sh*t going down and people dying.

It's funny how insane it makes you seem when you still cling on to "It's no big deal," you don't really have a grasp of how such a explosion woul affect the surroundings..
We never even get to see hightown after the bomb. we can only guess as to how destructive it really was.

here watch from 0:40
See the parts of the Chantry move out from the explosion then stop in mid air? Those pieces get lifted up and blasted away from the city, there's a shock wave but little flying debris.
It seems like the whole point of this special magic explosion was to limit the damage to only the Chantry.
It doesn't look like it would have as wide spread damage as a mundane explosion would cause, as a normal explosion would have had the damage at ground level. Even the blast pattern is flat, not spherical, carrying debris over and away from the main population rather then blasting into it.
And really isn't that helping the 'make a big statement' point of the explosion as well? it's big, flashy and leaves the most people alive to witness it and thus spread the news of it happening.
Obviously however many people were in the Chantry at the time would have died, and that's horrible on a human life level, but that's at least what I mean when I say the Chantry explosion wasn't as horrifying as I was expecting.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

TeenZombie wrote...

Yeah...I like Anders, I have a Hawke who romanced Anders and spared him, and I even have drawn Anders. (I don't draw characters I don't like, srsly.) But that doesn't prevent me from concluding that indiscriminately killing innocent bystanders, even if the result down the road is positive, is a bad thing.

The debris from the Chantry explosion went straight up...and what, turned into confetti and drifted down gently afterwards? Yes, it probably did not destroy *half* of Kirkwall, but the cutscene did depict the debris falling on to an area that was substantial. And as I said before, any innocents, and even mages and templars, who were killed afterwards, died because of the actions of Anders. Again, semantics, but saying that it's not "that many" doesn't make the act better.

I just don't understand the fact that this particular act is singled out as heinous in a universe where pretty much everybody uses horrible violence (often with collatoral damage) to solve their problems.

It seems like the rule is that it's OK to use horrible violence with collatoral damage unless you're a disposessed minority, in which case it is totally wrong. It's OK if the Templars hunt and kill mages, because they're part of the government, even if those mages are innocent. It's OK for Hawke to kill pretty much anyone he meets. It's ok for Ferelden and Orlais to have big, nasty, endless wars. It's OK for the Chantry to delcare marches where they destroy entire civilizations. But one oppressed group takes action to try to free itself from its bonds, and it's the worst thing ever.

Now, I do wish we knew exactly how many people die in the blast, and due to debris and fires resulting from the blast. It would help me get a better picture of what I'm thinking about. I don't think Anders meant to kill anyone more than just Elthina, and whoever happened to be nearby in the Chantry at the time. I'm not saying that's acceptable, but it kind of reminds me of the end of Inglorious Basterds: some of the people in that theater were probably perfectly nice people, but I would still have blown that place up, if I were that lady. If aliens invaded earth and I could blow up the alien leader but there was a chance I'd kill a lot of innocent worker aliens, I'd do that too, even if the aliens were sentient. I'm not saying that it's good, but I'd rather kill the alien leader if I got the chance than just let all of earth be subjugated.

Nothing makes the death of an innocent any better. But I believe that there have been times in history where violence was used in a way that was probably a net positive for history, and in some of those cases that judiciously-used violence also causes collatoral damage. Even seemingly good fights often have horrendous consequences... just watch Grave of the Fireflies, and then weep openly. My grandfather fought on the other side of the war that movie depicts, and I think that what he did was mostly for the greater good... but a huge number of innocent people died. There's nothing that can make that fact "better," but it doesn't change the fact that that particular war had to be fought. I'm usually against war, but if you say "hey, in this particular war, an ethnic or social group was being horribly oppressed and the fight was at least partially about their freedom," the likelihood that I'll approve of that particular conflict goes up substantially.

War is hell. War is terrible. Innocent people die in a war. But sometimes you still have to fight, because if good doesn't fight evil wins automatically.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 12 août 2011 - 12:25 .

[syllogi]

But there wasn't a war, at least until after this terrorist act, and Elthina is not Hitler...she may be ineffectual, but she was a well meaning old lady who thought that her presence in Kirkwall would actually prevent violence.

Again, my point is that the ends do not justify the means, especially since Justice has shown himself to be increasingly incapable of distinguishing between innocents and enemies. If Anders kills Ella in Dissent, is she a casuality of war to be shrugged off?

[Knight of Dane]

ReiSilver wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...

Masako52 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
So basically Anders big mistake, if indeed he made one, was in trusting heroes to do what is right.

Like protect the innocent public from mages blowing things up?  I do wish there had been a hero around to do that.

More like, protect the innocent public from the Chantry's corruption?

I always think the "ANDERS BLEW UP INNOCENT PEOPLE" argument is a little exaggerated. I mean, there were probably five people in the Chantry, all of them nuns/priests/mothers/sisters/whatever they are. Including Elthina. Who had it coming. *points to thread's actual topic* I'm not saying what he did was not a big deal, but sometimes this argument makes it out to be like there were thousands of casualties, most terrible act in the game, etc. In the entirety of DA2, Anders' fireworks display is hardly a drop in the bucket of sh*t going down and people dying.

It's funny how insane it makes you seem when you still cling on to "It's no big deal," you don't really have a grasp of how such a explosion woul affect the surroundings..
We never even get to see hightown after the bomb. we can only guess as to how destructive it really was.

here watch from 0:40
See the parts of the Chantry move out from the explosion then stop in mid air? Those pieces get lifted up and blasted away from the city, there's a shock wave but little flying debris.
It seems like the whole point of this special magic explosion was to limit the damage to only the Chantry.
It doesn't look like it would have as wide spread damage as a mundane explosion would cause, as a normal explosion would have had the damage at ground level. Even the blast pattern is flat, not spherical, carrying debris over and away from the main population rather then blasting into it.
And really isn't that helping the 'make a big statement' point of the explosion as well? it's big, flashy and leaves the most people alive to witness it and thus spread the news of it happening.
Obviously however many people were in the Chantry at the time would have died, and that's horrible on a human life level, but that's at least what I mean when I say the Chantry explosion wasn't as horrifying as I was expecting.

Point, missing it... Ah well, i'll try to explain.

How many people live in Kirkwall? How many in Hightown? Your guess is as good as mine, but let's just agree that it is a pretty big city.
You explain the bomb as to my last comment that we don't get to see hightown and i agree that while it is a horrible action, it is a pretty good planned action and a good bomb.

Now aside from thos few people in the chantry that die, how do you suppose this affects a city?
People will be in shock, how are they supposed to feel safe? Have you seen Oslo after the bomb? People go paranoid and with good reason. There are also relatives to take into count, how do they feel about a lunatic bombing the institution of their faith killing a possible loved one inside?

There are far more to such things than the flashy pillar of light you know, it wasn't just people inside the building in Oslo that was affected. Anders action is purely selfish even though he did direct it towards one traget only he did not take into count how many would be damaged. Perhaps he id and then it is only that much the worse.

[ipgd]

TeenZombie wrote...

But there wasn't a war, at least until after this terrorist act, and Elthina is not Hitler...she may be ineffectual, but she was a well meaning old lady who thought that her presence in Kirkwall would actually prevent violence.

Anders didn't have some petty personal vendetta against Elthina. He didn't think she deserved to die for her incompetence.  He killed her because she needed to die for his Batman Gambit with Meredith to work, and also because he was making a symbolic attack against what she represents (made particularly salient in how her personality also mirrors this, but that is incidental). While I'm sure he believes Elthina contributed a large share to the crappy state of Kirkwall, that was not specifically why she was targeted in this particular instance, so whether she's a well-meaning old biddy or not doesn't really factor into his considerations.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

TeenZombie wrote...

But there wasn't a war, at least until after this terrorist act, and Elthina is not Hitler...she may be ineffectual, but she was a well meaning old lady who thought that her presence in Kirkwall would actually prevent violence.

Again, my point is that the ends do not justify the means, especially since Justice has shown himself to be increasingly incapable of distinguishing between innocents and enemies. If Anders kills Ella in Dissent, is she a casuality of war to be shrugged off?

I think Elthina is a military commander. Or rather, she's a "civilian" who has direct control over a military order, like a Generalissimo or commander in chief. She's the functional equivalent of someone who rubberstamps an act that continues or renews a setup of internment or apartheid... a government figure in an oppressive empire. I'm sure most oppressive empires are staffed by a lot of nice people who think they're doing the right thing for their countries. If they were all cackling and twirling mustaches, the international community would catch on rather quickly, yes? 

Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. Moses was a terrorist. Eventually, Danaerys Targaryen becomes a terrorist. Hell, one could argue that Drogo and his Khalasar are nothing but a roving band of terrorists using terrorism to extort money from everyone. Pretty much any act of violence you don't like can be classified as terrorism. It's a useless term at this point, its meaning basically reduced to "any act that sparks fear in the populace." Batman? Terrorist. Commander Shepard? Terrorist. Cloud Strife? Terrorist. Yes, a lot of really really terrible people are also Terrorists. It's a big group, because as I said before, any non-governmental act that causes fear can be classified as terrorism.

You know who isn't a terrorist? Stalin. Pol Pot. Pretty much any dictator you can name, and I'd argue that many of them are as bad as any terrorist. Their "innocent people death count" is certainly higher. You look at the very worst things in all of history, and they generally weren't caused by a non-government group doing violence, they tend to be the work of non-participatory authoritarian governments.

Terrorism is bad, yes. So is violence sanctioned by a government. I don't see why one is inherently worse than the other, if both are bad. And if sometimes acts of violence sanctioned by a government can be productive, why can't acts of violence by non-governmental entities also be productive? That's where everyone seems to draw the line, and it doens't make inherent sense: basically you're saying if a group is too oppressed to have a government, they cannot use violence to free themselves, while it's inherently less wrong when governments use violence to oppress them. That's... unfair. And nonsensical.

I'm not saying casualties of war should be "shrugged off." I'm saying that if a government sets things up in such a way that oppressed groups under its control have no outlet to work peacefully for their own freedom, then that government is primarily at fault for the casualties of the resulting war, or rebellion, or conflict, or whatever you want to call it. Do the freedom fighters share some blame? Of course. But when there's a slave uprising, I don't shake my head and say "oh, those evil, evil slaves, to start that unnecessary violence and kill those poor innocent slaveholders. Yes, revolting is the only way you can hope to win your freedom, but the ends do not justify the means!" 

If Anders kills Ella, it's an unfortunate case of someone who is mentally ill becoming violent under stress. It has nothing to do with war, terrorism, or the chantry.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 12 août 2011 - 02:06 .

[miraclemight]

I think one of problems for some is because Hawke had little effect on its consequences. Sure, s/he helped Anders find ingredients, but did it really matter? No.

My first playthrough was a pro-mage, and I had no delusions that my Hawke's actions wouldn't result  an uprising, but when Anders walks up and all Hawke does is stand there and say nothing, not even a "he's right"... You get the idea.

As for the whole was what Anders did necessary in the long run - I think we should agree to disagree when our opinions are on the opposite sides. To quote Zevran, this thread is turning into a waterwheel. We all agree that Elthina was not completely doing her duties as someone who had power to stop some of the big problems in Kirkwall and let's stick to that.

Modifié par miraclemight, 12 août 2011 - 02:50 .

[congealeddgtllvr]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Terrorism is bad, yes. So is violence sanctioned by a government. I don't see why one is inherently worse than the other, if both are bad. And if sometimes acts of violence sanctioned by a government can be productive, why can't acts of violence by non-governmental entities also be productive? That's where everyone seems to draw the line, and it doens't make inherent sense: basically you're saying if a group is too oppressed to have a government, they cannot use violence to free themselves, while it's inherently less wrong when governments use violence to oppress them. That's... unfair. And nonsensical.

I find this very naive. One of the primary functions of the state is to monopolize violence.  Not end it, monopolize it.  This has given us so many advantages that most of us now take them for granted.  This is why it is so easy for people to lean back in their chairs and applaud Anders.

Anders doesn't ask the muggles what they think of his idea to rob the Chantry of this monopoly and all the advantages it gives them.  He doesn't even ask the mages, many who may now be dying for a cause they don't even believe in.  That's... unfair.  And irresponsible.  

So it all comes back to justice, and how you define it, doesn't it?  I say it's a demon, and as Isabella says, only makes sense in a world of ideas. 

[syllogi]

I believe that Elthina does not see herself as a military leader, despite her power over the templars. I think that she was practicing what she preached to Sebastian, when she refused to take action one way or another. She believed in leading by example, and she could not fathom Meredith's descent into madness, Orsino's dabbling and eventual embracing of blood magic, or Anders' final solution for the impasse. So her greatest fault was perhaps not being equipped to deal with her role.

I brought up Anders killing Ella because it's an example of what he is now capable of...and yes, it is different from the Chantry bombing, in that it was not premeditated, but it shows that he is losing control and lacks critical judgement. Elthina did not need to die in order to shake things up.

[Addai]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
There are always alternatives to killing. At one point, during a particular war, a famous advocate for nonviolence suggested that one side (the side usually historically considered to be the 'good' one) should surrender, instead of fighting. He thought that continuing the cycle of violence was a bad idea, instead they should surrender, let the invading country take their homes and lands. If the invading country tried to kill them, they should just let it happen. This nonviolence would surely end the war. Now, the country in question didn't take the advocate's advice, and that's probably for the best. Sometimes, the completely nonviolent way is the wrong one.

You're casting things in a false dichotomy.  I at least am not arguing from pacifism.  Rather, I'm arguing that if you have a political goal, you should approach it strategically and in a targeted way so as to limit the impact on innocents.  Anders did this, to an extent- he blew up the Chantry, not an unrelated district in Kirkwall.  But ultimately he was trying to sow chaos and anarchy so that he could force his view of the world on whole societies.  He is no better than the Chantry.
 
Elthina is responsible, Meredith certainly, so is the Divine, they should be held accountable for their actions or inaction.  If Anders had hired Zevran to serve up some Antivan justice, I'd probably applaud him.  That wasn't enough for him.   Having Kirkwall be stable and peaceful, with the Circle still in existence but not corrupt, would have been an unacceptable outcome for him.  Everyone had to fight his war and accept his view of mages, like it or not.  It doesn't matter that he tried other things for seven years and they weren't working.  He had no right to do what he did.