386 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

ipgd wrote...
We all recognize that he did something awful and that he's kind of a dick

Who's "we all"? I have seen several Anders fan who do not look at him in this way. That what he did was perfectly justified and right and not terrorism, and that he isn't a dick. Several even doubt that he is insane.


@ Melca
Why would mages fight bloodmages during the war? Was anyone fighting the resolutionists?
Why would mages fight each other in the middle of a destructive war? If anything, I see most embracing bloodmagic, especially if they do not have access to lyrium. 

It's far more likely that they would start killing each other in the event that they win, mirroring all revolutionary movements, which would be the real disaster (unless a true leader kills all radicals immediately after winning).

And we are constantly told that outside of Kirkwall, most people support Templars gladly and see them as heroes. Why should that change? Why should Andrastrians not be blood lusted after what Anders did? If anything, popular fear and hatred of mages should increase ten fold.

It's not black and white (never is), but most people see things in black and white. Like most people feared and hated mages before they really did anything, so too will they fear and hate them more after what they are doing. Most Circles are in *cities*, so imagine the "collateral damage" if mages go insane like they did in Kirkwall.

Unless mages find a proper leader and a strategy to increase their legitimacy and find allies, I think the stakes are strongly against them by default.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 août 2011 - 07:20 .

[leggywillow]

john-in-france wrote...
Make up your minds folks, are we debating Thedas in which case read the Chant quote posted, or Mass Effect (not relevent here) or real life (relevent to RPG choice in Thedas)?

The Chant you quoted is meaningless.  Even within Thedas, it is not universally accepted as correct.  Some people think it could just be propaganda.  Even if it's not, taking it out of context is meaningless.  People always use that particular quote to villify mages, but it's the same as quoting a Bible verse to villify homosexuality: when taken out of context, it is simply wrong.  It doesn't support any kind of viewpoint; it's meaningless as evidence.

So in Thedas you recommend that people who would normally put a Browning in the groin of a man intent on raping a child is wrong? My wife stopped a group of  3  Airmen that way when they were intent on the rape of a child of 13. So tell me now, exactly how stopping Alrik is wrong....How is being honorable wrong? I personally love the fact that my wife had the balls to do it in real life, her and the other doctor with her.

Honor isn't just stopping atrocities against mages, it is about stopping atrocities full stop. Churches and Hospitals are generally considered off limits by the (honorable members of the) military, though not by politicians when it suits them. If a soldier hits one of these targets it is a war crime, if a guerilla fighter hits one it is terrorism.

Stop being a politician.

A few good men...and women, can make a difference. Even in a game.

Ummm.... what?  What on earth are you trying to say?  This is kinda incomprehensible, bro.  No offense.  No one is saying being honorable is wrong or that what Anders did isn't wrong.  It was terrorism, and innocent people were hurt.  I am not sure how anecdotes about your wife figure into that.

I did bold this part, though, because to get back to the original purpose of the thread: if this is what you believe, then how can you defend Elthina?  A few good people can make a difference, and a person in a position of power like Elthina could have done something.  She could have stopped the worst of the templars' abuses, perhaps.  But she didn't.  She was completely indifferent.

[ipgd]

Addai67 wrote...

That's quite patronizing.  I'm a history nerd so I read about atrocities that make 9/11 pale.  It doesn't mean I wasn't gutted to the core to read about the woman who was doused by burning jet fuel while waiting for the bus to go to work, and spent a month in agony I can't even imagine, finally dying as the last victim.  I'm just as appalled when others suffer, though I actually lived and went to work myself in those same streets, and I think I'm entitled to be moved by someone who could have been me.

That doesn't really have anything to do with what I said. I was specifically referring to ignorance regarding terrorism, the history of terrorism, and the erroneous conflation of 9/11 with anything labeled as terrorism. Being moved doesn't really preclude someone from becoming better informed instead of buying into media flanderization and hysteria.

However, I don't believe it's justified to force societal change at the end of a blasting fuse.  Crazy, I know.

And yet that calls into question all of the many, many movements that were built off terrorism. There are many things we almost universally accept as positive social changes within our culture that were catalyzed by terrorist acts, whitewashed by history as they are; to bring up these examples the millionth time, would you really want to "take back" the terrorist acts of abolitionists and the Civil War that set us on the path of the civil rights movement? If it meant that it might be another hundred years from now before society was at a point where someone like Martin Luther King would be able to take a peaceful, legal stand in the way he did, would those however many deaths erased really be worth the extended oppression of another countless generations of an entire minority group? Should the American Revolutionists have waited another hundred years until they successfully argued the British Empire into conceding their independence?

Something can be appalling and still be less appalling than another thing. Sometimes doing something appalling is the only way to stop something that is much more appalling. You can recognize something as both appalling and ultimately justifiable, if it was meant to stop something more appalling and succeeded in doing so. And not everything that is appalling is exactly equivalent to other things that are appalling.

Make up your minds folks, are we debating Thedas in which case read the Chant quote posted, or Mass Effect (not relevent here) or real life (relevent to RPG choice in Thedas)?

What does the Chant have to do with anything?

Who's "we all"? I have seen several Anders fan who do not look at him in this way. That what he did was perfectly justified and right and not terrorism, and that he isn't a dick. Several even doubt that he is insane.

Like who? We in the Anderps thread make fun of those people.

The "insane" thing is sort of a different matter of terminology, considering that not every person who is mentally ill is insane. And Anders certainly is mentally ill, but using the word 'insane' in a non-hyperbolic, non-joke fashion doesn't really fit, because insane has an actual definition that does not actually describe Anders.

Modifié par ipgd, 11 août 2011 - 07:27 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

ipgd wrote...
Like who? We in the Anderps thread make fun of those people.

The "insane" thing is sort of a different matter of terminology, considering that not every person who is mentally ill is insane. And Anders certainly is mentally ill, but using the word 'insane' in a non-hyperbolic, non-joke fashion doesn't really fit, because insane has an actual definition that does not actually describe Anders.

Forgot their names. I saw them in the Anders thread, though I do not know if they participate often.

And granted for the "insane" part. I meant mentally ill. My impression is that some either do not really mind that (not in terms of the character being more apppealing), or think he's become some sort of avatar for justice and the mage cause. As in he improved. I could be misinterpretting however.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 août 2011 - 07:31 .

[SurelyForth]

ipgd wrote...

Something can be appalling and still be less appalling than another thing. Sometimes doing something appalling is the only way to stop something that is much more appalling. You can recognize something as both appalling and ultimately justifiable, if it was meant to stop something more appalling and succeeded in doing so. And not everything that is appalling is exactly equivalent to other things that are appalling.

This. 

And it's my belief that what happens at the end of the video game Dragon Age 2 in the fictional world of Thedas, falls comfortably within these paramaters. 

@KoP I, personally, believe that after the end of DA2, if he gets to leave Kirkwall, he is probably more stable. I think it's the situation in Kirkwall that is causing him the most harm (via Justice) and the waiting for something to give in a place that is quantifiably terrible for mages in general can't be helping either. I don't expect him to be better or less zealous, but I think with some of that pressure off of him and the just not being frustrated on a constant basis will be an immense help. 

Modifié par SurelyForth, 11 août 2011 - 07:40 .

[john-in-france]

esper wrote...

john-in-france wrote...

leggywillow wrote...

john-in-france wrote...
An honorable man or woman strives to remain true to some ideals even in war, and the harming of innocents is not one of them. It is called moral values or used to be.

Out of curiosity, you do know about moral relativism, right?  There's no such thing as "moral values" that span all cultures and time periods.  Almost every culture I can think of is against harming innocents, but the definition of who is innocent can vary wildly.

In my definition, and probably the definition of most people raised in a Western society, yes, Anders killed innocent people.  But just because I see it that way, and apparently so do you, that doesn't actually make it universally morally wrong due to that pesky thing called "relativism".  Just something to keep in mind.

A good fictional example would be the turians.  They are all about honor, but they also harm a ton of what we would call innocents in battle, since they don't view non-combatants as "innocents".  Does that make them evil?

History is nothing but shades of grey, some shades darker than others.

Make up your minds folks, are we debating Thedas in which case read the Chant quote posted, or Mass Effect (not relevent here) or real life (relevent to RPG choice in Thedas)?

I believe that I already said that History was ambiguous.

Moral values depend on the time/place and religion/spiritual system that you live/believe in. It does not stop people from trying to be a better person by protecting the innocent.
Philosophy is nice, but like history rarely tells it how it really happens, it is far too clinical.

War is violent, bloody, and often ends up with parts of your friends splashed all over you. There are no magic healing potions, but there is friendly fire. There is rape, slaughter and lack of humanity. That makes it more necessary for people to take a stand for honorable reasons...because in war, many things become grey. There is no real glory, regardless of television broadcasts or fiction. I have seen war, and terrorism close up and it is not clean.

So in Thedas you recommend that people who would normally put a Browning in the groin of a man intent on raping a child is wrong? My wife stopped a group of  3  Airmen that way when they were intent on the rape of a child of 13. So tell me now, exactly how stopping Alrik is wrong....How is being honorable wrong? I personally love the fact that my wife had the balls to do it in real life, her and the other doctor with her.

Honor isn't just stopping atrocities against mages, it is about stopping atrocities full stop. Churches and Hospitals are generally considered off limits by the (honorable members of the) military, though not by politicians when it suits them. If a soldier hits one of these targets it is a war crime, if a guerilla fighter hits one it is terrorism.

Stop being a politician.

A few good men...and women, can make a difference. Even in a game.

Just one little problem with you real life parallel there. The Chantry IS the Military.

So is a military hospital, it is still off limits under the accepted rules of war.

The Queen of England is titular head of the military in the UK she is also the titular head of the Church of England, but wields little real power just like Elthina. If you blew her up, there is not a single member of our military who would not want blood. That is reality. That is what happened in Thedas.

Technically the Chantry building is a church.
Elthina is the Divines representative and has authority over the Templar, she does not command them (The Knight Vigilant does) but advises them. In Act 3, the game states that Meredith is no longer taking advice. Your military target is Meredith.

So by your reasoning:
Every Mother, Brother and Sister who had nothing to do with this...deserved it?
Every person there praying...deserved it?
Every person near enough to take shrapnel...deserved it?
Every house and person injured in the fall out...deserved it?
All the mages killed because of it...deserved it?
All of the Templar killed because of it...deserved it?
All of the Kirkwall civilians caught in the resulting crossfire...deserved it?

Thanks...I think I'll try to remain honorable.


For Elthina:

Blessed are the peacekeepers, the champions of the just.
-Benedictions 4:10

[leggywillow]

john-in-france wrote...
For Elthina:

Blessed are the peacekeepers, the champions of the just.
-Benedictions 4:10

Name one thing she actually did to keep the peace besides sticking her head in the sand and avoiding her responsibilities.

[Chignon]

ipgd wrote...

Something can be appalling and still be less appalling than another thing. Sometimes doing something appalling is the only way to stop something that is much more appalling. You can recognize something as both appalling and ultimately justifiable, if it was meant to stop something more appalling and succeeded in doing so. And not everything that is appalling is exactly equivalent to other things that are appalling.

I agree.

The same reasoning can be applied to the need for Circles as well.

Modifié par Chignon, 11 août 2011 - 07:43 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

ipgd wrote...
to bring up these examples the millionth time, would you really want to "take back" the terrorist acts of abolitionists and the Civil War that set us on the path of the civil rights movement? If it meant that it might be another hundred years from now before society was at a point where someone like Martin Luther King would be able to take a peaceful, legal stand in the way he did, would those however many deaths erased really be worth the extended oppression of another countless generations of an entire minority group? Should the American Revolutionists have waited another hundred years until they successfully argued the British Empire into conceding their independence?

I feel I have to keep bringing this up. The Civil War was not solely fought because they suddenly realized "omg slavery is so wrong!" There were many more political / economic and social factors at play and slavery was but one facet (and there is a reason why slavery was abolished during / after the industrial revolution and not before). It was not a lone wolf or some small organization that no one cares about that did all this. It was states and mass movements, who fought for lots of reasons. Same with the war of independence. Along side systemic changes (industrial revolution for example). Trends on a global / systemic level that allowed those changes to happen.

Anders did not take advantage of the obvious changes that were going on, in fact he did the opposite. He didn't have a movement behind him. He had nothing except that bomb of his, and a manifesto that we do not know anyone would read, or if it's anything that is more sophisticated than any lunatic could also write (and considering his mental illness, I doubt he wrote much of use). 

So I would not compare him to abolitionists and independence fighters. I would compare them to the mages that are fighting and doing the hard work Anders did not expect himself to do. Whether they win or lose is entirely dependent on them and not him, so victory should only be attributed to them should they earn it.

[ipgd]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Forgot their names. I saw them in the Anders thread, though I do not know if they participate often.

You can pretty much guarantee that any time the ANDERPS IS NOT A TERRORIST people show up that Shorts and I will end up arguing it to the death until they either agree, leave or stop daring to bring it up, so...

hey might as well link this since i'll end up harvesting all these old posts eventually anyway

And granted for the "insane" part. I meant mentally ill. My impression is that some either do not really mind that (not in terms of the character being more apppealing), or think he's become some sort of avatar for justice and the mage cause. As in he improved. I could be misinterpretting however.

I'm not sure how "I like that he's batty" means "he's not batty", though. All of the Anderps thread regulars pretty much accept Anders as being a weirdo even if there are varying interpretations as to how much of a ****head he is because of it.

So by your reasoning:
Every Mother, Brother and Sister who had nothing to do with this...deserved it?
Every person there praying...deserved it?
Every person near enough to take shrapnel...deserved it?
Every house and person injured in the fall out...deserved it?
All the mages killed because of it...deserved it?
All of the Templar killed because of it...deserved it?
All of the Kirkwall civilians caught in the resulting crossfire...deserved it?

To requote myself since this seems to keep coming up for whatever reason:

I'm also not sure why whether or not Elthina "deserved to die" is an issue. No one here is suggesting she deserved to die for her incompetence. Anders didn't think she deserved to die -- he believed her death was necessary, but also believed that she and the other innocent victims of his attack deserved justice themselves and that his actions were such that he would need to be punished. She doesn't deserve to die, but neither do mages deserve their plight, and it's simply not a clear cut issue of right and wrong when her death could be responsible for the beginning of the first real and politically potent mage rights movement since the inception of the Chantry and the Circle.

Modifié par ipgd, 11 août 2011 - 07:44 .

[nos_astra]

Addai67 wrote...

klarabella wrote...
In Origins he was very willing to gleefully kill a blood mage ...

I'm scratching my head- where is this?

The one blood mage you can spare in the tower. He makes fun of her, while the Warden is deciding whether or to kill her or not. I may have exaggerated a bit.

Still, going from showing general compassion towards individual mages to fully supporting a mage revolution at all cost is a very big step.

Modifié par klarabella, 11 août 2011 - 07:45 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

SurelyForth wrote...
@KoP I, personally, believe that after the end of DA2, if he gets to leave Kirkwall, he is probably more stable. I think it's the situation in Kirkwall that is causing him the most harm (via Justice) and the waiting for something to give in a place that is quantifiably terrible for mages in general can't be helping either. I don't expect him to be better or less zealous, but I think with some of that pressure off of him and the just not being frustrated on a constant basis will be an immense help.

Do you really think he is going to be better during a destructive war? With probably a lot of atrocities being committed? Really?

I think he is going to be much worse. Much more pressured and frustratedd.

[leggywillow]

Chignon wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Something can be appalling and still be less appalling than another thing. Sometimes doing something appalling is the only way to stop something that is much more appalling. You can recognize something as both appalling and ultimately justifiable, if it was meant to stop something more appalling and succeeded in doing so. And not everything that is appalling is exactly equivalent to other things that are appalling.

I agree.

The same reasoning can be applied to the need for Circles as well.

But not Circles as they are now.  Tearing young children away from their families, forbidding or threatening families if they attempt to contact their children, arbitrary lobotomies, lifetime imprisonment, and rape?  That is not okay.  There is a middle ground between mages running all the place with no supervision and what the Circle represents now.

[Chignon]

leggywillow wrote...

Chignon wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Something can be appalling and still be less appalling than another thing. Sometimes doing something appalling is the only way to stop something that is much more appalling. You can recognize something as both appalling and ultimately justifiable, if it was meant to stop something more appalling and succeeded in doing so. And not everything that is appalling is exactly equivalent to other things that are appalling.

I agree.

The same reasoning can be applied to the need for Circles as well.

But not Circles as they are now.  Tearing young children away from their families, forbidding or threatening families if they attempt to contact their children, arbitrary lobotomies, lifetime imprisonment, and rape?  That is not okay.  There is a middle ground between mages running all the place with no supervision and what the Circle represents now.

Where did I mention that the Circles should remain as they are?

[SurelyForth]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

SurelyForth wrote...
@KoP I, personally, believe that after the end of DA2, if he gets to leave Kirkwall, he is probably more stable. I think it's the situation in Kirkwall that is causing him the most harm (via Justice) and the waiting for something to give in a place that is quantifiably terrible for mages in general can't be helping either. I don't expect him to be better or less zealous, but I think with some of that pressure off of him and the just not being frustrated on a constant basis will be an immense help.

Do you really think he is going to be better during a destructive war? With probably a lot of atrocities being committed? Really?

I think he is going to be much worse. Much more pressured and frustratedd.

"We were already doomed. A quick death now or a slow one later - I'd rather die fighting."

I think he knows that the mages might not win, and he knows that it's going to be horrible, but at least they are getting a chance, and at least he can do something now instead of hiding in the undercity or in Hawke's estate. 

Modifié par SurelyForth, 11 août 2011 - 07:48 .

[syllogi]

Quite frankly, the bombing of the Chantry could lead to nothing but more misery and oppression for mages. It could lead to more deaths of innocents, more suffering, and yeah, deaths of even decent templars who really do believe that there is a need for their job and are just trying to help mages and regular people the best way they know how.

I don't see how the Chantry bombing can be seen as "less appalling" than the alternatives, if it doesn't lead to reform.

Modifié par TeenZombie, 11 août 2011 - 07:48 .

[Addai]

ipgd wrote...
That doesn't really have anything to do with what I said. I was specifically referring to ignorance regarding terrorism, the history of terrorism, and the erroneous conflation of 9/11 with anything labeled as terrorism. Being moved doesn't really preclude someone from becoming better informed instead of buying into media flanderization and hysteria.

And yet you generalized about Americans.  Not a good idea.

And yet that calls into question all of the many, many movements that were built off terrorism. There are many things we almost universally accept as positive social changes within our culture that were catalyzed by terrorist acts, whitewashed by history as they are; to bring up these examples the millionth time, would you really want to "take back" the terrorist acts of abolitionists and the Civil War that set us on the path of the civil rights movement?

Well, first of all I'd ask- what terrorist acts of the abolitionists and Civil War?  But never mind, because this is where these discussions get muddled in a hurry.  You're suggesting people can react to Anders' bomb out of inappropriate emotion, yet you want to appeal to whatever cause you think has a positive vibe, even though that has no relevance to the question of people who can blow things up with their minds- which after all don't exist in any RL conflict you can point to.

Something can be appalling and still be less appalling than another thing.

So working for Anders' ends peacefully- or through legitimate governments- is appalling?  Or- not seeking to stoke a world war and simply taking out the individuals responsible for Kirkwall's condition- that's "appalling"?

Modifié par Addai67, 11 août 2011 - 07:57 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

ipgd wrote...
You can pretty much guarantee that any time the ANDERPS IS NOT A TERRORIST people show up that Shorts and I will end up arguing it to the death until they either agree, leave or stop daring to bring it up, so...

hey might as well link this since i'll end up harvesting all these old posts eventually anyway

But you and Shorts are not "we all".  You should have specified that you meant Anderps regulars.

I'm not sure how "I like that he's batty" means "he's not batty", though.

I meant people who do not mind batty people doing what Anders did. As in them being mentally qualified to make such a decision and force / facilitate the initiation of a war. A premise I strongly disagree with.

[Chignon]

TeenZombie wrote...

I don't see how the Chantry bombing can be seen as "less appalling" than the alternatives, if it doesn't lead to reform.

That's a good point.

[leggywillow]

Chignon wrote...

leggywillow wrote...

Chignon wrote...
The same reasoning can be applied to the need for Circles as well.

But not Circles as they are now.  Tearing young children away from their families, forbidding or threatening families if they attempt to contact their children, arbitrary lobotomies, lifetime imprisonment, and rape?  That is not okay.  There is a middle ground between mages running all the place with no supervision and what the Circle represents now.

Where did I mention that the Circles should remain as they are?

You didn't.  But Elthina implicitly does by her refusal to do a single thing to bring about peaceful change.  If a person in a position of power to start bringing about peaceful change does nothing, the door is only held open longer for violent loonies.

[KnightofPhoenix]

SurelyForth wrote...
"We were already doomed. A quick death now or a slow one later - I'd rather die fighting."

I think he knows that the mages might not win, and he knows that it's going to be horrible, but at least they are getting a chance, and at least he can do something now instead of hiding in the undercity or in Hawke's estate.

Easy to say for someone who never experienced war.

I think once he sees how it really is, that he is going to break.

[john-in-france]

leggywillow wrote...

john-in-france wrote...
Make up your minds folks, are we debating Thedas in which case read the Chant quote posted, or Mass Effect (not relevent here) or real life (relevent to RPG choice in Thedas)?

The Chant you quoted is meaningless.  Even within Thedas, it is not universally accepted as correct.  Some people think it could just be propaganda.  Even if it's not, taking it out of context is meaningless.  People always use that particular quote to villify mages, but it's the same as quoting a Bible verse to villify homosexuality: when taken out of context, it is simply wrong.  It doesn't support any kind of viewpoint; it's meaningless as evidence.

So in Thedas you recommend that people who would normally put a Browning in the groin of a man intent on raping a child is wrong? My wife stopped a group of  3  Airmen that way when they were intent on the rape of a child of 13. So tell me now, exactly how stopping Alrik is wrong....How is being honorable wrong? I personally love the fact that my wife had the balls to do it in real life, her and the other doctor with her.

Honor isn't just stopping atrocities against mages, it is about stopping atrocities full stop. Churches and Hospitals are generally considered off limits by the (honorable members of the) military, though not by politicians when it suits them. If a soldier hits one of these targets it is a war crime, if a guerilla fighter hits one it is terrorism.

Stop being a politician.

A few good men...and women, can make a difference. Even in a game.

Ummm.... what?  What on earth are you trying to say?  This is kinda incomprehensible, bro.  No offense.  No one is saying being honorable is wrong or that what Anders did isn't wrong.  It was terrorism, and innocent people were hurt.  I am not sure how anecdotes about your wife figure into that.

I did bold this part, though, because to get back to the original purpose of the thread: if this is what you believe, then how can you defend Elthina?  A few good people can make a difference, and a person in a position of power like Elthina could have done something.  She could have stopped the worst of the templars' abuses, perhaps.  But she didn't.  She was completely indifferent.

I believe it was you that brought up moral relativism. Then tried to relate to Turians. But you can not see real life comparisons.

Do you just enjoy playing with words?

I support Elthina because she tried to keep the peace. Something that many people see as weak. It often takes a strong person to do so. It was not so much that she was not strong enough, but the fact that Meredith was going insane, that was the real turning point of Act 3.

The Templars abuses are down to Meredith not policing them.

Elthinas main problem was that she believed that people could be reasoned with, when they had obviously gone far past that point. An error of judgement or naivety, only Bioware can comment.

[Chignon]

leggywillow wrote...

You didn't.  But Elthina implicitly does by her refusal to do a single thing to bring about peaceful change.  If a person in a position of power to start bringing about peaceful change does nothing, the door is only held open longer for violent loonies.

Exactly, I didn't. I wasn't arguing for Elthina either. I was making an observation.

[ipgd]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I feel I have to keep bringing this up. The Civil War was not solely fought because they suddenly realized "omg slavery is so wrong!" There were many more political / economic and social factors at play and slavery was but one facet (and there is a reason why slavery was abolished during / after the industrial revolution and not before). It was not a lone wolf or some small organization that no one cares about that did all this. It was states and mass movements, who fought for lots of reasons. Same with the war of independence. Along side systemic changes (industrial revolution for example). Trends on a global / systemic level that allowed those changes to happen.

I'm aware of that. Still, if the Civil War had hypothetically not happened, it would probably have set back abolition a great deal (along with all of the other things that came about with the Civil War, but in interest of not bloating my posts to ridiculous length, I'm just making the minority group comparison here).

Anders did not take advantage of the obvious changes that were going on, in fact he did the opposite. He didn't have a movement behind him. He had nothing except that bomb of his, and a manifesto that we do not know anyone would read, or if it's anything that is more sophisticated than any lunatic could also write (and considering his mental illness, I doubt he wrote much of use). 

So I would not compare him to abolitionists and independence fighters. I would compare them to the mages that are fighting and doing the hard work Anders did not expect himself to do. Whether they win or lose is entirely dependent on them and not him, so victory should only be attributed to them should they earn it.

I was not drawing a specific comparison to Anders there, merely the idea that any act of violence to bring about social change cannot be justified. If you want to argue that Anders, specifically, is unjustified in his use of violence, that's one thing, but to make the sweeping declaration that any terrorist act is necessarily unjustifiable by virtue of being violent is, I feel, erroneous.

And we've had this argument about Anderps's contribution to the mage movement enough times that I think it's safe to say we both know enough about how the other thinks to not need to get into it again !!!

Modifié par ipgd, 11 août 2011 - 07:54 .

[Addai]

klarabella wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

klarabella wrote...
In Origins he was very willing to gleefully kill a blood mage ...

I'm scratching my head- where is this?

The one blood mage you can spare in the tower. He makes fun of her, while the Warden is deciding whether or to kill her or not. I may have exaggerated a bit.

Still, going from showing general compassion towards individual mages to fully supporting a mage revolution at all cost is a very big step.

Maybe I missed the context- I thought people were talking about his little pushing match with Meredith in act 3.

Whether King Alistair would support mages in a mage war- I don't know.  He should care first about Ferelden's well-being as a country on the whole.  I would imagine his determination (or Anora's) would come down to the political situation and to Fereldan interests.  That might mean trying to remain neutral, but if Orlais tries to force Ferelden into committing troops to an Exalted March, I could see him resisting that.  OTOH Ferelden is an Andrastian country, solidly so, and the common people do not trust mages or have much sympathy for them- as a mage Warden gets to overhear multiple times.  Whether the Hero of Ferelden is a mage or not would also play a role I guess.  It's a big question mark, I think.  We don't know enough about the situation post-DA2 to say for sure.