386 réponses à ce sujet

[leggywillow]

Chignon wrote...

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.

I know that.  And I was using it to further the discussion about Elthina.

john-in-france wrote...
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.

Elthina did not do anything to keep the peace, unless you count "doing absolutely nothing".  To use your own example, your wife would have similarly been "keeping the peace" if she hadn't stepped in to protect that child.  I don't see how you can promote helping people through just and honorable actions AND being indifferent in the same paragraph.

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

[SurelyForth]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

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.

While what the Warden deals with in Amaranthine is not outright war, I think it's enough to give him a basic understanding of how these things work. I mean, the Warden has to make a choice to defend innocents in Amaranthine or go back and fight for the Keep, which is Anders' home and his friends, and he'll advocate on behalf of the city. So it's not like he's a complete novice who has no idea what war can be like, and that sometimes you have to make horribad choices and lose those you're fighting for. 

[john-in-france]

leggywillow wrote...

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.

Just one?
She opposed the Tranquil Solution.
She acted to stop the Divine making an Exalted March on Kirkwall, then by asking Hawke to also talk to Leliana.
She opposed the rite of Annulment because Meredith had to go around her to directly ask it from the Divine instead of the High Cleric.

[LobselVith8]

klarabella wrote...

I never understood why on earth Alistair is suddenly eerily close to pro-mage revolutionary. it's not like anything special happened to make him change his mind entirely. In Origins he was very willing to gleefully kill a blood mage and even suggested that abomination Connor should be killed in the first place. And of course hated Morrigan, in part for her being an apostate.

I recall Alistair warning her against the Chantry by mocking the idea, because he said they would kill her simply for being a mage, but I never recall him being overly anti-mage. He seemed to have more of a problem with the Chantry, which is clear if you hear him discuss the lyrium addiction of the templars.

As for mages, he resented Morrigan (although I think that had nothing to do with her being an apostate), but Alistair can get close to Wynne, he can become great friends with The Warden from the Circle of Ferelden (and apparently forgives him for sparing Loghain), he can admit he wouldn't kill Jowan when speaking to The Warden (after he's gotten assistance from the Circle of Ferelden to aid young Connor), and he openly embraces the idea of The Warden's royal boon to emancipate the Circle of Ferelden from Chantry control.

[nos_astra]

Addai67 wrote...
Maybe I missed the context- I thought people were talking about his little pushing match with Meredith in act 3.

I believe someone questioned whether the lore says mages do have support among the muggles or not. I said, they don't have significant support. The other forumite pointed out that King Alistair totally was going to support the mages.

I may have misunderstood what he/she was trying to say, though.

[congealeddgtllvr]

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.

These are very complicated and nuanced considerations indeed.  So my questions would be 

a.)Who is Anders to render the final judgement on these matters and

b.)How is concluding these considerations with a massive explosion the wise course?  

[Aeowyn]

john-in-france wrote...

leggywillow wrote...

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.

Just one?
She opposed the Tranquil Solution.

Because it was an insane idea to begin with? Not even Meredith approved that.

She acted to stop the Divine making an Exalted March on Kirkwall, then by asking Hawke to also talk to Leliana.

She "acted" to stop the Divine by making HAWKE do all the work for her.

She opposed the rite of Annulment because Meredith had to go around her to directly ask it from the Divine instead of the High Cleric.

Um, we don't know this. My guess is that Meredith just went to the Divine straight away because she knew that Elthina would never approve it.

[Chignon]

Aeowyn wrote...

She "acted" to stop the Divine by making HAWKE do all the work for her.

I'm not trying to defend Elthina's inaction, but I don't think that's quite fair. Hawke is the protagonist. He/She always has to do "all the work" for everyone. Otherwise there wouldn't be any quests.

[leggywillow]

john-in-france wrote...
Just one?
She opposed the Tranquil Solution.
She acted to stop the Divine making an Exalted March on Kirkwall, then by asking Hawke to also talk to Leliana.
She opposed the rite of Annulment because Meredith had to go around her to directly ask it from the Divine instead of the High Cleric.

I will concede to the bolded part.  She did make a vague attempt to do something there, even if it was by sending a random noble to speak with Leliana.

The rest of it, though, simply falls under Elthina not rocking the boat.  She didn't actively oppose any of these (or immediately strip Meredith of her position for daring to go over her head); it was just more of Elthina going "LOL NO" to every request she seems to get.

She did not actively take steps to make things worse for mages by okaying the Tranquil Solution or annulment.  I guess that's enough for some people.  However, nor did she do anything to ease the tensions that brought about requests like that in the first place, which is something I think a responsible person in her position of power should have done.

[Aeowyn]

Chignon wrote...

Aeowyn wrote...

She "acted" to stop the Divine by making HAWKE do all the work for her.

I'm not trying to defend Elthina's inaction, but I don't think that's quite fair. Hawke is the protagonist. He/She always has to do "all the work" for everyone. Otherwise there wouldn't be any quests.

But that's not my point. I don't see why Elthina could try to speak to Leliana herself. Why not setup a meeting? And then have Hawke....accompany her or something, instead of sending Hawke to talk to "Sister Nightingale" to see what the Divine is planning.

[KnightofPhoenix]

ipgd wrote...
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.

I agree, but there are different kinds of violence. Just thought I'd specify.
Not arguing on the basis of morality.

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 !!!

But it's fun!

But just to refer to your reference of consequentialism (I may be taking it out of context, but just want to throw my 2 cents, not responding to anything you said specifically).

It may very well be that what Anders does result in a positive outcome. A consequentialist could thus say that his act was "right", in that it resulted in the desired outcome. However, a consequentialist saying that Anders is "good", would be comitting the "naturalistic falllacy". Only an act can be judged by consequentialists, and not really the moral worth of a person. So Anders' act could be right, but that has no bearing on his moral worth. Kind of like "right for the wrong reasons" (simplified).

Now my problem with the consequentialist argument, is that whether Anders' act results in a positive outcome or not is entirely independent of the act itself. It was a catalyst, but it has no bearing on the success of the coming war. Anymore than Princip's assassination of Ferdinand had any bearing on the outcome of WW1. It could be that WW1 resulted in positive change (meh), but I would not felicitate Princip on it or say his act was "right".

In otherwords, there are so many variables at play vis-a-vis the war's outcome, that I cannot possibly look at Anders and say he did the right thing when I have no indication that he even thought of those variables and had ways to deal with them, let alone actually delt with them (since he was expecting himself to die, I doubt he had anythign in mind).

The most I can say, if the war ends up having a positive outcome, is that Anders' act was convenient. But not "right", or "smart", or "just" or anything other than short sighted and stupid.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 août 2011 - 08:14 .

[Addai]

klarabella wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
Maybe I missed the context- I thought people were talking about his little pushing match with Meredith in act 3.

I believe someone questioned whether the lore says mages do have support among the muggles or not. I said, they don't have significant support. The other forumite pointed out that King Alistair totally was going to support the mages.

I may have misunderstood what he/she was trying to say, though.

Okay, I got that.

If you listen to the gossipers in Origins, it certainly gives you the idea that the common people hate and fear mages.  When one gossiper tells the other that there is trouble in the Tower, the immediate response is "they should just kill them all" and that the Maker would approve.  I think the only way the smallfolk would become supportive of mages is if the Chantry overreacts and starts cracking down on ordinary people- like going door to door and hauling away people willy-nilly for being suspected apostates.  That could well happen.  Even then I would consider it an anti-Chantry reaction, rather than a pro-mage.  I consider it more likely that Anders will have set back any progress on getting ordinary Andrastians to see mages as people.  He did more to validate the anti-mage prejudice than the Chantry could ever have managed on its own.

Modifié par Addai67, 11 août 2011 - 08:12 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

SurelyForth wrote...
While what the Warden deals with in Amaranthine is not outright war, I think it's enough to give him a basic understanding of how these things work. I mean, the Warden has to make a choice to defend innocents in Amaranthine or go back and fight for the Keep, which is Anders' home and his friends, and he'll advocate on behalf of the city. So it's not like he's a complete novice who has no idea what war can be like, and that sometimes you have to make horribad choices and lose those you're fighting for. 

Oh right I did forget about Awakening, my bad.

I will say though that civil wars, without a clearly defined "bad guy", are generaly much more atrocious than other kinds of war. Especially when Anders hates the opposite side, probably more than he hates darkspawn.

[john-in-france]

Aeowyn wrote...

john-in-france wrote...

leggywillow wrote...

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.

Just one?
She opposed the Tranquil Solution.

Because it was an insane idea to begin with? Not even Meredith approved that.

She acted to stop the Divine making an Exalted March on Kirkwall, then by asking Hawke to also talk to Leliana.

She "acted" to stop the Divine by making HAWKE do all the work for her.

She opposed the rite of Annulment because Meredith had to go around her to directly ask it from the Divine instead of the High Cleric.

Um, we don't know this. My guess is that Meredith just went to the Divine straight away because she knew that Elthina would never approve it.

On the Leliana interview, Elthina states that her views have already been expressed to the Divine on that matter. The Divines representative wanted to speak to the Champion and Sebastian (locked character on Faith). 

[esper]

john-in-france wrote...

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

I have a problem with the worth deserved, NO ONE deserves to die not matter their crimes, but if it stops a 1000 years of robbing people of the most basic human right, it might be a necessity (nessessary. I can't spell this word).

As for your little list: Mother, brother and sisters had everything to do with it. They preach a religion in which a god that had repeatly mistreated his so called children are wants to return his attention to the word so he can mess it all up once more and that religion is used to strip people of family, freedom and everything else and even without that religion they are still part of a military organisation making them none soft targets.

Every person praying - they were soft targets and definitly innocent. 

We don't know how many were taking out by simply by being to close to the chantry, but they too were soft targets and innocent.

All mages? No they don't deserve it, but they have to fight back now for future generation of mages.

All the templars? Templars mostly willingly have joined and oppressing organisation and if they participate in and right of annullement they are killed in what is self defense from the mage sides. If I have to use the word deserve it is here.

Civilians never deserved it, but no war comes without civlian cost - sadly.

Is specifically tried to avoid using the word church because I didn't want to offend anyone, but since you used it. Todays church doesn't command and army at least it doesn't in my country. Elthina was directly responsible for Meridith, if she wasn't Meridith would have annulled the circle long before.

Blessed are the peacekeepers champion of the just... If Elthina was a peacekeeper she would at least pretended to look into the unjustified using of her seal in act 2, if Elthina was a peacekeeper she would have told Meridith to stay the hell away from the Vicount seat. Elthina was not a peacekeeper.

As for honour. It sound good on the paper, but it doesn't work in war. Honour and war should not be in the same sentence, war is never honourable. And for your war hospital example. If the leader of - say a terrorist cell is wounded and brought to a hosipital with civilian do you think that no one of the oposing side wouldn''t take the chance and attack - even if it would properly develop into a hostage situation?

As for Anders. What he did was wrong. it was murder and murder of innocenct too, but if it stopped a 1000 years of oppression and unjustified imprisoment then what he did worked and the chantry would never have let go of the mages peacefully - never.  



 

[Chignon]

Aeowyn wrote...

But that's not my point. I don't see why Elthina could try to speak to Leliana herself. Why not setup a meeting? And then have Hawke....accompany her or something, instead of sending Hawke to talk to "Sister Nightingale" to see what the Divine is planning.

Why doesn't Cullen accompany you after Hawke located the hideout of the blood mages during Enemies Among Us? Why don't any of the NPC quest givers accompany Hawke during their quests except for Nathaniel and Gascard?

Edit

john-in-france wrote...

On the Leliana interview, Elthina states that her views have already been expressed to the Divine on that matter. The Divines representative wanted to speak to the Champion and Sebastian (locked character on Faith). 

Right, I forgot about that.

Modifié par Chignon, 11 août 2011 - 08:17 .

[Aeowyn]

Chignon wrote...

Aeowyn wrote...

But that's not my point. I don't see why Elthina could try to speak to Leliana herself. Why not setup a meeting? And then have Hawke....accompany her or something, instead of sending Hawke to talk to "Sister Nightingale" to see what the Divine is planning.

Why doesn't Cullen accompany you after Hawke located the hideout of the blood mages during Enemies Among Us? Why don't any of the NPC quest givers accompany Hawke during their quests except for Nathaniel and Gascard?

Edit

john-in-france wrote...

On the Leliana interview, Elthina states that her views have already been expressed to the Divine on that matter. The Divines representative wanted to speak to the Champion and Sebastian (locked character on Faith). 

Right, I forgot about that.

I think you're missing my point Chig.

@John: Right...it's been a while since I played the game.

[KnightofPhoenix]

esper wrote...
As for Anders. What he did was wrong. it was murder and murder of innocenct too, but if it stopped a 1000 years of oppression and unjustified imprisoment then what he did worked and the chantry would never have let go of the mages peacefully - never. 

But it won't. Anders' act may lead to a sequence of events that may free mages and create a better society. But it has an equal chance (if not more) to make things worse. So what he did has no bearing on the outcome.

What should stop mage oppression goes far beyond Anders' act. The ones who win and build should get the credit, not the one who lit the gasoline, imo.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 août 2011 - 08:22 .

[esper]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

esper wrote...
As for Anders. What he did was wrong. it was murder and murder of innocenct too, but if it stopped a 1000 years of oppression and unjustified imprisoment then what he did worked and the chantry would never have let go of the mages peacefully - never. 

But it won't. Anders' act may lead to a sequence of events that may free mages and create a better society. But it has an equal chance (if not more) to make things worse. So what he did has no bearing on the outcome.

What should stop mage oppression goes far beyond Anders' act. The ones who win and build should get the credit, not the one who lit the gasoline, imo.

It changed the world and with the templars breaking away from the chantry the circle system is effictively over. Perhaps in the next age or the next age again we can have a peacekeeping mage preaching peace and succeeding - and I agree that potential mage should be remembered with more respect than Anders, but that doesn't change the fact that that mage doesn't have the change to emerge or succeed without Anders. 

[ipgd]

[quote]Addai67 wrote...

[quote]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.[/quote]
And yet you generalized about Americans.  Not a good idea.[/quote]
I'm not generalizing about Americans. I'm generalizing about the American media, which is responsible for the misinformation surrounding terrorism. And thanks to the American media, the west as a whole is incredibly, and indeed willfully ignorant about this subject; as you can see in this thread, people become affronted by the suggestion that terrorism might not always be an unambiguous evil, and do not want to know more, because what's the point in knowing things about something that is evil? And shame be upon the people who think beyond that narrow sphere!

[quote]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.[/quote]
To use the same examples I've been using before, the Pottawotomie Massacre and Raid on Harpers Ferry, to name two. 'And the Civil War' by itself, since war is also a pretty violent thing.
[quote]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 mind- which after all don't exist in any RL conflict you can point to.[/quote]
I'm not trying to appeal to a cause with a positive vibe, I am trying to point out that 9/11 is not the only instance of terrorism that has ever occured in the history of the world, and that history is so whitewashed that many people apparently do not realize that many of the same movements our culture exalts were built in part by terrorists. The definition of terrorism is not so narrow as to only include the people directly demonized by the media.

[quote]Something can be appalling and still be less appalling than another thing. [/quote]
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"?[/quote]
No. But is allowing the appalling status quo to persist for further hundreds or possibly thousands of years while the mages wait for a social climate that is ready for peaceful reform less appalling than the confirmed deaths of the seven people in the chantry and however many hundreds die in the coming revolution? That question is not as clear cut.

[quote]TeenZombie wrote...

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.[/quote]
That is the root of the consequentialist argument. Obviously, if Anders is not successful, the ends did not justify his means. I'm operating on the assumption that he is successful; we don't know yet whether he will or will not be, but that's not an argument we really know enough about to have a meaningful discussion and also not one I particularly want to have.

[quote]
But you and Shorts are not "we all". You should have specified that you meant Anderps regulars. [/quote]
As far as I can see most of the people here arguing in Anders's favor are Anderps thread regulars, and people with many posts I have read over many months, so I can pretty assuredly say none of them are the kind of idiot fangirls rak72 was comparing them to.

[quote]congealeddgtllvr wrote...

[quote]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.
[/quote]

These are very complicated and nuanced considerations indeed.  So my questions would be 

a.)Who is Anders to render the final judgement on these matters and

b.)How is concluding these considerations with a massive explosion the wise course?  
[/quote]
a) Who is anyone to do anything? I don't care if he had a "right" to do what he did, frankly, since it is an argument with no definite answer, and,

Anders remarks specifically that the Circles had never really risen up before, and judging by the state of Kirkwall they certainly were not getting any better. Why would anyone in Anders's position conclude that peaceful reform was possible, now or in any sort of reasonable future? The Circle could very well remain as it is for another thousands of years, and he had no reason to believe things would ever change (he tried for seven years to apparently no effect whatsoever), and he was not prepared to sit back and say "maybe later" and then just wait, generation upon generation until by chance society moved to a more fortuitous state. So he took decisive action.


god this thread is getting too fast stop making posts god

Modifié par ipgd, 11 août 2011 - 08:31 .

[leggywillow]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
But it won't. Anders' act may lead to a sequence of events that may free mages and create a better society. But it has an equal chance (if not more) to make things worse. So what he did has no bearing on the outcome.

What should stop mage oppression goes far beyond Anders' act. The ones who win and build should get the credit, not the one who lit the gasoline, imo.

We don't know what will be the result of Anders' actions yet.

As for Anders getting the credit for it, no, he probably won't.  It will be whoever brings about an end to the fighting who gets the credit... perhaps our protagonist in a future installment.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Also, for those who think that Elthina does not have direct authority over the Templars, this is from the codex on Elthina:

"People frequently turn to her to mediate disputes-particularly those involving the powerful Templar Order, over whom she holds authority as the Chantry's ranking representative. Some claim that Elthina's advanced age has rendered her ineffective, and that she allows Knight-Commander Meredith more leeway with each passing year."

That passage explicitly states that she holds authority over them because she is the Chantry's ranking representative, and also that Meredith is only able to behave the way she behaves because Elthina grants her the leeway to do so. The first explicitly states that she has direct authority over a military order, and the second part demonstrates that Elthina is meant to have some level of control over Meredith's actions.

The wiki also states
"The Order is composed of numerous branches, each of them centered around a specific community or region they are assigned to defend and monitor. Each of these chapters is ultimately led by a Knight-Commander, who in turn answers to the head of the local chantry, often a Grand Cleric, depending on the region in question."

So yes. Grand Clerics possess military authority.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 11 août 2011 - 08:34 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

esper wrote...
It changed the world and with the templars breaking away from the chantry the circle system is effictively over. Perhaps in the next age or the next age again we can have a peacekeeping mage preaching peace and succeeding - and I agree that potential mage should be remembered with more respect than Anders, but that doesn't change the fact that that mage doesn't have the change to emerge or succeed without Anders. 

It changed nothing. It showed how inefficient the current system is and it blew up (which I'd argue was inevitable), but nothing has changed and by that I mean there are no alternative system even being close to being build. And I strongly disagree with the premise that one act can change the world. Many said 9/11 changed the world, when it really didn't. It may have changed perceptions, may have exposed things that were always there that people ignored, but it did not fundamentally change anything.

Mages have an equal chance to be damned because of Anders, hence why I cannot ever look at him with any respect and or think he should be remembered with respect (whether he will end up being remembered with respect or not is a different issue).

[ipgd]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

But just to refer to your reference of consequentialism (I may be taking it out of context, but just want to throw my 2 cents, not responding to anything you said specifically).

It may very well be that what Anders does result in a positive outcome. A consequentialist could thus say that his act was "right", in that it resulted in the desired outcome. However, a consequentialist saying that Anders is "good", would be comitting the "naturalistic falllacy". Only an act can be judged by consequentialists, and not really the moral worth of a person. So Anders' act could be right, but that has no bearing on his moral worth. Kind of like "right for the wrong reasons" (simplified).

Now my problem with the consequentialist argument, is that whether Anders' act results in a positive outcome or not is entirely independent of the act itself. It was a catalyst, but it has no bearing on the success of the coming war. Anymore than Princip's assassination of Ferdinand had any bearing on the outcome of WW1. It could be that WW1 resulted in positive change (meh), but I would not felicitate Princip on it or say his act was "right".

In otherwords, there are so many variables at play vis-a-vis the war's outcome, that I cannot possibly look at Anders and say he did the right thing when I have no indication that he even thought of those variables and had ways to deal with them, let alone actually delt with them (since he was expecting himself to die, I doubt he had anythign in mind).

The most I can say, if the war ends up having a positive outcome, is that Anders' act was convenient. But not "right", or "smart", or "just" or anything other than short sighted and stupid.

I don't believe I've ever used a word like "right", because I frankly find the entire right/wrong dichotomy to be entirely useless. Whether or not Anders's actions were worth it, on the other hand, is a different concern, and if they are ultimately successful in bringing about positive change regarding mage rights, I think they would be. If they fail, of course, they wouldn't be, and then history would prop him up as boogeyman instead of a saint.

It may have changed perceptions, may have exposed things that were always there that people ignored, but it did not fundamentally change anything.

It sure as hell changed airport security.

[KnightofPhoenix]

leggywillow wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
But it won't. Anders' act may lead to a sequence of events that may free mages and create a better society. But it has an equal chance (if not more) to make things worse. So what he did has no bearing on the outcome.

What should stop mage oppression goes far beyond Anders' act. The ones who win and build should get the credit, not the one who lit the gasoline, imo.

We don't know what will be the result of Anders' actions yet.

As for Anders getting the credit for it, no, he probably won't.  It will be whoever brings about an end to the fighting who gets the credit... perhaps our protagonist in a future installment.

I know, and the outcome is irrelevent to how I would percieve him and his act. Even if his act ends up being convenient, I will still say that he was stupid and short sighted. 

I think mages probably should distance themselves from Anders as much as possible, if they actually want to build something and not just destroy. But, they could embrace him as their symbol. I'd find that highly unwise.