613 réponses à ce sujet

[Cobra's_back]

berelinde wrote...

Alain was raped nightly by Karras. Bethany writes of it happening to others in her letter. One of the mages in the courtyard says that she'll get 30 lashes for talking to civilians. Also, you hear the sounds of a whip crack and screaming when you approach the doors to the Templar Hall in Acts 1 and 2.

No, these aren't Eagle Scouts.

Thank you so much. I didn't see it. I'll play it again and kill Karras for fun.

[ItsPhilsTime]

Blitzkrieg0811 wrote...

I would post in this topic, but I don't feel like writing the essay it would take to express myself.

Lazy {edited words}, come on!!!

[kglaser]

I forgot to mention, Varric >>> all. Now I'll be silent.

[berelinde]

Blitzkrieg0811 wrote...

I would post in this topic, but I don't feel like writing the essay it would take to express myself.

Most of the ground has already been covered anyway, no matter whose side you're on (or whose side you aren't).

[Flashflame58]

kglaser wrote...

I forgot to mention, Varric >>> all. Now I'll be silent.

Quoted for truth.

[Dave of Canada]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

At the end of Inglorious Basterds, a woman blows up an entire theater full of people. Like several thousand people die... the thing is, they're all members of an evil regime that murdered a huge amount of people and created internment camps... or they're sympathizers with that regime. So when the theater goes up in flames, you cheer.

Poor comparison as that wasn't the point of the scene, it was set up so that you'd question the protagonists killing everybody in the theater, **** or not, was justified to eliminate the people within. You weren't supposed to cheer, you were supposed to be disgusted with their methods or agree with them (or both).

Stepping away from that briefly to jump into the Anders thing:

You might argue that the Grand Cleric deserved it (I disagree but I'll pretend I do for the moment) because she didn't step in but how do you blame everybody else?

How does the mother who possibly joined the Chantry because of her religion deserve it?
How do the affirmed, ordinary people who've seeked assistance in the Chantry because it was offered to them, deserve it?
How do the initiates who've joined the Chantry for a chance of education deserve it?
How do the Clerics, the Chantry's Librarian, deserve it?

This entire building was filled with them:


They all died, them and everybody else who might've been caught in the blast radius or was hit by rubble. Are you trying to tell me they all played a part in the suffering of the mages? They, who have no choice in the decision and have played no role in the oppression of the mages other than simply being religious or being in a religious building, had deserved their death?

The funny part about your comparison, the entire point of the movie was showing how the protagonists were equally as bad--if not worse-- than the ones they were killing.

It's fine if you hate Anders for blowing the Chantry up, as long as you similarly hate Han Solo for blowing up the Death Star, and killing all the Empire Sympathizers who had never, personally done anything to Han Solo before in his life. He murdered all those completely innocent Empire officials. At what point do we declare Han Solo an unforgivable war criminal? Ten Empire Officers? A hundred? Those empire captains and admirals have FAMILIES, DAMMIT!

It's Luke who blew up the Death Star.

And I do, it's been a topic of discussion ever since the movie came out and was even discussed in other movies with film directors offering their own thoughts on the subject. Some either support Luke or revile him, despite Lucas having the intention of having him be played as this super hero.

Hell, the Empire wasn't that bad and novels even went further to rub it in our faces that Luke was a monster for destroying the Empire and Death Stars. It eventually lead to billions of deaths across the galaxy. The "freedom" the rebels won, the dead clearly are enjoying it.

Nice job breaking it, hero. 

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 04 octobre 2011 - 02:32 .

[Flashflame58]

Dave of Canada wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

At the end of Inglorious Basterds, a woman blows up an entire theater full of people. Like several thousand people die... the thing is, they're all members of an evil regime that murdered a huge amount of people and created internment camps... or they're sympathizers with that regime. So when the theater goes up in flames, you cheer.

Poor comparison as that wasn't the point of the scene, it was set up so that you'd question the protagonists killing everybody in the theater, **** or not, was justified to eliminate the people within. You weren't supposed to cheer, you were supposed to be disgusted with their methods or agree with them (or both).

Stepping away from that briefly to jump into the Anders thing:

You might argue that the Grand Cleric deserved it (I disagree but I'll pretend I do for the moment) because she didn't step in but how do you blame everybody else?

How does the mother who possibly joined the Chantry because of her religion deserve it?
How do the affirmed, ordinary people who've seeked assistance in the Chantry because it was offered to them, deserve it?
How do the initiates who've joined the Chantry for a chance of education deserve it?
How do the Clerics, the Chantry's Librarian, deserve it?

This entire building was filled with them:

They all died, them and everybody else who might've been caught in the blast radius or was hit by rubble. Are you trying to tell me they all played a part in the suffering of the mages? They, who have no choice in the decision and have played no role in the oppression of the mages other than simply being religious or being in a religious building, had deserved their death?

The funny part about your comparison, the entire point of the movie was showing how the protagonists were equally as bad--if not worse-- than the ones they were killing.

It's fine if you hate Anders for blowing the Chantry up, as long as you similarly hate Han Solo for blowing up the Death Star, and killing all the Empire Sympathizers who had never, personally done anything to Han Solo before in his life. He murdered all those completely innocent Empire officials. At what point do we declare Han Solo an unforgivable war criminal? Ten Empire Officers? A hundred? Those empire captains and admirals have FAMILIES, DAMMIT!

It's Luke who blew up the Death Star.

And I do, it's been a topic of discussion ever since the movie came out and was even discussed in other movies with film directors offering their own thoughts on the subject. Some either support Luke or revile him, despite Lucas having the intention of having him be played as this super hero.

Hell, the Empire wasn't that bad and novels even went further to rub it in our faces that Luke was a monster for destroying the Empire and Death Stars. It eventually lead to billions of deaths across the galaxy. The "freedom" the rebels won, the dead clearly are enjoying it.

Nice job breaking it, hero. 

You, good sir, are awesome.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I wish we had a solid death count on the Chantry. My impression from the scene, and the way the explosion was channeled (Up and out, rather than just out) was that Elthina (our Generalissimo) died, along with a few Templars (military), and probably a few normal chantry personnel.

And yes, I do believe that people who are part of the Chantry system are partially culpable for the Chantry's deeds... in the same way that someone who was a high-level bureaucrat in WWII Italy would be partially culpable for Mussolini's excesses. If the Chantry wasn't effectively a government and military institution as well as a religious one, I'd feel differently. But they're capable of blocking the appointment of civil leaders, and the head of their religious order is capable of starting World Wars, so yeah... you sign up for an institution that regularly starts world wars, don't be surprised when you die in a war.

(Damnit, like four minutes after I posted, I realized I had the wrong person blow up the death star. Sadly I'd already been quoted, and it was too late.)

[Carmen_Willow]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Carmen_Willow wrote...

As I recall the Death Star was a MILITARY establishment!  The people were not civilians. And the Empire pretty much were at WAR with what was left of the Republic. 
Apples and Oranges!

So the largest military in all of Thedas, which has started more wars than all individual nations combined, and which has wiped an entire country off the map and established an international system of racial apartheid (see: the Elven Alienages, which persist to this day) isn't a military?

How do you figure THAT?

The Divine is the Commander in Chief (or Generalissimo, whichever way you want to see it) of the largest military in Thedas, possibly excepting the Qunari Army.

The Grand Clerics are essentially the same as, say, visiting civilian Imperial dignitaries on the Death Star, or the iconic "construction workers who happen to be working on the death star." They're civilians, but they're directly tied to the largest military institution in Thedas: the Templar order.

The Divine is the religious/political leader who can command her army to go into action, I give you that.  But she does not house her army in the Chantry, at least not in Kirkwall.  What is the military value of blowing up the Chantry?  Did it wipe out any Templars?  Maybe a couple who were there to guard or pray. Did it take down the Chantry's ability to call for an Exalted March? Nah!  Did it destroy and important fortress? A weapons storage center? An important bridge needed to move troops?  None of that. If the idea was to kill the Grand Cleric, then assassination would have been a more discriminate tool. 

So the goal wasn't to destroy the enemy's army.  It wasn't to take out a valuable tactical base of operations. It did kill the Grand Cleric but in the process gave the crazy Knight-Commander a valid reason to call for the Rite of Annulment.  And it probably got just about every devout Andrastian mad enough to want to enlist in the Divine's Exalted Army. Ah, I think we have the goal at last!  It was an act of Terror designed to ****** off the Templars and the ordinary followers of the faith so that the blood would flow and violence the only thing left.  Great Terror target, but it was not a valid miltary target. Won't give you that!

[saMoorai]

Dave of Canada wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

At the end of Inglorious Basterds, a woman blows up an entire theater full of people. Like several thousand people die... the thing is, they're all members of an evil regime that murdered a huge amount of people and created internment camps... or they're sympathizers with that regime. So when the theater goes up in flames, you cheer.

Poor comparison as that wasn't the point of the scene, it was set up so that you'd question the protagonists killing everybody in the theater, **** or not, was justified to eliminate the people within. You weren't supposed to cheer, you were supposed to be disgusted with their methods or agree with them (or both).

Stepping away from that briefly to jump into the Anders thing:

You might argue that the Grand Cleric deserved it (I disagree but I'll pretend I do for the moment) because she didn't step in but how do you blame everybody else?

How does the mother who possibly joined the Chantry because of her religion deserve it?
How do the affirmed, ordinary people who've seeked assistance in the Chantry because it was offered to them, deserve it?
How do the initiates who've joined the Chantry for a chance of education deserve it?
How do the Clerics, the Chantry's Librarian, deserve it?

This entire building was filled with them:


They all died, them and everybody else who might've been caught in the blast radius or was hit by rubble. Are you trying to tell me they all played a part in the suffering of the mages? They, who have no choice in the decision and have played no role in the oppression of the mages other than simply being religious or being in a religious building, had deserved their death?

The funny part about your comparison, the entire point of the movie was showing how the protagonists were equally as bad--if not worse-- than the ones they were killing.

It's fine if you hate Anders for blowing the Chantry up, as long as you similarly hate Han Solo for blowing up the Death Star, and killing all the Empire Sympathizers who had never, personally done anything to Han Solo before in his life. He murdered all those completely innocent Empire officials. At what point do we declare Han Solo an unforgivable war criminal? Ten Empire Officers? A hundred? Those empire captains and admirals have FAMILIES, DAMMIT!

It's Luke who blew up the Death Star.

And I do, it's been a topic of discussion ever since the movie came out and was even discussed in other movies with film directors offering their own thoughts on the subject. Some either support Luke or revile him, despite Lucas having the intention of having him be played as this super hero.

Hell, the Empire wasn't that bad and novels even went further to rub it in our faces that Luke was a monster for destroying the Empire and Death Stars. It eventually lead to billions of deaths across the galaxy. The "freedom" the rebels won, the dead clearly are enjoying it.

Nice job breaking it, hero. 

My god, someone thats reasonable on BSN. What are you doing here?

[ItsPhilsTime]

Ok, I'm putting my whole 2 cents into this thread. Ok, Start with Carver hate him just cus he is just so stupid I mean you have a Brother and sister, or 2 Sisters that were Mages and ur going to join the Templars come on. Merrill, well she wants to take the chance of Destroying the whole World just so she can learn something, unacceptable. Anders, well other then he destroying the Chantry and killing innocents, there is... oh wait no thats why I hate him, his jokes did suck though too. and the others i dont have as much of a grudge against as them 3.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Carmen_Willow wrote...

The Divine is the religious/political leader who can command her army to go into action, I give you that.  But she does not house her army in the Chantry, at least not in Kirkwall.  What is the military value of blowing up the Chantry?  Did it wipe out any Templars?  Maybe a couple who were there to guard or pray. Did it take down the Chantry's ability to call for an Exalted March? Nah!  Did it destroy and important fortress? A weapons storage center? An important bridge needed to move troops?  None of that. If the idea was to kill the Grand Cleric, then assassination would have been a more discriminate tool. 

So the goal wasn't to destroy the enemy's army.  It wasn't to take out a valuable tactical base of operations. It did kill the Grand Cleric but in the process gave the crazy Knight-Commander a valid reason to call for the Rite of Annulment.  And it probably got just about every devout Andrastian mad enough to want to enlist in the Divine's Exalted Army. Ah, I think we have the goal at last!  It was an act of Terror designed to ****** off the Templars and the ordinary followers of the faith so that the blood would flow and violence the only thing left.  Great Terror target, but it was not a valid miltary target. Won't give you that!

The cutscene only shows Elthina and Templars dying so yeah, I'd say it took out Templars. And every time I go to the Chantry, there seem to be a lot of Templars there, so yes. I'd say a significant number got taken out.

And then they took out the local Generalissimo, Elthina: She was Meredith's immediate superior officer, so every bad thing Meredith does is directly Elthina's responsibility.  Even if Elthina is dead, Meredith being in a position to call the RoA is Elthina's responsibility, because she appointed her to the post and didn't remove her when it became clear she was unstable.

The entire point was JUST to take out the local Generalissimo, because without her there to cover up Meredith's gross incompetence and complete madness, it would be revealed to the world who the Chantry had deemed reasonable enough to have life and death power over hundreds of people. That was the entire point: to eliminate Meredith's superior military officer, so that Meredith's true nature would be revealed to the world.

It wasn't designed to create terror. It was designed to remove one person: the Generalissimo, in a way that could be attributed to magic and activated remotely. There was unfortunate collatoral damage in the assassination, but it seems clear to me that Elthina was the primary target.  Nowhere anywhere does Anders indicate he wants anything more than to kill the Grand Cleric, and only the Grand Cleric. I think he regrets the collatoral damage. The point of his plan isn't the carnage, it's just eliminating Elthina and the illusion of compromise. Heck, MEREDITH doesn't even mention anyone else who dies. She just says "The Grand Cleric  Slain By Magic" or whatever.

For the entire game, one of the messages Anders is trying to get out is this: the Chantry does not care to appoint competent or compassionate people to supervise mages. They don't care if a Knight Commander is abusive or clearly insane. They will take no action against any Knight Commander, no matter how grossly incompetent. The point of the Chantry explosion was to make the rest of Thedas realize that the Chantry DOES NOT CARE if its officers are competent or sane, as long as they toe the Chantry line. It proved that even the beloved Elthina would allow a complete monster to maintain power for nearly a decade, because the Chantry has no interest anything beyond its own power and percieved righteousness.

Anders himself says that Elthina represents the illusion of compromise, and that the point was to remove her. I think if he could have done exactly what he did without killing anyone but Elthina and Templars, he would  have, and it would have had exactly the same effect.

That's  the one thing that really annoys me: as Hawke, I have a plan that allows me to assassinate Elthina and decimate the templars without harming anyone else. It's really simple... because Elthina trusts Hawke, we tell her that we need to set a trap for some rebel apostates who are going to try to sneak into the Chantry... but we tell her that AFTER the bomb has been planted. Then we get her to send all the non-templars out of the Chantry, and we get a bunch of the Templars to go in, to wait to attack the "apostates." THEN we trigger the bomb. If he'd only let me in on his stupid plan, I could have made it much better.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 04 octobre 2011 - 03:15 .

[Carmen_Willow]

[quote]CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

[quote]Carmen_Willow wrote...

The Divine is the religious/political leader who can command her army to go into action, I give you that. .... The cutscene only shows Elthina and Templars dying so yeah, I'd say it took out Templars. And every time I go to the Chantry, there seem to be a lot of Templars there, so yes. I'd say a significant number got taken out.

And then they took out the local Generalissimo, Elthina: She was Meredith's immediate superior officer, so every bad thing Meredith does is directly Elthina's responsibility.  Even if Elthina is dead, Meredith being in a position to call the RoA is Elthina's responsibility, because she appointed her to the post and didn't remove her when it became clear she was unstable.

The entire point was JUST to take out the local Generalissimo. Because taking her out would reveal how uttely incompetent she was. That was the entire point: to eliminate Meredith's superior military officer, so just how utterly terrible Meredith was would come to light.

The entire point of this is that the Chantry does not care to appoint competent or compassionate people to supervise mages. They don't care if a Knight Commander is abusive or clearly insane. They will take no action against any Knight Commander, no matter how grossly incompetent. The point of the Chantry explosion was to make the rest of Thedas realize that: that the Chantry DOES NOT CARE if it's officers are competent, and that even the beloved Elthina would allow a complete monster to maintain power for nearly a decade, because the Chantry has no interest in peace or maintaining stability, they care only for their own power.

[/quote]

Sadly, most ordinary folk are only going to care that some wacked out abomination blew up the Chantry and killed the sweet little old lady who ran it. And most will join the Divine when she calls for that Exalted March, or will cheer the Templars as they decided to employ the final solution -- because Anders put us into "the only good mage is a dead mage" territory.

And I know you want to believe that the only people who died were Chantry and Templar but if you don't believe me, talk to someone who deals with ordinance in either the military or law enforcement.  Even with most of the blast going up, there still would have been a blast radius large than the footprint of the building.  Watch the cutscene, you'll see. Talk to someone who went through the Oklahoma City blast about how far away people were injured. Bombs just aren't that clean.

Sorry got to get ready for work. It's been an interesting discussion. I'm sure that, like me, you probably get weary of covering the same ground, but I can't help it. I just have to respond some times. You make your points well.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

See, I have a friend who does demolition, and he said that the explosion looks like an explosion in an explosives storage warehouse, of the kind that is designed to eliminate extraneous damage if it blows up. That's the only kind of explosion where you really see that "pillar into the sky" effect. In fact, to him it looked like exactly the kind of explosion that confines damage mostly to the primary structure, though he did find the ring of rubble somewhat troubling, it's difficult to predict how exactly that would work, since it doesn't resemble anything that isn't... you know... magical.

I think that some sworn brothers and sisters probably died too. I'm not pretending nobody died... like I said, I have a plan that would work MUCH BETTER, with less collatoral damage. That said, my first Warden was a Dalish elf, so I see members of the Chantry in the same way that someone who is an ethnic minority would perceive members of a political party devoted to segregation and apartheid.  I'd certainly rather they not die, but if there's a war between a group that favors apartheid and one that doesn't, I'll be rooting for the non-apartheid guys.

I'm mostly Polish, so wiping entire countries off the map is kind of a pet peeve of mine, and something that I hold against an organization for a long, long time.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 04 octobre 2011 - 03:32 .

[Heidenreich]

I fail to see how someone arguing the opposite point is the only person with "the voice of reason". That's a ridiculous claim. That would be like calling the other guy in the High school debate insane and unstable because he was assigned to be against the argument.

I'm slightly offended. At the accusation that we "other siders" aren't reasonable. I'm not offended people are debating. I like debate.

To repeat myself for the 9th time today:

At the end of the day, Meredith would have Annulled the Circle. Even if Anders had NEVER blown up the Chantry. If she had found a 'reason' in her witch hunting to do so with out permission, no one in all of Thedas would question it.

Again..

Meredith was already planing on Annulling the Circle. As the Knight-Commander, all she would have to do is have enough 'proof' that badness was going on, and she would have been able to freely do so. If she freely did so, or if the order came back from Orlais with a "Yes", then no one in all of Thedas would question it. You have to remember, Thedas for the most part is Pro-Chantry/Templar/Maker. The average joe believes what the Chantry tells them.

Not one person in Thedas outside from the select few who were intimately involved in Circle policy and politics would ever question KC Meredith if she'd "come to the conclusion on her own."

Hell, no one in Ferelden questions it if you(the Warden) Annuls the circle. Why? Because the Knight-Commander says it's a good idea. The KC of a circle has absolute power, outside of needing approval from their particular GC. Even then, if the answer comes to slowly and the danger is serious enough (see, Ferelden Circle full of Abominations) they don't even have to wait

All Elthina had to do, was replace Meredith. Instead, she chose to do nothing, and Meredith got worse and worse and worse. When Orsino and Meredith are heading to the Chantry to confront Elthina about Meredith's latest witch hunt, its made very crystal clear that the reason Orsino is so upset, is because this Witch Hunt is just one of many that is leading up to Meredith's decision.

All Anders does, by blowing up the chantry, is to literally force Meredith to Annul the Circle with out any reasonable justification.

"Wait, what? But Anders blew up the chantry! That's resonable justification!" you say?

Wrong. Anders is not a part of the Circle. He's a Warden. Even if he's "not wearing the uniforms" he's still technically untouchable. And again, the whole problem would have been solved if Meredith had just taken Anders into custody right then and there. But she doesn't.

Instead, she calls for the Right of Annulment. On the Circle, that had no part in it.  Meredith makes herself look like the loony that she is, rather then doing the sane thing. If she'd taken Anders into custody, she could have exicuted him for his crimes.

On top of which, if it hadn't even happened at all, she still would have invoked the Rite. This would have painted her as a saint for "saving kirkwall of the blood-crazed demons living in the gallows".  Which is the whole point. Anders Forces Meredith to reveal herself a Loony and the whole world gets up in arms about the abuses of the Chantry. Which is exactly what Varric tells us in the end.





PS: I'm not saying what Anders did was right. Innocent people probably died, others hurt..  What I am saying is that, you can't hate him for what he did because of that. "Innocent people died!"... yep. And Innocent mages were dieing and made tranquil and raped and beaten for 7 years in Kirkwall thanks to Elthina and her poor judgement call. Innocent family members were murdered in their houses for trying to protect their loved ones. For Seven years, at the very least.

Modifié par Heidenreich, 04 octobre 2011 - 03:44 .

[Ponendus]

Not a huge fan of Oghren. Don't know why. I think I have in my head that he smells. Possibly because he drinks alot.

Yay for roleplaying so much that the lines between fantasy and reality are blurred!

[Collider]

You can't hate someone for killing innocent people?

[Arquen]

At the end of the day it becomes an ethical debate. Whether Anders killing a Grand Cleric and some innocents (I seriously scoff at that word) is worth it in the end.

It is the same ethical dilemma that leads people to argue whether the death penalty is justified. Or whether a murder committed in self defense is justified. I actually don't really care that he kills these people. I am a cruel, heartless, person and the only thing I disagree with in Anders' actions is that he didn't have much of a plan for the after-math.

It isn't a selfish tantrum. It isn't about killing mages. I like how everyone is handwaiving that the right of annulment and the exalted march are just a fraction away from becoming reality. I also like how nobody seems to care that Anders is willing to take full responsibility for his actions, and that -- oh what was the name of this quest?... oh yeah, that this is "THE LAST STRAW." Meaning, he has tried everything else. Every other route of peace. The history of Thedas does not allow peaceful negotiations with peaceful outcomes.

The Chantry is chosen because it is not just a church. It is a system that supports propaganda and lies. It turns mages into villains and in the end also has a gigantic military force behind it. The Chantry preaches "magic is meant to serve man, not rule him." Somehow that turned into "mages are meant to serve Templars, and rule nothing." Not even their own lives. The Grand Cleric is a piece of the puzzle. Meredith the insane is also a piece. The Chantry is the symbol, moreso than the Templars or the Circle. If Anders wanted to show that the circle was bad and cause terror and HARM mages... he would have blown up the Circle and not the Chantry. No, the Chantry was chosen because of what it is, who it houses, and how it has generated and supported this broken system.

Yet as I said before all this.. at the end of the day is whether or not your on the side who accepts what Anders did as Justice or hate Anders for killing innocents unreasonably.

Plus, lets not "blow" the explosion out of proportion? -- pun intended.

The concussion blast theory is a bit ridiculous. The concussion blast is actually shown in the cutscene and it dissipates OVER the city, not into it. It is the "boom" sound followed by a wave of energy that explicitly goes out harmlessly above the city. If the magic bomb is subject to physics it would be more akin to an implosion than an explosion. It isn't like c4 or pipe bombs or the like. It is a magic bomb with a specific purpose, strategically placed. Not to mention if the concussion blast was centered in Kirkwall Hawke, Meredith, Orsino, and all party members would have their insides "instantly turned to jelly."

People get way to caught up in their real world perceptions and bias to see something outside of what they know. It frustrates me how everything in Thedas is linked to a real world counterpart when in all rights it should exist in the realm of Thedas. /offtopic

[GodWood]

Collider wrote...
You can't hate someone for killing innocent people?

Not if they're a mage apparently.

[Dave of Canada]

saMOOrai182 wrote...

My god, someone thats reasonable on BSN. What are you doing here?

I took a wrong step on the way out.

[Dave of Canada]

GodWood wrote...

Collider wrote...
You can't hate someone for killing innocent people?

Not if they're a mage apparently.

Not only that, he's fighting for freedom! 

[CulturalGeekGirl]

For me, the question comes down to this:

How much do you mourn the sympathizer?

Those who hate Anders for killing innocents seem to be making the argument that it is better to cooperate peacefully with an authoritarian dictatorship than to use any sort of violence to oppose it, unless you are part of a formal government organization that is officially "at war" with the dictatorship. The argument is that it is immoral to use violence to attempt to rebel against a dictator.

You value the lives of sympathizers over the freedom of others. Here's my example:. Let's call him Joe. He's a normal everyday guy who lives under an authoritarian dictatorship. He pays his taxes and follows the rules... and following the rules includes reporting anyone who speaks against the dictator to the secret police. He doesn't do this out of spite, he does it because he loves his country. When a neighbor girl is taken away for being part of an "undesirable group", he says nothing and efuses to look at her. He's aware that internment camps exist, but they're not his problem. He's just trying to live his life. What the upper echelons of government do are not his business, he's just happy the trains run on time.

One day, Joe goes to the capital to hear the dictator speak. A group of rebels bomb the capital, killing the dictator and staring a long, bloody rebellion that has a chance to end the regime and free those in the camps, but Joe, and a few dozen people like Joe, are caught in the blast.

Do you hate the rebels, in this case? Is the death of a dozen people like Joe too high a price to pay for a chance to save the lives of thousands of others? Is it too high a price to pay for freedom?

I don't want Joe to die. I'm not cackling madly over his corpse saying "it serves you right! you chose the wrong side!" At the same time, I don't consider Joe to be your average, run-of-the-mill innocent.

So yes, if you hate every person who has ever caused collateral damage in any war just as much as you hate Anders, you can hate Anders for killing innocents. If you hate every government who has ever dropped a bomb on a factory with workers inside as much as you hate Anders, you can hate Anders for killing innocents. If you hate every Resistance member who ever bombed a supply line as much as you hate Anders, you can hate Anders for killing innocents.

But if you don't hate every soldier who has ever caused collateral damage, why do you hate Anders? If Anders were part of an official military organization, one that was "at War" with the Chantry, would that magically make what he did OK, and make you stop hating him?

If you love a fascist sympathizer more than you love the person who is fighting for freedom, it's ok to hate Anders. Just admit that you hate Anders because you prioritize the lives of people who cooperate and sympathize with an authoritarian state over to those who would use violence to rebel against it.

If you believe that Joe's life is more important than the freedom of the girl in the internment camp, then state that explicitly.

If you'll actually admit that out loud, I won't fault you for hating Anders. In that case, it would be perfectly in keeping with your philosophy. I'd just disagree with your fundamental priorities, and not trouble you specifically any longer.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 04 octobre 2011 - 07:54 .

[GodWood]

Based on that information it sounds like I'd hate the rebels for ruining a perfectly fine dictatorship and starting a bloody war that takes many innocent lives.

Dave of Canada wrote...

GodWood wrote...

Collider wrote...
You can't hate someone for killing innocent people?

Not if they're a mage apparently.

Not only that, he's fighting for freedom! 

Ha!

Modifié par GodWood, 04 octobre 2011 - 08:54 .

[Naqey]

Your morals are so firece and unrelenting, CGG. It's an ethos for the strong and the daring, for those that live on the foundation of deep inner convictions of what is right and wrong. And that's my basic problem with your whole argument: you leave no room for weakness and doubt, for shades of grey, for deep inner insecurity.

Is it ammoral to use violence against a dictorship? I cannot tell... or rather: I cannot give a sweeping, absolute answer.

Are the lives of sympathizers worth less than the freedom of others? Can you measure freedom against the value of a life? Is there a price to high for freedom? What freedom? Freedom is an abstract ideal. Even if the mages won the war, what "freedom" would ensue? Would this new won freedom be based on the suppression of others who lost the freedom in the process? We are still in Thedas, and Thedas is a medieval-like, deeply hierarchical world. We should have no illusions about what is the scope within which such an "after the war" can move.

Maybe your "Joe" is not the average, run-off-the mill innocent. Though I would argue that he isn't as consciously involved in the system as you would have it. Dictatorships spawn citizens who live very un-reflective lives; they go along with the system, too afraid to actually think things through, because at the end of the day they know they wouldn't have the guts to go where this would lead them. Deep inside they know they are just the average coward. (I'm German, so I also have enough of a "historical baggage" to be personally involved in such a discussion). But even if he is "less innocent", does that lessen the value of his life? Do we really determine the value of a human life against some abstract ideal like freedom (which we cannot even say what it will be like, since we haven't achieved it yet)?

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

But if you don't hate every soldier who has ever caused collateral
damage, why do you hate Anders? If Anders were part of an official
military organization, one that was "at War" with the Chantry, would
that magically make what he did OK, and make you stop hating him?

If you love a fascist sympathizer more than you love the person who is fighting for freedom, it's ok to hate Anders. Just
admit that you hate Anders because you prioritize the lives of people
who cooperate and sympathize with an authoritarian state over to those
who would use violence to rebel against it.

Why hate? Why would anybody who argues that what Anders has done is wrong automatically prioritize the lives of people who "cooperate" with the authoritarian system over those that oppose it? That is very black and white. Can humans even tell what is absolutely right, and what is absolutely wrong? Take the French Revolution, for instance. These guys fought for a wonderful ideal. The freedom from the opression of an authoritarian system. Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. They had the same strong, searing, unrelenting morals. Where did it lead them? They lost contact to the shades of grey, and eventually valued an ideal over the lives of real, breathing people. It's vital to "keep that doubt". That doubt is our saving grace. It's what brings things back into the proper measure when they are about to end up in extremes.

I don't want to say that what Anders has done is wrong. At the end of the day, I probably agree with him more than I disagree with him. But I hate his "holier-than-thou" attitude. His firm conviction, which makes him blind for other points of view. He is so convinced that he is right, his ideal is so over-arching and grand and what-not, that he doesn't even have to spend a thought on what comes after he blows the chantry into pieces.

Modifié par Naqey, 04 octobre 2011 - 08:43 .

[randomcheeses]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

If you love a fascist sympathizer more than you love the person who is fighting for freedom, it's ok to hate Anders. Just admit that you hate Anders because you prioritize the lives of people who cooperate and sympathize with an authoritarian state over to those who would use violence to rebel against it.

If you'll actually admit that out loud, I won't fault you for hating Anders. In that case, it would be perfectly in keeping with your philosophy. I'd just disagree with your fundamental priorities, and not trouble you specifically any longer.

Right. Because that's the only reason someone could hate Anders. Not e.g. because of the way he lies, manipulates and for a Hawke in a romance with him resorts to emotional blackmail.

Me, I sympathise with Anders, I always side with the mages. But I still don't like him. Because, though he's a very good story character,  he's actually a very unpleasant person if you don't automatically agree with everything he says.

And yes, before you say it, I know he has suffered horrible traumas and injustices, and has good reason for being the way he is. That doesn't mean I have to excuse it, or put up with it. That's like saying to someone who is being bullied "oh the person who is tormenting you was also bullied, so you should feel sorry for them and not resent the fact that they're making your life miserable/being an unreasonable jerk."

Modifié par randomcheeses, 04 octobre 2011 - 09:06 .