613 réponses à ce sujet

[CulturalGeekGirl]

randomcheeses wrote...

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."

That particular post was directed solely at people who do claim that the collatoral damage at the Chantry is the only (or at least the primary) reason they hate Anders.

Actually, your reason for disliking Anders... that he's an unpleasant person who is actually really bad at winning friends and influencing people... I get that. I respect it.

If I understand you correctly, you're not calling him whiny. You're not reducing what he does to the simplest possible terms. You're just saying "I agree with your fight for freedom and your complaints are valid but you, personally, are kind of a douchebag."

Now, I do think that Anders has kind of a decent reason for lying, but I also think that the emotional blackmail thing is reprehensible.  My  "good" Hawkes never encountered that lovely little scene, and my "sociopath" Hawke laughed in his face, so it never really bothered me. Still, you can encounter that scene if you are playing a Hawke who is a good person, and if you do, it is pretty awful. I wish he would straight up break things off with you if he's that upset about it, rather than resorting to emotional blackmail. If the Chantry is a dealbreaker, Anders, then LEAVE, don't give stupid manipulative ultimatums. Also, you are TERRIBLE at arguing.

And that's a reason for not liking Anders that I totally respect. So I apologize if you felt attacked by my rant: please know that it was directed only towards people who use the "killing innocents" cudgel. 

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 04 octobre 2011 - 09:31 .

[Collider]

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.

That's too far. It doesn't need to get any more complex than simply objecting the killing of innocents, nor does hating Anders need to involve the advocacy of peaceful submissiveness to oppressive government as you describe.

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?

Anders answers to no one but himself (and Justice, but that is another matter and not comparable). He is responsible for his own actions. He is not being commanded or ordered by someone as soldiers are. He is working alone. He does what his does at his own volition. It is not comparable, nor is it fair to those soldiers.

The argument is that it is immoral to use violence to attempt to rebel against a dictator.

Here's a strong distinction: Using violence against the oppressors versus using violence against innocents in hopes of provoking the oppressors. The latter is what Anders did.

Let those who disagree with you speak for themselves, rather than putting words into their mouths and suggesting that they sympathize with those who support oppression.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

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!

Er...you can't really compare the Death Star to the Kirkwall Chantry. The Death Star had already blown up a fully populated planet, and it was on the verge of doing it a second time when Luke blew it up in A New Hope.

Anders didn't blow up the Chantry because it had a giant laser pointed at a Mage Tower that was just about to go off, but to make a symbolic point and start a war. Had Luke blown up some local Empire staging point as a political gesture of fighting the status quo (an outpost that wasn't pointing a gigantic loaded gun at his friends), or had Anders blown up the Templar Hall/Meredith instead of the Chantry/Elthina, then you might have a worthy comparison.

And on topic, I liked all of the characters. As usual though, I didn't like how some of them were used to progress/promote the game. Some of them could have been fleshed out more and thus felt too one-note for all that the game was meant to over a time of 9 years, but I didn't actively dislike any of them. They were all quite well-crafted for the most part.

Were they real people, I'm sure I'd have trouble with some of them though. Anders for emotional blackmail and the split (occasionally psychotic) personality of Justice, Fenris for his almost constant vitriol against mages (even if the mage has never wronged him), Merrill for flirting with fire and thinking the risk is hers alone (that only works if you're a hermit).

[Knight of Dane]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
Fenris for his almost constant vitriol against mages (even if the mage has never wronged him)

Agree that he's constant bickering over mages is dumb, but you seem to forget about the mage empire that held him as slave.

[Dave of Canada]

6am, haven't slept yet and I've got class in the morning so I'll be brief.

@CGG:
You seem to judge everybody who doesn't support Anders as this fanatical anti-mage person (in my case, you happen to be right), yet there are many possible ways for somebody to interpret how one situation plays out. It isn't simply "Do you support freedom or do you support communi- tyranny?", despite your attempts to make it black and white.

What occurs when somebody supports the Chantry? Does the violence against a "dictator" remain justified? Any violence can be justified in the name, the merit of the cause simply depends on the person. You seem intent on painting Anders as this hero figure that cannot be judged because of his actions during the Chantry bombing because the people he's fighting are universally "evil".

How many atrocities can somebody commit in the name of "freedom" before we're allowed to judge them? Why must we conform to your sense of ethics? Point me at countless atrocities throughout history and I'll easily strawman the argument in their favor ("Are you pro-corruption or a pure world?!", "Are you going to sit back as they steal everything we own or do you want to fight back?!", ect), you're establishing the entire trope from this page as your defense of Anders.

Namely:

"Freedom" stirs up lots of warm fuzzy feelings in people. Better yet, any villains who oppose our freedom-loving hero must be, by definition, evil. Better than that, freedom is an abstract. If nothing specific is added, a reader can fill in the blank with whatever they want.

Anders is a morally gray character which commited a morally reprehensible act, it shouldn't matter if it's for a "good" cause or he was doing it against "bad" people. It was still a terrible act. You just agree with or not.

Rather than trying to paint everybody who dislikes Anders as people who support Templar abuse (I'm pro-Templar and I'm still against the Templar abuse, btw), realize that you can support his actions and not like his methods. Don't try and shove your morality down our throats and painting it black and white.

[randomcheeses]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...


Actually, your reason for disliking Anders... that he's an unpleasant person who is actually really bad at winning friends and influencing people... I get that. I respect it.

If I understand you correctly, you're not calling him whiny. You're not reducing what he does to the simplest possible terms. You're just saying "I agree with your fight for freedom and your complaints are valid but you, personally, are kind of a douchebag."

Yep, pretty much.

[TheJediSaint]

 Ander's is about the only companion that I have strong negative feelings towards, specifically because he resorts to terrorism to achive his goals.  Now I am a mage-sympathizer, but Ander's act set back the cause of mage's rights rather than advanced them.  By destroying the Kirkwall Chantry, he justified every fear that people hold for mages and therefore made Thedas a much more dangerous place for all mages.  In the case of my Hawke, this means greater danger for his sister and his lover (Merrill).  This to say, does not earn Anders very many points in my book.  

[Nashiktal]

The moment Anders blew up the chantry he had to pay for his crimes. I don't know how many people were in that chantry, but did you not see that debris go flying? Who knows how much damage that caused.

He also sparked a war that due to the nature of mages will probably have a death toll similar to world war I. Templars (including the old, the sick, and the kind like thrask), mages, and innocent civilians will die in this terrible war. All it takes is one mage to destroy a city, and not all the mages are innocents looking for peace. The more proactive will cause destruction, the innocent (the meek and the old) mages will be thrown into conflict... Anders is a murderer, and he should be remembered as the terrorist bastard that started a war thats as bad as any blight.

Whats worse is that the Qunari will see the mages running free in their destruction, and the qun will demand action. The treaty might not last, and if the Qunari enter the fray that adds their terribly destructive might to the fray. The world is going to burn because of anders.

I liked Anders, even with all of his changes he still had a little bit of his humor left. I sympathized with his cause, but what he did is a crime beyond redemption. To this day I am still unsure whether I should execute him, or let him live and see the suffering he forced on not only the mages and templars, but the world.

Modifié par Nashiktal, 04 octobre 2011 - 03:43 .

[berelinde]

On the other hand, the Divine is leading an Exalted March on Kirkwall that will raze the city to the ground. But when it's done in the name of religion, it's OK, I guess.

[Wulfram]

berelinde wrote...

On the other hand, the Divine is leading an Exalted March on Kirkwall that will raze the city to the ground.

No, she's not.

[berelinde]

Wulfram wrote...

berelinde wrote...

On the other hand, the Divine is leading an Exalted March on Kirkwall that will raze the city to the ground.

No, she's not.

Was Leliana lying, then? The last time the Chantry led an Exalted March on a nation, it wiped out the Dales.

[Wulfram]

berelinde wrote...
Was Leliana lying, then? The last time the Chantry led an Exalted March on a nation, it wiped out the Dales.

1.  As far as I can see, no one even suggests that there might be an exalted march.  The only mention is Elthina using it as an example that the Divine can take actions which harm innocents - though she also makes it clear that the Divine would do her best to avoid such harm.
2.  There is some vague speculation about a "holy war" on the part of Sebastian and potentially Hawke.  This is not confirmed by Leliana or anyone else.
3.  The idea that an Exalted March means razing Kirkwall seems to be something people just made up on the forums.

[idoless24]

I thought I was going to really like Fenris and I reeeeeally didn't. Most of the time I thought his character model looked horrendous and his voice just sounded like Balthier trying hard not to be Balthier and coming off forced. Plus, I didn't enjoy the whole anit-mage-to-the-point-of-racism thing.

I actually found myself surprised that I loved Isabella so much because when they revealed her I felt nothing but disdain for her character model and overall attitude. She was by far the funniest and most colorful character in my group. Izzy and Aveline had some of the best banter in the game and I like that they ended up having a mutual respect for one another's lifestyle.

Merrill was batsh!t crazy. When I was nice to her, she hated me, when I was mean to her, she hated me more. It truly disturbed me that you could kill her entire clan without her basically batting an eye.

[TheJediSaint]

If I recall, the threat of an Exalted March was hinted at in the case of a full-scale mage rebellion. Now based on what we learn in the last Varric-Cassandra segment, I get the feeling that there has not yet been an Exalted March called for by the Divine. If there was an Exalted March against the rebellious mages, I doubt that the Templars would have broke off from the Chantry to go after the Mages. I suspect we will get more answers when David Gaider's next DA novel comes out.

[berelinde]

Wulfram wrote...

berelinde wrote...
Was Leliana lying, then? The last time the Chantry led an Exalted March on a nation, it wiped out the Dales.

1.  As far as I can see, no one even suggests that there might be an exalted march.  The only mention is Elthina using it as an example that the Divine can take actions which harm innocents - though she also makes it clear that the Divine would do her best to avoid such harm.
2.  There is some vague speculation about a "holy war" on the part of Sebastian and potentially Hawke.  This is not confirmed by Leliana or anyone else.
3.  The idea that an Exalted March means razing Kirkwall seems to be something people just made up on the forums.

We'll see what happens in upcoming DLC/DA3, I guess. But denying that such a thing is in the works is a bit like squeezing your eyes shut, putting your fingers in your ears, and humming really loud.

Edit: It's also possible that the Exalted March was planned but delayed in the aftermath of the explosion. Varric says that the Chantry is in ruins and Cassandra says that the templars have deserted the Chantry to go hunt mages on their own, so it is possible that Anders's pyrotechnics actually saved the city, after all. An Exalted March would have destroyed it, but without the templars to provide the muscle, there would be no one to send to raze Kirkwall.

Modifié par berelinde, 04 octobre 2011 - 04:50 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Collider wrote...

The argument is that it is immoral to use violence to attempt to rebel against a dictator.

Here's a strong distinction: Using violence against the oppressors versus using violence against innocents in hopes of provoking the oppressors. The latter is what Anders did.

Let those who disagree with you speak for themselves, rather than putting words into their mouths and suggesting that they sympathize with those who support oppression.

That is, explicitly, not what he's doing. Not in the way you're implying.

He wasn't targeting innocents in that explosion. He was targeting Elthina, the person directly in charge of the local military detatchment, and those who were protecting her. Might innocents have gotten caught up in the blast? Yes. But nowhere anywhere in the game is it even remotely implied by any character, even ones who dislike Anders, that the point of the blast was to kill innocents.

Even Meredith doesn't mention any potential collatoral damage from the Chantry: all she cares about is that Elthina was killed. The Right isn't called because a mage killed a bunch of innocents, it's called because a mage killed the Grand Cleric.

Now, I'm sorry if I misunderstood, and you're upset that Anders assassination of an authoritarian spokesperson caused collatoral damage, and you feel that collatoral damage is unforgivable.

But I see absolutely nothing in the game that remotely implies that Anders was deliberately "using violence against innocents". His intent was to kill a high-ranking member of an authoritarian regime, and it's not outrage over the death of "innocents" that causes Meredith to retaliate, it is solely and strictly the death of that one person: the person who was the explicit target of the attack. You haven't even defined who you count as an innocent: the only people we are actually shown dying are Elthina and Templars. I'm not doubting others  may have died, but I have no idea who you consider to be an innocent, and how many of them you imagine may have died.  Are we ever at the Chantry at night? How many non-chantry-staff do we actually see there, on average?

(Note: I'm not claiming that nobody who wasn't a member of the authoritarian regime died in that blast. We have no evidence either way, but I actually assume that there was collatoral damage, probably in the dozens, depending on who you consider to count as collatoral damage. But you seem to be implying that the main target of the blast was not Elthina, but rather that it was intended to kill as many innocent people as possible. Or am I misconstruing?)

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 04 octobre 2011 - 04:56 .

[Wulfram]

I'm not saying there will never ever be an exalted march of any sort ever. There's almost certainly one coming. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up with 3 Divines - White, Black and Templar - all calling Exalted marches on each other.

But the Divine is not leading an Exalted March to raze Kirkwall. That is just something people have made up.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Wulfram wrote...

I'm not saying there will never ever be an exalted march of any sort ever. There's almost certainly one coming. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up with 3 Divines - White, Black and Templar - all calling Exalted marches on each other.

But the Divine is not leading an Exalted March to raze Kirkwall. That is just something people have made up.

Well, the only Exalted march we know of that was actually "successful" resulted in a country being wiped completely from the map, those who surrendered being forced to surrender all land and property, submit to apartheid, and live in ghettos for centuries, and those who refused to surrender being hunted in an attempt at genocide that is still pursued today (though with considerably less vigor).

So why is it illogical to assume that an exalted march is something that is intended to destroy its target?

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 04 octobre 2011 - 05:11 .

[TheJediSaint]

 @ Cultural Geek Girl

Elthina was NOT a military commander, she's well respected and loved a clergy woman who only nominally controled Kirkwall's Templars. That's why Ander's killed her, she was the only person standing between Kirkwall's Circle and the Knight-Commander's increasing madness.

Her murder at Ander's hands was simply a well calculated, premeditated attempt to start a war.  And Anders murdered Elthina in such a spectacular fashion as to leave no doubt to anyone in Kirkwall that it was a mage who did the act.  So not only did he remove the only obstacle that was keeping Meredeth from unilatarally invoking the Rite of Annulment, but he knew that the people's outrage at the assassination of the most beloved woman in the city would leave Meredeth no choice but to invoke the Rite.  

And let me point out that that there are innocents mentioned who will die as a result of Ander's acctions, innocent Mages who are going to be butchered by enraged templars directly because of his actions.  And it's none other than Hawke who mentions this.  So not only is Anders responsible for the deaths of all the people in the Chantry, people who he never bothered to get to know, but is also responsible for the deaths of the very people he's trying to save.  

And he knows this, he does not even deny it.  Ander's knowingly started a war that he knew will lead to the deaths of innocents, both in Kirkwall and the rest of Thedas.  

Modifié par TheJediSaint, 04 octobre 2011 - 05:37 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

TheJediSaint wrote...

 @ Cultural Geek Girl

Elthina was NOT a military commander, she's well respected and loved a clergy woman who only nominally controled Kirkwall's Templars. That's why Ander's killed her, she was the only person standing between Kirkwall's Circle and the Knight-Commander's increasing madness.

Her murder at Ander's hands was simply a well calculated, premeditated attempt to start a war.  And Anders murdered Elthina in such a spectacular fashion as to leave no doubt to anyone in Kirkwall that it was a mage who did the act.  So not only did he remove the only obstacle that was keeping Meredeth from unilatarally invoking the Rite of Annulment, but he knew that the people's outrage at the assassination of the most beloved woman in the city would leave Meredeth no choice but to invoke the Rite.  

And let me point out that that there are innocents mentioned who will die as a result of Ander's acctions, innocent Mages who are going to be butchered by enraged templars directly because of his actions.  And it's none other than Hawke who mentions this.  So not only is Anders responsible for the deaths of all the people in the Chantry, people who he never bothered to get ot know, but is also responsible for the deaths of the very people he's trying to save.  

And he knows this, he does not even deny it.  Ander's knowingly started a war that he knew will lead to the deaths of innocents, both in Kirkwall and the rest of Thedas.  

Elthina does not just "nominally" control the Templars. She explicitly has the power to determine who is Knight Commander. That is her JOB. She is unquestionably in charge of Meredith. I don't know how you can ignore this fact, which is explicitly established in game over and over again. How is the person in charge of appointing a military commander, the person to whom that commander reports directly, only "nominally" in charge? Would you say that the leader of a country is only "nominally" in charge of its miltary? The game explicitly states that Knight Commanders report to Grand Clerics.

Anders didn't start the war: the Templars did. They did it when, instead of executing the man responsible, they decided to commit mass murder against a minority group. If they had simply executed Anders for his crime and then not gone on to murder completely unrelated people, there would have been no war.

Now, Anders knew that the Templars would use the assassination of their supreme commander as an excuse to commit mass murder of a minority group, sure. He knew that that, in turn, would finally reveal their policy of human rights violations, which would cause the minority group to finally rise up against their oppression, yes. So he did start the war in a way, I'll give you that.

In your opinion, was starting the civil War immoral? It was a horrible
bloody war. Thousands upon thousands died.  A nation was devastated. Do you think that a century of continued slavery would have been preferable?

I don't. I think that the Civil war was sad, but it wasn't a tragedy. It's better to have the civil war and end slavery than to not have it and have slavery persist in the US for centuries longer than it actually did.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 04 octobre 2011 - 05:48 .

[TobiTobsen]

TheJediSaint wrote...

 @ Cultural Geek Girl

Elthina was NOT a military commander, she's well respected and loved a clergy woman who only nominally controled Kirkwall's Templars. That's why Ander's killed her, she was the only person standing between Kirkwall's Circle and the Knight-Commander's increasing madness.

Actually the chantry hierarchy is quite clear in that point. The Knight Commander has to follow the orders from the local Grand Cleric. Therefore Elthina is the Supreme Commander of the Templar Forces in Kirkwall.
With killing her, Anders made Meredith the highest Member of the Chantry in Kirkwall and enabled her to call for the RoA that was blocked by Elthina until then (David Gaider confirmed this). Meredith did exactly that, thanks to her paranoia, and Anders got his Mage rebellion. Just as planned.

Somebody hand him a cigar and play the A-Team theme please.

Modifié par TobiTobsen, 04 octobre 2011 - 05:49 .

[TheJediSaint]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

In your opinion, was starting the civil War immoral? It was a horrible
bloody war. Thousands upon thousands died.  A nation was devastated. Do you think that a century of continued slavery would have been preferable?

I don't. I think that the Civil war was sad, but it wasn't a tragedy. It's better to have the civil war and end slavery than to not have it and have slavery persist in the US for centuries longer than it actually did.

I'll answer that question, but first I'm going to say that bringing up real world historical events such as the American Civil War in comparisson to the Mage-Templar war is a bad idea. 

*Fire protection on*

Now I'll try to answer your question as briefly as possible.  Yes, starting the American Civil War was immoral, but problably not for the reasons you were thinking of when you posted that question.  The American Civil War was started by the South in order to, among other reasons, maintain the slavery system.  So let's be clear, while the American Civil war resulted in the end of slaver in the US, it was started by the rebels in order to preserve slavery.  In other words, your analogy fails on multiple levels.

*Fire protection off*

Now that I've answered that question, let me  say that Anders was morally wrong because his actions will likely result in alot of dead people and no advacment of Mage's rights. 

Also, I would like to apologize in advance to anyone who may have been offended by my answer to CGG's question.  I'm not trying to start a civil war debate were it does not belong, I'm trying to point out that her analogy is flawed.  I also apologize to any mods who feel that my answer is out of place.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

My point wasn't to say that the two wars were analgous, I was saying that a fought to end forced internment, apartheid, or slavery is not a tragedy.  You still haven't answered my real question: if there was a nation that had slavery, apartheid, or forced internment, and you had a choice between allowing a war to happen that had a chance to end that policy, or preventing that war, knowing that preventing it would allow the policy to persist for centuries or decades... would you allow the war to occur, or prevent it?

I'd allow the War to happen, because I believe that human rights violations are the one thing that it is worth going to war over.

And the war wasn't started by the South entirely on their own. The North had a choice: they could simply have allowed the secession. Rather than peacefully allowing the secession, the North decided it was better to have a war.

The only way one side unilaterally starts a war is if they invade another country and that country is forced to defend itself. The North and South both contributed to the start of the civil war, as Anders and the Templars both contributed to the start of the mage war.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 04 octobre 2011 - 06:28 .

[Wulfram]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

So why is it illogical to assume that an exalted march is something that is intended to destroy its target?

Well, firstly let's look at the actual case we're talking about.  We're not talking about Exalted Marches in general, we're talking about the specific scenario of an Exalted March on Kirkwall which people have dreamt up.

There's absolutely no basis for the idea that the Chantry would want to destroy Kirkwall.  It's an Andrastean city, loyal to Elthina and the Chantry.  It's destruction would be motiveless and ridiculous, to the extent that this supposed fact has been used as evidence of the Divine is insane.  And we have extensive knowledge of Leliana's character and some knowledge of the Divine when she was Reverend Mother Dorothea, and neither of them appear to be Genghiz Khan or Tamerlane.

Of course, I'm not saying that being the location for a clash between Mages and the forces of the Divine would be healthy for the citizens of Kirkwall.

As for the more general case of the motive of actual Exalted Marches, we have less evidence.  Since it is never to my knowledge in the game even suggested that the Divine might be even considering an Exalted March on Kirkwall, my earlier reasoning cannot be used.

The codex describes the intent of the Exalted marches against the Black Divine as merely being "to dislodge these "rebels"". 

But it's still a pretty huge claim - in effect that White Divines repeatedly ordered the total annihilation of Tevinter and that Andraste herself was intent on genocide.  To assume it as truth based on a single precedent is nonsensical, though if you wish to claim it as a possibility then I suppose it cannot as yet be wholly refuted.

Modifié par Wulfram, 04 octobre 2011 - 06:30 .