288 réponses à ce sujet

[cihimi]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

As for Anders, I support his Chantry explosions. If it weren't for him, Bethany would still be imprisoned.

This is Dragon Age seen with through kid eyes.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

And if Bethany is killed in the ensuing conflict then if it weren't for him she'd still be alive.

[cihimi]

Was she? No. She doesn't die unless you're a cold-hearted bastard (circle mage choice). Anders' mad scheme never dictated Bethany's fate.

Speculations will just make you sleepy.

[Ryzaki]

He's a terrorist who wanted to force everyone to do things his way. Good intentions or no.

Nothing new.

[WhiteKnyght]

Anders and Justice hit it off and went to bed together at Vigil's Keep. But the climax caused Justice's soul to leave Kristoff's corpse and enter Anders' body. And the shock caused Anders to adapt a different personality. And the influence of Justice took away his restraint.

xD

General User wrote...

Didn't Cassandra ask, "Do you have any idea how many have died?  How many may still die?"

What Anders did will bring violence, war, hatred, and death not just to mages, but to all of Thedas.

As if Thedas wasn't already warring, hating, and causing lots of death.

Orlais has warred with over half the nations in Thedas in the name of expansionism and spreading the Chant. The Tevinter has been at war with Par Vollen for three hundred years. The politics of Antiva are driven by assassinations. And so much more.

The way Anders started the war was wrong, but the mages deserve their freedom. And the only way to achieve that is to fight for it. Especially when the people oppressing you are the world's most self-entitled pricks.

Cassandra's opinion and statements were arguably biased. She wanted a way to put the mages back in their cages and believed Hawke was some evil mastermind who wanted to destroy the Chantry. Not to reach a solution that was amicable for both sides.

And let's not forget it was the Templars who really started the war. The Mages fought and freed themselves and that could have been it. But it was the Templars who actually rebelled against their own Chantry just so they could go and kill all the mages like animals. Thus starting war.

[WhiteKnyght]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

cihimi wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

As for Anders, I support his Chantry explosions. If it weren't for him, Bethany would still be imprisoned.

This is Dragon Age seen with through kid eyes.

Hey, no need for the insults. The fact simply is that I (and by extension, Hawke) care more about the teammates than a bunch of random unnamed civilians; thus, to me, Hawke getting to rescue his sister from a place where she could theoretically br raped or made Tranquil was more than worth a bunch of Chantry priests getting blown up.

Plus, you know, a bunch of stuff about freedom and how one group doesn't have the right to brutally subjugate another simply because they were born a certain way.

Well thats not theoretical. Rapes and tranquility do happen at the Circle. In Bethany's letter she even mentions Ser Alrik and how she's avoiding him.

If Anders was really smart though, he would have blown up the Templar Hall. That way Kirkwall's mages would have their freedom and no Annulment would happen.

[General User]

The Grey Nayr wrote...
As if Thedas wasn't already warring, hating, and causing lots of death.  [...]

Starting wars is bad.

The Grey Nayr wrote...
The way Anders started the war was wrong, but the mages deserve their freedom. And the only way to achieve that is to fight for it.

Correct.  But a solitary madman bombing a cathedral is not mages fighting for their freedom, it's a solitary madman bombing a cathedral.

The Grey Nayr wrote...
Especially when the people oppressing you are the world's most self-entitled pricks.

Those who make a business of oppressing their fellows are generally not known for their humble and genteel natures.

The Grey Nayr wrote...
Cassandra's opinion and statements were arguably biased. She wanted a way to put the mages back in their cages and believed Hawke was some evil mastermind who wanted to destroy the Chantry. Not to reach a solution that was amicable for both sides.

Wrong on all counts. 

Cassandra's professional function, at least as far as her role in DAII is concerned, is to determine the unbiased truth. 

She recognized that the Circle system had collapsed and would likely never return to what it was.  Her interest was in restoring some form of peace and stability, not the pre-Kirkwall status quo. 

And her belief that Hawke "was some evil mastermind who wanted to destroy the Chantry" was based on the best information she had at the time.  She was more than willing to adjust her perspective as Varric's story unfolded.  And depending on the player, she may not have even been wrong about that in the first place.

The Grey Nayr wrote...
And let's not forget it was the Templars who really started the war. The Mages fought and freed themselves and that could have been it. But it was the Templars who actually rebelled against their own Chantry just so they could go and kill all the mages like animals. Thus starting war.

Three "people" can be correctly blamed for starting this war: Anders, Meredith, and "that damn idol."

Modifié par General User, 11 novembre 2011 - 03:48 .

[Herr Uhl]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

It doesn't matter who blew up the Chantry. If Anders didn't blow up the Chantry, then Banders will. If it's not in Kirkwall, then it will be Nevarra, or Orlais, or Starkhaven. It's historical inevitability. The Mage-Templar War will break out eventually, regardless of what Anders does, just like how World War I would have broken out eventually no matter how old Archduke Ferdinand lives to be. Anders is not some god that could claim responsibility for the whole war. 

Because it is a well known fact that no wars have been avoided through diplomacy ever.

[CrimsonZephyr]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

Because it is a well known fact that no wars have been avoided through diplomacy ever.

You think the Mage-Templar War, or WWI, or any worldwide conflict that has been built up for decades or even centuries, could be avoided through diplomacy? Like an argument between two of your neighbours concerning a dog that's barking too loudly?

Why hello, Neville Chamberlain. Enjoy your peace while it lasts.

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Well, that's true a lot of the time, but not always. After all, if the Warden hadn't been around, Ferelden would have fallen to the Blight. So in some cases it's possible for prominent individuals to make a real difference.

DA:O is romantic high fantasy. DA2 is much more realistic. IRL there is no such selective, exclusive, and mystical group of individuals (Grey Wardens, the Jedi) who can save the world while nobody else (among the millions and millions of people from every corner of the world) can.

True, for the most part, but individuals, when they do take part in historical events, are more of the chessmaster, magnificent bastard, man with a (flexible and adaptible) plan types of people, rather than the barbarian warlord or heroic general who smashes people's skulls in.

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 11 novembre 2011 - 04:25 .

[DiebytheSword]

Success is always one part skill, one part experience, and one part opportunity.

[Malanek]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...
The more well known character that is compareable is V from V for Vendetta. Of course in the end, despite setting it all up, he lets Evie decide whether or not to go through with it. 

Is that going off the movie? In the book, V blows up multiple buildings with no input from Evie whatsoever.

Yeah the movie. Haven't read the book or is it a comic? In the movie he is about to die on the train laden with explosives. It's up to Evie to pull the switch.

[Killjoy Cutter]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

If OP is indeed a social science graduate student, then OP must know that the consensus among 21st century historians is that prominent individuals actually play no role in history.

Which is absolute nonsense.

A few simple what-ifs make just how nonsensical that view is readily apparent. 

What if Phillip of Macedon had only sired no sons? 

What if Archduke Ferdinand had immediately left Serejevo after the first, failed attempt?

What if someone else had become Prime Minister of Britain in 1937? 

What if Nixon had been elected instead of Kennedy in 1960?

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 11 novembre 2011 - 09:16 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

What if Phillip of Macedon had sired no sons? 

What if Archduke Ferdinand had immediately left Serejevo after the first, failed attempt?

What if someone else had become Prime Minister of Britain in 1937? 

What if Nixon had been elected instead of Kennedy in 1960?

Keep thinking about it. :-)

I don't need keep thinking about.  In each case, history could be significantly different. 

[DKJaigen]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

What if Phillip of Macedon had sired no sons? 

What if Archduke Ferdinand had immediately left Serejevo after the first, failed attempt?

What if someone else had become Prime Minister of Britain in 1937? 

What if Nixon had been elected instead of Kennedy in 1960?

Keep thinking about it. :-)

I don't need keep thinking about.  In each case, history could be significantly different. 

Its not so its irrelevant. its also so very easy to judge when you have all the information you have right now.

[DKJaigen]

DP

Modifié par DKJaigen, 11 novembre 2011 - 10:32 .

[DKJaigen]

DKJaigen wrote...

General User wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...
As if Thedas wasn't already warring, hating, and causing lots of death.  [...]

Starting wars is bad.

Only if the reasons are bad.

The Grey Nayr wrote...
The way Anders started the war was wrong, but the mages deserve their freedom. And the only way to achieve that is to fight for it.

Correct.  But a solitary madman bombing a cathedral is not mages fighting for their freedom, it's a solitary madman bombing a cathedral.

Oh it very much is

The Grey Nayr wrote...
Especially when the people oppressing you are the world's most self-entitled pricks.

Those who make a business of oppressing their fellows are generally not known for their humble and genteel natures.

so war is neccesary

The Grey Nayr wrote...
Cassandra's opinion and statements were arguably biased. She wanted a way to put the mages back in their cages and believed Hawke was some evil mastermind who wanted to destroy the Chantry. Not to reach a solution that was amicable for both sides.

Wrong on all counts. 

Cassandra's professional function, at least as far as her role in DAII is concerned, is to determine the unbiased truth. 

She recognized that the Circle system had collapsed and would likely never return to what it was.  Her interest was in restoring some form of peace and stability, not the pre-Kirkwall status quo. 

And her belief that Hawke "was some evil mastermind who wanted to destroy the Chantry" was based on the best information she had at the time.  She was more than willing to adjust her perspective as Varric's story unfolded.  And depending on the player, she may not have even been wrong about that in the first place.

The Grey Nayr wrote...
And let's not forget it was the Templars who really started the war. The Mages fought and freed themselves and that could have been it. But it was the Templars who actually rebelled against their own Chantry just so they could go and kill all the mages like animals. Thus starting war.

Three "people" can be correctly blamed for starting this war: Anders, Meredith, and "that damn idol."

[Killjoy Cutter]

DKJaigen wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

What if Phillip of Macedon had sired no sons? 

What if Archduke Ferdinand had immediately left Serejevo after the first, failed attempt?

What if someone else had become Prime Minister of Britain in 1937? 

What if Nixon had been elected instead of Kennedy in 1960?

Keep thinking about it. :-)

I don't need keep thinking about.  In each case, history could be significantly different. 

Its not so its irrelevant. its also so very easy to judge when you have all the information you have right now.

You misunderstand.  In each case, history could easily have been significantly different if the "what if?" had taken place.