2008 odpowiedzi w tym temacie

[TEWR]

The Hierophant wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Plaintiff, have you actually read Asunder yet? If you did you'd know it was Lord Seeker that appoints the Templar commanders, he can even go against the Divine's direct suggestion.

I haven't and don't see any particular reason why I should.

It doesn't matter who precisely is responsible for Meredith's promotion; my point is that it should never have happened in the first place.

What gets me is that Meredith takes it upon herself to mutiny, and execute the previous Knight Comander/Viscount, and she isn't jailed for her actions.

You've got things mixed up here. Viscount Perrin Threnhold tried to oust the Templars from Kirkwall and killed the Knight Commander during a raid on a Templar stronghold. Afterwards, Perrin was apprehended, arrested, stood trial, and imprisoned. 2 years later he died from poisoning (see the Meredith codex)

While I agree she shouldn't have been elevated to her position, that's due to her personal trauma and not anything else.

Lord Aesir wrote...

TS2Aggie wrote...

The tone of voice along with the words and body language made it fairly clear what they were going to do. Check it out for yourself. She does not become hostile.

Interesting.  Well you're right about her not turning hostile but I have to disagree about the rest.  He didn't sound murderous, he sounded calm.  Serious, but calm.  His poise was just the typical standing pose of player characters and NPCs.

Actually, she's right. If this is about Ser Mettin in A Noble Agenda that is.

In the Templar equivalent of this quest -- where you meet Ser Mettin and some other Templar if you supported Meredith -- Ser Mettin wants to kill the people that supported the mages and surrendered to the Templars. And when his other Templar colleague says they won't kill them but they'll take them in, he calls her a traitor and tries to kill her.

He's a murderous ****** ready to kill anyone for helping a mage and it is evident in how he said his phrase that he was planning on doing so to the lady.

I'm also fairly certain that the journal entry says something about Ser Mettin.


EDIT: put my previous post up here

Użytkownik The Ethereal Writer Redux edytował ten post 23 grudzień 2011 - 07:03

[The Hierophant]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Plaintiff, have you actually read Asunder yet? If you did you'd know it was Lord Seeker that appoints the Templar commanders, he can even go against the Divine's direct suggestion.

I haven't and don't see any particular reason why I should.

It doesn't matter who precisely is responsible for Meredith's promotion; my point is that it should never have happened in the first place.

What gets me is that Meredith takes it upon herself to mutiny, and execute the previous Knight Comander/Viscount, and she isn't jailed for her actions.

You've got things mixed up here. Viscount Perrin Threnhold tried to oust the Templars from Kirkwall and killed the Knight Commander during a raid on a Templar stronghold. Afterwards, Perrin was apprehended, arrested, stood trial, and imprisoned. 2 years later he died from poisoning (see the Meredith codex)

While I agree she shouldn't have been elevated to her position, that's due to her personal trauma and not anything else.

Yeah i dun goofed on that one. I started a new playthrough this morning to brush up on lore, and events.

[Jessihatt]

 They both punished a group of people for the acts of a few  I think that's the only thing that is similar.
But I feel Anders was perhaps more justified to act like that.
I know Meredith had her reasons for being as she was and then the idol was added to the equation, she'd always been ruthless with mages and the idol drove her to madness.

Anders in awakening didn't even want the Circle to break from the Chantry -- only with Justice's intervention did Anders want radical change for the mages.

[Plaintiff]

CommanderJessica wrote...
Anders in awakening didn't even want the Circle to break from the Chantry -- only with Justice's intervention did Anders want radical change for the mages.

To say he "doesn't want it" is false. He thinks it will lead to the Chantry slaughtering the mages, a view that Wynne supports, saying "They'd sooner see us dead than free". That doesn't mean he likes the Chantry, or that he supports the Circle as it is now. Clearly he doesn't, since he kept trying to escape.

If he has since decided that mages have a fighting chance, then it makes perfect sense that he would want the Circle to break free of the Chantry, because he hates the Chantry and always has.

[Gervaise]

As I understand it, Anders had always hated and resented the Circle system but felt powerless to do anything about it except on the personal level of constantly trying to escape it. He admits (I think to Isabella) that he used to think only of himself and his self gratification with sex, boose and whatever else appealed to him to make his life more bearable. Then Justice suggested that if they joined forces Anders would be in a position to do something about the Circles and it is he that gave Anders his initial drive and determination to do something about it. However, as Anders himself admits, it is his hatred and resentment of the Circle system that warped Justice, not the other way around.

[GavrielKay]

Gervaise wrote...

As I understand it, Anders had always hated and resented the Circle system but felt powerless to do anything about it except on the personal level of constantly trying to escape it. He admits (I think to Isabella) that he used to think only of himself and his self gratification with sex, boose and whatever else appealed to him to make his life more bearable. Then Justice suggested that if they joined forces Anders would be in a position to do something about the Circles and it is he that gave Anders his initial drive and determination to do something about it. However, as Anders himself admits, it is his hatred and resentment of the Circle system that warped Justice, not the other way around.

I'm not sure this is completely true.  I just played through Awakenings again and Justice was constantly prodding Anders about how he should be *doing* something about the mage plight and not just running from the issue.  The biggest personality change was in Anders, not Justice.  I see much more of Justice's personality in their union than Anders' - especially by the time you get to Act 3.

We're not given much information about the idol's exact effects, but it seems to exaggerate whatever is there already.  Bartrand's greed and Meredith's paranoia.  Justice on the other hand, brings a single overwhelming drive.  Justice - with no termpering mercy or pragmatism.

So, Meredith became more of what she was already, and Anders became something different and colder - more driven.  I think Anders feels guilty for having made the choice to join with Justice and perhaps he wants to believe that he warped Justice into Vengeance because he doesn't want to admit to himself that he should have predicted the result.

Vengeance is just acting on a feeling that you've been personally wronged and deserve justice.  Merging with Anders simply made the mage plight personal to Justice.  Maybe they both should have known better, but I don't see it as any kind of intentional corruption of Justice by Anders, merely the natural result of merging pure unadulterated "Justice" with a lousy personal history with the Circles/Chantry.

Meredith got away with her behavior because of a climate of fear and ignorance perpetuated by the Chantry for 900 years.  She felt like anything she did in the name of "protecting the innocents" was not only allowed, but required by her god.  She had no room in her mindset for the idea that mages could also be innocents.  They were guilty by fact of birth in her mind, and no action they could take would absolve them of it.

There is a differnce to me in acting out of religious zealotry + personal experience vs. fighting back against it. 

Whether he should have used different means is a whole other argument, but Anders and Meredith are clearly not the same.

[Heimdall]

@GavrielKay not really. Vengeance isn't wanting justice, vengeance is about getting back at someone and punishing them for something whether that punishment is justified or not. Vengeance was ready to kill a mage because it perceived that the Mage was not on his side. Vengeance would kill someone for being a Templar or being associated with the Templars.

As Anders said, his own anger twisted Justice into a horrible thing. That in turn made Anders much like Meredith. He's willing to kill innocent people to achieve what he perceives as a righteous goal. He's willing to declare people guilty by association. Sorry to say, but Anders and Meredith are far more similar than either would care to admit.

[GavrielKay]

I still don't agree.

Vengeance may not look like wanting justice from the outside, but for the person seeking it, I think that's what they are after. Making someone pay for wronging you? Whether any given onlooker would consider it justice or vengeance would depend mostly on how it was carried out.

Remember that the fade spirits can only embody one virtue (or vice). Justice cares nothing for mercy, prudence, kindness... even in Awakenings he was prodding Anders to take action when Anders was mostly happy with just keeping himself free.

Unless the writers chime in, we'll never really know what was intended, but I see Anders being more corrupted by Justice than the other way around. The merged character sounds a lot more like Justice from Awakenings than Anders from Awakenings. I think Anders could just as easily be said to feel guilty for not knowing it would turn out as it did. Either he wanted to believe it would all be ok and he was just helping out a friend, or he wanted to believe he could control it. Whether you think he made the right choice I guess depends on how you feel about the outcome. Personally, I didn't see any peaceful solution to the mage/Templar conflict, so perhaps someone to kick off the whole bloody mess was necessary.

In a modern setting, we might say justice is calling the police and having a proper criminal trial for someone who has wronged you... in the DA world, what exactly could Anders/Justice do that wouldn't look like Vengeance to a modern mind? He was "wronged" by an entire religion, which happens to be the dominant religion in his world.

There is no nice easy legal course for him to take that satisfies the constant voice in his head clamoring for "justice." So, is it really *vengeance* when it's all you know how to do?

What Anders/Justice almost does in the heat of battle isn't entirely representative of his nature. There are plenty more examples of him healing the sick and trying to protect mages.

[Fast Jimmy]

I think Anders and Meredith are the two worst written characters in DA2. Too bad they drive the majority of the main plot.

Both think the world is out to get them, that they are the ones fighting true evil and that innocents dying in the process are just collateral damage. They are also bossy, annoying and a downer to be around. Having either as a focus of the main plot was infuriating to me and made me glad I could kill Anders and even more glad I got to slaughter Meredith.

If Bioware had any sense of pacing of the story for DA2, they would have made the Mage/Templar conflict in Act2 and then the Qunari in Act 3. The Arishok was a much more compelling antagonist than Meredith. And I also would have had the option to get rid of Anders sooner than the end of Act 3.

[AlexXIV]

I think Anders is better written than Meredith. Anyway, they both could have been done better. And they are not the same. Next time you play be sure to wear your glasses OP. The only thing they may have in common is that they are both 'possessed' to a certain grade.

[PrinceLionheart]

AlexXIV wrote...

I think Anders is better written than Meredith. Anyway, they both could have been done better. And they are not the same. Next time you play be sure to wear your glasses OP. The only thing they may have in common is that they are both 'possessed' to a certain grade.

That and they forced their deluded view of justice on others, causing deaths. Anders can come off as more sympathetic because he was a party member, while Meredith didn't recieve any real characterization until Act 3 (which also happened to be the most poorly written and rushed act) so I actually do understand why people are more willing to be sympathetic to Anders than Meredith.

That said, Anders, in my humble opinion, is every bit the extremist that Meredith and the more hardcore Templars are.

[Teddie Sage]

Some people should learn the difference between opinions and facts. Because TC makes me rage.

[dsl08002]

I also thought that anders was an extremist considering what he did was no better. Nothing justifies it, nothing.

[GavrielKay]

PrinceLionheart wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

I think Anders is better written than Meredith. Anyway, they both could have been done better. And they are not the same. Next time you play be sure to wear your glasses OP. The only thing they may have in common is that they are both 'possessed' to a certain grade.

That and they forced their deluded view of justice on others, causing deaths. Anders can come off as more sympathetic because he was a party member, while Meredith didn't recieve any real characterization until Act 3 (which also happened to be the most poorly written and rushed act) so I actually do understand why people are more willing to be sympathetic to Anders than Meredith.

That said, Anders, in my humble opinion, is every bit the extremist that Meredith and the more hardcore Templars are.

The difference for me is that Meredith is fighting to keep an oppressive regime in charge and Anders is fighting to end it.  Now you can certainly draw similarties in their methods and the fact that they both believe they are "right," but for me, motive is a very strong differentiator. 

We don't feel the same way about the man who breaks into a house and shoots owners as we do the owner fighting back and killing the intruder.  The mechanics of each situation may be the same, but the pepole behind the guns are very different.

[Plaintiff]

I'm still waiting for somebody to explain what constitiutes as 'terrorism', how Anders' actions qualify, and what makes terrorism objectively worse than a 'legitimate' act of war.

[Fast Jimmy]

Plaintiff wrote...

I'm still waiting for somebody to explain what constitiutes as 'terrorism', how Anders' actions qualify, and what makes terrorism objectively worse than a 'legitimate' act of war.

I'd say, fairly objectively to the argument (as I don't have a dog in this fight) that a combination of purposefully disregarding civilian lives when planning an attack AND to also have the plausible deniability of a chain of command (meaning the person executing the act is not also the one planning it) would be pretty large determiners.

Civilians are killed in war as either unintended casualties or as way to seize resources or demoralize the enemy so that subsequent attacks against military targets are more successful. When a person or group's ONLY form of attack is to go after civilian targets, I'd say that qualifies as terrorist actions as opposed to an act of war.

Civilians die in war to beat the enemy. Civilians die in terrorism AS the way to beat the enemy.

Użytkownik Fast Jimmy edytował ten post 26 grudzień 2011 - 04:46

[alex90c]

Plaintiff wrote...

I'm still waiting for somebody to explain what constitiutes as 'terrorism', how Anders' actions qualify, and what makes terrorism objectively worse than a 'legitimate' act of war.

"the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes"

http://dictionary.re...rowse/terrorism 

Anders followed that definition pretty much by the letter.

[PrinceLionheart]

GavrielKay wrote...

PrinceLionheart wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

I think Anders is better written than Meredith. Anyway, they both could have been done better. And they are not the same. Next time you play be sure to wear your glasses OP. The only thing they may have in common is that they are both 'possessed' to a certain grade.

That and they forced their deluded view of justice on others, causing deaths. Anders can come off as more sympathetic because he was a party member, while Meredith didn't recieve any real characterization until Act 3 (which also happened to be the most poorly written and rushed act) so I actually do understand why people are more willing to be sympathetic to Anders than Meredith.

That said, Anders, in my humble opinion, is every bit the extremist that Meredith and the more hardcore Templars are.

The difference for me is that Meredith is fighting to keep an oppressive regime in charge and Anders is fighting to end it.  Now you can certainly draw similarties in their methods and the fact that they both believe they are "right," but for me, motive is a very strong differentiator. 

We don't feel the same way about the man who breaks into a house and shoots owners as we do the owner fighting back and killing the intruder.  The mechanics of each situation may be the same, but the pepole behind the guns are very different.

The theif analogy doesn't exactly work, at least not for me, because Anders didn't go after theif in your scenario, he went after a second party (The Chantry.) It'd make sense if Anders planted the bomb in Templar Base, the people who were actually responsible for oppressing the mages, but he went after a group of people who were at best indirectly responsible for what was happening. The debate of whether the chantry should be held responsible is something for another thread though (though from what I gathering in this thread, the Chantry has no real control over the Templars).

[AlexXIV]

The templars get their justification from the Chantry and the Chantry supports the templars. They are maybe two different organisations but they work closely with each other. Actually the fact that Chantry and templars split because of the war can be seen as Anders' plan succeeding. Because splitting them weakens them both.

I think Anders' message to the Chantry can be understood as 'Don't you think you are innocent, you have played a major role in the matter'. The Chantry always likes to cause things and then retreat and lets others fight the wars they started. Which is one of the major beefs I have with the Chantry.

In my eyes the Chantry is the reason behind the templars as Elthina is the reason behind Meredith. The Grand Cleric may not have openly supported Meredith on her way to madness, but she watched as it happened doing nothing.

The way I see it the Chantry will have to pay for it's sins should the Maker return, and they won't be able to hide behind pious words. That's probably the same reasoning Justice uses for targetting the Chantry and the Grand Cleric in person.

Justice is a spirit and as such a creation of the Maker. So you can guess that Justice's justice and the Maker's are not so far apart.

Użytkownik AlexXIV edytował ten post 26 grudzień 2011 - 07:35

[Gervaise]

One could also argue that Anders is fighting to put a different oppressive regime in power and Meredith is fighting to prevent this. The Resolutionists (of whom Anders is clearly one) have the avowed intent of frightening people into giving them greater freedom by showing "just how little protection the Circle really is". This is in fact entirely true. It is the mages outside the Circle who are the greatest danger to the population and who commit the attrocities that occur in Kirkwall, such as blood domination of the mind and murder. The writings of mages like Tahrone clearly show that what they desire is a new Tevinter Imperium. Anders constantly excuses the actions of extremist mages on the grounds that "they are desperate". This apparently is the same justification that mages within the Tevinter Imperium use for resorting to blood magic - it is an act of desperation in order to protect themselves from other mages.

The essential part is that humans beings are flawed and will use any excuse to justify doing something that ordinarily they and others would condemn if committed against them. It is not magic that makes mages do bad things but the mages themselves. It is not the religion of Andraste that makes templars do bad things but the templars themselves. Both Anders and Meredith are convinced they are in the right in what they do and thus it is okay for them to sacrifice the lives of those not directly responsible for the situation that has been created by those opposed to them. Anders knows the likely result of his action is that Meredith will harm the Circle mages but since he regards them as tame collaborators with the regime he hates, he thinks his action is justified. Meredith know that the Circle mages are not responsible for them bomb but clearly thinks that merely executing Anders will not make a big enough statement to the world at large and mages in particular as to the consequences of attacking the Chantry. Anders did not see Elthina and the members of Chantry and Circle as individuals but merely a symbol to be destroyed and the same is true of Meredith.

And I would say to the Plantiff regarding what is a terrorist - look around you in our own world - how were 9/11 and the London Underground and bus bombs the same as an act of war? There were no soldiers involved - just ordinary civilians going about their daily lives. The same is true of Anders and his bombing of the Chantry (the fact that there may have been some templars inside does not take away from this), which not only destroyed that building but many other houses adjacent to it.

[Melca36]

Gervaise wrote...

One could also argue that Anders is fighting to put a different oppressive regime in power and Meredith is fighting to prevent this. The Resolutionists (of whom Anders is clearly one) have the avowed intent of frightening people into giving them greater freedom by showing "just how little protection the Circle really is". This is in fact entirely true. It is the mages outside the Circle who are the greatest danger to the population and who commit the attrocities that occur in Kirkwall, such as blood domination of the mind and murder. The writings of mages like Tahrone clearly show that what they desire is a new Tevinter Imperium. Anders constantly excuses the actions of extremist mages on the grounds that "they are desperate". This apparently is the same justification that mages within the Tevinter Imperium use for resorting to blood magic - it is an act of desperation in order to protect themselves from other mages.

The essential part is that humans beings are flawed and will use any excuse to justify doing something that ordinarily they and others would condemn if committed against them. It is not magic that makes mages do bad things but the mages themselves. It is not the religion of Andraste that makes templars do bad things but the templars themselves. Both Anders and Meredith are convinced they are in the right in what they do and thus it is okay for them to sacrifice the lives of those not directly responsible for the situation that has been created by those opposed to them. Anders knows the likely result of his action is that Meredith will harm the Circle mages but since he regards them as tame collaborators with the regime he hates, he thinks his action is justified. Meredith know that the Circle mages are not responsible for them bomb but clearly thinks that merely executing Anders will not make a big enough statement to the world at large and mages in particular as to the consequences of attacking the Chantry. Anders did not see Elthina and the members of Chantry and Circle as individuals but merely a symbol to be destroyed and the same is true of Meredith.

And I would say to the Plantiff regarding what is a terrorist - look around you in our own world - how were 9/11 and the London Underground and bus bombs the same as an act of war? There were no soldiers involved - just ordinary civilians going about their daily lives. The same is true of Anders and his bombing of the Chantry (the fact that there may have been some templars inside does not take away from this), which not only destroyed that building but many other houses adjacent to it.

Sorry but I disagree.  You're acting as if he wiped out Hightown. He took out the Chantry and what I saww was roof damage on a few surrounding buildings.  

[GavrielKay]

alex90c wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I'm still waiting for somebody to explain what constitiutes as 'terrorism', how Anders' actions qualify, and what makes terrorism objectively worse than a 'legitimate' act of war.

"the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes"

http://dictionary.re...rowse/terrorism 

Anders followed that definition pretty much by the letter.

I don't think this is true.  Anders did not blow up the Chantry to intimidate or corerce.  He blew up the Chantry so that Elthina would no longer be able to keep the situation at just below the boiling point.  He wanted to start an all out war so that the mages would have to fight for their freedom or die in chains.  I'm sure plenty of players disagree with both his basic goal and his means of achieving it, but it isn't the "definition" of terrorism.

He was attacking what to his (somewhat clouded and possessed) mind was a valid military target.  Elthina was nominally in charge of the situation and obviously had enough power to keep something of a leash on Meredith.  Information presented later in the form of a book doesn't change my mind about what my Hawke believed when she supported Anders' interpretation of the situation.

The mages are being kept just well enough off that most aren't to the point of "I'd rather die than this."  Anders wasn't trying to intimidate or otherwise politically influence anyone, he was trying to get to the crisis point where the mages actually were better off fighting than submitting.

[GavrielKay]

Gervaise wrote...
And I would say to the Plantiff regarding what is a terrorist - look around you in our own world - how were 9/11 and the London Underground and bus bombs the same as an act of war? There were no soldiers involved - just ordinary civilians going about their daily lives. The same is true of Anders and his bombing of the Chantry (the fact that there may have been some templars inside does not take away from this), which not only destroyed that building but many other houses adjacent to it.

I understand your point, but I do in general, have a problem with comparing Anders to modern terrorists.  For one, there is a legal system available to oppressed peoples around the world that will try to solve issues peacefully.  I'm not at all saying it is always effective or even easy to navigate, but an alternative to violence exists and where there are options, the moral choice is almost always to exhaust peaceful possibilities before resorting to violence.

Where the comparison breaks down is the DA world doesn't have anything like a United Nations.  There is no global mediating body to which the mages could appeal for justice.  There isn't a world press that might garner support from the masses.  The people who oppress the mages (Chantry and Templars) weild more influence than many of the governments in Thedas.

In the face of this, alternatives to violence are quickly exhausted.  After 900 years, I think it is fair to say the mages should either use violence or give up on ever having true freedom again.

[GavrielKay]

PrinceLionheart wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

PrinceLionheart wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

I think Anders is better written than Meredith. Anyway, they both could have been done better. And they are not the same. Next time you play be sure to wear your glasses OP. The only thing they may have in common is that they are both 'possessed' to a certain grade.

That and they forced their deluded view of justice on others, causing deaths. Anders can come off as more sympathetic because he was a party member, while Meredith didn't recieve any real characterization until Act 3 (which also happened to be the most poorly written and rushed act) so I actually do understand why people are more willing to be sympathetic to Anders than Meredith.

That said, Anders, in my humble opinion, is every bit the extremist that Meredith and the more hardcore Templars are.

The difference for me is that Meredith is fighting to keep an oppressive regime in charge and Anders is fighting to end it.  Now you can certainly draw similarties in their methods and the fact that they both believe they are "right," but for me, motive is a very strong differentiator. 

We don't feel the same way about the man who breaks into a house and shoots owners as we do the owner fighting back and killing the intruder.  The mechanics of each situation may be the same, but the pepole behind the guns are very different.

The theif analogy doesn't exactly work, at least not for me, because Anders didn't go after theif in your scenario, he went after a second party (The Chantry.) It'd make sense if Anders planted the bomb in Templar Base, the people who were actually responsible for oppressing the mages, but he went after a group of people who were at best indirectly responsible for what was happening. The debate of whether the chantry should be held responsible is something for another thread though (though from what I gathering in this thread, the Chantry has no real control over the Templars).

In my scenario, Anders went after the local police chief who knew about the crime ring but sat on his butt while they were out stealing and killing.

I haven't yet read Asunder, but from what I've heard it goes into a bit more detail about the power structure between the Chantry and Templars.  Trouble is, we didn't have that when playing the game; we had Elthina's codex about how influential and popular she was...  It was very reasonable to my Hawke to believe Elthina was responsible for Meredith and failed utterly to prevent atrocities in the Gallows. 

When one has authority and fails to use it to prevent raping, beating, tranquiling etc. then one is no innocent bystander.  Elthina is a legitimate target in my book.  The popular leader who decided it was easier to let mages be harmed than to use her influence to *try* to stop it.  Failure is always an option, but not trying is just wrong.