2008 réponses à ce sujet

[General User]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

CodyMelch wrote...

Side note: What does it mean to call someone a "bleeding heart"? That they are cynical? Lack emotion? Losing emotions? Or?

Quite the opposite, actually. A bleeding heart is someone who affects an excessively altruistic or sympathetic stance towards the underprivileged. As it's a perjorative term, it's applied widely towards anyone with such inclinations by those who find such a worldview to be naive.

Aye.  It's an American (I believe) term usually applied to some one who is excessively emotional or sympathetic to the point of losing reason.  It can also be used to refer to someone who, to an unreasonable extent, lets their emotions guide their (almost always left leaning) political views.

Modifié par General User, 22 février 2012 - 12:53 .

[dragonflight288]

As long as you acknowledge that there are different opinions on the matter, and therefore no simple solutions, then it is all okay, because that means that there is also the possibility of compromise. Extremists on either side will always ruin it for everyone else, and they never speak the voice of reason.

A compromise can be reached. But the Chantry does recruit largely from religious zealots. It's the preferred recruit over those who have morals. If there are enough people on the Templar's side willing to compromise, the Chantry would have to stop recruiting largely from zealots entirely.

It's right in the Templar Codex. And you can't compromise with a religious zealot. It's their way or death. If they wish for a compromise, I'd jump all over it and avoid war. But the templar's zealous leaders are the ones who want to punish ALL mages for the actions of a few. Save for some die-hard mage fans on the forums, I haven't seen anyone, not even in-game, call for the destruction of all templars. The genocide ideas are entirely templar ones.

[dragonflight288]

Aye. It's an American (I believe) term usually applied to some one who is excessively emotional or sympathetic to the point of losing reason. It can also be used to refer to someone who, to an unreasonable extent, lets their emotions guide their (almost always left leaning) political views.

It is American.

[Darkrider296]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Vit246 wrote...

No, he is not.

He did not "punish innocent people". There's no sense for Anders to do something like that. He targeted and killed people of a powerful faction precisely because they are guilty and directly responsible for a thousand-year long reign of abuses and injustices against a group of people being born what they are.

He blew up a Chantry full of innocent people because of his grudge against  the Chantry and Templars. Being a believer in a religion doesn't make you guilty of all the crimes committed in the name of your religion.

Ander's used the same twisted logic Meredith used when she used the Right of Annulment on the Circle for what Anders did. She knew they had no personal guilt, but she had a long standing grudge against mages and was given a chance to act on it.

Anders claimed what he did was for a greater good, the exact same thing Meredith claims. But in reality, he's driven by an insane butthurt supplemented by a mind altering entity, the exact same situation as Meredith.

Anders is a hypocrite hiding behind the plight of the mages. In reality, he's just a selfish bastard who only cares about satisfying his own needs. After all, he was so dark inside his soul that he perverted Justice into a demon of vengeance. He wants to punish the Chantry and the Templars first and foremost. He doesn't care if an entire Circle has to die for it.

Anders is a terrorist and a mass murderer.

Dave of Canada wrote...

@OP:

Brace yourself

Mage supporters are coming.

I am a mage supporter.

I'm just not an Anders supporter.

One thing I like about Asunder -- which I haven't yet read but read about -- is that it turns out that the BS Anders caused in Kirkwall actually didn't have much impact on the separation of the Circle and Chantry.

So Mister 'My name will go down in history'  will be remembered as a depraved abomination. Not a savior or liberator.

I would actually argue their wearn't that many  innocent people. Chantry workers are blind to the world around them but I guess it really does depend on your perspective. I think what was happening to the Mages was awful, so believe that Anders needed to do somthing so big that none of this fake "neutrality" could go on. I believe his ends justified the means in the end but to each their own

[Xilizhra]

Actually I meant the one about how we get the evils of magic forcibly rammed down our throats on a personal (for Hawke) level while evils of fascist zealots are shown through dialogue with minor characters and innuendo.

I think the writing team mistakenly assumed that the zealots would be seen as sufficiently unsympathetic without the need for that.

[GavrielKay]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

You know, I think this is one huge difference of opinion from which much else follows.  If you really believe that mages don't have it so bad, then sure, why bother to overthrow the system.

As long as you acknowledge that there are different opinions on the matter, and therefore no simple solutions, then it is all okay, because that means that there is also the possibility of compromise. Extremists on either side will always ruin it for everyone else, and they never speak the voice of reason.

First off we're talking about a non-existent game world and trying to draw correlations to our real world experience.  In the real world, when one group of people is systematically oppressed by another group that has ALL the power, then compromise can't happen.

The Chantry has the superior military power, far superior political clout and a never ending supply of righteous belief that it is doing what is best for everyone.  Compromise means both parties have to end up somewhat less happy than their ideal.  There is no way for the mages to convince the Chantry to give up on their ideal.  What could the mages possibly offer the Chantry in return for freedom?  The Chantry already owns their lives.  What can the slave offer the owner that the owner doesn't believe they already have?

[EmperorSahlertz]

We have numerous examples of Templars who aren't religious zealots, and the Divine was trying to reach a compromise. Obvioisly a compromise is, or at least was, possible. And as I said, it will always be the extremists on either side which will destroy all hope for peace. So for as long as Lord Seeker Lambert is in charge of the Templars, and Fiona and Adrian is in charge of the mages, no compromise will ever be reached.

[General User]

Assassination is an acceptable tool of statecraft.

Does the Divine know any good assassins? A cute red-head who's a bit on the ditzy side, perhaps?

[Rifneno]

dragonflight288 wrote...

A compromise can be reached. But the Chantry does recruit largely from religious zealots. It's the preferred recruit over those who have morals. If there are enough people on the Templar's side willing to compromise, the Chantry would have to stop recruiting largely from zealots entirely.

I don't know where people getting the idea that compromise is possible. This problem spans not just many nations but a thousand years. A thousand years. That's a period of time arguably beyond our frickin' comprehension. It hasn't festered this long because no one thought to sit down over tea and make a good, reasoned argument for their side. Yes, you're right that it might be possible without the zealots... but the thing is, it's impossible to get rid of them. The system is riddled with them, both in the templars and in the Chantry priesthood (er, priestesshood?). Organized religion breeds zealots. That's just how it works. Whether they're intending to or not, any large religion will end up with ****s who read their teachings (no matter how peaceful) as "Supreme being wants you to murderize people he doesn't like... oh, and look at that, they're the same people you don't like! What a happy coincidence!" Because that's human nature. Some people are bad, and almost all people will try to justify their actions.
But I digress... that's just why they're inevitable. The fact that getting rid of the ones currently in the system is impossible is another matter. How would you do such a thing? A big McCarthy era fiasco? And where does the line of zealot get drawn? It's not a yes or no question, beliefs are a sliding scale. More importantly, what are you going to do then? Ask 25% of the system to just leave and offer them a letter of recommendation? I don't think they're going to go away without a fight. In fact, Asunder proves they aren't.

General User wrote...

Assassination is an acceptable tool of statecraft.

Does the Divine know any good assassins? A cute red-head who's a bit on the ditzy side, perhaps?

Or better yet, how about someone that isn't incredibly retarded? After her "investigation" of Kirkwall, I'm surprised her brain is producing enough energy to keep her vital organs functioning. Jesus.

[Xilizhra]

We have numerous examples of Templars who aren't religious zealots, and the Divine was trying to reach a compromise. Obvioisly a compromise is, or at least was, possible.

For one thing, this doesn't follow; a compromise won't be possible if the zealots are too powerful regardless of whether or not they make up everyone. For another, nothing the Divine could say is worth anything unless it's total surrender and the end of the Chantry-led Circle system; a "compromise" is not inherently valuable.

Or better yet, how about someone that isn't incredibly retarded? After her "investigation" of Kirkwall, I'm surprised her brain is producing enough energy to keep her vital organs functioning. Jesus.

Be fair. She's a spy; she's not going to exposit all of her true thoughts to one of the people being spied upon. If you're asking why she doesn't do something like assassinate Meredith, I doubt the Divine's orders left her room for such an action.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 22 février 2012 - 02:03 .

[Rifneno]

Xilizhra wrote...

Be fair. She's a spy; she's not going to exposit all of her true thoughts to one of the people being spied upon. If you're asking why she doesn't do something like assassinate Meredith, I doubt the Divine's orders left her room for such an action.

I'm not asking anything, I already know why. Because she's terrible at life. She had no idea Meredith was to blame for things, probably even in part. If she did, she surely would've shared that information with Cassandra on their joint inquiry with Varric. Yet Cassandra is clearly surprised at the end of the story. "So it's Meredith's fault! She's to blame!" No, instead Leliana set a trap, by which I mean she trolled the local mages and then threatened a bloody crusade against the city in retaliation for a fringe faction taking her bait. Gee, you'd think for someone whose job it is to investigate these sorts of things, she might think to look for a motive.
It doesn't take blood magic to have a good idea what's going on inside Leliana's head. Assuming she hasn't been taking any life advice from dead weeds. Again.

[Xilizhra]

Erm, perhaps Leliana and Cassandra didn't actually compare notes until Leliana showed up at the end of the game? I admit that's a stretch, but Leliana being quite that dumb doesn't fit with her Origins portrayal, so some stretch explanations may be necessary.
I mean, it doesn't seem Leliana told Cassandra anything, as she seemed to be totally unfamiliar with Hawke and Hawke's party.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 22 février 2012 - 02:29 .

[esper]

Leliana fails at being a spy so badly that it is almost hurting:
Hi, you who have a title of protector of the city and is spoke publically for the mages and is a mage (which is known in act 3), I am going to come with vague threaths and totally blame the mages, you are not going to get mad and misunderstand that, right?
Hi, elf-girl with Qunari title it is so lovely to see you again, I am just here and we are obviusly not trying to make a smoke screen in this conversation. (This might just be explainble as a smoke screen from both Tallis and Leliana, but the absolutely smartest thing from both of them would have been to act like they didn't know each other since at least past already meeting Leliana them knowing each other is supicious in itself).

[Rifneno]

Xilizhra wrote...

Erm, perhaps Leliana and Cassandra didn't actually compare notes until Leliana showed up at the end of the game? I admit that's a stretch, but Leliana being quite that dumb doesn't fit with her Origins portrayal, so some stretch explanations may be necessary.
I mean, it doesn't seem Leliana told Cassandra anything, as she seemed to be totally unfamiliar with Hawke and Hawke's party.

She talked to Hawke for about two minutes.  Anyway... why?  I don't remember Leliana displaying much intelligence or being good at much except seducing people so she could use them for her job.  Which is...   I don't really have a lot of respect for Leliana.  And by a lot, I mean any.

[Xilizhra]

I admit. The main reason I romanced Leliana was because she was my only option back in the unenlightened days of Origins, and I have a certain preference for Morrigan. But how could she be that skilled of a bard as she's been stated to be were she truly as bad at spying as you say she is?

[Rifneno]

Xilizhra wrote...

I admit. The main reason I romanced Leliana was because she was my only option back in the unenlightened days of Origins, and I have a certain preference for Morrigan. But how could she be that skilled of a bard as she's been stated to be were she truly as bad at spying as you say she is?

I don't think "enlightened" is exactly what I'd call it. That implies there's a superiority to an orientation. Also, Morrigan?! Trust is something you really need in a relationship, and trust is something Morrigan should never be given. By anyone. Ever. Zevran sucks too. Alistair was the only romance option in DAO I could stand, which sucked not just because we're both straight males so I have to play a femwarden but also because I prefer him on the throne. The ice princess may be great to have around when you need something flash frozen but keep her out of my throne room kthx.
But back to Leliana. I think she does alright in the spy gimmick from what I've seen (which doesn't include MoTA because the only interaction I want with the qunari is raining hellfire and brimstone). However I find her methods positively delorable. Overall as bad as Zevran. Perhaps worse since Zevran had no choice in becoming what he is and Leliana did. Although come to think of it, the spirit guarding Andraste's Ashes (or an ancient pot of used crystal meth, who knows) called her out on being an attention ****. Good spies are pretty much the opposite of attention ****s. Drawing attention to yourself when surrounded by the type of people that need to be spied on tends to earn you a pair of cement shoes. Wait, did they have cement back then? Eh. Anyway, I don't like her.

... This was a thread about Anders? So, umm... boo templars or something. There. Still on topic, I swear.

[Xilizhra]

I don't think "enlightened" is exactly what I'd call it. That implies there's a superiority to an orientation.

I'm not saying it's bad to be straight, but I do like expanded player choice in romances.

Also, Morrigan?! Trust is something you really need in a relationship, and trust is something Morrigan should never be given. By anyone. Ever.

Well, that's one reason I wasn't too broken up about sticking with Leliana, whom I at least thought was trustworthy. Now I'm less sure. But I think if you make it to Witch Hunt, Morrigan can be considered to be trustworthy. Also, is it me or do you play female characters in both games, because you like Alistair and Anders the most?

As for Leliana's methods... meh, seduction isn't nice, but spying as a whole isn't a nice profession. I'm not sure if it's especially deplorable.

[GavrielKay]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

We have numerous examples of Templars who aren't religious zealots, and the Divine was trying to reach a compromise. Obvioisly a compromise is, or at least was, possible. And as I said, it will always be the extremists on either side which will destroy all hope for peace. So for as long as Lord Seeker Lambert is in charge of the Templars, and Fiona and Adrian is in charge of the mages, no compromise will ever be reached.

Numerous examples of Templars who aren't zealots is debateable.  But, even someone like Gregoire who is arguably the highest ranking Templar we meet who seems to be able to think rationally, still isn't interested in real moves towards freedom for mages.  He seems quite content with the basic plan:  abduct the kids, lock them up, harrow (or Tranquil) them and then still keep nearly all of them locked up.

The problem with compromise is that right now the system is skewed SO FAR in favor of the Chantry, that you could argue the Chantry would feel they are making wonderful concessions to the mages while still barely moving the overall quality of mage life.

(mage slavery)                                                                                                    (mage freedom)
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
    ^ we are here                                                                                  we should be here ^

Do you really think even the moderates we've met in the Chantry/Templars have any interest in moving that marker very far?

Modifié par GavrielKay, 22 février 2012 - 05:54 .

[Lazy Jer]

Darkrider296 wrote...

I would actually argue their wearn't that many  innocent people. Chantry workers are blind to the world around them but I guess it really does depend on your perspective. I think what was happening to the Mages was awful, so believe that Anders needed to do somthing so big that none of this fake "neutrality" could go on. I believe his ends justified the means in the end but to each their own

I respectfully disagree with the notion of the Chantry workers not being innocent.  Being blind to how awful things are for the mages doesn't remove their status as innocents, if it did then one could justify assassinating most of Kirkwall in order to bring about the Kirkwall Rebellion. 

[Rifneno]

Xilizhra wrote...

I'm not saying it's bad to be straight, but I do like expanded player choice in romances.

Touche. Gameplay > realism.

Well, that's one reason I wasn't too broken up about sticking with Leliana, whom I at least thought was trustworthy. Now I'm less sure. But I think if you make it to Witch Hunt, Morrigan can be considered to be trustworthy. Also, is it me or do you play female characters in both games, because you like Alistair and Anders the most?

Usually, yes. I'll generally make a male character if I'm going to have them end up single. Ditto for ME, Shepaloo FTW. I wonder if 3 will have new romance choices. The ones from 1 & 2 were depressingly bad. The humans were jackasses, and the aliens... are aliens.
How does Witch Hunt make her trustworthy? Nothing she said has been verified. I'm especially weary of "Flemeth is the big bad, but you'll call me crazy if I explain so I'll just look concerned instead".

As for Leliana's methods... meh, seduction isn't nice, but spying as a whole isn't a nice profession. I'm not sure if it's especially deplorable.

Thought about it from her victims' point of view? Finding out one day that the woman they love is gone, everything they had together was a lie, and she was just using them to steal information which she's selling to their enemies... sounds pretty deplorable to me.

[Xilizhra]

How does Witch Hunt make her trustworthy? Nothing she said has been verified. I'm especially weary of "Flemeth is the big bad, but you'll call me crazy if I explain so I'll just look concerned instead".

Well, it seems as though she's lost that thing she had about refusing to love anyone, so she's majorly grown as a person. I'm willing to give her a chance.

Thought about it from her victims' point of view? Finding out one day that the woman they love is gone, everything they had together was a lie, and she was just using them to steal information which she's selling to their enemies... sounds pretty deplorable to me.

Love? I thought they were just in it for the sex, for the most part. I don't recall her faking romance.

[Lazy Jer]

Rifneno wrote...

Also, Morrigan?! Trust is something you really need in a relationship, and trust is something Morrigan should never be given. By anyone. Ever.

What's so bad about Morrigan?  I romanced her the first time I played through Dragon Age: Origins and I didn't see any reason not to trust her.  She disagreed with me on a lot of issues, but it's not like she was working for the darkspawn the whole time or anything.

Modifié par Lazy Jer, 22 février 2012 - 06:47 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

GavrielKay wrote...

Numerous examples of Templars who aren't zealots is debateable.  But, even someone like Gregoire who is arguably the highest ranking Templar we meet who seems to be able to think rationally, still isn't interested in real moves towards freedom for mages.  He seems quite content with the basic plan:  abduct the kids, lock them up, harrow (or Tranquil) them and then still keep nearly all of them locked up.

The problem with compromise is that right now the system is skewed SO FAR in favor of the Chantry, that you could argue the Chantry would feel they are making wonderful concessions to the mages while still barely moving the overall quality of mage life.

(mage slavery)                                                                                                    (mage freedom)
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
    ^ we are here                                                                                  we should be here ^

Do you really think even the moderates we've met in the Chantry/Templars have any interest in moving that marker very far?

Mage "freedom" should only ever happen the day a mage can walk around truly without the danger of possession, and the day all traces of blood magic has been erased from the world. Until then, mages are gonna have to cope with limitations. What these limitations should be, is debatable, and consensus can only ever be reached through debate, not open warfare.

[GavrielKay]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Mage "freedom" should only ever happen the day a mage can walk around truly without the danger of possession, and the day all traces of blood magic has been erased from the world. Until then, mages are gonna have to cope with limitations. What these limitations should be, is debatable, and consensus can only ever be reached through debate, not open warfare.

And the debate ends with the idea that the majority are somehow entitled to enslave the minority in order to feel safe.  Modern morality has pretty much dismissed that as rubbish.  There is no "right to feel safe" that trumps someone else's right to be free - at least up until that someone else actually commits a crime. 

That's why no one on the mage side thinks compromise will be possible.  Because even the notion that anyone has the "right" to imprison innocent mages is already an extreme viewpoint.  There is no compromise with someone who starts out with the complete conviction that they are justified in keeping you prisoner for life - "just in case."

[General User]

GavrielKay wrote...

(mage slavery)                                                                                                    (mage freedom)
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
    ^ we are here                                                                                  we should be here ^

Be fair.  Include the rest of the scale.

(opression of mages)                       (mage freedom)                     (oppression by mages)
|---------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
    ^ we are here              we should be here ^



And it isn't just about mages either.  What about the public's right to be protected from blood mages and abominations?

(complete safety)                     (responsible restrictions on mages)            (no restrictions for mages)
|---------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
                           ^ we are here                    ^we should be here



Not to mention hanging over all this is the spectre of anarchy and chaos where EVERYBODY loses.  Moderation is a key concept.  It has nothing to do with making concessions to various extremists and everything to do with striking a reasonable balance between rights and responsibilities, between ideals and reality.

Modifié par General User, 22 février 2012 - 07:29 .