2008 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Plaintiff wrote...

If an embassy acts as a command and or communication centre for military troops in a time of war, then yes, I would say that during such a war, it would be a valid military target. But a Chantry is more than a embassy, it is a direct source of oppression and, in concept, wields a great deal of political and military power in its own right. The Chantry spreads the dogma that causes people to fear mages, it makes the laws that govern how mages are treated and it recruits the violent zealots that 'protect' them. It's not 'connected' to the conflict, it is directly involved, so no, it's not a civilian building.

But I'm not just asking if Anders actions qualify as terrorism (although given the varied definitions I'm getting, I'm still not convinced that they are), I'm asking why his actions are morally worse than a legitimate act of war, where the exact same atrocity may be committed by a government or an organization, as opposed to an individual, and those responsible will get a free pass.

No. An embassy, regardless of its role in communicating information to military targets, is not a valid military target. Do a Google search on what the Geneva Convention guarantees as embassy rights.

Spies, enemy combatants, war criminals... all can find safe haven in their home country's embassy. It is considered a protected area, free of any military reprisal. The only means of communicating are through modes of diplomacy. That's the whole point of an ambasssy - it is a safe place where diplomacy is the only option. If you go to full out war against a country, you STILL don't close down their embassy (if you still have one, they can and do close in countries during violent times) because even during war, there is still need for diplomacy (trading prisoners of war, determining terms of treaties/surrender,etc.).

But that aside, what makes what Anders did worse than an act of war was two things.

One, there was no war declared. Anders says himself that what he did will very well START a war, but there was not one currently going on. 

I hate to use the September 11 attacks as an example since it is such a highly charged issue, especially when discussing terrorism, but I feel it demonstrates my point. In a terrorist attack, members of a fringe group attacked and killed over 2000 Americans on U.S. soil. America was not at war with this group, its fundamentalist branch of Islam, the Taliban political party in control of its country or the country itself where the attacks were coordinated. It was regarded as one of the worst tragedies in American history. Now, in this war against Afghanistan, over 2000 troops have been killed, many more Afghan civilians and enemy combatants as well. This is not viewed as a larger tragedy, because it IS war. People are expected to die, even in larger numbers and killing possibly more civilians.

Regardless of the right/wrong/indifferent mindset of this (let alone the actual politcal ramifications of it) its a reality. When you are at war, it is expected and calculated that people will die. When you are not at war, it is not considered a viable course of action to kill, especially killing those who are civilians. You can say the mages being oppressed puts the mages at war with the Templars, but thats not true. No declaration of war was made, no offer of recourse or diplomacy was offered, it was just an attack without warning on those who only indirectly caused the injustice Anders was fighting against.

My second point - he killed civilians, indiscriminately. People in the chantry were not ALL connected with the Templars, did not ALL have connections with the Divine that could request Meredith's removal, did not ALL have any stake in the Mage/Templar conflict at all. There were likely many scribes, and altar boys, and novices looking to just learn to be priests so they could go out in the world and help people. To kill these people because of some perceived threat the building and the leaders in it might pose is what is known as a "war crime." And it, even in times of war, is illegal, prosecutabel and is generally regarded as one of the most heinous acts a person can do.


So... Anders did all of the above - attacked an embassy, killed civilians and all without a formal declaration of war. If he had gone to trial, he would have been convicted and executed, even by the most unbiased of juries. I went ahead and just saved them the effort of finding one.

[Fast Jimmy]

Urzon wrote...

I'm a mage supporter. I just don't agree with Anders on 75% of his plans after the whole "Lets kill the nice templar outside to free all these mages" plan.

And yes, Anders is a terrorist after he bombed the Chantry. You can argue against it all you want, saying it was a military center and whatnot, but the Chantry was still a public gathering place and center. After he bombed it, it caused civil unrest and dare i say it.... terror in the general population.

What was that definition again...

Oh yes! The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

That fits Anders to a T after Act 3.

I wouldn't even MIND if he had attacked the Templars to free the Mages. But he attacked a place that was not a valid military target. That makes him a criminal. And an ineffective one, at that. He could have attacked the Templars from the get go, and freed more mages than were killed by the Annulment. At the end, we see more Templars standing than mages (regardless of which side you choose) which is a shame. If he had coordinated a mass jail break and killed lots of Templars in the process, I would have had much less problem with his actions. As is, he just made things worse for everyone involved.

[MichaelFinnegan]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

A dangerous zealot who likes to punish innocent people for his ideals who is driven bonkers by a powerful entity.(Meredith = Idol, Anders = Justice)

To the extent that both believed that collateral damage was acceptable (by their own confessions) to further their own ends, perhaps, yes.

soccerchick wrote...

Anders
is the same as Meredith? Anders is far worse than Meredith. Both hide
behind great causes to promote their own agendas. But Meredith doesn't
blow the **** out places full of mages.

In either case, the victims stood no chance. The point was not to give mages a head start or a fighting chance; rest assured, Meredith's sole objective was to slaughter each and every mage in that Circle, blood mage or not.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Plaintiff wrote...

Elthina's cowardly failure to act in the face of Meredith's obvious tyranny not just to mages, but all of Kirkwall, makes her just as culpable for the abuses of the Templars as the individuals she is supposed to control. She deserves to die and I'm only sorry she wasn't forced to endure the same amount of suffering as the mages under her care.

Nobody in that Chantry was "innocent". The Chantry, and yes, every member of its clergy, is repsonsible for creating the culture of abuse and bigotry that mages have to endure. The Chantry controls the Templars, it is a military power. The fact that Elthina failed to rein in Meredith doesn't make her 'innocent', it makes her incompetent.

I see Elthina in a different light. Perhaps she was caught in circumstances beyond the level of control that she, as a person, was willing to exercise. I remember one circumstance in the game where she says that people should/will learn to resolve problems by themselves. It tells me she was opting for a hands-off approach to things, perhaps having a greater faith in people. But that unfortunately left things in the hands of Meredith, who wasn't exactly the most just or fair of KCs, to put it lightly.

The problem lies in exactly the structure of the system, which puts more and more powers into the hands of a few people, somehow hoping that those people remain just/fair (even if there is an objective meaning to such terms, which there isn't).

Even if there are innocents in there, why should Anders give a ****? Why should any mage? Why should they care about a world that denies them family, friends, freedom, love, all of the basic things that make life worth living? Why do you expect them to show compassion for others when none is given to them?

That all people were denying mages their freedom is suspect. We hear of circumstances within the game where templars complain about ordinary folk helping mages escape the tyranny of the Kirkwall Circle.

The idea of freedom is a difficult one. I strongly believe that if one's goal is to achieve freedom, it cannot be had if one starts off by denying it to others. One ought to hold oneself to a higher standard. And there is another reason, what one might consider more practical: do mages really have a chance to succeed by creating more enemies, of not only templars but also ordinary folk? The condition for the Kirkwall mages is an especially difficult one - they not only have to get out of their misery in the short term; but also they need to continue to exist in the longer term.

Anders is the product of a system that Elthina and the Chantry helped to perpetuate. If you  create a monster, you don't get to complain when it stomps on your house.

It is perhaps true to an extent that if the appointed representatives of a people goes and does harm unto others, its people are also to be accountable, whether they directly did harm or not. But alas the situation isn't that simple or even the causes as apparent.

I think force of habit lulls people to sleep sometimes, when mages and civilians alike come to accept their respective conditons. And only when circumstances for some of the folks really goes out of hand (as it does for mages in Kirkwall, and as I believe it inevitably would have) that people begin to take notice. Perhaps seeds for rebellion are laid this way.

I sometimes wonder at this. Where exactly does the problem lie? And what, if any, is the solution?

In the context of DA, it is the Circle system which was created to address problems in the near term (after the debacle, viz. the Tevinter Imperium), and which unfortunately stayed beyond its welcome. Over time, that system put more or less everyone to sleep, into a false sense of security. It failed to evolve; it failed to take new and changing situations into consideration. Where I believe mages should have gradually been able to move back into general society, their restrictions persisted. The figurative abominations, which I believe are the RoA and RoT, were proposed as permanent solutions to problems, making fear rampant. And with more apparent monsters, like Alrik, who specialize in denying freedom to folks as much as they can, the system took a turn for the worse.

The problem lies in the rigidity of systems that fail to evolve. It lies with the people who fall under its aegis and are lulled into false senses of security. It lies in all those who fail to understand the significance of change, and how change is more or less a given. And, yes, it lies in general with people who misunderstand the significance of freedom, and how it applies in relation to others in society.

Sorry for the long rant. I may have gone off in several tangents.

[DKJaigen]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Urzon wrote...

I'm a mage supporter. I just don't agree with Anders on 75% of his plans after the whole "Lets kill the nice templar outside to free all these mages" plan.

And yes, Anders is a terrorist after he bombed the Chantry. You can argue against it all you want, saying it was a military center and whatnot, but the Chantry was still a public gathering place and center. After he bombed it, it caused civil unrest and dare i say it.... terror in the general population.

What was that definition again...

Oh yes! The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

That fits Anders to a T after Act 3.

I wouldn't even MIND if he had attacked the Templars to free the Mages. But he attacked a place that was not a valid military target. That makes him a criminal. And an ineffective one, at that. He could have attacked the Templars from the get go, and freed more mages than were killed by the Annulment. At the end, we see more Templars standing than mages (regardless of which side you choose) which is a shame. If he had coordinated a mass jail break and killed lots of Templars in the process, I would have had much less problem with his actions. As is, he just made things worse for everyone involved.

This is beyond stupid. Let me give you the basics of warfare 101. War is about destroying the organisation that creates hostile forces and not the actual hostile forces itself. So what is the chantry responsible for. let see: finances, recruitment, training, education , logistics and command centre for the templars. Any military commander that says that this is not a target should be stripped of his post. What you describe is simply killing a bunch of soldiers that will get replaced. In short: pointless. In fact what you are trying to do will cause far more suffering because you needlesly extend the a war because of some misguided morals. Their is a reason why Szun tzu insisted that wars have to be resolved quickly.

[GavrielKay]

levi.porphyrogenitus wrote...

I'd like to throw in the Enigma of Kirkwall here. The city itself was pretty clearly designed to promote the thinning of the veil to enable mages more easily to contact spirits. This manifested in rather extreme numbers of abominations and blood mages arising, both within and without the circle. The sheer volume of such incidents would suggest that Meredith was more right than not in her mistrust of local mages, since the very environment of the city was working to corrupt them.

Or perhaps it would suggest that the Chantry were collective idiots to keep the mages in Kirkwall?  Seriously, if they didn't know the Tevinters did some crazy stuff, then at the very least they could look around and think, wow, these mages are the worst anywhere, even new ones we move into town who've never been trouble before.  Just how many centuries have to go by before someone thinks, "gee, I wonder if we should move the mages somewhere else?"

Also, keep in mind that Orsino, the one charged with running the circle itself, was not only a blood mage himself but was knowingly aiding and abetting a rogue blood mage serial killer in his obscene experiments. If the First Enchanter is so utterly corrupted, then how can you trust any of the mages under his care? Really, it's a wonder that Meredith and the templars didn't wake up one day to find themselves all dead or mind controlled.

Also, keep in mind we have no idea just how much Orsino knew or supported.  There's no reason to think Orsino knew that Quentin was killing women and assembling a jigsaw puzzle zombie from them.  We also don't know if he was a practising blood mage before the moment he went stupid.  And with Meredith's trusting and forgiving nature (ha!), who's to blame Orsino for not telling her yet another horror story about a mage gone bad.

... and he did it despite all the evidence that he had (and potentially all the arguments of an anti-blood-magic Hawke) that the mages of Kirkwall were dangerous (even moreso than mages everywhere already are).

He did it knowing the Chantry would never trust mages, would never give them freedom and was in Kirkwall's case, keeping them in the absolutely worst possible environment for EVERYone's safety.  You've got mages horribly abused in a place where the veil is thin - something Anders would know from the Enigma.  It seems a bit short sighted to blame the mages for being driven crazy and then doing crazy things.

If you have an abused dog who becomes vicious, do you blame the dog or the owner?

The Chantry created the situation in Kirkwall.  They kept the mages in a stupid place and then let Meredith and her crew treat them at best with no respect and at worst with torture.  They created the problem and then point to the result and try to use it to justify continuing their ruthlessness.

[Gibran2011]

"Hatred should be directed properly or you become what you hated."
Thats what happened with Anders I think, his zealous support for mages made him the same to templars and chantry as Meredith was to the mages. Anyhow I am a great mage supporter so still support Anders but I do acknowledge his actions were not justified and right.

[PrinceLionheart]

Dalira Montanti wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

A dangerous zealot who likes to punish innocent people for his ideals who is driven bonkers by a powerful entity.(Meredith = Idol, Anders = Justice)

Have you played the dao expansion?
Anders is hardly to blame its the spirit with in him in awkening's he sees the "injustice" the mages face and he asked Anders why he wont fight back

Anders never wanted to fight he was laied back and worried about the little things in life

And it was Anders anger that corrupted Justice turning him into Vengeance. Anders admits as much in the first conversation with him.

[Sons of Horus]

PrinceLionheart wrote...

Dalira Montanti wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

A dangerous zealot who likes to punish innocent people for his ideals who is driven bonkers by a powerful entity.(Meredith = Idol, Anders = Justice)

Have you played the dao expansion?
Anders is hardly to blame its the spirit with in him in awkening's he sees the "injustice" the mages face and he asked Anders why he wont fight back

Anders never wanted to fight he was laied back and worried about the little things in life

And it was Anders anger that corrupted Justice turning him into Vengeance. Anders admits as much in the first conversation with him.

How Reliable Is Anders when you meet him though ? I think he was well on his way to going out of his mind at the time Hawke meets him . Anders kind of reminds me of an addict who's either understating his conditon or Is truly unaware of how much hes lost control by then .

[PrinceLionheart]

Sons of Horus wrote...

PrinceLionheart wrote...

Dalira Montanti wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

A dangerous zealot who likes to punish innocent people for his ideals who is driven bonkers by a powerful entity.(Meredith = Idol, Anders = Justice)

Have you played the dao expansion?
Anders is hardly to blame its the spirit with in him in awkening's he sees the "injustice" the mages face and he asked Anders why he wont fight back

Anders never wanted to fight he was laied back and worried about the little things in life

And it was Anders anger that corrupted Justice turning him into Vengeance. Anders admits as much in the first conversation with him.

How Reliable Is Anders when you meet him though ? I think he was well on his way to going out of his mind at the time Hawke meets him . Anders kind of reminds me of an addict who's either understating his conditon or Is truly unaware of how much hes lost control by then .

That's why I don't support Anders, no matter how sympathetic he may or may not be. Even if it wasn't really "Anders fault" he's going to keep killing again regardless. He's Morinth 2.0.

[Plaintiff]

PrinceLionheart wrote...

Sons of Horus wrote...

PrinceLionheart wrote...

Dalira Montanti wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

A dangerous zealot who likes to punish innocent people for his ideals who is driven bonkers by a powerful entity.(Meredith = Idol, Anders = Justice)

Have you played the dao expansion?
Anders is hardly to blame its the spirit with in him in awkening's he sees the "injustice" the mages face and he asked Anders why he wont fight back

Anders never wanted to fight he was laied back and worried about the little things in life

And it was Anders anger that corrupted Justice turning him into Vengeance. Anders admits as much in the first conversation with him.

How Reliable Is Anders when you meet him though ? I think he was well on his way to going out of his mind at the time Hawke meets him . Anders kind of reminds me of an addict who's either understating his conditon or Is truly unaware of how much hes lost control by then .

That's why I don't support Anders, no matter how sympathetic he may or may not be. Even if it wasn't really "Anders fault" he's going to keep killing again regardless. He's Morinth 2.0.

So true. Just look at that godless monster. Squatting in the sewer, healing refugees and writing manifesto after manifesto for seven years. What an inhuman beast, he makes me sick.

[Fast Jimmy]

DKJaigen wrote...

This is beyond stupid. Let me give you the basics of warfare 101. War is about destroying the organisation that creates hostile forces and not the actual hostile forces itself. So what is the chantry responsible for. let see: finances, recruitment, training, education , logistics and command centre for the templars. Any military commander that says that this is not a target should be stripped of his post. What you describe is simply killing a bunch of soldiers that will get replaced. In short: pointless. In fact what you are trying to do will cause far more suffering because you needlesly extend the a war because of some misguided morals. Their is a reason why Szun tzu insisted that wars have to be resolved quickly.

Destroying the Chantry building did nothing to weaken the Templars for the attack that was to follow. Hawke and all of the mages still had to fight the entire Templar force, even after Anders attack. Meanwhile, Anders' attack let Meredith enact the Right of Annulment and kill many mages, who would have otherwise been useful allies in the fight against the Templars.

So... you're telling me that Sun Tzu would have suggested a suprise attack that does nothing at all to injure the force you are opposing, diminish your own forces and ruin any sort of element of surprise? How would any of that cause war to be done more quickly?

If Anders was to destroy the headquarters of the Divine in Orlais, I could maybe buy this defense, as this would effectively cripple many lines of communication and order. But bombing the Chantry building, with limited military significance, when you knew the Right of Annulment would be enacted right afterwards and the mages would be called into battle, is idiocy.

If you're going to quote The Art of War, please make sure you understand its principles. Attacking a weak target immediately prior to a large battle and reveal the nature of your intent is act of foolishness. If this wasn't a video game, the mages would have been slaughtered to a man for Anders' actions.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 31 décembre 2011 - 03:56 .

[PrinceLionheart]

Plaintiff wrote...

PrinceLionheart wrote...

Sons of Horus wrote...

PrinceLionheart wrote...

Dalira Montanti wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

A dangerous zealot who likes to punish innocent people for his ideals who is driven bonkers by a powerful entity.(Meredith = Idol, Anders = Justice)

Have you played the dao expansion?
Anders is hardly to blame its the spirit with in him in awkening's he sees the "injustice" the mages face and he asked Anders why he wont fight back

Anders never wanted to fight he was laied back and worried about the little things in life

And it was Anders anger that corrupted Justice turning him into Vengeance. Anders admits as much in the first conversation with him.

How Reliable Is Anders when you meet him though ? I think he was well on his way to going out of his mind at the time Hawke meets him . Anders kind of reminds me of an addict who's either understating his conditon or Is truly unaware of how much hes lost control by then .

That's why I don't support Anders, no matter how sympathetic he may or may not be. Even if it wasn't really "Anders fault" he's going to keep killing again regardless. He's Morinth 2.0.

So true. Just look at that godless monster. Squatting in the sewer, healing refugees and writing manifesto after manifesto for seven years. What an inhuman beast, he makes me sick.

Heal people and then blow up a church just to make a statement such a saint. 

[PrinceLionheart]

Plaintiff wrote...

PrinceLionheart wrote...

Sons of Horus wrote...

PrinceLionheart wrote...

Dalira Montanti wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

A dangerous zealot who likes to punish innocent people for his ideals who is driven bonkers by a powerful entity.(Meredith = Idol, Anders = Justice)

Have you played the dao expansion?
Anders is hardly to blame its the spirit with in him in awkening's he sees the "injustice" the mages face and he asked Anders why he wont fight back

Anders never wanted to fight he was laied back and worried about the little things in life

And it was Anders anger that corrupted Justice turning him into Vengeance. Anders admits as much in the first conversation with him.

How Reliable Is Anders when you meet him though ? I think he was well on his way to going out of his mind at the time Hawke meets him . Anders kind of reminds me of an addict who's either understating his conditon or Is truly unaware of how much hes lost control by then .

That's why I don't support Anders, no matter how sympathetic he may or may not be. Even if it wasn't really "Anders fault" he's going to keep killing again regardless. He's Morinth 2.0.

So true. Just look at that godless monster. Squatting in the sewer, healing refugees and writing manifesto after manifesto for seven years. What an inhuman beast, he makes me sick.

Heal people and then blow up a church just to make a statement such a saint. 

[Urzon]

Plaintiff wrote...
So true. Just look at that godless monster. Squatting in the sewer, healing refugees and writing manifesto after manifesto for seven years. What an inhuman beast, he makes me sick.

I wouldn't say he was a monster, but Anders+Vengence after Act 3 would come pretty close. What was one of the lines he says in the game? Something along the lines of "I will kill anyone who stands in the way of the freedom of mages"?

Even if it's for a good cause, the killing of anyone (mostly innocents) to further a goal makes you a monster. I only say he isn't a monster, because monsters don't feel remourse. I always keep him alive after the Chantry bombing so he gets to deal with all the emotions backlash of having the blood of innocents on his hands. If Vengence has just a little bit of Justice in it left, you know it would eat him up as well.

Death is the cowards way out, and i wouldn't let Anders escape that easy.

[Gabey5]

they both are good for their causes.

She wanted to end the mage threat and was going to so sooner rather than later, purging the circle is the best way to do that

He wanted to gain freedom for his people, removing the chance for any compromise was the thing to do.

So yes they are the same in that they will do whatever it takes to meet their objectives

[Plaintiff]

PrinceLionheart wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

PrinceLionheart wrote...

Sons of Horus wrote...

PrinceLionheart wrote...

Dalira Montanti wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

A dangerous zealot who likes to punish innocent people for his ideals who is driven bonkers by a powerful entity.(Meredith = Idol, Anders = Justice)

Have you played the dao expansion?
Anders is hardly to blame its the spirit with in him in awkening's he sees the "injustice" the mages face and he asked Anders why he wont fight back

Anders never wanted to fight he was laied back and worried about the little things in life

And it was Anders anger that corrupted Justice turning him into Vengeance. Anders admits as much in the first conversation with him.

How Reliable Is Anders when you meet him though ? I think he was well on his way to going out of his mind at the time Hawke meets him . Anders kind of reminds me of an addict who's either understating his conditon or Is truly unaware of how much hes lost control by then .

That's why I don't support Anders, no matter how sympathetic he may or may not be. Even if it wasn't really "Anders fault" he's going to keep killing again regardless. He's Morinth 2.0.

So true. Just look at that godless monster. Squatting in the sewer, healing refugees and writing manifesto after manifesto for seven years. What an inhuman beast, he makes me sick.

Heal people and then blow up a church just to make a statement such a saint. 

He spent seven years searching for a peaceful solution when there wasn't one.

The Chantry is not a church, the two cannot be correlated.

He was doing more than making a statement.

[Urzon]

Plaintiff wrote...
He spent seven years searching for a peaceful solution when there wasn't one.

The Chantry is not a church, the two cannot be correlated.

He was doing more than making a statement.

Anders had been planning on doing something big against the Chantry since Act 2, if not eariler. If Anders actions towards templars and the Chantry all threw out the game are anything to go by, none of his possible solutions could be consider "peaceful" by any means.

And yes, the Kirkwall Chantry he blew up is the Andrastian equivalent to a church.

Modifié par Urzon, 31 décembre 2011 - 08:39 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

Lord Aesir wrote...

@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.

The main difference between justice and vengeance is dependent on whether or not one seeks recourse to an established law (which the person being wronged has come to agree with). One who seeks justice would look to bring the wrongdoer to the authorities and seek for recompense. Whereas the one who seeks vengeance simply wants to get back at the wrongdoer, without appealing to the authorities, thereby disregarding the established law. And in neither case is a guilt-by-association implied.

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

Yes, that issue about being unable to perceive who is good/bad was a failing of Anders' sanity, a blind rage, if you will. I suppose the spirit of Justice (that would warp into the spirt of Vengenace at times) was just a part of what the spirt actually embodied. There were other (more insane) things at work inside Anders, whether of his own volition or otherwise.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

If an embassy acts as a command and or communication centre for military troops in a time of war, then yes, I would say that during such a war, it would be a valid military target. But a Chantry is more than a embassy, it is a direct source of oppression and, in concept, wields a great deal of political and military power in its own right. The Chantry spreads the dogma that causes people to fear mages, it makes the laws that govern how mages are treated and it recruits the violent zealots that 'protect' them. It's not 'connected' to the conflict, it is directly involved, so no, it's not a civilian building.

But I'm not just asking if Anders actions qualify as terrorism (although given the varied definitions I'm getting, I'm still not convinced that they are), I'm asking why his actions are morally worse than a legitimate act of war, where the exact same atrocity may be committed by a government or an organization, as opposed to an individual, and those responsible will get a free pass.

No. An embassy, regardless of its role in communicating information to military targets, is not a valid military target. Do a Google search on what the Geneva Convention guarantees as embassy rights.

I'm not sure I agree with what you've written above. If an embassy violates its role (which comprises of things such as safeguarding the citizens of the country it represents, promoting diplomatic relations between the host and representative countries) by participating in wartime hostilities, I'd imagine it can no longer claim diplomatic immunity, neither of itself nor of the people it protects.

And again, I'm not sure how you're applying the Geneva Convention to embassy rights, which is not what the convention is about. Geneva Convention(s) exists to ensure humane treatment of civilians (of other countries) and even prisoners of war. The main point is that a person is entititled to protection under international law, only so long as he is not anymore engaged in hostilities with the host country. To the extent that I can understand it, it doesn't imply any kind of embassy rights.

If, during wartimes, the embassy of a warring country engages in wartime activities, then I'm not sure what the established protocol is. Whether it'd simply be asked to close its offices or whether it'd be considered an active militiary threat, and therefore subject to the same treatment as any other threat.

Spies, enemy combatants, war criminals... all can find safe haven in their home country's embassy. It is considered a protected area, free of any military reprisal. The only means of communicating are through modes of diplomacy. That's the whole point of an ambasssy - it is a safe place where diplomacy is the only option. If you go to full out war against a country, you STILL don't close down their embassy (if you still have one, they can and do close in countries during violent times) because even during war, there is still need for diplomacy (trading prisoners of war, determining terms of treaties/surrender,etc.).

Insofar as the embassy or the ones who seek its protection don't engage in active hostilities with the host country, I suppose what you've said above makes sense.

[GavrielKay]

Regardless of methods used, I think someone fighting to maintain oppression is different than someone fighting to end it.

[Plaintiff]

Urzon wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
He spent seven years searching for a peaceful solution when there wasn't one.

The Chantry is not a church, the two cannot be correlated.

He was doing more than making a statement.

Anders had been planning on doing something big against the Chantry since Act 2, if not eariler. If Anders actions towards templars and the Chantry all threw out the game are anything to go by, none of his possible solutions could be consider "peaceful" by any means.

And yes, the Kirkwall Chantry he blew up is the Andrastian equivalent to a church.

You would know this because you can read the minds of video game characters, yes? What 'other solutions' was Anders cooking up? I'm curious.

Whatever you think he was planning, all actual evidence shows that Anders spent the better part of a decade printing pamphlets and hiding them around the city. Annoying, perhaps, but no more violent or harmful than Jehoviah's Witness.

There are several fundamental differences between the Chantry of Thedas and a 'church' as the term is understood today. The comparison is false. And even if it wasn't, being a 'church' doesn't mean blowing it up is automatically a bad thing to do. If a church allowed and even endorsed the atrocities that the Kirkwall Chantry does, I would wholeheartedly support its destruction.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 01 janvier 2012 - 05:46 .

[Adanu]

Lord Aesir wrote...

She was doing quite well until Anders killed her

I know you're being serious here, but did you actually pay attention during act 3? Everyone and their goddamn mother was speaking out against Meredith and she did nothing while the insane woman turned half the city against her.

If you think that's doing well, you should reexamine your priorities.

[Fast Jimmy]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

I'm not sure I agree with what you've written above. If an embassy violates its role (which comprises of things such as safeguarding the citizens of the country it represents, promoting diplomatic relations between the host and representative countries) by participating in wartime hostilities, I'd imagine it can no longer claim diplomatic immunity, neither of itself nor of the people it protects.

And again, I'm not sure how you're applying the Geneva Convention to embassy rights, which is not what the convention is about. Geneva Convention(s) exists to ensure humane treatment of civilians (of other countries) and even prisoners of war. The main point is that a person is entititled to protection under international law, only so long as he is not anymore engaged in hostilities with the host country. To the extent that I can understand it, it doesn't imply any kind of embassy rights.

If, during wartimes, the embassy of a warring country engages in wartime activities, then I'm not sure what the established protocol is. Whether it'd simply be asked to close its offices or whether it'd be considered an active militiary threat, and therefore subject to the same treatment as any other threat.

I misspoke, I meant the Vienna Convention, not the Geneva.

Silly European cities and their conventions.

Oftentimes, the embassy gives notice to evacuate all residents within the country, then begins evacuating its own staff once was is officially declared. However, in my example, no declaration of war was given, unless you count the bombing itself, so it is a bit of a moot point for this conversation.

Insofar as the embassy or the ones who seek its protection don't engage in active hostilities with the host country, I suppose what you've said above makes sense.

I wouldn't say that the Chantry participated in any active hostilities. They supported the Templars, but the Chantry itself did not commit any atrocities. I maintain that what Anders did is more akin to blowing up an embassy (the Chantry) instead of blowing up a military base (Templar headquarters).