269 réponses à ce sujet

[Dakota Strider]

Perhaps this is far too simple of a solution. But instead of spending all the time to keep mages locked up so that you can watch them, in case they become possessed, why don't the Chantry and the Circle (cooperating together) seek to find a way to protect a mage from possession, so that they can live freely outside the Circle?

Even mages that wish for freedom, cannot argue that an untrained, careless, or weak mage is not only a danger to himself, but can do a huge amount of harm to all around him. And even most templars and Chantry priests realize that locking up people, simply for how they were born, is wrong.

So it seems that some effort could be made that would be a step forward for all. A piece of enchanted headwear or jewelry that would block a mage from entering the Fade in dreams (thoughts of tinfoil hats, cannot help it). Or perhaps a herbal potion that would do a similar thing.

Perhaps the reason nothing like this has been suggested before, is because it would remove a massive story line in the DA universe? Or...maybe I am giving away plans for DA3. Hard to say, but you would think, that where there is a will, there is a way, and something could be done in this regard. There would still obviously be the same prejudices against mages, but with this type of solution, things would become much more tolerable for mages. Templars could concentrate on hunting down blood mage criminals, rather than keeping 6 year old kids and the elderly in detention homes. Except for the worst criminals (who would probably be executed anyways), there would no longer be the need to turn a mage Tranquil, just because they did not have the will power to combat a demon in his dreams.

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 20 avril 2012 - 04:18 .

[the_one_54321]

berelinde wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
And the point of bringing up the Bracillian Forest as an example is because places like that do not generate random abominations and devastate towns. They are places that people know about, because of their storied history.

On the contrary, they do. Apart from the Revenants and various forms of skeletons, camping at the abandoned camp site in the West Brecillian Forest pits one of your party solo against several powerful demons. Again, no mage summons them. They are just there because the Veil is thin.

The Revenants are something entirely different. They are sealed in places, not generated by those places.

The other things are not abominations. And they don't occur without warning in the middle of cities. Someone encountering a Shade in a haunted area is not going to drop a firestorm in the middle of a busy town. Nothing generates that kind of situation except an untrained or unscrupulous mage.

[the_one_54321]

Dakota Strider wrote...
Even mages that wish for freedom, cannot argue that an untrained, careless, or weak mage is not only a danger to himself, but can do a huge amount of harm to all around him.

Even a trained mage can go bad, under the right(wrong) circumstances. After all these pages of discourse, I'm still seeing the Qunarri method as the most sure and effective.

Unless mages can actually demonstrate a group dedication to preventing people like Anders ever having their way.

[Dakota Strider]

The Qunari method is just slavery, with a stricter master. With the Circle, there may at least be hope for freedom, because you see freedom all around you. The Qunari has their entire society enslaved/indoctrinated, so that those within it, do not even have an idea of what freedom is all about.

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 20 avril 2012 - 04:34 .

[the_one_54321]

Ideally, no one wants to have mage's tongues cut out and keep them on leashes. That's horrible. But if people like Anders are not brought into line and forced to comply with safety measures, I don't see any other method for keeping non-mages safe from mages.

[berelinde]

@the_one_54321:

Shades can possess people. The reason only one person remains awake through that encounter is that the lower-willpower party members are overcome by the shades. Possession would be possible, if the character that remains conscious falls in battle. If you want more clarification about what separates possession from becoming an abomination, you'll have to talk to Wynne in DA:O.

I understand that you're trying to make a point, and to a certain extent, you are right. Demons have an easier time with mages, but they are not restricted to mages. I have not read Asunder, so using it to support a point is dicey, but isn't there a possessed Tranquil in there somewhere? Killing every mage at birth will only thin the veil further, allowing more demons through. Ultimately, the plan would be unsuccessful, since magic can crop up in any family at any time. It's far better to give mages the means to protect themselves from possession and enable them to become invested in their community's and family's wellbeing.

The templars have been using isolation and destruction as a way to control mages. It has not worked.

Not every mage is Anders. Not every templar is Alrik or Meredith, either.

[the_one_54321]

Obviously, cooperation and a system of education and monitoring is the best solution for everyone. But it seems like almost all of the important people involved are dead set on having a war over it.

[berelinde]

Yup. That's what DA3 is probably going to be about. Trying to achieve some kind of truce between the two groups. Considering that one group is steamed about centuries of segregation and abuse and the other group is in the throes of lyrium withdrawal, it should be interesting.

[the_one_54321]

Dakota Strider wrote...
The Qunari method is just slavery, with a stricter master. With the Circle, there may at least be hope for freedom, because you see freedom all around you. The Qunari has their entire society enslaved/indoctrinated, so that those within it, do not even have an idea of what freedom is all about.

Sten;
"You are a Gray Warden yet you know little of your own order. You do not know yourself or what you are for. It was cruel of your people to leave you this way. The Temaserand see that all Qunarri know themselves." 

"What makes it mine? It was theirs to begin with. They knew me before I was born. I was birthed on the day they chose, placed in the world by their hands. When I die, it will be the Temaserand who will note my passing. I am their work. What I do is for my people, always."

Modifié par the_one_54321, 20 avril 2012 - 06:32 .

[Silfren]

Trista Faux Hawke wrote...

I kind of liked the whole mage vs. templar thing. I saw the mages as being just as religious as the templars, by the way. It reminded me of a Christian vs. Pagan sort of situation.

Personally, I found myself less and less in support of the mages as the game went on. In most of the quests, mages seemed to be the backbone of the turmoil. (It wasn't all the time, and yeah a lot of them blamed the templars, but it was all subjective anyway...)

Whether they were using blood magic and conjuring demons, or if Orisino, himself, is hooking some serial killer up with the literature needed to behead my mother and animate her corpse - yeah I hated the mages by the end of that game. It didn't matter anyway, because you had to fight both sides in the end.

I think its more apt to say that the correlation is closer to doctrinal conflicts between Catholics and Protestants, than Christians and Pagans.  The majority of people in Thedas are some flavor of Andrastian.  There's a few quasi-atheists (see: Aveline), but by and large the argument is less "which god to worship" and more about "how to worship this god."  After all, mages are raised directly under Chantry religious doctrine, moreso than anyone else in Thedas.  Anders in particular is an excellent example of a mage who, despite being in open rebellion against the Chantry's position toward mages, nevertheless embraces the basic doctrine of the Maker's existence, and also the belief that Andraste was the Maker's beloved prophet, even though these doctrines stem from the very organization he loathes.  We see the same in Wynne, to a lesser extent.  But in a loose sense, Anders could be construed as a type of Martin Luther.

[The Elder King]

Silfren wrote...

[

I think its more apt to say that the correlation is closer to doctrinal conflicts between Catholics and Protestants, than Christians and Pagans.  The majority of people in Thedas are some flavor of Andrastian.  There's a few quasi-atheists (see: Aveline), but by and large the argument is less "which god to worship" and more about "how to worship this god."  After all, mages are raised directly under Chantry religious doctrine, moreso than anyone else in Thedas.  Anders in particular is an excellent example of a mage who, despite being in open rebellion against the Chantry's position toward mages, nevertheless embraces the basic doctrine of the Maker's existence, and also the belief that Andraste was the Maker's beloved prophet, even though these doctrines stem from the very organization he loathes.  We see the same in Wynne, to a lesser extent.  But in a loose sense, Anders could be construed as a type of Martin Luther.

With the exception that Martin Luther didn't put a bomb and killed a lot of people.
But anyway, I agree that mages-templars resemble more the conflict between Catholics and Protestants than the conflict between Christians and Pagans.

[LobselVith8]

hhh89 wrote...

With the exception that Martin Luther didn't put a bomb and killed a lot of people.
But anyway, I agree that mages-templars resemble more the conflict between Catholics and Protestants than the conflict between Christians and Pagans.

In his eyes, Anders killed people who were members of an organization that institutes slavery against his people. The view that the Chantry controlled Circles are slavery is shared by the historical Aldenon the Great and even a pro-mage Hawke. Even the mage protagonist can condemn the Circle of Ferelden as oppressive. It's not a black and white issue.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 21 avril 2012 - 03:24 .

[The Elder King]

LobselVith8 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

With the exception that Martin Luther didn't put a bomb and killed a lot of people.
But anyway, I agree that mages-templars resemble more the conflict between Catholics and Protestants than the conflict between Christians and Pagans.

In his eyes, Anders killed people who were members of an organization that instiutes slavery against his people. The view that the Chantry controlled Circles are slavery is shared by the historical Aldenon the Great and even a pro-mage Hawke. Even the mage protagonist can condemn the Circle of Ferelden as oppressive. It's not a black and white issue.

Are you referring to the analogy between Anders and MLK?
In that case, I'm not debating if the Circle is an oppressive-slavery organization or not.
I'm saying that Anders doesn't resemble MLK, because MLK believed in a peaceful protest. Anders put bombs in a Chantry, killing innocent people. They might share a fight against an oppressore of their people, but their methods are completely different.

Modifié par hhh89, 21 avril 2012 - 03:31 .

[Silfren]

hhh89 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

[

I think its more apt to say that the correlation is closer to doctrinal conflicts between Catholics and Protestants, than Christians and Pagans.  The majority of people in Thedas are some flavor of Andrastian.  There's a few quasi-atheists (see: Aveline), but by and large the argument is less "which god to worship" and more about "how to worship this god."  After all, mages are raised directly under Chantry religious doctrine, moreso than anyone else in Thedas.  Anders in particular is an excellent example of a mage who, despite being in open rebellion against the Chantry's position toward mages, nevertheless embraces the basic doctrine of the Maker's existence, and also the belief that Andraste was the Maker's beloved prophet, even though these doctrines stem from the very organization he loathes.  We see the same in Wynne, to a lesser extent.  But in a loose sense, Anders could be construed as a type of Martin Luther.

With the exception that Martin Luther didn't put a bomb and killed a lot of people.
But anyway, I agree that mages-templars resemble more the conflict between Catholics and Protestants than the conflict between Christians and Pagans.

eyeroll*  There's a reason I said LOOSELY.  I didn't mean for it to be taken as an exact parallel, and said as much.  Snarkily comments about Martin Luther not bombing anyone has nothing to do with the reason I made the comparison in the first place.  Note that the first part of my comment was pointing out that the conflict is less comparable to "Christians vs. Pagans" than to "Catholics vs. Protestants."  Anders was against the Chantry's policy on mages and clearly didn't agree with the Chantry's assertion that Andraste endorsed the Circle system, but he also just as clearly believed wholeheartedly in Andraste herself, and by extension the Maker.  Hence my saying he could loosely be compared with Luther.

[Silfren]

hhh89 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

With the exception that Martin Luther didn't put a bomb and killed a lot of people.
But anyway, I agree that mages-templars resemble more the conflict between Catholics and Protestants than the conflict between Christians and Pagans.

In his eyes, Anders killed people who were members of an organization that instiutes slavery against his people. The view that the Chantry controlled Circles are slavery is shared by the historical Aldenon the Great and even a pro-mage Hawke. Even the mage protagonist can condemn the Circle of Ferelden as oppressive. It's not a black and white issue.

Are you referring to the analogy between Anders and MLK?
In that case, I'm not debating if the Circle is an oppressive-slavery organization or not.
I'm saying that Anders doesn't resemble MLK, because MLK believed in a peaceful protest. Anders put bombs in a Chantry, killing innocent people. They might share a fight against an oppressore of their people, but their methods are completely different.

......no.  Not Martin Luther King, Jr.  Martin Luther.  Big difference between the two.  Martin Luther, the man for whom MLK was named.  

Wow.  It occurred to me that someone might assume I referred to MLK, but I really hoped that the context of Catholics vs Protestants might be the clue that I was talking about Martin Luther, of the Protestant Reformation

Modifié par Silfren, 21 avril 2012 - 05:14 .

[Zkyire]

hhh89 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

With the exception that Martin Luther didn't put a bomb and killed a lot of people.
But anyway, I agree that mages-templars resemble more the conflict between Catholics and Protestants than the conflict between Christians and Pagans.

In his eyes, Anders killed people who were members of an organization that instiutes slavery against his people. The view that the Chantry controlled Circles are slavery is shared by the historical Aldenon the Great and even a pro-mage Hawke. Even the mage protagonist can condemn the Circle of Ferelden as oppressive. It's not a black and white issue.

Are you referring to the analogy between Anders and MLK?
In that case, I'm not debating if the Circle is an oppressive-slavery organization or not.
I'm saying that Anders doesn't resemble MLK, because MLK believed in a peaceful protest. Anders put bombs in a Chantry, killing innocent people. They might share a fight against an oppressore of their people, but their methods are completely different.

Reformation, not a civil rights movement.

Different man, centuries before

[The Elder King]

@Silfren, Zkyire: yeah, I misunderstood the person. In Italy some famous people of the past have their name translated in Italian. We call Luther "Lutero", whil MLK's name is the same. My mind immedialely went to MLK, since I know the other, Luther, as "Lutero". Though I should've understood by your post

Silfren wrote...



eyeroll*  There's a reason I said LOOSELY.  I didn't mean for it to be taken as an exact parallel, and said as much.  Snarkily comments about Martin Luther not bombing anyone has nothing to do with the reason I made the comparison in the first place.  Note that the first part of my comment was pointing out that the conflict is less comparable to "Christians vs. Pagans" than to "Catholics vs. Protestants."  Anders was against the Chantry's policy on mages and clearly didn't agree with the Chantry's assertion that Andraste endorsed the Circle system, but he also just as clearly believed wholeheartedly in Andraste herself, and by extension the Maker.  Hence my saying he could loosely be compared with Luther.

Regardless of Anders's analogy with Luther, I already said that the conflict is more similar to the Western Schism than the conflict between Pagans and Christians.
The mages in Kirkwall, as well as Anders, believe in Andraste.. They are against the Circle system estabilished by the Chantry, not in the faith on Andraste.
Yes, there is an analogy between Anders and Luther, ince they are against the religious organizations (Chantry and the Catholic Church/Pope) and not in the religions. Still, their method are plently different. I pointed on the bomb with my comment because I believe that Anders's actions in Act 3 were wrong. He triggered a war that will cause a lot of death, and it could even open the way to the Qunari's invasion, which ironically will make the mage's treatment worse than it was before. He killed innocent people to start a war. No matter how right you could be, a terroristic act is alway wrong.

[Silfren]

hhh89 wrote...

@Silfren, Zkyire: yeah, I misunderstood the person. In Italy some famous people of the past have their name translated in Italian. We call Luther "Lutero", whil MLK's name is the same. My mind immedialely went to MLK, since I know the other, Luther, as "Lutero". Though I should've understood by your post

Silfren wrote...



eyeroll*  There's a reason I said LOOSELY.  I didn't mean for it to be taken as an exact parallel, and said as much.  Snarkily comments about Martin Luther not bombing anyone has nothing to do with the reason I made the comparison in the first place.  Note that the first part of my comment was pointing out that the conflict is less comparable to "Christians vs. Pagans" than to "Catholics vs. Protestants."  Anders was against the Chantry's policy on mages and clearly didn't agree with the Chantry's assertion that Andraste endorsed the Circle system, but he also just as clearly believed wholeheartedly in Andraste herself, and by extension the Maker.  Hence my saying he could loosely be compared with Luther.

Regardless of Anders's analogy with Luther, I already said that the conflict is more similar to the Western Schism than the conflict between Pagans and Christians.
The mages in Kirkwall, as well as Anders, believe in Andraste.. They are against the Circle system estabilished by the Chantry, not in the faith on Andraste.
Yes, there is an analogy between Anders and Luther, ince they are against the religious organizations (Chantry and the Catholic Church/Pope) and not in the religions. Still, their method are plently different. I pointed on the bomb with my comment because I believe that Anders's actions in Act 3 were wrong. He triggered a war that will cause a lot of death, and it could even open the way to the Qunari's invasion, which ironically will make the mage's treatment worse than it was before. He killed innocent people to start a war. No matter how right you could be, a terroristic act is alway wrong.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.  There is no singular, concrete definition for what precisely constitutes terrorism, and the reason for this is simply that once there is a singular, universal definition, any government which concedes to it necessarily has to acknowlege whatever actions in its history, especially recent history, fall under that definition.  Certain real-world governments are notorious for screwing with how they define terrorism in order to ensure that none of their own actions can be categorized accordingly.  

There are a great many actions throughout history which caused the deaths of innocent people, but which are not considered terrorist acts by many, if not most, people. 

It depends a great deal--arguably ENTIRELY--on a people's perspective.  This is why I really just kind of scoff at the idea that terrorism is always wrong.  Because if the deaths of innocent people is the crucial bit that makes the action inherently wrong, then ANY act which leads to the death of innocents is wrong, and that describes pretty much every act of aggression, everywhere, throughout history.

There is a point at which the question stops being about whether terrorism is wrong because innocents are killed, and starts being about whether it is justified, regardless of the innocent death toll.  Again, if it is the deaths of innocents that make an action inherently wrong, always, no matter what, than EVERY SINGLE ACT OF AGGRESSION thereby becomes unjustifiable.  Not even self-defense becomes permissable under that rule of thought.  The Allies could not have taken up arms against the ****s in WW2, etc. 

By that logic, Andraste's war against the Tevinter Imperium was absolutely wrong.  Doesn't matter that she was trying to topple a tyrannical regime.  Doesn't matter that she was trying to free slaves.  Doesn't matter that the Tevinter Imperium was evil and corrupt.  Unless you seriously believe that none of Andraste's people killed any innocents at all.  Which is simply not true, because innocent people are ALWAYS killed, even by the "good guys" any time a war takes place.  It is inevitable.  

The ends sometimes do justify the means.  In war, the means is killing people, and it is simply not feasible that some measure of innocent people are not going to be caught in the cross-fire.  But if the ends is the end of an evil institution, then yes, the ends does justify that means.  

And make no mistake about it, war IS terrorism. 

[The Elder King]

Silfren wrote...

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.  There is no singular, concrete definition for what precisely constitutes terrorism, and the reason for this is simply that once there is a singular, universal definition, any government which concedes to it necessarily has to acknowlege whatever actions in its history, especially recent history, fall under that definition.  Certain real-world governments are notorious for screwing with how they define terrorism in order to ensure that none of their own actions can be categorized accordingly. 

I agree, there is no concrete or universal definition of terrorism. Ander's actions was terrorism by my definition of terrorism.

There are a great many actions throughout history which caused the deaths of innocent people, but which are not considered terrorist acts by many, if not most, people. 
It depends a great deal--arguably ENTIRELY--on a people's perspective.  This is why I really just kind of scoff at the idea that terrorism is always wrong.  Because if the deaths of innocent people is the crucial bit that makes the action inherently wrong, then ANY act which leads to the death of innocents is wrong, and that describes pretty much every act of aggression, everywhere, throughout history.

There is a point at which the question stops being about whether terrorism is wrong because innocents are killed, and starts being about whether it is justified, regardless of the innocent death toll.  Again, if it is the deaths of innocents that make an action inherently wrong, always, no matter what, than EVERY SINGLE ACT OF AGGRESSION thereby becomes unjustifiable.  Not even self-defense becomes permissable under that rule of thought.  The Allies could not have taken up arms against the ****s in WW2, etc. 

As I said previously, yes, the definition of terrorism is based on people's perspective.
There are some cases in which you have to use force. If someone attacks you, it's foolish to think I'd stay still and let him kill me. The aggressor is, in my opinion, alway wrong, while the defender is, under certain limits, "justified" in using force.
Referring to WW2's example, it was necessary that the Allies fought against the Axis. They had to free the conquered nations. It was necessary to conquer Germany to put an end to the war. It could happen that civilians died, yes, but it was necessary to put an end to the war.
The Dresda bombardment, howewer, and the launch of the two atomic bombs, weren't justified (especially the first, since the Allies would've conquered the Germany regardless of the bombardment). So, in my opinion, those actions were wrong.

By that logic, Andraste's war against the Tevinter Imperium was absolutely wrong.  Doesn't matter that she was trying to topple a tyrannical regime.  Doesn't matter that she was trying to free slaves.  Doesn't matter that the Tevinter Imperium was evil and corrupt.  Unless you seriously believe that none of Andraste's people killed any innocents at all.  Which is simply not true, because innocent people are ALWAYS killed, even by the "good guys" any time a war takes place.  It is inevitable. 

I should point that my view on aggression is different in DA of my view of aggression in real life. In DA (as well as in the Middle Age) war is perfectly justified. This should be obvious, since the law is different from ours. In DA the law doesn't forbid war, as it's forbidden in our international law
Howewer, that doesn't mean I justify every actions in war. A war is mainly foughy by the armies. Innocents may die, yes. Howewer, if soldiers in a war conquer an enemy's village and kill all the people in the village, that isn't justified.
Rallying the mages into rebellion and freeing them from the Chantry isn't wrong. Starting a war against the Chantry to achieve freedom isn't wrong. Howewer, this is not what Anders did.
Andraste's case is different from Anders's. She didn't rally the slaves by blowing up a Tevinter's palace full of magisters. She rally the slaves into an army to fight against the Tevinter's Imperium, and mainly against its army.
Did Andraste's army kill innocent people in their march? Yes. But in war, this something that could happen.
Anders didn't start a war. He blew up innocent people.
In theory, if Meredith wasn't completely insane, or if the K-C wasn't an extremist, she would've arrested and executed Anders, and find if the Circle was plotting with him. The war might not have started. It was Meredith's action that lead to the war.  Anders didn't start a war, attacking the templars (the Chantry's army). He attacked innocent people, which only fault was believing in the Maker.
The two situation are different. Andraste's actions are justified, not Anders. And not because of the fact that Anders represent the mages. If he did ont of the thing I said at the start of this part of my post, his actions would've been justified in my logic.

The ends sometimes do justify the means.  In war, the means is killing people, and it is simply not feasible that some measure of innocent people are not going to be caught in the cross-fire.  But if the ends is the end of an evil institution, then yes, the ends does justify that means.  

And make no mistake about it, war IS terrorism. 

Yes, ends sometimes justify the means. Innocents may be casualties. And if a war is necessary, those deaths could be justified.
That doesn't mean that every innocent's deaths in war is justified. The Dresda's bombardment weren't necessary or justified.
As well, Anders' actions, in my logic, aren't justified. He didn't fought against templars and some innocents was caught in the cross-fire. His targets were the innocent people in the Chantry, and not only Elthina (since otherwise he could've killed just Elthina). He wanted to kill those innocents (and he understands that they deserve justice).
That's why I can't say that his actions were justified by his goal.
About war=terrorism, I don't know. I'm not enough expert in the field to say if it's true or not. I'd say, howewer, that war is wrong, as well as terrorism.

Modifié par hhh89, 21 avril 2012 - 10:19 .

[Dakota Strider]

I think a more accurate comparison of the Mages/Templars, to our real world would be Lepers' Colonies and the monastic orders that normally ran them, during the Middle Ages, or before.

Lepers were shunned by most people, as people feared they would catch the disease from them. Mages are shunned by most people, as they are afraid they will use blood magic, turn into abominations, or spawn demons.

Lepers were often locked up, for the safety of the outside world. Mages are locked up for the safety of the outside world.

Lepers do not choose to become lepers, which is the same for mages. People for the most part, choose their religion. Even if they are born into it, they are usually able to denounce it, if they choose.

Lepers' colonies had a reputation of being terrible places. So do mage circles. The order that watches over mages, generally want what is best for the population as a whole. The same can be said of those that ran the lepers colonies.

People in authority can be cruel to mages. So can those that are in charge of segregating lepers.

I do not know if the monastic orders that ran the lepers' colonies had a "templar" branch. However, they probably had their guards, and security, which could be considered the same.

Both the real world example and the Dragon Age problem have the same type of moral dilemmas. Lepers were shut away from others, because of fear. The danger may not have actually been as bad as our ancestors' fears, but it without modern research and medicine, the fears seemed justified to them.

Leprosy can now be cured in many cases. In DA, the only cure at this time is to make the mage Tranquil. Perhaps a different sort of cure will be discovered that allows mages to remain who they are, without the danger of being snared by demons in their dreams. If something like this could be developed, I think the fear of mages would be reduced drastically. Much as modern medicine has removed most of the fear of leprosy in our world.

[Silfren]

Dakota Strider wrote...

Leprosy can now be cured in many cases. In DA, the only cure at this time is to make the mage Tranquil. Perhaps a different sort of cure will be discovered that allows mages to remain who they are, without the danger of being snared by demons in their dreams. If something like this could be developed, I think the fear of mages would be reduced drastically. Much as modern medicine has removed most of the fear of leprosy in our world.

The glaring problem with this would be the issue of those mages who did not want to be "cured" of their magic.

Mages such as Owain who request Tranquility out of fear of demons are one matter.  So are mages who prove beyond any doubt that they are too dangerous as mages, too willing to delve into truly dangerous magics, too willing to use magic to dominate others.  

What about those mages who are deemed too weak-willed to even undergo the Harrowing?  You can bet that there will be mages who the Chantry decides are too dangerous, for whatever reason, without really giving the mage a fighting chance.  This is already part of the lore of Dragon Age. 

There will be mages who'll say "Um, wait a minute, I don't WANT to lose my magic, even if I do retain my emotional capacity.  What gives you the right to condemn me to this "cure" just because you pre-emptively decide I'm not able to deal with it?" 

Something similar to Tranquility that severs a mage's powers without severing their emotions might be considered progress in a lot of ways, and it undoubtedly is.  But so long as it can be applied by force, either legally or through illegal-but-generally-overlooked-means, there will be conflict from mages who resent having it forced upon them.

[Dakota Strider]

@Silfren. Sorry, I did not say it plain enough in that post (as I explained it earlier at the top of page 9). When I say cure mages...I do not mean remove their magic. I mean develop a method, either through an item, or a potion of some sort, that will protect them from being possessed by demons. It may stop them from entering the Fade when they use it, or it just may block a demon's attempt to control them.

It would still leave the danger of blood mages, so templars would not be irrelevant. Blood magic, even though it may not always be done for criminal purposes, still has too much potential for abuse, that society would not be comfortable with allowing that to be legal.

But, being able to protect mages from being possessed in their dreams, might remove the need for a Circle, that scoops up kids at the age of 6 or less, to live in a gilded prison their whole lives. The Circle would still be a place of learning, but a voluntary one, not mandatory.

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 22 avril 2012 - 02:57 .

[Silfren]

hhh89 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.  There is no singular, concrete definition for what precisely constitutes terrorism, and the reason for this is simply that once there is a singular, universal definition, any government which concedes to it necessarily has to acknowlege whatever actions in its history, especially recent history, fall under that definition.  Certain real-world governments are notorious for screwing with how they define terrorism in order to ensure that none of their own actions can be categorized accordingly. 

I agree, there is no concrete or universal definition of terrorism. Ander's actions was terrorism by my definition of terrorism.

There are a great many actions throughout history which caused the deaths of innocent people, but which are not considered terrorist acts by many, if not most, people. 
It depends a great deal--arguably ENTIRELY--on a people's perspective.  This is why I really just kind of scoff at the idea that terrorism is always wrong.  Because if the deaths of innocent people is the crucial bit that makes the action inherently wrong, then ANY act which leads to the death of innocents is wrong, and that describes pretty much every act of aggression, everywhere, throughout history.

There is a point at which the question stops being about whether terrorism is wrong because innocents are killed, and starts being about whether it is justified, regardless of the innocent death toll.  Again, if it is the deaths of innocents that make an action inherently wrong, always, no matter what, than EVERY SINGLE ACT OF AGGRESSION thereby becomes unjustifiable.  Not even self-defense becomes permissable under that rule of thought.  The Allies could not have taken up arms against the ****s in WW2, etc. 

As I said previously, yes, the definition of terrorism is based on people's perspective.
There are some cases in which you have to use force. If someone attacks you, it's foolish to think I'd stay still and let him kill me. The aggressor is, in my opinion, alway wrong, while the defender is, under certain limits, "justified" in using force.
Referring to WW2's example, it was necessary that the Allies fought against the Axis. They had to free the conquered nations. It was necessary to conquer Germany to put an end to the war. It could happen that civilians died, yes, but it was necessary to put an end to the war.
The Dresda bombardment, howewer, and the launch of the two atomic bombs, weren't justified (especially the first, since the Allies would've conquered the Germany regardless of the bombardment). So, in my opinion, those actions were wrong.

By that logic, Andraste's war against the Tevinter Imperium was absolutely wrong.  Doesn't matter that she was trying to topple a tyrannical regime.  Doesn't matter that she was trying to free slaves.  Doesn't matter that the Tevinter Imperium was evil and corrupt.  Unless you seriously believe that none of Andraste's people killed any innocents at all.  Which is simply not true, because innocent people are ALWAYS killed, even by the "good guys" any time a war takes place.  It is inevitable. 

I should point that my view on aggression is different in DA of my view of aggression in real life. In DA (as well as in the Middle Age) war is perfectly justified. This should be obvious, since the law is different from ours. In DA the law doesn't forbid war, as it's forbidden in our international law
Howewer, that doesn't mean I justify every actions in war. A war is mainly foughy by the armies. Innocents may die, yes. Howewer, if soldiers in a war conquer an enemy's village and kill all the people in the village, that isn't justified.
Rallying the mages into rebellion and freeing them from the Chantry isn't wrong. Starting a war against the Chantry to achieve freedom isn't wrong. Howewer, this is not what Anders did.
Andraste's case is different from Anders's. She didn't rally the slaves by blowing up a Tevinter's palace full of magisters. She rally the slaves into an army to fight against the Tevinter's Imperium, and mainly against its army.
Did Andraste's army kill innocent people in their march? Yes. But in war, this something that could happen.
Anders didn't start a war. He blew up innocent people.
In theory, if Meredith wasn't completely insane, or if the K-C wasn't an extremist, she would've arrested and executed Anders, and find if the Circle was plotting with him. The war might not have started. It was Meredith's action that lead to the war.  Anders didn't start a war, attacking the templars (the Chantry's army). He attacked innocent people, which only fault was believing in the Maker.
The two situation are different. Andraste's actions are justified, not Anders. And not because of the fact that Anders represent the mages. If he did ont of the thing I said at the start of this part of my post, his actions would've been justified in my logic.

The ends sometimes do justify the means.  In war, the means is killing people, and it is simply not feasible that some measure of innocent people are not going to be caught in the cross-fire.  But if the ends is the end of an evil institution, then yes, the ends does justify that means.  

And make no mistake about it, war IS terrorism. 

Yes, ends sometimes justify the means. Innocents may be casualties. And if a war is necessary, those deaths could be justified.
That doesn't mean that every innocent's deaths in war is justified. The Dresda's bombardment weren't necessary or justified.
As well, Anders' actions, in my logic, aren't justified. He didn't fought against templars and some innocents was caught in the cross-fire. His targets were the innocent people in the Chantry, and not only Elthina (since otherwise he could've killed just Elthina). He wanted to kill those innocents (and he understands that they deserve justice).
That's why I can't say that his actions were justified by his goal.
About war=terrorism, I don't know. I'm not enough expert in the field to say if it's true or not. I'd say, howewer, that war is wrong, as well as terrorism.

Firstly, I have to point out that there is no may in the question of whether innocents die in war.  Innocents DO die in war.  Always.  Always have and always will, world without end.  It is the very nature of war that innocent persons always die.  Which is not to say that I'm trying to be dismissive of those innocent deaths.  It always sucks balls when innocent people die, especially when they die merely because they had the supreme misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrongest possible time. 

I maintain, however, that if you believe that a war is necessary, then you also accept that innocent people are going to die as part and parcel of that acknowledgement. 

This is what I think Anders did.  He didn't believe the deaths he caused by blowing up the Chantry were justified, but he did believe his action was necessary for the larger question of mage freedom.  Whether something is just, or whether it is necessary...the two concepts are not always synonymous.

Bear in mind that none of us actually have a clue what Andraste did.  We know that she was a conquerer who led armies against the Imperium, and that history--much of which is written by the Chantry--claims she did it in the Maker's name, freeing slaves and breaking the power of the Magisters along the way.  But don't pretend that this means we have a clue how she went about it.  She may very well have blown up a few buildings.  She may have done any number of things that you would class as terrorism.  She may have had followers who did it while she looked the other way, endorsing their actions thereby.  It could be that she rallied the slaves by first giving them hope by blowing up a building full of Magisters.  Given that part of the institution of slavery involves breaking the will and spirit of slaves, I'd contend that such an action could be considered necessary in order to give slaves a concrete symbol of hope--a reason to rebel in the first place.  Pure speculation on my part, but it is entirely within the realm of possibility that Andraste was just as willing to blow up buildings as was Anders. 

Look into the actual, historical life of any number of heroic figures and in many cases you'll find that the reality is much darker and nastier than the legend. 

We do know that there are codices which hint at natural disasters, spinning it as the Maker showing his support for Andraste and her armies by using his divine powers against her enemies.  Considering there is also lore hinting that some groups believe that Andraste was an unusually powerful mage, well....  There's a rather strong case to be made that Andraste herself used her mage abilities to cast down the Imperium, and that either she, or her later followers, re-cast the entire thing into the Chantry mythology we have in the present day.  I would argue that a mage using that scope of power to rain death down upon her enemies is something akin to a terrorist under your definition.  Because there's no way that innocent people didn't get caught up in that.

Anders DID start the war.  It was precisely his action that led Meredith to hers.  Yes, she had already sent for the Right of Annulment previously, but the fact remains that she was denied.  It was Anders act of killing the Grand Cleric that paved the way for Meredith to declare the Right necessary without needing the Grand Cleric's consent and also having a convenient excuse to explain her actions later on, should the Divine investigate the matter.  So it cannot be said that Anders actions were divorced from the entire affair.  He blew up the Chantry specifically because he knew it was that action that would lead to the war.  The conflict had been smoldering for a while, but it was Anders that finally created the spark that started the blaze going.  You're saying that he didn't start a war, he killed innocent people.  What you're overlooking, deliberately or not, I can't tell, is that he killed those people for the purpose of starting his war.  You can't look at those things as separate.  Anders wasn't looking to just kill people out of hate.  He wanted to start a war, and he went about it through exploding the Chantry.  The people inside the building were incidental to that action, excepting the Grand Cleric herself.

I assert that he wasn't actually targeting those people, but targeting the Chantry itself.  The Chantry, after all, is a symbol of religious, political, and military power.  I firmly believe that Anders' only actual human target was the Grand Cleric.  His actions would not have netted the same effect had he blown up any other building with innocent people, and they wouldn't have had the same effect had he isolated the Grand Cleric and killed her without hurting anyone else.  The other people in the Chantry and anyone who got Chantry debris rained down on their heads weren't targets, just people that Anders accepted would die as an unfortunate result of his targeting of the Chantry.

Anders did not want a localized rebellion.  He did not want to wage a personal rebellion for his own freedom.  He wanted mages throughout Thedas to rise up in open rebellion, and this is why he blew up the Chantry.  Attacking the templars of Kirkwall would not have had a world-wide effect. 

Nor was he in a position to simply spread sedition.  It is rather difficult to do that when the bulk of the world's mages are locked up behind stone walls, watched closely, and only permitted limited freedom of movement and correspondence under closely scrutinized circumstances.  This is why he blew up the Chantry: there was no other way to trigger the war he wanted.  He'd already seen the lackluster efforst of mages attempting to reform the Chantry through non-violent channels.  He understood that more of this was simply going to result in another thousand years of the same thing.  And since the system of locking mages away and closely watching them already gelded the aforementioned attempt at spreading sedition through other means was far too inefficient, he chose a method that would guarantee instant results.  

I'm not arguing whether the deaths of those people he killed were justified, though I WILL state right up that I do believe the death of the Grand Cleric was.  I am arguing that Anders blowing up of the Chantry was necessary.  Horrible, sure.  But necessary regardless.


Edit: Crap.  I'm not the only one doing it, but I just realized this is a pretty spoilerish post in the no-spoilers forum. 

Modifié par Silfren, 22 avril 2012 - 03:21 .

[Dakota Strider]

Yes, killing the High Cleric, who was the only one keeping Meredith in check, made lots of sense. Why not just assassinate Meredith. Just as easy to do, And the death would have been seen as justified by far more people. Some of them even templars. And it probably been enough to cause the break in the Circle and the Chantry. That was the goal, right? Or was it just vengeance?