462 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

-TC1989- wrote...

Silfren wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

*previous quoted posts all mercifully snipped*

Fair enough, I guess all the sympathy I saw you give Anders, just almost seemed like a contradiction? But as long as we can agree the Templars have their reasons for being cautious (sometimes too strongly) then I'm good to go.

I am sympathetic to Anders because I think he was right, and because I think he was right, I think he was justified in his action.  I don't care that the Templars have their reasons for being cautious, their reasons for being cautious do not justify the Circle in its present state.  The need for caution does not justify tyranny.  You can enact cautionary measures without incarcerating and enslaving mages just for existing.  That is what my position has always been.

But hold up. So when all the people in the Chantry were killed by him, you say that you support him, that you don't kill him. I just can't  get past how you think all those deaths were justified. Anders was mistreated, of course he was, but to do what he did in retaliation? I mean he HAD to know that Meredith was going to go off the deep end. I don't think theres alot of Knight-Commanders though who wouldn't have freaked out after something like that happened.

Anders didn't blow up the Chantry in retaliation for the ways it mistreated him, that's just silly.  He did it as an act of war against an institution that oppresses mages.  Agree with him or not, that's WHY he did it. 

The general consensus among most people, mage supporters and Templar supporters alike, is that Anders blew up the Chantry for the very reason that he knew it would create a situation where the mages were forced to fight for their lives.  Whether he specifically thought Meredith would call for Annulment, or that the Divine would hear about it and order an Exalted March on Kirkwall, I dunno, but he clearly thought something drastic would be called in response. 

Look, I'm not saying I'm celebrating the deaths of those people.  But since this is a game, a story, I'm sufficiently removed from it to be able to sympathize with the act of destruction in a way I couldn't otherwise.  No, I won't pretend otherwise: were I actually Hawke and Anders had been my constant companion/lover, and he did THIS?  I'd probably be so eaten alive with guilt from associating with him--unwittingly helping him--that I'd be driven to suicide in the end. 

Part of my reasoning is that after 9/11 I spent quite a lot of time reading up not just on terrorists, but also the conditions that create them, because like it or not, terrorists aren't demons that pop into existence from nothing, they are people who are driven to extreme measures out of desperation and rage because their efforts at less violent means are rejected at every turn.  I also spent a lot of time reading up on the proper way to deal with them, and how many of our (my government's) reactions tend to create more terrorists by validating, however unintentionally, the claims terrorists make about us when trying to dredge up sympathy for their cause.  When terrorists tell their non-terrorist neighbors that you're an evil, torturing jerk, and you gran an innocent person and torture them, what you've just done is convince someone who might have been sympathetic, that their terrorist friend was right about you, so hey, maybe they've got a point, and they should sign up. 

I see this dynamic played out in Thedas time and again.  The Chantry spreads propaganda gainst mages, indoctrinates mages themselves with self-hatred in many cases, and then wonders why mages act like the monsters they're portrayed as being.  This environment is the perfect breeding ground for creating many mage terrorists who might otherwise never have been discontent.

So yes, I sympathize with Anders' position.  I agree with him completely that the Chantry is a system of oppression and must be dismantled.  Blowing up the Chantry wouldn't have been my first suggestion, but I actually do think that such a violent and extreme action was necessary, because neither Anders nor anyone else had any reason to believe that things were ever going to change otherwise. I see it as less an act of terrorism than an act of war.  The Chantry, particularly the one he targeted, is a military target, it ain't the little corner church down on Main Street, with no political power to do anything more than spread gossip.  And Elthina wasn't an innocent bystander, she was the highest ranking Chantry official in Kirkwall...well, the highest ranking official in all the Free Marches, actually.  Anders didn't target innocent civilians.

[Silfren]

IanPolaris wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

Silfren wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

*previous quoted posts all mercifully snipped*

Fair enough, I guess all the sympathy I saw you give Anders, just almost seemed like a contradiction? But as long as we can agree the Templars have their reasons for being cautious (sometimes too strongly) then I'm good to go.

I am sympathetic to Anders because I think he was right, and because I think he was right, I think he was justified in his action.  I don't care that the Templars have their reasons for being cautious, their reasons for being cautious do not justify the Circle in its present state.  The need for caution does not justify tyranny.  You can enact cautionary measures without incarcerating and enslaving mages just for existing.  That is what my position has always been.

But hold up. So when all the people in the Chantry were killed by him, you say that you support him, that you don't kill him. I just can't  get past how you think all those deaths were justified. Anders was mistreated, of course he was, but to do what he did in retaliation? I mean he HAD to know that Meredith was going to go off the deep end. I don't think theres alot of Knight-Commanders though who wouldn't have freaked out after something like that happened.

Hate to say it Sifren, but I agree with TC on this one.  I agree with Ander's arguments (as well you know), but I can't get past him being a Mass Murderer and an indiscriminate one at that.  Even Anders admits his guilt.  In my mind there is only one appropriate action in response to such a crime:

Execution.

-Polaris

*shrug* Nobody said all we mage sympathizers had to agree on every point. 

Part of it is that I don't see him as a mass murderer.  He targeted the Chantry itself, rather than the entire city that the Chantry sat on.  And there's juuuuust enough ambiguity in the scene of the Chantry blowing sky high that several people have reported their belief that when they first saw it, they thought it looked like a controlled explosion that was designed somehow to shoot upward high enough to then blast out far from the city.  In other words, more than one person has come away from that scene thinking it looked as though Anders at least tried to restrict his bomb to the Chantry and minimize the death toll.  Admittedly, I was flummoxed the first time I read one of those, but when I went back and re-watched that scene, I could see what they were talking about, and it's a point that's been raised at least four times that I know of.  So that makes me think it's possible to make a case for Anders targeting ONLY the Chantry officials, and nobody else, and again, I think that makes his action one of war, not terrorism. 

Anders admits his guilt, sure, but that doesn't mean I'm obligated not to look at what he did and think that he was quite justified. 

I have to say, again, though, that you could argue that death is not appropriate for Anders because it's just what he wants.  It's hardly a punishment when he WANTS to die.  And anyway I agree with Merrill that he doesn't get to do something so drastic and then get out of dealing with the repercussions.  No bloody way is my Hawke going to let him leave her to clean up his mess.  I don't think death is appropriate because it's the easy way out.  Anders should be forced to live with what he's done, if he's not capable of killing himself, then I'm not going to do it for him just to let him avoid facing his actions.

[IanPolaris]

Sifren, the difference is I don't particularly care what a terrorist thinks (even if I agree with his or her ultimate motives). That terrorist deserves to die. Period.

I don't care what other terrorists might think. Anything less IMHO is not justice.

-Polaris

[-TC1989-]

Silfren wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

Silfren wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

*previous quoted posts all mercifully snipped*

Fair enough, I guess all the sympathy I saw you give Anders, just almost seemed like a contradiction? But as long as we can agree the Templars have their reasons for being cautious (sometimes too strongly) then I'm good to go.

I am sympathetic to Anders because I think he was right, and because I think he was right, I think he was justified in his action.  I don't care that the Templars have their reasons for being cautious, their reasons for being cautious do not justify the Circle in its present state.  The need for caution does not justify tyranny.  You can enact cautionary measures without incarcerating and enslaving mages just for existing.  That is what my position has always been.

But hold up. So when all the people in the Chantry were killed by him, you say that you support him, that you don't kill him. I just can't  get past how you think all those deaths were justified. Anders was mistreated, of course he was, but to do what he did in retaliation? I mean he HAD to know that Meredith was going to go off the deep end. I don't think theres alot of Knight-Commanders though who wouldn't have freaked out after something like that happened.

Anders didn't blow up the Chantry in retaliation for the ways it mistreated him, that's just silly.  He did it as an act of war against an institution that oppresses mages.  Agree with him or not, that's WHY he did it. 

The general consensus among most people, mage supporters and Templar supporters alike, is that Anders blew up the Chantry for the very reason that he knew it would create a situation where the mages were forced to fight for their lives.  Whether he specifically thought Meredith would call for Annulment, or that the Divine would hear about it and order an Exalted March on Kirkwall, I dunno, but he clearly thought something drastic would be called in response. 

Look, I'm not saying I'm celebrating the deaths of those people.  But since this is a game, a story, I'm sufficiently removed from it to be able to sympathize with the act of destruction in a way I couldn't otherwise.  No, I won't pretend otherwise: were I actually Hawke and Anders had been my constant companion/lover, and he did THIS?  I'd probably be so eaten alive with guilt from associating with him--unwittingly helping him--that I'd be driven to suicide in the end. 

Part of my reasoning is that after 9/11 I spent quite a lot of time reading up not just on terrorists, but also the conditions that create them, because like it or not, terrorists aren't demons that pop into existence from nothing, they are people who are driven to extreme measures out of desperation and rage because their efforts at less violent means are rejected at every turn.  I also spent a lot of time reading up on the proper way to deal with them, and how many of our (my government's) reactions tend to create more terrorists by validating, however unintentionally, the claims terrorists make about us when trying to dredge up sympathy for their cause.  When terrorists tell their non-terrorist neighbors that you're an evil, torturing jerk, and you gran an innocent person and torture them, what you've just done is convince someone who might have been sympathetic, that their terrorist friend was right about you, so hey, maybe they've got a point, and they should sign up. 

I see this dynamic played out in Thedas time and again.  The Chantry spreads propaganda gainst mages, indoctrinates mages themselves with self-hatred in many cases, and then wonders why mages act like the monsters they're portrayed as being.  This environment is the perfect breeding ground for creating many mage terrorists who might otherwise never have been discontent.

So yes, I sympathize with Anders' position.  I agree with him completely that the Chantry is a system of oppression and must be dismantled.  Blowing up the Chantry wouldn't have been my first suggestion, but I actually do think that such a violent and extreme action was necessary, because neither Anders nor anyone else had any reason to believe that things were ever going to change otherwise. I see it as less an act of terrorism than an act of war.  The Chantry, particularly the one he targeted, is a military target, it ain't the little corner church down on Main Street, with no political power to do anything more than spread gossip.  And Elthina wasn't an innocent bystander, she was the highest ranking Chantry official in Kirkwall...well, the highest ranking official in all the Free Marches, actually.  Anders didn't target innocent civilians.

I'm sorry but this reminds me of what you said earlier... 
Saying Templars aggressively quarantining the mages in the circle as a retaliation for the Chantry being blown up as being "excessive". But the other priests and lay-sisters that served that Chantry being blown up/burned alive for what?... Following a religion? Alot of people died simply being at the wrong place, at the wrong time. And yet you still say Anders was fully within his rights for doing so. Silfren I said I wouldn't argue with you, and I will stick to my word... but that is pretty contradictive and sort of morbid, even by video games standards. I won't judge you based on your opinion, but wow...

[Silfren]

IanPolaris wrote...

Sifren, the difference is I don't particularly care what a terrorist thinks (even if I agree with his or her ultimate motives). That terrorist deserves to die. Period.

I don't care what other terrorists might think. Anything less IMHO is not justice.

-Polaris

Whereas I think it's important to understand how a terrorist thinks and why.  Killing terrorists doesn't get rid of them because there's just too many to kill without carpet-bombing entire areas of the globe...and that would get us nowhere.  In many cases it just makes more.  Understanding what makes a person BECOME a terrorist, on the other hand, might go a long way toward stemming the cycle of violence.

[IanPolaris]

Like I said before, this once I agree with TC. Once a terrorist resorts to mass murder and especially indiscriminate mass murder (and there was no war when Anders did this...Anders planted that bomb with aforethought to create as much havok as possible), that terrost loses all sympathy and consideration in my eyes (even if the cause is just). At some point the Victims and society need to see that the only answer to a mass murder is death, and that is why Anders has to die IMHO.

Deal with the root causes of terrorism with those that are willing to listen, but kill those that commit mass murder. OTherwise you are stepping on that slippery slope that justifies mass murder and Meredith on on that slope.....

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Silfren wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Sifren, the difference is I don't particularly care what a terrorist thinks (even if I agree with his or her ultimate motives). That terrorist deserves to die. Period.

I don't care what other terrorists might think. Anything less IMHO is not justice.

-Polaris

Whereas I think it's important to understand how a terrorist thinks and why.  Killing terrorists doesn't get rid of them because there's just too many to kill without carpet-bombing entire areas of the globe...and that would get us nowhere.  In many cases it just makes more.  Understanding what makes a person BECOME a terrorist, on the other hand, might go a long way toward stemming the cycle of violence.

Honestly, once a person resorts to mass murder, I don't care.  Yes, I agree try to deal and understand the larger issues, but justice sometimes demands that the ultimate price be paid.  If a person resorts to mass murder, then I don't care why he or she did it.  I can't.  I have to worry about justice for everyone else.

-Polaris

[-TC1989-]

And when I said I put myself in their shoes (Hawke), I make my decision based on how the game has been played out. I will not, and cannot compare something like 9/11 to a mage vs templar situation. After all that was an all too real tragedy, while this is in the end... a game.

Modifié par -TC1989-, 07 mars 2013 - 08:24 .

[Silfren]

-TC1989- wrote...

Silfren wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

Silfren wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

*previous quoted posts all mercifully snipped*

Fair enough, I guess all the sympathy I saw you give Anders, just almost seemed like a contradiction? But as long as we can agree the Templars have their reasons for being cautious (sometimes too strongly) then I'm good to go.

I am sympathetic to Anders because I think he was right, and because I think he was right, I think he was justified in his action.  I don't care that the Templars have their reasons for being cautious, their reasons for being cautious do not justify the Circle in its present state.  The need for caution does not justify tyranny.  You can enact cautionary measures without incarcerating and enslaving mages just for existing.  That is what my position has always been.

But hold up. So when all the people in the Chantry were killed by him, you say that you support him, that you don't kill him. I just can't  get past how you think all those deaths were justified. Anders was mistreated, of course he was, but to do what he did in retaliation? I mean he HAD to know that Meredith was going to go off the deep end. I don't think theres alot of Knight-Commanders though who wouldn't have freaked out after something like that happened.

Anders didn't blow up the Chantry in retaliation for the ways it mistreated him, that's just silly.  He did it as an act of war against an institution that oppresses mages.  Agree with him or not, that's WHY he did it. 

The general consensus among most people, mage supporters and Templar supporters alike, is that Anders blew up the Chantry for the very reason that he knew it would create a situation where the mages were forced to fight for their lives.  Whether he specifically thought Meredith would call for Annulment, or that the Divine would hear about it and order an Exalted March on Kirkwall, I dunno, but he clearly thought something drastic would be called in response. 

Look, I'm not saying I'm celebrating the deaths of those people.  But since this is a game, a story, I'm sufficiently removed from it to be able to sympathize with the act of destruction in a way I couldn't otherwise.  No, I won't pretend otherwise: were I actually Hawke and Anders had been my constant companion/lover, and he did THIS?  I'd probably be so eaten alive with guilt from associating with him--unwittingly helping him--that I'd be driven to suicide in the end. 

Part of my reasoning is that after 9/11 I spent quite a lot of time reading up not just on terrorists, but also the conditions that create them, because like it or not, terrorists aren't demons that pop into existence from nothing, they are people who are driven to extreme measures out of desperation and rage because their efforts at less violent means are rejected at every turn.  I also spent a lot of time reading up on the proper way to deal with them, and how many of our (my government's) reactions tend to create more terrorists by validating, however unintentionally, the claims terrorists make about us when trying to dredge up sympathy for their cause.  When terrorists tell their non-terrorist neighbors that you're an evil, torturing jerk, and you gran an innocent person and torture them, what you've just done is convince someone who might have been sympathetic, that their terrorist friend was right about you, so hey, maybe they've got a point, and they should sign up. 

I see this dynamic played out in Thedas time and again.  The Chantry spreads propaganda gainst mages, indoctrinates mages themselves with self-hatred in many cases, and then wonders why mages act like the monsters they're portrayed as being.  This environment is the perfect breeding ground for creating many mage terrorists who might otherwise never have been discontent.

So yes, I sympathize with Anders' position.  I agree with him completely that the Chantry is a system of oppression and must be dismantled.  Blowing up the Chantry wouldn't have been my first suggestion, but I actually do think that such a violent and extreme action was necessary, because neither Anders nor anyone else had any reason to believe that things were ever going to change otherwise. I see it as less an act of terrorism than an act of war.  The Chantry, particularly the one he targeted, is a military target, it ain't the little corner church down on Main Street, with no political power to do anything more than spread gossip.  And Elthina wasn't an innocent bystander, she was the highest ranking Chantry official in Kirkwall...well, the highest ranking official in all the Free Marches, actually.  Anders didn't target innocent civilians.

I'm sorry but this reminds me of what you said earlier... 
Saying Templars aggressively quarantining the mages in the circle as a retaliation for the Chantry being blown up as being "excessive". But the other priests and lay-sisters that served that Chantry being blown up/burned alive for what?... Following a religion? Alot of people died simply being at the wrong place, at the wrong time. And yet you still say Anders was fully within his rights for doing so. Silfren I said I wouldn't argue with you, and I will stick to my word... but that is pretty contradictive and sort of morbid, even by video games standards. I won't judge you based on your opinion, but wow...

I didn't say that quarantining mages in the Circle would be excessive.  Don't forget that you didn't specify any particular actions the Templars would take in response to Anders, you just made references to becoming more vigilant and "cracking down."  You can't accurately assume I said any given action would be excessive when you didn't specify what those actions were--I'm not in your head, I can't intuit what you think "cracking down" entails.  I said that it would be wrong to EXECUTE the mages for Anders' crime when I thought you were referring to punishing them for what Anders did.

Going on, the other priests and lay-sisters, they were all part of the same institution that Elthina was, so yes, I think they all qualify as military targets.  Not for following a religion, for being part of an institution that systematically oppresses an entire group of people (And calls down Exalted Marches on anyone who pisses it off). For whatever its worth, the scene we get of the inside of the Chantry just before it blows, it shoes Elthina and a few Templars.  I don't recall seeing anyone else. 

Concepts like "right" in this context get a little tricky.  I think it was necessary, but something being necessary doesn't make it just or fair*.  The Chantry as an institution has been repressing mages for nearly a thousand years, and finally, suddenly, the mages got pissed off enough to fight back.  I don't personally think its fair to be so caught up in anger at what Anders did that you forget what the Chantry's been doing to mages for the past nine centuries.  If you abuse a dog, you don't get to act offended when the dog finally bites your hand off.  Yes, it means that some "nice" people got hurt, some of whom may not have been fairly targeted.  But this rebellion was a long time coming, sooner or later someone was GOING to get hurt. 

*The flip side to this is that there are some situations in which the only solution available to you may be ugly and vile and bloody, necessary all the same.  I think the situation the mages were in was just such a one.

[Silfren]

-TC1989- wrote...

And when I said I put myself in their shoes (Hawke), I make my decision based on how the game has been played out. I will not, and cannot compare something like 9/11 to a mage vs templar situation. After all that was an all too real tragedy, while this is in the end... a game.

That doesn't mean there aren't parallels are that we aren't allowed to draw our conclusions from them.  The Devs, after all, WANTED us to draw certain parallels to **** Germany..."Tranquil Solution" anyone? 

Do me a favor and don't play the "this isn't real, it's a game," card when your last few posts have made it clear you're bothered more than a little by my perspective on the events within.  If you really felt that way, that removed from it, you wouldn't have that reaction to my stated viewpoint of what Anders did, and you wouldn't have been arguing with me earlier, because you wouldn't care, it being just a game.

Besides, I DIDN'T compare 9/11.  I said that my experience of 9/11 led me to educating myself on the nature of and issues surrounding terrorism, and it was from that that I derived my opinions of what Anders did.

Modifié par Silfren, 07 mars 2013 - 08:34 .

[-TC1989-]

Silfren wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

Silfren wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

Silfren wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

*previous quoted posts all mercifully snipped*

Fair enough, I guess all the sympathy I saw you give Anders, just almost seemed like a contradiction? But as long as we can agree the Templars have their reasons for being cautious (sometimes too strongly) then I'm good to go.

I am sympathetic to Anders because I think he was right, and because I think he was right, I think he was justified in his action.  I don't care that the Templars have their reasons for being cautious, their reasons for being cautious do not justify the Circle in its present state.  The need for caution does not justify tyranny.  You can enact cautionary measures without incarcerating and enslaving mages just for existing.  That is what my position has always been.

But hold up. So when all the people in the Chantry were killed by him, you say that you support him, that you don't kill him. I just can't  get past how you think all those deaths were justified. Anders was mistreated, of course he was, but to do what he did in retaliation? I mean he HAD to know that Meredith was going to go off the deep end. I don't think theres alot of Knight-Commanders though who wouldn't have freaked out after something like that happened.

Anders didn't blow up the Chantry in retaliation for the ways it mistreated him, that's just silly.  He did it as an act of war against an institution that oppresses mages.  Agree with him or not, that's WHY he did it. 

The general consensus among most people, mage supporters and Templar supporters alike, is that Anders blew up the Chantry for the very reason that he knew it would create a situation where the mages were forced to fight for their lives.  Whether he specifically thought Meredith would call for Annulment, or that the Divine would hear about it and order an Exalted March on Kirkwall, I dunno, but he clearly thought something drastic would be called in response. 

Look, I'm not saying I'm celebrating the deaths of those people.  But since this is a game, a story, I'm sufficiently removed from it to be able to sympathize with the act of destruction in a way I couldn't otherwise.  No, I won't pretend otherwise: were I actually Hawke and Anders had been my constant companion/lover, and he did THIS?  I'd probably be so eaten alive with guilt from associating with him--unwittingly helping him--that I'd be driven to suicide in the end. 

Part of my reasoning is that after 9/11 I spent quite a lot of time reading up not just on terrorists, but also the conditions that create them, because like it or not, terrorists aren't demons that pop into existence from nothing, they are people who are driven to extreme measures out of desperation and rage because their efforts at less violent means are rejected at every turn.  I also spent a lot of time reading up on the proper way to deal with them, and how many of our (my government's) reactions tend to create more terrorists by validating, however unintentionally, the claims terrorists make about us when trying to dredge up sympathy for their cause.  When terrorists tell their non-terrorist neighbors that you're an evil, torturing jerk, and you gran an innocent person and torture them, what you've just done is convince someone who might have been sympathetic, that their terrorist friend was right about you, so hey, maybe they've got a point, and they should sign up. 

I see this dynamic played out in Thedas time and again.  The Chantry spreads propaganda gainst mages, indoctrinates mages themselves with self-hatred in many cases, and then wonders why mages act like the monsters they're portrayed as being.  This environment is the perfect breeding ground for creating many mage terrorists who might otherwise never have been discontent.

So yes, I sympathize with Anders' position.  I agree with him completely that the Chantry is a system of oppression and must be dismantled.  Blowing up the Chantry wouldn't have been my first suggestion, but I actually do think that such a violent and extreme action was necessary, because neither Anders nor anyone else had any reason to believe that things were ever going to change otherwise. I see it as less an act of terrorism than an act of war.  The Chantry, particularly the one he targeted, is a military target, it ain't the little corner church down on Main Street, with no political power to do anything more than spread gossip.  And Elthina wasn't an innocent bystander, she was the highest ranking Chantry official in Kirkwall...well, the highest ranking official in all the Free Marches, actually.  Anders didn't target innocent civilians.

I'm sorry but this reminds me of what you said earlier... 
Saying Templars aggressively quarantining the mages in the circle as a retaliation for the Chantry being blown up as being "excessive". But the other priests and lay-sisters that served that Chantry being blown up/burned alive for what?... Following a religion? Alot of people died simply being at the wrong place, at the wrong time. And yet you still say Anders was fully within his rights for doing so. Silfren I said I wouldn't argue with you, and I will stick to my word... but that is pretty contradictive and sort of morbid, even by video games standards. I won't judge you based on your opinion, but wow...

I didn't say that quarantining mages in the Circle would be excessive.  Don't forget that you didn't specify any particular actions the Templars would take in response to Anders, you just made references to becoming more vigilant and "cracking down."  You can't accurately assume I said any given action would be excessive when you didn't specify what those actions were--I'm not in your head, I can't intuit what you think "cracking down" entails.  I said that it would be wrong to EXECUTE the mages for Anders' crime when I thought you were referring to punishing them for what Anders did.

Going on, the other priests and lay-sisters, they were all part of the same institution that Elthina was, so yes, I think they all qualify as military targets.  Not for following a religion, for being part of an institution that systematically oppresses an entire group of people (And calls down Exalted Marches on anyone who pisses it off). For whatever its worth, the scene we get of the inside of the Chantry just before it blows, it shoes Elthina and a few Templars.  I don't recall seeing anyone else. 

Concepts like "right" in this context get a little tricky.  I think it was necessary, but something being necessary doesn't make it just or fair*.  The Chantry as an institution has been repressing mages for nearly a thousand years, and finally, suddenly, the mages got pissed off enough to fight back.  I don't personally think its fair to be so caught up in anger at what Anders did that you forget what the Chantry's been doing to mages for the past nine centuries.  If you abuse a dog, you don't get to act offended when the dog finally bites your hand off.  Yes, it means that some "nice" people got hurt, some of whom may not have been fairly targeted.  But this rebellion was a long time coming, sooner or later someone was GOING to get hurt. 

*The flip side to this is that there are some situations in which the only solution available to you may be ugly and vile and bloody, necessary all the same.  I think the situation the mages were in was just such a one.

Again you're being too literal, again you know exactly what I meant. When I said clamped down, you got upset saying how it wasn't fair that mages that didn't do anything in that event should have to pay for what Anders did (or Anders himself in your case). I really don't see how this is any different. The people that follow Andraste and the Chantry, aren't all part of some form of military, mage hating zombies. They have reasons for their devotion. Some just like knowing theres a higher power than themselves. Some people love Andraste for what she did against the Tevinter Imperium, and not having to be slaves to mages for the rest of time. You act like mages have always been victims to everyone around them, that no one has any reason to be cautious/scared/ or to even hate what they once represented. Things like that don't ever go away.

[-TC1989-]

Silfren wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

And when I said I put myself in their shoes (Hawke), I make my decision based on how the game has been played out. I will not, and cannot compare something like 9/11 to a mage vs templar situation. After all that was an all too real tragedy, while this is in the end... a game.

That doesn't mean there aren't parallels are that we aren't allowed to draw our conclusions from them.  The Devs, after all, WANTED us to draw certain parallels to **** Germany..."Tranquil Solution" anyone? 

Do me a favor and don't play the "this isn't real, it's a game," card when your last few posts have made it clear you're bothered more than a little by my perspective on the events within.  If you really felt that way, that removed from it, you wouldn't have that reaction to my stated viewpoint of what Anders did, and you wouldn't have been arguing with me earlier, because you wouldn't care, it being just a game.

Besides, I DIDN'T compare 9/11.  I said that my experience of 9/11 led me to educating myself on the nature of and issues surrounding terrorism, and it was from that that I derived my opinions of what Anders did.

Okay, now your making this personal. You did compare, bringing up an event is comparing. Now the Germans? I never once said this game was like a real life event. My point, which again you have seem to fail to understand, was to say even in a game, killing isnt right. I never ONCE said that the mage event was just like 9/11 or anything. A terrorist attack can mean a number of things, but I never once brought up a real life event until you did. Stop playing this victim card, like I'm forcing this out of you. 

[Silfren]

-TC1989- wrote...

Again you're being too literal, again you know exactly what I meant. When I said clamped down, you got upset saying how it wasn't fair that mages that didn't do anything in that event should have to pay for what Anders did (or Anders himself in your case). I really don't see how this is any different. The people that follow Andraste and the Chantry, aren't all part of some form of military, mage hating zombies. They have reasons for their devotion. Some just like knowing theres a higher power than themselves. Some people love Andraste for what she did against the Tevinter Imperium, and not having to be slaves to mages for the rest of time. You act like mages have always been victims to everyone around them, that no one has any reason to be cautious/scared/ or to even hate what they once represented. Things like that don't ever go away.

I guess I should have anticipated this reaction.  Yes, I can see how you would think that Anders killing the people inside the Chantry because they're inside with Elthina is exactly the same situation as Meredith killing the Circle mages for his crime.

In a literal sense they're the same, but politically and morally, no, I don't see the two situations as equivalent.  Being a mage isn't a choice, its an inborn characteristic, and mages don't ask to join the Circles, they're rounded up and put there.  The Circle mages and Anders weren't all inside the same building, but were entirely separated from each other.  People JOIN the Chantry, however, and if you join an institution, you're effectively saying that you endorse it, all of it, right down to its mistreatment of mages, those Exalted Marches, etc.  Moreover, and much more importantl, the Chantry is a political institution as much as it is a religious one, and it has all the power in this situation.  The power imbalance alone prevents these two situations from being equivalent.

[-TC1989-]

Silfren wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

Again you're being too literal, again you know exactly what I meant. When I said clamped down, you got upset saying how it wasn't fair that mages that didn't do anything in that event should have to pay for what Anders did (or Anders himself in your case). I really don't see how this is any different. The people that follow Andraste and the Chantry, aren't all part of some form of military, mage hating zombies. They have reasons for their devotion. Some just like knowing theres a higher power than themselves. Some people love Andraste for what she did against the Tevinter Imperium, and not having to be slaves to mages for the rest of time. You act like mages have always been victims to everyone around them, that no one has any reason to be cautious/scared/ or to even hate what they once represented. Things like that don't ever go away.

I guess I should have anticipated this reaction.  Yes, I can see how you would think that Anders killing the people inside the Chantry because they're inside with Elthina is exactly the same situation as Meredith killing the Circle mages for his crime.

In a literal sense they're the same, but politically and morally, no, I don't see the two situations as equivalent.  Being a mage isn't a choice, its an inborn characteristic, and mages don't ask to join the Circles, they're rounded up and put there.  The Circle mages and Anders weren't all inside the same building, but were entirely separated from each other.  People JOIN the Chantry, however, and if you join an institution, you're effectively saying that you endorse it, all of it, right down to its mistreatment of mages, those Exalted Marches, etc.  Moreover, and much more importantl, the Chantry is a political institution as much as it is a religious one, and it has all the power in this situation.  The power imbalance alone prevents these two situations from being equivalent.

Look, I'm done with this. Clearly you are like arguing with a wall. No matter what I say, the Chantry and everything along with it has to die for the greater good of mages. Anders is a matyr that you seem to refuse to stop drooling over. I don't get you to be honest, you've argued at every turn. Brought real life suffering into this topic to defend your mages. This is simply too much to deal with. CONGRATULATIONS on your well deserved victory.

[Silfren]

-TC1989- wrote...

Silfren wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

And when I said I put myself in their shoes (Hawke), I make my decision based on how the game has been played out. I will not, and cannot compare something like 9/11 to a mage vs templar situation. After all that was an all too real tragedy, while this is in the end... a game.

That doesn't mean there aren't parallels are that we aren't allowed to draw our conclusions from them.  The Devs, after all, WANTED us to draw certain parallels to **** Germany..."Tranquil Solution" anyone? 

Do me a favor and don't play the "this isn't real, it's a game," card when your last few posts have made it clear you're bothered more than a little by my perspective on the events within.  If you really felt that way, that removed from it, you wouldn't have that reaction to my stated viewpoint of what Anders did, and you wouldn't have been arguing with me earlier, because you wouldn't care, it being just a game.

Besides, I DIDN'T compare 9/11.  I said that my experience of 9/11 led me to educating myself on the nature of and issues surrounding terrorism, and it was from that that I derived my opinions of what Anders did.

Okay, now your making this personal. You did compare, bringing up an event is comparing. Now the Germans? I never once said this game was like a real life event. My point, which again you have seem to fail to understand, was to say even in a game, killing isnt right. I never ONCE said that the mage event was just like 9/11 or anything. A terrorist attack can mean a number of things, but I never once brought up a real life event until you did. Stop playing this victim card, like I'm forcing this out of you. 

Denying that I was making a comparison is not making it personal....!  I'm not going to argue with you here.  If I'd wanted to compare the two, I'd have actually made a comparison.  I guess I can see that merely mentioning the word elicits one, but that was not my intention.

I don't know if we're just both incapable of reading comprehension right now, or what, but your accusations have gone way overboard into the straight up ludicrous.  Pointing out that the "Tranquil Solution" is an obvious reference to Hitler's "Final Solution" isn't ME making a comparison, it's pointing out that the Devs obviously wanted us to draw certain real world parallels.  Nor did I accuse you of saying the game was just like a real life event, so why you keep repeating that you didn't is beyond me.  And what the hell is this business about me playing the victim card? Or that I claim you're forcing this out of me??  Why the hell are you getting so worked up and making random accusations anyway?

Modifié par Silfren, 07 mars 2013 - 08:58 .

[Plaintiff]

-TC1989- wrote...
Again you're being too literal, again you know exactly what I meant. When I said clamped down, you got upset saying how it wasn't fair that mages that didn't do anything in that event should have to pay for what Anders did (or Anders himself in your case).

"Clamped down" is an extremely vague phrase. How is anyone supposed to determine from that whether you mean a slap on the wrist or a public execution?

I really don't see how this is any different. The people that follow Andraste and the Chantry, aren't all part of some form of military, mage hating zombies.

Zombies? No. But they are absolutely members of a mage-hating, militaristic organization, because that is what the Chantry is. You can't the join the Chantry and then say that you're not part of its institution.

They have reasons for their devotion. Some just like knowing theres a higher power than themselves. Some people love Andraste for what she did against the Tevinter Imperium, and not having to be slaves to mages for the rest of time.

Their personal reasons for joining are irrelevent. People can believe in the Maker or love Andraste without willfully joining an obviously oppressive and bigoted organization. Anders is an Andrastian, and his faith is not less legitimate than that of Elthina or anyone else.

Why they joined doesn't matter. They're a part of the oppression now. If there are chantry priests who don't condone the actions of the Chantry regarding mages, then they should've considered that before joining, because the act of joining is an implicit approval of the organization's behaviour.

You act like mages have always been victims to everyone around them, that no one has any reason to be cautious/scared/ or to even hate what they once represented. Things like that don't ever go away.

Yes they do. This statement is nonsense. By this logic we should be cowering in fear of modern-day Germany, Britain and Rome because they were once the strongholds of brutal empires, with no regard to the fact that the current generations have no connection to the horrors of the past, and completely igoring the fact that even during those bad times, the people of these respective countries were not all members of a single hivemind, condoning each and every travesty.

None of the mages currently living have any connection to the past misdeeds of Tevinter, especially not the mages that were born and raised outside of Tevinter and were taught to hate it just as much as every non-mage outside of Tevinter.

The mages have endured systematic opression for a full millenium at least. All the mages currently living outside of Tevinter are victims, and hating them for a crime they didn't even commit flies in the face of not only justice but any sort of logic.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 07 mars 2013 - 09:08 .

[Silfren]

Plaintiff wrote...

Yes they do. This statement is nonsense. By this logic we should be cowering in fear of modern-day Germany, Britain and Rome because they were once the strongholds of brutal empires, with no regard to the fact that the current generations have no connection to the horrors of the past, and completely igoring the fact that even during those bad times, the people of these respective countries were not all members of a single hivemind, condoning each and every travesty.

You realize of course you left yourself open for someone to b*tch at you that if you can't hold the people of those countries responsible for condoning each and every travesty, you can't condemn everyone in the Chantry either.  I'd think the difference is obvious, but apparently many don't see it...

[Plaintiff]

Silfren wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Yes they do. This statement is nonsense. By this logic we should be cowering in fear of modern-day Germany, Britain and Rome because they were once the strongholds of brutal empires, with no regard to the fact that the current generations have no connection to the horrors of the past, and completely igoring the fact that even during those bad times, the people of these respective countries were not all members of a single hivemind, condoning each and every travesty.

You realize of course you left yourself open for someone to b*tch at you that if you can't hold the people of those countries responsible for condoning each and every travesty, you can't condemn everyone in the Chantry either.  I'd think the difference is obvious, but apparently many don't see it...

It's okay, I'm prepared to explain the difference. I've done it a million times. But I don't expect it to make anymore of a dent than it has before.

[Silfren]

I keep going back and trying to make sense out of that morass of absurdities and I just can't make heads or tails of it...

[Hazegurl]

-TC1989- wrote...

 Some people love Andraste for what she did against the Tevinter Imperium, and not having to be slaves to mages for the rest of time. You act like mages have always been victims to everyone around them, that no one has any reason to be cautious/scared/ or to even hate what they once represented. Things like that don't ever go away.

You bring up an interesting point about why the Chantry exists in the first place. I believe that there should be some understanding on both sides. On one hand mages have proven that they will abuse their powers, enslave those too weak to fight back, and generally have no issues with oppressing others (including other mages too weak to fight back without resorting to total depravity). The Chantry does oppress mages, and I'm not saying it is right, but if people are expected to understand Ander's motives then there should also be some understanding as to why people follow the Chantry. I'm not a religious person but I know I wouldn't want to live in the Tevinter Imperium.

[Hazegurl]

Silfren wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

You're obviously very emotional about this. I don't think you have anything to offer this discussion.

Hoo boy, you actually just made a tone argument and tried to dismiss someone's viewpoint because you deem them too emotional.  Nice going. 

Get over it.

I still replied to him even after that comment which meant I was still open for discussing with him. Mind you, after he had already stated multiple times that I had nothing to offer the discussion. But if you want to pick and chose which slights to address, go right ahead.

[Hazegurl]

dragonflight288 wrote...

 The problem with the system itself is that it gives way too much power to the templars and the chantry. They now routinely abuse their power over mages, and it can be said they are Tevinter 2.0. The templars aren't held accountable for their own actions as of now, and they have gone against the Chantry so the could do a world-wide mage hunt out of fear and hatred.

Were I to come across a mage abusing his power, I would hold that mage accountable, but not other mages. All I would like to see, is an understanding that while mages may be dangerous and hold a great deal of power, the templars have shown a far greater willingness (in the current system) to abuse their power.

I mostly agree with what you wrote above(even the parts I snipped), about individuals being held accountable for their actions. Not all mages are evil or blood magic users. Not all mages summon demons to solve their problems. Templars who abuse their power should pay. But. If a mage turns to blood magic, regardless of the reasons, they are no longer justified in their actions. My reasons for this pov is that they typically turn to worst acts later on, even if their intent is good or just. There are plenty of normal people who get raped et al and they find a way to solve the problem, get revenge, et al without blood magic. A mage should be able to do the same. I also agree that Tranquility is a fitting punishment for most mage related crimes and death in the most extreme.

I also agree that Templars abuse their power as well. But would I go so far as to call them the Imperium 2.0? No. The mages there seem to kill for power, pleasure, glory, and to impress their friends at dinner parties(Fenris' account of his former master killing a little boy to impress his guests). I find them far worst than the Templars. If the Chantry does their job, that abusive Templar would be out of a job and no longer a problem. I don't agree with Templars killing or torturing anyone, once again the Chantry dropped the ball and the system needed to change or at least bring in a mother who was willing to do more than sit inside a temple all day.

[Hazegurl]

-TC1989- wrote...
And unless the mages around Thedas are hiding their heads in the floor, their going to know. How many do you think are gonna say "They took out their Chantry, and thats all they did?...wow". And of course you can assume. Like I said, when one does something like that, their going to get more ambitious and rebel in greater numbers.

You raise a good point. I also don't support the RoA but I can see how a political leader would use it to squash any future rebellions. It says "We will not tolerate terrorist behavior and you and everyone you care for will pay for your crime if you do."

It's hitting a strong point with another. It honestly doesn't say much if a country or city falters or give in to terrorists. All it says is "Blow us up and we will give in and give you everything you want."  or "Blow us up and we'll cooperate with you."

Well what is stopping another group of disgruntled mages from doing the same? What is stoping another group from heading to Kirkwall to "make a difference".

What if the Qunari decides that this was the perfect opportunity to take the weakened Kirkwall?

I'm in the middle of a playthrough with the download content. I just finished the mission with Sebastian about the possible Exalted March on Kirkwall. It makes me wonder how much of this Meredith knew about and perhaps her paranoid actions against mages was really desperation to squash the problem before the entire city was considered lost. But then again I'm just speculating. I haven't finished the game with the content yet.

[Silfren]

[quote]Hazegurl wrote...

[quote]Silfren wrote...

[quote]Hazegurl wrote...

You're obviously very emotional about this. I don't think you have anything to offer this discussion. [/quote]

Hoo boy, you actually just made a tone argument and tried to dismiss someone's viewpoint because you deem them too emotional.  Nice going. 
[/quote]

Get over it.

I still replied to him even after that comment which meant I was still open for discussing with him. Mind you, after he had already stated multiple times that I had nothing to offer the discussion. But if you want to pick and chose which slights to address, go right ahead.[/quote]

Sorry, no, tone arguments have no place in a discussion, and that's all there is to it.  Once you tell someone they're too emotional, you've proven that you're not interested in honest discussion.  And saying to someone they have nothing to offer is worlds away a different animal from saying "you're too emotional."  By saying that you make it clear you DON'T have any thing to offer.

There's nothing to get "over," because that implies I was distressed by your comment in the first place.  I wasn't.  But that doesn't mean I don't recognize it for the logical fallacy it is.  You're basing saying that you have no real counter-argument to what the other person asserts, so you resort to cheap and childish retorts, of which "You're too emotional!" is the most eye-rollingly pathetic.[/quote]

[Dabrikishaw]

I always spare Anders and kill Fenris when pro-mage, kill all my mages when pro-templar. In the end I just don't care enough for the Chantry to be bothered feeling sorry for them.

P.S. I always kill Loghain and have Alistair rule alone.