Yes, it says that Hawke embraced magic:
http://dragonage.wik...:_Bethany_Hawke
Bethany was close to her eldest sibling and idolized and envied the way Hawke embraced magic, but she could never give up her resentment of being different and fear for what their future would hold.
oh well. Even more restriction to role-playing. I guess, I have to imagine Hawke changed his/her views after arriving to Kirkwall, then.
oh well. Even more restriction to role-playing. I guess, I have to imagine Hawke changed his/her views after arriving to Kirkwall, then.
... and suddenly s/he want to kill him/herself or Bethany, just because s/he met some fools in Kirkwall.
By the way: why Hawke not report him/herself or Bethany to templars, if s/he so much hate him/herself/Bethany?
... and suddenly s/he want to kill him/herself and his/her sister, just because s/he met some fools in Kirkwall.
By the way: why Hawke not report him/herself or Bethany to templars, if s/he so much hate him/herself/Bethany?
You misunderstand me. Hating magic does not necessarily means Hawke hates his/her sister.
Your second point is a very good one. I imagine the reason Hawke just does not turn in himself or Bethany because quite frankly it would probably kill Leandra.
ps After all, if Carver becomes Templar, he doesn't turn Hawke in - same reasons.
You misunderstand me. Hating magic does not necessarily means Hawke hates his/her sister.
Your second point is a very good one. I imagine the reason Hawke just does not turn in himself or Bethany because quite frankly it would probably kill Leandra.
The magic are a part of him/her/Bethany. If S/He hate magic, s/he hate him/herself/Bethany. Simple.
("Blaming magic is not the answer" – Hawke to Fenris, friendship romance, Act3, after killing Danarius)
ps After all, if Carver becomes Templar, he doesn't turn Hawke in - same reasons.
Carver become templar not because he hate magic, just because he want to do anything, what is not his brother/sister, and his father have a templar friend, from who named him. Hes decision was obvious.
The magic are a part of him/her. If S/He hate magic, s/he hate him/herself. Simple.
("Blaming magic is not the answer" – Hawke to Fenris, friendship romance, Act3)
if only life were that simple.
Anyway,I think we are going around in circles.
I present one possible variation of Hawke, nothing more. I don't even roleplay that particular Hawke often (once, I think). I don't argue it is the best or most morally superior or whatever. I role play my heroes as I see fit. They are just people who have flaws, make mistakes and don't need to be paragons of virtue all the time. You don't think my reasons are valid? So you have different opinion. Great. I don't agree.
That is only one variation of the answer. Hawke could choose different response to Fenris. Which has been my whole point.
Anyway, no point arguing further. I think I already said pretty much everything I could on the matter. My reasons are good enough for me. If somebody choose to role play differently it it their business and have nothing to do with me and my Hawke's story.
[...] Anyway,I think we are going around in circles.
That is only one variation of the answer. Hawke could choose different response to Fenris. Which has been my whole point.
[...]
I agree.
(This is the only good answer, if [mage] Hawke want to Fenris to completely accept him/her. S/He should to know that he able to change his mind or not. supposed they are friends ... or more.)
No, just stop right there.
You may think you are going to be really clever and try to find a way for the definition to support you but, you're not going to be able to anymore than you could claim that North Korea's problems are caused by terrorism rather than the police state.
The resolutionists kill people in order to prove that the Circle can't stop them from killing people, expecting it to be scrapped as a result.
They're terrorists, deal with it.
Their preferred targets are Chantry and Templar officials, the people who are actively attempting to enslave them, perfectly legitimate and just to kill them in a war of liberation. And is state-sponsored terrorism not a thing? Does North Korea not employ terror tactics against its own citizens? Call it by whatever name you want, that is what it is.
Their preferred targets are Chantry and Templar officials, the people who are actively attempting to enslave them, perfectly legitimate and just to kill them in a war of liberation. And is state-sponsored terrorism not a thing? Does North Korea not employ terror tactics against its own citizens? Call it by whatever name you want, that is what it is.
Just because you think some people are "legitimate" targets for terrorism, doesn't stop it from being terrorism. It just makes you a supporter of terrorism.
Oh, Tevinter scares their slaves. That must be terrorism too. 
Just because you think some people are "legitimate" targets for terrorism, doesn't stop it from being terrorism. It just makes you a supporter of terrorism.
Oh, Tevinter scares their slaves. That must be terrorism too.
Again, this is my answer.:
The repression is certainly not a problem anywhere. Peaceful. And it only punish people who resist. (And who know the resistance fighters, and they parents, children, friends. And about whom the repression think, they possibly resist.). They are all wrong and certainly guilty. To cooperate in the repression wonderful and productive. And will be quiet and peace. The resistance are chaos, if we behave well, and we report who is suspicious the repression will be grateful.
and:
Of course, the Circles and Tevinter slavery is okay. The resistance is only chaos and terrorism. If you are born/became of slave, be glad that you exist.
Just because you think some people are "legitimate" targets for terrorism, doesn't stop it from being terrorism. It just makes you a supporter of terrorism.
Oh, Tevinter scares their slaves. That must be terrorism too.
It is worth remembering that Nelson Mandela was called a 'terrorist'.
The term is so politically charged and ill-defined that I don't really like using it, I prefer terms such as political violence, sabotage, assassination etc., many of which fall under the umbrella definition of 'terrorism'. One of the difficult areas of defining terrorism is - can states be terrorists? If not, then aren't ISIS, by definition, not terrorists, but a nation we are at war with? At that point, isn't everything bad done by a state 'terrorism'? My point is that you shouldn't focus on the strict definition of what a person's actions are, but on their motivations, their targets, their effects and the greater context in which they are performed.
In modern democratic societies, where people can have their say, freely debate issues, then political violence is a terrible thing. However, in a society where people have no such liberties, political violence may be the only action which an individual can take. So I don't think Fenris is all that bad (even if he's my least favourite of all DA companions) because, well, look at the society he's in. Playing by the rules would get him and his cause (emancipation of slaves) nowhere. Whereas I consider Anders to be a terrible person, because his actions targeted innocents, and created a level of chaos that was just awful for everyone.
ps After all, if Carver becomes Templar, he doesn't turn Hawke in - same reasons.
Carver doesn't become a Templar because he hates magic. Just the opposite. He becomes a Templar because he learned of his namesake who let their apostate father go.
Carver doesn't become a Templar because he hates magic. Just the opposite. He becomes a Templar because he learned of his namesake who let their apostate father go.
You think Carver is letting go every apostate he meets as a templar? Or is he just making this one exception for his older sibling?
You think Carver is letting go every apostate he meets as a templar? Or is he just making this one exception for his older sibling?
His ideas were hazy about it. He was defiant and idealistic, rather than dedicated mage hunter.
His ideas were hazy about it. He was defiant and idealistic, rather than dedicated mage hunter.
My point is that treating family (or friend, for that matter) differently from what you should or from what you believe is not that unimaginable.
ps All this debate made me really want to replay DA 2.)
You think Carver is letting go every apostate he meets as a templar? Or is he just making this one exception for his older sibling?
Neither. I think his intention is to follow in the actual footsteps of his namesake and exercise some judgement about who needs to be stopped or taken in for their own good.
Neither. I think his intention is to follow in the actual footsteps of his namesake and exercise some judgement about who needs to be stopped or taken in for their own good.
I agree it is most likely the case.
However, I don't think Hawke being his sibling had no affect on Carver's decision (not to turn him in) whatsoever.
I agree it is most likely the case.
However, I don't think Hawke being his sibling had no affect on Carver's decision (not to turn him in) whatsoever.
Of course had affect: he was the smaller brother. He was jealous and wanted to prove himself, and to do something opposite than his older brother/sister. And yes: he wanted be helpful, wanted to be a knight, as the friend of theirs father, whom he was named.
And maybe he was angry because of the constant hiding. Neverthless, I do not think he was afraid of magic.
Of course had affect: he was the smaller brother. He was jealous and wanted to prove himself, and to do something opposite than his older brother/sister.
And maybe he was angry because of the constant hiding. I do not think he was afraid of magic.
That is not exactly what I was trying to say.
My point was that even magic-hating Hawke (let's put aside the question if Hawke actually could hate magic, I know we have different opinions here) can still love his sister just because she is his sister. Just like Chantry and templar hating Hawke will not necessarily hate Carver because he joined the Order. This was an additional reason why not turn Bethany in or why magic hating Hawke will not necessarily hate Bethany. (I feel I am not making myself very clear and apologize if so - I am sick at home this week and not thinking very straight, I am afraid.)
That is not exactly what I was trying to say.
My point was that even magic-hating Hawke (let's put aside the question if Hawke actually could hate magic, I know we have different opinions here) can still love his sister just because she is his sister. Just like Chantry and templar hating Hawke will not necessarily hate Carver because he joined the Order. This was an additional reason why not turn Bethany in or why magic hating Hawke will not necessarily hate Bethany. (I feel I am not making myself very clear and apologize if so - I am sick at home this week and not thinking very straight, I am afraid.)
It was clearly, I just dont think, that Carver hate magic. Only thing, what Carver hate: the "little brother" status, I think.
I interpret it as not siding with Meredith, but using the opportunity to weaken her from the inside by siding with Templars who oppose her hardliner positions like Cullen.
Have you played the Faith quest? When you fight the Resolutionists, they are revealed to be blood mages.
Have you even read what I wrote? I never claimed the Resolutionists weren't blood mages. In fact my very argument was that Anders wouldn't work for them because they are bloodmages and he hates blood-magic.
And we know the terrorist attack commited by Anders was a big statement made by a group of dissatisfied mages, to whom Anders refers as the Mage Underground.
Except this is objectively wrong. The Mage Underground has been completely destroyed by Meredith in the time period between the end of Act 2 and the start of Act 3. Anders explicity tells you this in the very first conversation you can have with him in Act 3. This is also one of the reason his sanity slippage gets worse during Act 3. He does his terrorist attack on his own (or if you are on the rivalry path Justice does it all while posessing Anders).
It is worth remembering that Nelson Mandela was called a 'terrorist'.
The term is so politically charged and ill-defined that I don't really like using it, I prefer terms such as political violence, sabotage, assassination etc., many of which fall under the umbrella definition of 'terrorism'.
All labels can be misused and mis-applied- see the near meaninglessness of 'fascist', 'communist', or 'socialist.' It doesn't mean those words don't have actual meanings.
While there is no single global definition of terrorism, since it is a loaded term that people love to abuse, there is a unifying point of it that distinguishes it from political violence, sabotage, assassination, etc., which may or may not overlap: an intent to create public fear as an means in and of itself to force a change in policies.
Political violence doesn't always entail intimidation. Sabotage doesn't necessarily create fear rather than accomplish it's own objective. Assassinations may never be known. But terrorism is a method directed towards public perception to pressure groups as a whole.
One of the difficult areas of defining terrorism is - can states be terrorists?
If not, then aren't ISIS, by definition, not terrorists, but a nation we are at war with?
'Terrorist' is an individual, not group, identifier. The answer is 'no' because organizations are not individuals.
'Terrorism' is a method of operations. 'Terrorist' is someone who is using those methods. Groups that employ terrorism are terrorist groups, or, if states, state-sponsors of terrorism.
Whether we are at war with ISIS is a separate issue, because no one recognizes ISIS as a nation, any more than the warlords of West Africa in the 90's. They're a group of people with guns who control land, which does not a nation make.
At that point, isn't everything bad done by a state 'terrorism'?
Only if it's done to other states with an intent to use public fear to change policies. Libya supporting the IRA and bombing German clubs frequented by military would be examples.
Utilizing terror on your own population as a means of social control is bad, but it isn't terrorism- the fear isn't serving a political purpose of forcing the group (the state) to change it's policies. It is the state policy. We can call these reigns of terror, but it's a separate form of violence than the practical practice of terrorism.
My point is that you shouldn't focus on the strict definition of what a person's actions are, but on their motivations, their targets, their effects and the greater context in which they are performed.
In all those regards, Anders actions come Act 3 are terrorism. His motivation was to inflame tensions, including fear and anger, to spark a conflict. He chose a symbolic political target that didn't even have effective control over the military target he wanted. The assassination and devastation created the fear and anger to polarize the political environment to catalyze a simmering secretarian conflict. And the context was of a city that had undergone years of secetarian strife and tensions of various sorts, and which was in the midst of a terror as maleficar roamed the streets and deliberately seeking to sow chaos.
In modern democratic societies, where people can have their say, freely debate issues, then political violence is a terrible thing. However, in a society where people have no such liberties, political violence may be the only action which an individual can take. So I don't think Fenris is all that bad (even if he's my least favourite of all DA companions) because, well, look at the society he's in. Playing by the rules would get him and his cause (emancipation of slaves) nowhere. Whereas I consider Anders to be a terrible person, because his actions targeted innocents, and created a level of chaos that was just awful for everyone.
Fear, violence, chaos, and instability are horrible no matter where you go. Rationalizing it on grounds of 'well, they aren't free, so it's all good' is simply a short-cut to justifying it on personal perception of how much freedom is 'enough,' while also ignoring the existence of alternatives.
Terrorism isn't the only form of subversion, or defiance, or resistance. It's not even the most effective means of promoting social change.
I interpret it as not siding with Meredith, but using the opportunity to weaken her from the inside by siding with Templars who oppose her hardliner positions like Cullen.
There's a few problems with this line of thinking:
1. Cullen is loyal to Meredith. He may have some problems with her leadership as the game goes on but he's one of her supporters until the end of the game
2. The majority of the templars who opposed her were eliminated when you destroyed Thrask's rebellion. Thus, there aren't that many left.
3. How does annulling the Circle weaken Meredith?
Torna su