501 réponses à ce sujet

[esper]

Rassler wrote...

esper wrote...

If telling a lie i one sitation to achieve something makes you consistently manipulative, then we all are so.

He was manipulative in bomb situation and emotional blackmail is always nasty to get on the sticky end off, but considering why he did it I understand. Still it is never comfortable to experience.

I could never kill Anders for what he did. Yes, his actions were horrible but they were also necessary. As much as I hate to say this, war happens. Death happens. Murder happens. But sometimes, these actions are necessary to accelerate change. People are scared of change. Sometimes (again I hate to say this) people have to be shocked into taking the first step. 

I never got to answer this directly... To get back on topic. Cough.

First of all I don't believe in dead penality. Second of all, I don't believe that lying to me is a big enough crime that even if I did believe in dead penalty it should result in death. Thirdly as Hawke have killed over a 100 people to get to that point, including a whole dalish clan, I really can't condemm Anders for killing maybe 10. I never really condemm murderers in RPGs because mostly my PC ends up a mass murderer themselves and I would feel like the world's biggest hypocrite if i did. Fourthly my Hawke was not a member of any law enforcement, but Anders lover, I don't see how she could ever be a judge in that situation.

None of this means that he wasn't manipulative in the potion really a bomb situation. But as he admitted to Hawke that he lied before planting it in the chantry (He can do that on friendship, don't know with rivalry) and asked Hawke to trust it was for the cause. Since my pariticular Hawke shared his view on the revolution it was not a betryal of trust and thus the lie (which was easily admitted to) wasn't really that big. Doesn't mean it doesn't hurt, but it is not enough to label the manipulative as his dominant trait, because it really isn't.

[Vort3xX]

@ Jaison86, Just a question ! have you ever tried to blow up a church or anything in real life so can you please tell me what happens ? because you surely wouldn't make it worse for the people you're associated with, if the templars didn't have a reason to wage war against mages then they have it now no mention that you kill civilians in the process.

Sometimes the best answer is to show that you can take responsibility for your actions, show that you can control your powers even if it means you aren't live the to see a change.

Modifié par Vort3xX, 04 février 2014 - 02:20 .

[Lulupab]

The Mad Hanar wrote...


That really doesn't change the fact that he is only proving the Templars point by doing what he does. In the end, Anders helped the Templars' cause much more than the mages' cause with his actions.

But, you know, I try to think logically and stuff.

In the same time he is providing other mages opportunity to take the moral high road to change. 

But Anders is indeed ironic. His moral principles seem more in line with non-mages then mages, perhaps even closer to templars then he would want to admit. He is one of the most adamant companions against the use of blood magic, yet his actions indicate it is not the tendency toward bloodshed and insanity that bother him, but the fact that the mages are allowing themselves to become demon puppets. Yet he views his action, while as destructive as anything you would expect from a blood mage, morally justified because he did on his own basis and with no demon influencing him (I’m ignoring justice here since they are the same at this point). It seems ironic for him to believe this considering a party banter with Feris follows a similar topic. Fenris asks Anders if he thinks he is safe as an abomination, while Anders points out he ripped a man’s heart out in their first meeting. Feris feels his action was morally justifiable since he did not do it at the behest of a demon, but Anders scolds him by pointing out you don’t need a demon to be a vicious killer. Similarly, templar believe they hold the moral high ground over mages as they are not as susceptible to demon influence, so they feel they are automatically in the right. So Anders is a lot more like templars then he seems to want to admit, as he views his action as justifiable simply because it was his choice, not a demon's, rather then judge the moral worth of an action by the actual human lose and damage it will cause

Another long post. 

[Jaison1986]

Vort3xX wrote...

@ Jaison86, Just a question ! have you ever tried to blow up a church or anything in real life so can you please tell me what happens ? because you surely wouldn't make it worse for the people you're associated with, if the templars didn't have a reason to wage war against mages then they have it now no mention that you kill civilians in the process.

Sometimes the best answer is to show that you can take responsibility for your actions, show that you can control your powers even if it means you aren't live the to see a change.

Why would I blow up an church today? They don't control anyone, they don't imprision anyone, or murder anyone. I have no reason to attack them. But say, how many innocents would have been saved from tortures and the stake during the spanish inquisition if some one simply slaughtered every member of the church during those times?People mistakenly use comteporary reasons to say that what Anders did was wrong, but they forget that the Chantry from Dragon age is an primitive church that will gladly use violence and cruelty if it means further their goals, and some times violence is the only thing that will stop them for good.

[Giggles_Manically]

Is Anders manipulative?

Does Gordon Ramsey have a temper?
Does Darth Vader need to take an workplace interpersonal relations training course?
Does Bill O'Reilly do things live?

Yes in other words.

[Vort3xX]

Jaison1986 wrote...

Vort3xX wrote...

@ Jaison86, Just a question ! have you ever tried to blow up a church or anything in real life so can you please tell me what happens ? because you surely wouldn't make it worse for the people you're associated with, if the templars didn't have a reason to wage war against mages then they have it now no mention that you kill civilians in the process.

Sometimes the best answer is to show that you can take responsibility for your actions, show that you can control your powers even if it means you aren't live the to see a change.

Why would I blow up an church today? They don't control anyone, they don't imprision anyone, or murder anyone. I have no reason to attack them. But say, how many innocents would have been saved from tortures and the stake during the spanish inquisition if some one simply slaughtered every member of the church during those times?People mistakenly use comteporary reasons to say that what Anders did was wrong, but they forget that the Chantry from Dragon age is an primitive church that will gladly use violence and cruelty if it means further their goals, and some times violence is the only thing that will stop them for good.

You wouldn't but the point still stands, blowing up churches or places that are of high importance today still is still a utterly stupid move or do you just think that templars/guards will just stand by and let it happen, you will never win freedom by destroying things that are important to people or even kill civilians.

Using terrorism to get what you want is a good way to bring hell down on you instead.

[KaiserShep]

Jeremiah12LGeek wrote...

- Began as a thread about whether Anders would be manipulative in DA:I

- Became a thread debating the merits of terrorism

Yup... just making sure I know what I've wandered into.

Well, it's kind of hard to separate the two issues, since he pretty much tried to use Hawke to become Magic McVeigh.

[General TSAR]

Rassler wrote...

What I understand doesn't matter really, I was exploring the fact that why Anders did what he did in his own view point.

In this, he was a tragic figure, taking it upon himself to be the reviled murderer so that other people would have the freedom to condemn his actions. Like it or not, that is a very realistic, real-world scenario. For every Martin Luther King or Anne Frank or Rosa Parks or Gandhi you see in the world, there are people with blood on their hands who give the rest of the world the opportunity to take the moral high road. Their actions ARE despicable, but that doesn't make them any less necessary. This is the point that the rest of us are missing, from our very comfortable positions in life: being able to take the high road and condemn the actions of murderous freedom fighters is, sometimes, not recognized for what it is: a luxury that we would NOT HAVE if not for those murderers giving the rest of the world something to rally around.

What a crock of nonsense.

[Beerfish]

Anders is a liar and a murderer from the very 1st time you meet him in Awakenings, or whatever that dlc was called.

[Lulupab]

General TSAR wrote...

Rassler wrote...

What I understand doesn't matter really, I was exploring the fact that why Anders did what he did in his own view point.

In this, he was a tragic figure, taking it upon himself to be the reviled murderer so that other people would have the freedom to condemn his actions. Like it or not, that is a very realistic, real-world scenario. For every Martin Luther King or Anne Frank or Rosa Parks or Gandhi you see in the world, there are people with blood on their hands who give the rest of the world the opportunity to take the moral high road. Their actions ARE despicable, but that doesn't make them any less necessary. This is the point that the rest of us are missing, from our very comfortable positions in life: being able to take the high road and condemn the actions of murderous freedom fighters is, sometimes, not recognized for what it is: a luxury that we would NOT HAVE if not for those murderers giving the rest of the world something to rally around.

What a crock of nonsense.

There was an arguement and I backed it up. You can't call somethng nonsense without explaing why. Wait you CAN but you'll discredit yourself.

[HiroVoid]

Rassler wrote...

General TSAR wrote...

Rassler wrote...

What I understand doesn't matter really, I was exploring the fact that why Anders did what he did in his own view point.

In this, he was a tragic figure, taking it upon himself to be the reviled murderer so that other people would have the freedom to condemn his actions. Like it or not, that is a very realistic, real-world scenario. For every Martin Luther King or Anne Frank or Rosa Parks or Gandhi you see in the world, there are people with blood on their hands who give the rest of the world the opportunity to take the moral high road. Their actions ARE despicable, but that doesn't make them any less necessary. This is the point that the rest of us are missing, from our very comfortable positions in life: being able to take the high road and condemn the actions of murderous freedom fighters is, sometimes, not recognized for what it is: a luxury that we would NOT HAVE if not for those murderers giving the rest of the world something to rally around.

What a crock of nonsense.

There was an arguement and I backed it up. You can't call somethng nonsense without explaing why. Wait you CAN but you'll discredit yourself.

You didn't back it up.  You need to give examples of these people who have blood on their hands who performed absolutely necessary actions.

[Beerfish]

Your sig says a lot regarding Anders, Rassler, he talks about buildings and symbols but not once in that little comment does he mention people being killed in the initial action or the fact that many more will die due to his actions. He was simply a very selfish person who cared for his own ideal above all. He doesn't even care about the mages in kirkwall at all, all collateral damage to him.

[Lulupab]

HiroVoid wrote...

Rassler wrote...

General TSAR wrote...

Rassler wrote...

What I understand doesn't matter really, I was exploring the fact that why Anders did what he did in his own view point.

In this, he was a tragic figure, taking it upon himself to be the reviled murderer so that other people would have the freedom to condemn his actions. Like it or not, that is a very realistic, real-world scenario. For every Martin Luther King or Anne Frank or Rosa Parks or Gandhi you see in the world, there are people with blood on their hands who give the rest of the world the opportunity to take the moral high road. Their actions ARE despicable, but that doesn't make them any less necessary. This is the point that the rest of us are missing, from our very comfortable positions in life: being able to take the high road and condemn the actions of murderous freedom fighters is, sometimes, not recognized for what it is: a luxury that we would NOT HAVE if not for those murderers giving the rest of the world something to rally around.

What a crock of nonsense.

There was an arguement and I backed it up. You can't call somethng nonsense without explaing why. Wait you CAN but you'll discredit yourself.

You didn't back it up.  You need to give examples of these people who have blood on their hands who performed absolutely necessary actions.

Because like those people Anders will be forgotten, I am aware of it. My home country has been under oppression for a long time and everyone knows people have done despicable things to make it free again. In war murder makes one a hero to one sider and murderer to the other. 

[Lulupab]

Beerfish wrote...

Your sig says a lot regarding Anders, Rassler, he talks about buildings and symbols but not once in that little comment does he mention people being killed in the initial action or the fact that many more will die due to his actions. He was simply a very selfish person who cared for his own ideal above all. He doesn't even care about the mages in kirkwall at all, all collateral damage to him.

Do I have to repeay myself over and over again? Read the bloody thread and stop asking the same questions.

Anders himself never questioned that what he did was wrong. He fully acknowledges that his actions were murder, and were morally contemptible, and that justice was required of him for what he did. What he understood is that it wasn't about right or wrong, it was about necessity. He believed that the system of imprisoning mages within Circles, under the watch of the Chantry's templars, was wrong, and would accept nothing less than total freedom. And with that, he understood that unless someone was willing to take drastic measures, then nothing ever would change. He knew that the templars would rise against mages everywhere for his action, and that therefore all the mages locked within Circle towers would be forced to rise up against the templars in order to save themselves. By his actions, no mages would be able to take, say, Wynne's position that the templars and Circles are necessary, except for those mages who hated their own magic and wanted to embrace imprisonment or even suicide. They would have to either submit to templar tyranny, or fight to save their own lives. By extension, he also removed middle-of-the-road templars who weren't quite so eager to terrorize the mages under their watch. So he removed any stalemate--"there can be no compromise"--in the name of ending an indisputably broken system that served no one.

Also  you try to apply the norms of a post merchantile democratic society in a pre-merchantile feudal society aka Thedas. Its pure stupidity. Andraste razed the world to the ground, forced people into war by openly declaring war on Tevinter. People died, she was responsible for those deaths, deaths of children, innocents and soldiers alike. The change was needed so she forced it. She was a holy figure but Anders is not holy at all, he is simply a figure.

Modifié par Rassler, 04 février 2014 - 04:52 .

[Beerfish]

Andraste is no more right than Anders was. Also you cannot disregard right and wrong from 'necessity'. That is a total cop out and an excuse to avoid consequences of your actions. If he felt that it was a necessity to do what he did then it was RIGHT in his eyes.

Of course when you look at the term necessity 99 out of 100 people including most mages would disagree with Anders that it was a necessity to do what he did.

[Lulupab]

Beerfish wrote...

Andraste is no more right than Anders was. Also you cannot disregard right and wrong from 'necessity'. That is a total cop out and an excuse to avoid consequences of your actions. If he felt that it was a necessity to do what he did then it was RIGHT in his eyes.

Of course when you look at the term necessity 99 out of 100 people including most mages would disagree with Anders that it was a necessity to do what he did.

what he did might have happened sooner or later. It was apparent of the tensions between mages and templars were building and close to burst. if Anders didn't do what he did, then nothing would've changed and the same cycles of hatred, fear and use of the Right of Annulment would continue and new mages would be born and everything starting all over agin. Change rarely comes peacefully. Andraste didn't send the Tevinter Imperium a written letter. So I say, the sooner, the better to have new world with balance between magic and control.

Also Anders admits what he did was wrong so no its not right in his eyes.

Modifié par Rassler, 04 février 2014 - 05:18 .

[dragonflight288]

Rassler wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

Andraste is no more right than Anders was. Also you cannot disregard right and wrong from 'necessity'. That is a total cop out and an excuse to avoid consequences of your actions. If he felt that it was a necessity to do what he did then it was RIGHT in his eyes.

Of course when you look at the term necessity 99 out of 100 people including most mages would disagree with Anders that it was a necessity to do what he did.

what he did might have happened sooner or later. It was apparent of the tensions between mages and templars were building and close to burst. if Anders didn't do what he did, then nothing would've changed and the same cycles of hatred, fear and use of the Right of Annulment would continue and new mages would be born and everything starting all over agin. Change rarely comes peacefully. Andraste didn't send the Tevinter Imperium a written letter. So I say, the sooner, the better to have new world with balance between magic and control.

I think it's also important to note that even Cullen admits that the templars have been losing popularity among non-mages as well, which coincidentally also happens while Templars are becoming more and more powerful, and that people were just as likely to slam the door in a templars face as they were to help them. 

If it wasn't the mages in Kirkwall, it would've been the nobility considering how much Meredith interefered with the running of the city. 

[The Flying Grey Warden]

Rassler wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

Rassler wrote...

General TSAR wrote...

Rassler wrote...

What I understand doesn't matter really, I was exploring the fact that why Anders did what he did in his own view point.

In this, he was a tragic figure, taking it upon himself to be the reviled murderer so that other people would have the freedom to condemn his actions. Like it or not, that is a very realistic, real-world scenario. For every Martin Luther King or Anne Frank or Rosa Parks or Gandhi you see in the world, there are people with blood on their hands who give the rest of the world the opportunity to take the moral high road. Their actions ARE despicable, but that doesn't make them any less necessary. This is the point that the rest of us are missing, from our very comfortable positions in life: being able to take the high road and condemn the actions of murderous freedom fighters is, sometimes, not recognized for what it is: a luxury that we would NOT HAVE if not for those murderers giving the rest of the world something to rally around.

What a crock of nonsense.

There was an arguement and I backed it up. You can't call somethng nonsense without explaing why. Wait you CAN but you'll discredit yourself.

You didn't back it up.  You need to give examples of these people who have blood on their hands who performed absolutely necessary actions.

Because like those people Anders will be forgotten, I am aware of it. My home country has been under oppression for a long time and everyone knows people have done despicable things to make it free again. In war murder makes one a hero to one sider and murderer to the other. 

lolwat? So I guess nobody remembers terrorists who blow up the most important and memorable areas then huh? Yup. Nobody at al and dont bother looking it up cause you wont find it either cause nobody remembers enough to write about them.
What a crock of nonsense.

[Trolldrool]

I think it was a member of Sinn Fein (I don't remember who, he was quoted by a lecturer at the university I attend and I might not be repeating the exact quote accurately) who once said;

To those who understand, no explanation is necessary. To those who don't understand, no explanation is possible.

I hear those words over and over everytime I see a discussion on BSN between pro-magi and pro-templars.

[Br3admax]

Guess what, people on our side do terrible things everyday. No one's calling them heroes. Not the way you're making it seem, Rassler. I don't think you actually understand that war actually does have laws to it. It isn't a free for all to get the job done. Otherwise, we would nuke until everyone glows green and then shoot them in the dark.

[HiroVoid]

Trolldrool wrote...

I think it was a member of Sinn Fein (I don't remember who, he was quoted by a lecturer at the university I attend and I might not be repeating the exact quote accurately) who once said;

To those who understand, no explanation is necessary. To those who don't understand, no explanation is possible.

I hear those words over and over everytime I see a discussion on BSN between pro-magi and pro-templars.

So what's your actual opinion on events?

[Lulupab]

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

lolwat? So I guess nobody remembers terrorists who blow up the most important and memorable areas then huh? Yup. Nobody at al and dont bother looking it up cause you wont find it either cause nobody remembers enough to write about them.
What a crock of nonsense.

With time they will forget because as I mentioned you try to apply the norms of a post merchantile democratic society in a pre-merchantile feudal society. People don't even know what happened in Kirkwall, you read Asunder right? They though a random demon blow up the chantry, such things happen in feudal times. Sooner or later a mage will lead the rebellion and be the hero and rally mages. But it is because of drastic measures of people like Adrian and Anders that such a hero will rise. They might remember what Anders did but he will be a forgotten figure, giving scene to actual heroes.

[Lulupab]

Br3ad wrote...

Guess what, people on our side do terrible things everyday. No one's calling them heroes. Not the way you're making it seem, Rassler. I don't think you actually understand that war actually does have laws to it. It isn't a free for all to get the job done. Otherwise, we would nuke until everyone glows green and then shoot them in the dark.

Anders is NOT a hero. He knows change will not come without drastic measures so he offers himself. To compare how society works in Dragon age to ours will get us nowhere in this debate. The Dragon age universe is not a refection of our world, our struggles, or moral stances; it just simply is. People like Anders won't be rememberd for heroism or morality, its because of actions of people like him that actual Heroes find opportunities to rise and bring change by following moral high roads.

My signature is a mix of Flemeth and Anders' quotes, "There are men who embrace destiny and do not show their fear.... These who change the world, forever". I am quite sure this was not said meaninglessly.

[The Elder King]

@Rassler: who said that a demon blew up the Chantry in Asunder? Fiona specifically talked about Anders.