34723 réponses à ce sujet

[AresKeith]

This kind of reminds me of an argument I made once. How I think Cassandra is pretty much the anti Miranda of Bioware games. Because the way I see it, it's like this:

 

Both Miranda and Cassandra are driven woman that believe in a cause and the greater good, both are willing to make harsh decisions if it means furthering the greater good. But there are two main differences between them. 1) Is that Miranda ideal of greater good mostly comes from her personal idology of what's right, and how things should be, wereas Cassandra view of the greater good is an messy mix of her personal ideologies with the ones the Chantry implemented on her since young age. 2) Miranda chooses the cause over the organization. Because by the end of ME2 Miranda comes to realize what Cerberus truly is, and quits once she realizes they failed the cause they were trying to achieve. Wereas Cassandra chooces the organization over the cause. For no matter how low the Chantry falls, how many mistakes they do, or how much they betray their own creed, Cassandra aways sticks to them, she is willing to step on her own moral code if it means the Chantry will be saved.

 

And because of that, Miranda has my respect, while Cassandra does not.

 

And she also feels that the Chantry needs to change which is why she chooses to stay with them

[The Elder King]

This kind of reminds me of an argument I made once. How I think Cassandra is pretty much the anti Miranda of Bioware games. Because the way I see it, it's like this:
 
Both Miranda and Cassandra are driven woman that believe in a cause and the greater good, both are willing to make harsh decisions if it means furthering the greater good. But there are two main differences between them. 1) Is that Miranda ideal of greater good mostly comes from her personal idology of what's right, and how things should be, wereas Cassandra view of the greater good is an messy mix of her personal ideologies with the ones the Chantry implemented on her since young age. 2) Miranda chooses the cause over the organization. Because by the end of ME2 Miranda comes to realize what Cerberus truly is, and quits once she realizes they failed the cause they were trying to achieve. Wereas Cassandra chooces the organization over the cause. For no matter how low the Chantry falls, how many mistakes they do, or how much they betray their own creed, Cassandra aways sticks to them, she is willing to step on her own moral code if it means the Chantry will be saved.
 
And because of that, Miranda has my respect, while Cassandra does not.

Well, other then What Ares said (which is a big difference), most of your point depends on the opinion of the Chantry. I'm not exactly a big fan (though it's not like Thedas is full of nice organizations) of the Chantry, but I don't think it's as bad as Cerberus.

[Jaison1986]

Well, other then What Ares said (which is a big difference), most of your point depends on the opinion of the Chantry. I'm not exactly a big fan (though it's not like Thedas is full of nice organizations) of the Chantry, but I don't think it's as bad as Cerberus.

 

From an historical standpoint, I would say the Chantry can be just as bad as Cerberus. A lot of people died by their hand just because they felt entitled to it.

[AresKeith]

From an historical standpoint, I would say the Chantry can be just as bad as Cerberus. A lot of people died by their hand just because they felt entitled to it.

 

Just like the Dalish, Tevinter, The Qun and almost every group in Thedas

[Andres Hendrix]

Spoiler

Geralt gives up his daughter for the greater good, you know this yes?

 

So what exactly was the point to this?

First you just cherry picked the second half of what I wrote, secondly I was talking about Geralt's personal decisions not Ciri's,

Spoiler

when Ciri goes to stop the white frost that is Ciri's decision, and Geralt protests but he is not going to force her not to. Moreover if you weren't playing as a total jerk, Ciri lives

[Andres Hendrix]

Just like the Dalish, Tevinter, The Qun and almost every group in Thedas

Tu quoque is an overused  logical fallacy.

[AresKeith]

Tu quoque is an overused  logical fallacy.

 

Doesn't make it any less true in what I said

[The Elder King]

From an historical standpoint, I would say the Chantry can be just as bad as Cerberus. A lot of people died by their hand just because they felt entitled to it.

Can you make some examples?

Anyway, Thedas is full of organizations or Nationals as bad as the Chantry. Not that the MW is that Better, but I think ME3 Cerberus is way, way worse then the rest. You have more changes to join a better organization in ME then DA.
Though As said before, Cassandra doesn't condone everything the Chantry did. She wants to change it.

[The Elder King]

Tu quoque is an overused  logical fallacy.

But thedas's vast majority of nations and organizations Are bad, or at least have a lot of issues. Joining another isn't better then try to change one (in this case, the Chantry).

[Andres Hendrix]

Doesn't make it any less true in what I said

It makes it a moot point. If someone says "the Chantry killed all these people" and then you answer "well groups x y and z killed all these people too!" It absolves nothing, and it just ends up being something that people already know (sort of like a tautology). It is no argument against the claim that the Chantry is 'like Cerberus', there is nothing to be gained from it.

[AresKeith]

It makes it a moot point. If someone says "the Chantry killed all these people" and then you answer "well groups x y and z killed all these people too!" It absolves nothing, and it just ends up being something that people already know (sort of like a tautology). It is no argument against the claim that the Chantry is 'like Cerberus', there is nothing to be gained from it.

 

Except they're not like Cerberus at all, he said the Chantry is as bad as Cerberus (which is also a poor comparison imo)

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

Tu quoque is an overused  logical fallacy.

 

Except that he wasn't using that fallacy, since he was responding to an assertion about fictional nations.

 

Tu Quoque is an ad hominin fallacy. Keith wasn't criticizing Jaison1986, he was addressing the notion that killing in the name of the organization or nation was a common trait to the factions in Thedas, making it a difficult one to use for the basis of judging "good" from "bad."

[Andres Hendrix]

Except they're not like Cerberus at all, he said the Chantry is as bad as Cerberus (which is also a poor comparison imo)

That is a red herring, I'm not makeing this claim about the Chantry. I'm saying that your response that groups 'x y and z did bad things as well', means that all of said groups are 'bad' and that your response does not prove that the Chantry is not like Cerberus.' If I say "Bill hits his wife, that makes him a jerk" and you say "Well Joe hits his kids!" That does not absolve Bill of his actions and make him not a jerk, it means that both Bill and Joe are violent jerks who hit their family members.

[AresKeith]

That is a red herring, I'm not makeing this claim about the Chantry. I'm saying that your response that groups 'x y and z did bad things as well', means that all of said groups are 'bad' and that your response does not prove that the Chantry is not like Cerberus.' If I say "Bill hits his wife, that makes him a jerk" and you say "Well Joe hits his kids!" That does not absolve Bill of his actions and make him not a jerk, it means that both Bill and Joe are violent jerks who hit their family members.

 

Except my response was that:

 

Tu Quoque is an ad hominin fallacy. Keith wasn't criticizing Jaison1986, he was addressing the notion that killing in the name of the organization or nation was a common trait to the factions in Thedas, making it a difficult one to use for the basis of judging "good" from "bad."

[Jaison1986]

Can you make some examples?

Anyway, Thedas is full of organizations or Nationals as bad as the Chantry. Not that the MW is that Better, but I think ME3 Cerberus is way, way worse then the rest. You have more changes to join a better organization in ME then DA.
Though As said before, Cassandra doesn't condone everything the Chantry did. She wants to change it.

 

1) The very foundation of the Chantry was based on Drakon war of expansions. The Chantry was used to justify the slaughter of great many people that did not wished to join this new religion.

 

2) Segregation of mages. The templars and Sekeers, groups that belonged to the Chantry killed many mages during annulments, even for foolish reasons, like in Rivain for example. Never mind isolated cases were templars were never held accountable for their murders.

 

3) In the aftermath of the exalted marches of the Qunari, ,many unarmed Rivain citizens were murdered in cold blood by Chantry fanatics because they wanted to live by the Qun rather then the Chantry.

 

4) The segregation of any groups that choose to not live by their ideology. Be it elves, dwarfs, non believers, mages, etc. You can see Chantry priests demonstrating great bigotry to anyone that doesn't agree with them. Not all of them, no, but the majority does.

[Andres Hendrix]

Except my response was that:

That was not your response unless you have two accounts. Also the claim is the Chantry is bad like Cerberus, what you have written does not disprove that, you only show that all of said groups 'are bad' which is seprate from 'being bad like Cerberus'. Morover, the notion that "killing in the name of the organization or nation was a common trait to the factions in Thedas, making it a difficult one to use for the basis of judging "good" from "bad..." is tangent from the claim. If all are bad, it could be that all of the organizations are bad like Cerberus. More analogues would have to be provided to prove such.

[The Elder King]

1) The very foundation of the Chantry was based on Drakon war of expansions. The Chantry was used to justify the slaughter of great many people that did not wished to join this new religion.
 
2) Segregation of mages. The templars and Sekeers, groups that belonged to the Chantry killed many mages during annulments, even for foolish reasons, like in Rivain for example. Never mind isolated cases were templars were never held accountable for their murders.
 
3) In the aftermath of the exalted marches of the Qunari, ,many unarmed Rivain citizens were murdered in cold blood by Chantry fanatics because they wanted to live by the Qun rather then the Chantry.
 
4) The segregation of any groups that choose to not live by their ideology. Be it elves, dwarfs, non believers, mages, etc. You can see Chantry priests demonstrating great bigotry to anyone that doesn't agree with them. Not all of them, no, but the majority does.

1)It was Drakon Who did it Though. He choose the Andrastian cult he wanted to make the official one and then acted. The Chantry didn't even exist at the point.
2) I have many problems with the Chantry Circle system, Annulment's methods included, but it should be said the mages themselves agreed to it. Not that it justifies Rivain, but the system was created with the agreement of the mages.
3)A good example.
4)The elves Are actually segregated even If they agree with the Chantry's beliefs, Though the situation isn't only about the Chantry. I think dwarves Are free to believe What they want in the surface.
I understand your points, and I'm Not saying the Chantry is good. I just don't think it's as bad as ME3 Cerberus.

[Jaison1986]

1)It was Drakon Who did it Though. He choose the Andrastian cult he wanted to make the official one and then acted. The Chantry didn't even exist at the point.
2) I have many problems with the Chantry Circle system, Annulment's methods included, but it should be said the mages themselves agreed to it. Not that it justifies Rivain, but the system was created with the agreement of the mages.
3)A good example.
4)The elves Are actually segregated even If they agree with the Chantry's beliefs, Though the situation isn't only about the Chantry. I think dwarves Are free to believe What they want in the surface.
I understand your points, and I'm Not saying the Chantry is good. I just don't think it's as bad as ME3 Cerberus.

 

I was actually comparing the Chantry with ME-ME2 Cerberus. They already did a lot of bad **** before going on full reaper mode.

[The Elder King]

I was actually comparing the Chantry with ME-ME2 Cerberus. They already did a lot of bad **** before going on full reaper mode.

Fair enough. Though Miranda left around the time Cerberus started to get worse.

[Br3admax]

First you just cherry picked the second half of what I wrote, secondly I was talking about Geralt's personal decisions not Ciri's,

Spoiler

when Ciri goes to stop the white frost that is Ciri's decision, and Geralt protests but he is not going to force her not to. Moreover if you weren't playing as a total jerk, Ciri lives

Spoiler

I'm talking about where she goes on to become empress, not what you're talking about. She, much like Cassandra, give up what she personally wants, to be a Witcher, to go on to do the "greater good."

And while you can talk about Geralt all you want, it's the same situation as here, and Geralt realizes that his code means nothing when concerning others, which the first part of your post definitely brought up. Complaining about Cassandra making a choice and then saying, "This is why the Witcher is so good," really only leads to one line of reasoning. 

[AresKeith]

Fair enough. Though Miranda left around the time Cerberus started to get worse.

 

Really this, the Chantry may have done shady and bad things but they never started going towards ME3 Cerberus

 

Cassandra feels that the Chantry needs to change and that's what she feels need to happen which is why she chooses to stay with them

[Andres Hendrix]

Spoiler

I'm talking about where she goes on to become empress, not what you're talking about. She, much like Cassandra, give up what she personally wants, to be a Witcher, to go on to do the "greater good."

And while you can talk about Geralt all you want, it's the same situation as here, and Geralt realizes that his code means nothing when concerning others, which the first part of your post definitely brought up. Complaining about Cassandra making a choice and then saying, "This is why the Witcher is so good," really only leads to one line of reasoning. 

 

Spoiler

I'm talking about where she goes on to become empress, not what you're talking about. She, much like Cassandra, give up what she personally wants, to be a Witcher, to go on to do the "greater good."

And while you can talk about Geralt all you want, it's the same situation as here, and Geralt realizes that his code means nothing when concerning others, which the first part of your post definitely brought up. Complaining about Cassandra making a choice and then saying, "This is why the Witcher is so good," really only leads to one line of reasoning. 

The ending where Ciri

Spoiler

becomes Empress makes no sense within the canon, e.g. 'the law of surprise' and how Ciri has never shown intrest in the throne, or her blood father (who was going to force her to marry him at one point).

Geralt never gives up on his own belief, he simply does not want to control Ciri. He still protests, but she goes anyway. Yes I like the Witcher for Geralt's heuristic (which happens to be the general theme for the first and third game), imagine that. And yes, I don't like Cassandra's heuristic at all (this should be obvious), because there is no greater good. Cassandra lets a stupid institution, ruin a good thing that she has in her actual life because she is poisoned by her idealism, and faith in the Chantry. She is supposed to be a strong character, yet she worships a dictator who if existing, created the Dawrkspawn as this completley unreasonable punishment, because a few mages broke into his house. So the land of Thedas gets the blight, which kills basically everything that it infects, and how do Darkspawn propagate? Through brood mothers... So these poor women go through that whole ordeal because people they have no connection to broke into the Maker's house 1000 years before these women were even alive... Cassandra does not even think 'what kind of a 'being' does something so evil and grotesque?'  She gives up her love, to save an organization with those horribly masochistic teachings because she is convinced that that organization constitutes 'greater good'. Geralt would never give up Yennefer to become the guradian of such tripe; if he could, Geralt would probably have a silver sword poised to strike the Maker. Cassandra would probably make excuses, the problem of evil, courtly love blah blah etc.

[The Elder King]

Can you put the spoiler about TW3 it in a spoiler tag?