1992 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

Better than trying to outright force it through violence like Briala is attempting to do.

It worked for Shartan and Andraste.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

That doesn't mean it's the best solution in every case.

[Divine Justinia V]

She is mine, and mine alone to kill.

 

false

 

I don't see how the methods are off. What the best way to apply change, having the power to make sure it happens or bowing and scraping hoping by the good wills of others it happens?

 

I just don't want innocent blood on my hands if and when I choose to help her is all I'm saying.

[leaguer of one]

Better than trying to outright force it through violence like Briala is attempting to do.

How did she do that? She tricked her way to the power to help her people not bludgeon her way to it.

[AresKeith]

Except Mercury said she thought it was likely Briala would be a villain, and that the player would have to kill her.


I'm not seeing why this is even contested; Mercury only emphasized that she thought it was "likely".

 

We've already acknowledged what Mercury said, this is more towards your other comment saying everyone else is trying to vilify Briala because she is actively prolonging a Civil War 

[Palidane]

It worked for Shartan and Andraste.

No, not at all. Shartan sided with Andraste against Tevinter. What Briala is doing is more like attacking both of them.

[TK514]

It worked for Shartan and Andraste.

 

This hammer worked great when I had a nail.  It should work equally well now that I have a screw, right?

[leaguer of one]

false

 

 

I just don't want innocent blood on my hands if and when I choose to help her is all I'm saying.

Who ever side you pick, some form of Innocent blood will spill. Briala clearly is the one do far less of the spilling.

[Hellion Rex]

It worked for Shartan and Andraste.

Briala is no Shartan or Andraste, not by a longshot. Also, she doesn't have nearly the level of support those two did.

[Hellion Rex]

false

Truth.

[Divine Justinia V]

Who ever side you pick, some form of Innocent blood will spill. Briala clearly is the one do far less of the spilling.

 

Eeeehh, I think innocent blood isn't inevitable.

 

 

Truth.

 

Na, na chill.

[leaguer of one]

If someone could stop the shooter and instead gave him a better bow, I would say that person bears part of burden of guilt. Briala isn't just standing by and letting the civil war happen, she's actively working to perpetuate the violence. That, I find that unconscionable.

Wait. How is she doing that if she is holding away the biggest advantage in the war? Would letting Gespard die really end the war with all the upset noble still about?

I don't see how letting him live equals to giving the shooter a better bow.

[Heimdall]

Truth.

Aw, I think we're all beginning to understand the wisdom behind the Inquisition torture chamber threads.

[LobselVith8]

We've already acknowledged what Mercury said, this is more towards your other comment saying everyone else is trying to vilify Briala because she is actively prolonging a Civil War

I pointed out Briala is singled out, while the participants of the civil war who are fighting for the throne aren't. All three are following a course of action to pursue what they think is right, but I only see posts act as though people will die because of Briala, as though there won't be any casualties from Celene and Gaspard struggling over who rules the empire. There will likely be casualties because of all three.

[Hellion Rex]

Aw, I think we're all beginning to understand the wisdom behind the Inquisition torture chamber threads.

I'm really wanting a torture chamber now lol

Oh well, I'll settle for boiling blood then, cause the devs said no.

[Heimdall]

Wait. How is she doing that if she is holding away the biggest advantage in the war? Would letting Gespard die really end the war with all the upset noble still about?
I don't see how letting him live equals to giving the shooter a better bow.

Read the book. Briala plans to use the Eluvians to work against whoever happens to be winning so the war continues for as long as possible.

[leaguer of one]

Briala is no Shartan or Andraste, not by a longshot. Also, she doesn't have nearly the level of support those two did.

We don't even know how that act to say that. And Briala quickly can get that support. You think elves will turn down a place they can be safe were only they can travel and live in?

[AresKeith]

We don't even know how that act to say that. And Briala quickly can get that support. You think elves will turn down a place they can be safe were only they can travel and live in?

 

Have you read the book?

[Hellion Rex]

We don't even know how that act to say that. And Briala quickly can get that support. You think elves will turn down a place they can be safe were only they can travel and live in?

Why in the world would they even trust her? She was an elf who lived in comfort at the top of Orlesian society. Hell, she doesn't know at all what it's like to be a city elf in the Alienage.

[LobselVith8]

No, not at all. Shartan sided with Andraste against Tevinter. What Briala is doing is more like attacking both of them.

Briala is working to free her people from a tyrannical empire; that was the same goal Shartan had when he opposed the Inperium.

This hammer worked great when I had a nail.  It should work equally well now that I have a screw, right?

In comparison to "bowing and scraping" by, I'd imagine it would be more productive.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I pointed out Briala is singled out, while the participants of the civil war who are fighting for the throne aren't. All three are following a course of action to pursue what they think is right, but I only see posts act as though people will die because of Briala, as though there won't be any casualties from Celene and Gaspard struggling over who rules the empire. There will likely be casualties because of all three.

 

Briala is being singled out because her plan requires more death and destruction than either of them because she is fighting to extend the war and they are both fighting to end it. The war is a means to each of their respective ends, but hers necessitates more casualties.

[AresKeith]

I pointed out Briala is singled out, while the participants of the civil war who are fighting for the throne aren't. All three are following a course of action to pursue what they think is right, but I only see posts act as though people will die because of Briala, as though there won't be any casualties from Celene and Gaspard struggling over who rules the empire. There will likely be casualties because of all three.

 

People "singled her out" because she is actively prolonging the war

[LobselVith8]

Briala is no Shartan or Andraste, not by a longshot. Also, she doesn't have nearly the level of support those two did.

We don't know how successful her endeavor is because TME concludes on her goal to free her people.

[In Exile]

By believing all people are equal. Or at least by virtue of death being the great equalizer. Dead is dead- short of circumstances in which the nature of a death has an effect (and, in a fantasy setting like Thedas, it very well can), once you're dead not much else about them matters. The horror or honor or anything else surrounding that death ceases to matter as a cost born by the person, because death trumps everything else. We don't categorize people by ' seven maimed and dead', or 'three people happy and dead', or 'one dead of shame.' We simply say they're dead.

 

 

That logic doesn't work when it comes to moral culpability. Take the example of a death resulting from a motor vehicle accident. There a significant moral difference we attribute, on the basis of the subjective mental state of the perpetrator, between someone who was just following the rules of the road, someone who was reckless as to those rules and to possible consequences, and someone who intentionally sought another person ought to crash their car into. 

If the logic of "dead is dead" applied, then our justification for distinguishing between criminal negligence causing death, manslaughter and murder would collapse. 

 

For the person who's dying, they still experience the torture. And that level of depravity being inflicted is quite relevant in assessing the magnitude of a crime. A criminal who simply shoots someone in the heart, and another who tortures their victim for weeks on end before killing them, are both murders but they did not commit equivalent crimes. 

 

Is torturing someone to death more horrific than a plane crash? Certainly- but in terms of the greater good, most would agree that if you could only prevent one, it would be entirely moral to save the plane. This sort of logic only works by resting on the assumption that (a) death outweighs other concerns, and ( the lives are equivalent.

 

Those thought experiments get at an entirely different part of moral reasoning. Here we're talking about the magnitude of moral culpability for one's actions, firstly, and secondly, about the magnitude of the crime in terms of harm caused. 

 

The implicit assumption is that harm caused is somehow binary - that all that matters is whether death results and then the number of deaths. 

 

Even if we agree on morally unequivalent deaths, or even discard the common moral consideration that life outweighs other crimes and concerns (ie, that what you do to people while they are alive is more important than killing them), the equivalence between un-equivalent deaths can be determined by sheer numbers. How many elven lives in rebellion are worth one brood mother death?

Except that it's not that simple, especially if a large number of the elves consent to their treatment. If - for whatever reason - someone actually consented to their treatment there is a quite significant difference in this "victim quantity" level of measure for moral wrongness. 

[Jedi Master of Orion]

In comparison to "bowing and scraping" by, I'd imagine it would be more productive.

 

Not necessarily. The blood mages that rebelled with Uldred obviously thought that any violence is preferable to the way things were and also used Andraste's example to justify their own, but things worked out worse for them in the end.