71 réponses à ce sujet

[Biotic Apostate]

And like 9/11, Anders' actions didn't hold much of a goal except to cause terror and hope it would work in his favor.

Except he had a goal. Everyone was supposed to see that despite him being clearly the one responsible, the circle were the ones to be punished. It was to spurn the Kirkwall circle and others, to rebel in the face of clear injustice. Terrorists, who attacked WTC wanted to show their despise for the western world and to instil fear. Anders wanted to abolish an almost 1000 year cycle of imprisonment and systematic genocide (collecting a specific part of the population in one place, and slaughtering a whole circle every 50 years or so). The circle, under the control of the chantry and templars, has seen atrocities such as starving mages to death (like Cole), driving people to suicide, placing them in solitary confinement for a year (by our standards a cruel form of abuse), or making innocents tranquil (a form of extreme torture, since deep down they still retain consciousness) for love letters or just so they could rape them, without anyone complaining.

 

You can make real world analogies, but this was a bad one.

[Catilina]

Seriously, I'm just sick from this wrong analogy. And yes, Anders had an understandable goal, and he has achieved this goal: the revolution has begun.

[DA_Jamie]

Favorite character? Impossible.

 

Oghren for being a one-dimensional drunken alpha male.

 

That's what I love about Oghren.  Where not my favorite character, he's certainly high on the list.  Love the interaction between him and Felsi.  Maybe before the hero of ferelden gave him purpose that statement would make more sense, but after joining the party and having a purpose to fight for, He's a delightful drunk with a fun side.

[congokong]

Except he had a goal. Everyone was supposed to see that despite him being clearly the one responsible, the circle were the ones to be punished. It was to spurn the Kirkwall circle and others, to rebel in the face of clear injustice. Terrorists, who attacked WTC wanted to show their despise for the western world and to instil fear. Anders wanted to abolish an almost 1000 year cycle of imprisonment and systematic genocide (collecting a specific part of the population in one place, and slaughtering a whole circle every 50 years or so). The circle, under the control of the chantry and templars, has seen atrocities such as starving mages to death (like Cole), driving people to suicide, placing them in solitary confinement for a year (by our standards a cruel form of abuse), or making innocents tranquil (a form of extreme torture, since deep down they still retain consciousness) for love letters or just so they could rape them, without anyone complaining.

 

You can make real world analogies, but this was a bad one.

You're wrong. If Meredith wasn't a red lyrium psycho, she easily could have merely punished Anders and used him as a figurehead of the dangers of magic; further reinforcing the Circle's necessity.

 

Anders had no idea what the outcome would be of his terrorism. He was hoping for chaos by destabilizing the status quo.

 

The 9/11 attackers saw an injustice in US interventions in their homeland, so they decided to strike back through terrorism; hoping for chaos by destabilizing the status quo.

 

If you can't see the similarities, or perhaps you just don't wish to, then I cannot stop you. Nor did I say they are the same exact thing. Comparing =/= equating. But the mentality of people defending terrorism is frighteningly comparable in both cases.

[Biotic Apostate]

You're wrong. If Meredith wasn't a red lyrium psycho, she easily could have merely punished Anders and used him as a figurehead of the dangers of magic; further reinforcing the Circle's necessity.

 

Anders had no idea what the outcome would be of his terrorism. He was hoping for chaos by destabilizing the status quo.

 

The 9/11 attackers saw an injustice in US interventions in their homeland, so they decided to strike back through terrorism; hoping for chaos by destabilizing the status quo.

 

If you can't see the similarities, or perhaps you just don't wish to, then I cannot stop you. Nor did I say they are the same exact thing. Comparing =/= equating. But the mentality of people defending terrorism is frighteningly comparable in both cases.

He knew she would punish the circle, and he accurately predicted that his actions would leat to a rebellion in the circle.

 

If you wish to simplify a story to fit your viewpoint, then knock yourself out. That can work both ways - for example, "the Templars are like Nazis, doing cruel things to the prisoners, trying to exterminate an entire group of people. The mentality of people defending Nazism is frighteningly comparable in both cases." See how that works? Accusing people discussing video game narratives of having anything to do with terrorism supporters is complete idiocy, so there's no point in continuing this discussion.

[Catilina]

You're wrong. If Meredith wasn't a red lyrium psycho, she easily could have merely punished Anders and used him as a figurehead of the dangers of magic; further reinforcing the Circle's necessity.

 

Anders had no idea what the outcome would be of his terrorism. He was hoping for chaos by destabilizing the status quo.

 

The 9/11 attackers saw an injustice in US interventions in their homeland, so they decided to strike back through terrorism; hoping for chaos by destabilizing the status quo.

 

If you can't see the similarities, or perhaps you just don't wish to, then I cannot stop you. Nor did I say they are the same exact thing. Comparing =/= equating. But the mentality of people defending terrorism is frighteningly comparable in both cases.

If, Meredith would not have been mad. But she was. And Anders (and Hawke and so much people) knew this. Not the red lyrium thing, but that Meredith retired,she don't want to see anyone, and behaves strange. Anders did not want chaos, rather take away the possibility of compromise, Elthina restrained Meredith and Orsino. All what happened in the Circle, was stayed in the Circle. He wanted to bring the war out of the Circle. 

 

Spoiler

source

[congokong]

He knew she would punish the circle, and he accurately predicted that his actions would leat to a rebellion in the circle.

Again, he did not know, and certainly not how they'd be punished specifically, as in their extermination. Even if, you're arguing terrorism is ok if you can accurately predict the outcome?

 

 

If you wish to simplify a story to fit your viewpoint, then knock yourself out. That can work both ways - for example, "the Templars are like Nazis, doing cruel things to the prisoners, trying to exterminate an entire group of people. The mentality of people defending Nazism is frighteningly comparable in both cases." See how that works? Accusing people discussing video game narratives of having anything to do with terrorism supporters is complete idiocy, so there's no point in continuing this discussion.

That's an absurd, and invalid, oversimplification of all templars/nazis. What part of my simplification was invalid?

 

How do you not see yourself as a hypocrite defending, or at least sympathizing with, terrorists in one instance if you defend Anders' terrorism but not another group's? Is it because you sympathize with the mages but not natives of, say, Afghanistan? You think no civilians in the middle east were unjustly killed by foreign invaders (America) before 9/11? You think they didn't try alternatives before resorting to 9/11? You think they would have resorted to it if they could have fought the US off effectively? Considering the US has the armaments to literally take on the rest of the world (even before resorting to nukes), and probably win, there weren't many options if they were determined to their cause.

[Catilina]

Again, he did not know. And so you're arguing terrorism is ok if you can accurately predict the outcome?

 

 

That's an absurd, and invalid, oversimplification of all templars/nazis. What part of my simplification was invalid?

 

How do you not see yourself as a hypocrite defending, or at least sympathizing with, terrorists in one instance if you defend Anders' terrorism but not another group's? Is it because you sympathize with the mages but not natives of, say, Afghanistan? You think no civilians in the middle east were unjustly killed by foreign invaders (America) before 9/11? You think they didn't try alternatives before resorting to 9/11? You think they would have resorted to it if they could have fought the US off effectively? Considering the US has the armaments to literally take on the rest of the world (even before resorting to nukes), and probably win, there weren't many options.

Both analogy wrong. What are you trying to achieve? In another forum, and here also ... I just not understand you.

[congokong]

Both analogy wrong. What are you trying to achieve? In another forum, and here also ... I just not understand you.

What I'm trying to achieve is self-explanatory. What are you trying to achieve? To not question your love for Anders or that your views aren't hypocritical? All you do is say "your analogy is wrong" without elaborating.

[Biotic Apostate]

That's an absurd, and invalid, oversimplification of all templars/nazis.

Exactly. As was your analogy. But it seems you are incapable of making your point without ad hominem attacks, so again, there's no point in having this discussion.

[Catilina]

What I'm trying to achieve is self-explanatory. What are you trying to achieve? To not question your love for Anders or that your views aren't hypocritical? All you do is say "your analogy is wrong" without elaborating.

Yes, you right: I'm blinded by love. Nazi terrorists everywhere, and I can't notice. 

[congokong]

Exactly. As was your analogy. But it seems you are incapable of making your point without ad hominem attacks, so again, there's no point in having this discussion.

I made my point right away without ad hominem attacks. When did I ever make a personal attack on you? Because I argued that defending Anders' justification for his terrorism, but not doing so at all for the 9/11 attackers, was hypocritical? That's not an ad hominem attack.

 

I argued precisely why I thought the view was hypocritical. You responded by arguing Anders' reasons for his actions and your belief in Anders' clairvoyance on the outcome, yet that doesn't correlate with making terrorism ok. Then you intentionally made a bad analogy, as if that would invalidate mine.

 

...So how am I using underhanded methods in debating?

 

 

Yes, you right: I'm blinded by love. Nazi terrorists everywhere, and I can't notice. 

?

[Catilina]

I made my point right away without ad hominem attacks. When did I ever make a personal attack on you? Because I argued that defending Anders' justification for his terrorism, but not doing so at all for the 9/11 attackers, was hypocritical? That's not an ad hominem attack.

I argued precisely why I thought the view was hypocritical. You responded by arguing Anders' reasons for his actions and your belief in Anders' clairvoyance on the outcome, yet that doesn't correlate with making terrorism ok. Then you intentionally made a bad analogy, as if that would invalidate mine.

...So how am I using underhanded methods in debating?

 

?

The problem is that your analogy is simple wrong . We tried to explain why we do not agree with it. You don't accepted the arguments. Its, okay. But it unnecessary to continue. Really. You also convinced that you are right, we're also. What else do you want? This is a deadlock.

[Seraphim24]

Loghain 

[congokong]

The problem is that your analogy are wrong. We tried to explain why we do not agree with it. You don't accepted the arguments. Its, okay. But it unnecessary to continue. Really. You also convinced that you are right, we're also. What else do you want? This is a deadlock.

Besides labeling the analogy as "nonsense," "wrong," "bad," and "complete idiocy," there was little attempt to challenge it. I agree though that none of us are going to change the other's mind. No surprise there. It's the internet.

[DA_Jamie]

*casts cone of cold on this conversation*

[Dai Grepher]

*Casts Crushing Prison on the frozen conversation*

[kimgoold]

Favourite character for DA, I would have to say HoF and Inky. But if we're talking companions then I have to say I'm literally unable to choose just one. 

DAO I loved the adorkable Alistair and the vulnerability of Zevran.

DAA adored the playfulness of Sigrun and ever so serious Nathaniel

DA2 while I disliked the game itself I loved many of the companions .. Varric, Aveline, Isabela and Fenris, honourable mention Carver.

DAI my favourite was Cullen and Dorian. Also love Cassandra and Varric.

But if forced to pick only one Alistair, he was my HoF's 1st love and you don't forget your first anything.

[Brother Juniper]

Some of the lesser characters are enjoyable. I like Charter and Scout Pellane, the exchanges by the sisters in front of the Haven chantry, and the pair talking horses near the blacksmith. And that's just in Haven.

[Akiza]

Ignacio

[Shizukai]

Pick only one is... beyond difficult.

 

Alistair was my first favorite DA-character. God, I love that funny idiot. I really do.

He also was the love interest of my very first DA-character ever, so... maybe that's got to do something with it.

 

I also like Leliana from DAO (+ Lelianas Song) and how her character develops over DAI.

But there are so many cool people: Varric, Fenris, Dorian, Cassandra, .... 

 

Cullen! Speaking about development, his character made real progess from DAO to DAI, love it. He could have gone wrong

so many times from being the hateful templar he was in DAO - but he did not.

 

And me being a Solas-Fangirl isn't concealable, I guess... :/

....

 

I do like Anders too, really.

I liked the Awakening-Anders and I like his character-develpoment in DA2.

I've got a thing for characters trying to achieve a higher goal, doing "good" - and losing the way completely.

A tragic person.

But hey - that is my opinion and I'm cool with people not sharing it. No further discissuion needed.

[Catilina]

[...]

....

 

I do like Anders too, really.

I liked the Awakening-Anders and I like his character-develpoment in DA2.

I've got a thing for characters trying to achieve a higher goal, doing "good" - and losing the way completely.

A tragic person.

But hey - that is my opinion and I'm cool with people not sharing it. No further discissuion needed.

Anders gets more hate than the other characters, and not just because it blew the Chantry. Many people hate to have changed, some can not bear to openly flirt with the male Hawke. I can understand if someone does not like him, only I do not understand the extent of hatred, and some of the reasons. 

 

Besides Anders, of course I also like so many characters too. For example Morrigan, Sten (I found him interest and fun, but I dont like qun), Zevran (because he bacome devoted, if the Warden care to him), Alistair ofc., and yes Varric is cool, but Fenris, Carver, Isabela (she are also morally questionable – as so many others), Aveline..., Cassandra in the DA:I, Cole, and Cullen (Because in DA2 was interesting that he was able to respond positively to a pro-mage Hawke's anti-Circle arguments, despite his old traumatic experience). And not limited to this characters, but suddenly they came to my mind...

...and I almost forgot Flemeth.