55380 réponses à ce sujet

[Heidenreich]

Meeszy Alexy wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl and Heidenreich:

I just don't think that just because Anders managed to create an event that freed the mages - which in itself is a morally and ethically grey action - justifies him blowing up the chantry. To quote Aveline, "Belief is no excuse. Sincerity does not justify this", basically sums up how I see what Anders did. And besides, many mages have - and are going to - die from the result, just because Anders wanted to enforce his ideals on everyone. That's why I can't like him as a player. He is nothing but a crazy mass murderer to me.

Says the woman who doens't like Verric ;p

He's -not- a crazy mass murderer any more then the Northerners who decided Slavery was wrong were, or the british-colonists were for wanting to be free of england. History is painted with heros who were little more then terrorists, traitors, and innocence-killers. The ONLY difference is that in the end, they won.

Americans are at odds because we've had a "terroist attack" on home soil. Terrorism itself isn't evil, not in the manor that its been painted thanks to 9-11. It's Morally WRONG, true, but not Evil. If it were evil then the whole of the Roman Catholic church is evil thanks to the crusades, which had templars murdering women and children in their beds simply because they weren't of the faith. It doesn't matter if they were wrong, or right.. only that they won their particular war, and history see's them as bringers-of-change.  (and that's as much religion-speek as I'm injecting into this conversation, I swear ;p)

If you hate Anders because he killed some people, you should hate Hawke, or Fenris, for that same thought. Fenris would have you slaughter innocent mages rather then allow them freedom simply because they MIGHT pose a threat. In fact if you rivalry path him and take him to the fade he'll tell you JUST THAT about Faynrael.

Hawke can spend the entirety of the game explaining and proving to Fenris that not all mages are bad. Just like you can spend all game explaining that not all mages deserve freedom from imprisonment to Anders. The only difference, is Fenris isn't posessed and bi-polar. He's self-loathing and has the self-esteem of a wet rodent. Anders, on the other hand, is bi-polar (as admitted by his writer), where his Awakening incarnation was his manic, happy stage, and his DA2 is the depression and self-depreciation end. On top of witch He's got a voice in his head raging about all the little things that he can't control.

If you rival him, in the end he LITTERALLY has no control over his actions, as he tries to take back what he's done and is unable to thanks to justice taking over more and more and more. If you friend him, then you're supporting his actions. And as to him lying to your Hawke, if you press him he'll admit he lied and explain that it was for Hawke's saftey, because you'd try and help him/take the blame.

Thus I don't understand the whole "He lies to me and I don't like him cuz he killed people!"


And this, is from someone who hasn't romanced him since that first playthrough where I went in blindly loving him cuz he was ANDERS and OMG.. and he broke my little heart ;p

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Meeszy Alexy wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl and Heidenreich:

I just don't think that just because Anders managed to create an event that freed the mages - which in itself is a morally and ethically grey action - justifies him blowing up the chantry. To quote Aveline, "Belief is no excuse. Sincerity does not justify this", basically sums up how I see what Anders did. And besides, many mages have - and are going to - die from the result, just because Anders wanted to enforce his ideals on everyone. That's why I can't like him as a player. He is nothing but a crazy mass murderer to me.

Oh, I don't think he's necessarily justified. That's why I keep bringing up Robespierre... he is one of the most shades-of-grey historical figures of all time. On the one hand, he guillotined dozens or possibly hundreds of people that he saw as enemies of freedom. On the other hand, he really believed in justice for the poor and downtrodden, and in a society of mutual support and understanding. His paranoia and passion caused him to make rather a mess of it all, though.

There are no memorials to Robespierre, and he is generally chalked up in the villains column when history is picking teams. And in his worst possible interpretation, Anders is just as Robespierre was... an idealist whose questionable tactics turned him into a monster, to be reviled by history, but who nevertheless did accomplish some things and have some admirable thoughts, at the very least. I think that Anders deserves every knife in his back you choose to give him, and I think Anders would agree that he deserves it, which is what seperates him from the famed historical revolutionary. Anders does not go to his grave thinking he is justified, rather he goes desperate and uncertain; whether he errs on the side of hope or doubt is entirely based on the way you steer him.

I do think Anders is a bit better than old Robespierre in a lot of ways, but I'm not going to argue that. Rather I'm just going to argue against any interpretation that paints him in a more negative light than old Max.

The debate about the relevance of murder in an RPG reminds me of a hypothetical conversation my friend and I devised between Anders and the Warden, once all of this is over: 

"Do you know how many innocent people I killed before I became a hero?" 
"No."
"Zero. Not a one. Do you know how many innocent people I've killed since?"
"Also no." 
"Neither do I. After a while it's hard to tell the difference between someone defending their home and someone jumping you from a dark alley. It's hard to tell if you're siding with the elves because they're right, or because they look like you. It's hard to tell if you're killing the Templar because she's wrong, or because you happen to like the handsome young man standing in front of you. But it's easy to forget you're killing people. That's where you have to be careful. If you ever forget that, that's when I knife you in the back."

To steer things slightly more on topic, I honestly think an unromanced Anders is probably kind of relieved that he didn't end up with Hawke at the end of act 3. A friend of mine and I were once talking about this, and in the rare case where he lives unromanced, we imagined his thought processes to be something like this: 

"Well, it's better for her to be with that elf than an insane posessed murderer. I mean, true, Fenris is kind of insane. And a murderer, yes. But definitely not posessed, and also he's at least able to prioritize love over everything else. Also, he didn't totally ruin her life. So yes, good move on her part. Sound judgement." 

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 28 juin 2011 - 05:24 .

[Patriciachr34]

@Heidenreich...Bi-polar. That explains Anders a LOT.

[DaiyoukaiGeisha]

Heidenreich wrote...

Thus I don't understand the whole "He lies to me and I don't like him cuz he killed people!

I'm not going to even touch the terrorism comment you made and stick to this line...

I don't care that he killed people. I care that he killed innocent people. How many people where in the Chantry when he blew it up that were just praying? How many people did he blow up that may have actually sided with the mages and their plight even though they were members of the Chantry? He didn't just kill a band of raiders, bandits, or mercenary Tal'Vashoth, he killed the innocent. No, that's not cool, not by half. Is Fenris in the right for wanting to kill Fenriyal (sp?). Hell no, and if he had tried I would have put a sword through him just as quick as I put a dagger through Anders. No matter how much I like him. Wrong is wrong. Period.

Back to Anders...I'm supposed to love a guy who claims to love me (assuming romance here), but then lies to me? Um, no. And he did lie to you. He lied about needing the potion components to separate himself from Justice and he was evasive when you confronted him about distracting the Grand Cleric. Even if you take his side, spare him, and fight with the mages he STILL makes it clear that his ideals/goals rate higher than your relationship. He doesn't know how to compromise. Either give up everything for me, or we're done. Say what you will about Fenris's mage-rage, but regardless of his feelings on the matter he sticks by you. He compromises because he loves you.

Hell, I loved Anders in Awakenings and I thought the little glimpses of "relaxed" Anders we saw in DA 2 ("Is that Andraste's face on your crotch?) were great. He's a charming guy, no doubt...but I always remembered what one NPC (Namaya) in Awakenings said about him, something along the lines of "watch yourself with this guy, cuz he'll use you and break your heart" (sorry, can't get an exact quote). That was said about him before he even merged with Justice. Anders was already inherently selfish, merging with Justice just made it worse.

Modifié par DaiyoukaiGeisha, 28 juin 2011 - 05:26 .

[Heidenreich]

DaiyoukaiGeisha wrote...

Heidenreich wrote...

Thus I don't understand the whole "He lies to me and I don't like him cuz he killed people!

I'm not going to even touch the terrorism comment you made and stick to this line...

I don't care that he killed people. I care that he killed innocent people. How many people where in the Chantry when he blew it up that were just praying? How many people did he blow up that may have actually sided with the mages and their plight even though they were members of the Chantry? He didn't just kill a band of raiders, bandits, or mercenary Tal'Vashoth, he killed the innocent. No, that's not cool, not by half. Is Fenris in the right for wanting to kill Fenriyal (sp?). Hell no, and if he had tried I would have put a sword through him just as quick as I put a dagger through Anders. No matter how much I like him. Wrong is wrong. Period.

Back to Anders...I'm supposed to love a guy who claims to love me (assuming romance here), but then lies to me? Um, no. And he did lie to you. He lied about needing the potion components to separate himself from Justice and he was evasive when you confronted him about distracting the Grand Cleric. Even if you take his side, spare him, and fight with the mages he STILL makes it clear that his ideals/goals rate higher than your relationship. He doesn't know how to compromise. Either give up everything for me, of we're done. Say what you will about Fenris's mage-rage, but regardless of his feelings on the matter he sticks by you. He compromises because he loves you.

Hell, I loved Anders in Awakenings and I thought the little glimpses of "relaxed" Anders we saw in DA 2 ("Is that Andraste's face on your crotch?) were great. He's a charming guy, no doubt...but I always remembered what one NPC (Namaya) in Awakenings said about him, something along the lines of "watch yourself with this guy, cuz he'll use you and break your heart" (sorry, can't get an exact quote). That was said about him before he even merged with Justice. Anders was already inherently selfish, merging with Justice just made it worse.

Don't get defensive, I'm not attacking Fenris. I love Fenris. He's my Romance ;p

I'm just sticking up for anders. Yes he kills innocent people, but hell so does Hawke should you chose not to take the blame for Merrill (See, the dalish attack and you have to kill them.. Innocents. Mind you innocents who defend themselves from a proceved threat.)

As to why you wont touch my Terroism comment.. well I can only conclude that you disagree with terrorism not being evil, or perhaps because I used a religious reference.. one which is actually close to my heart because I'm ACTUALLY catholic, I just have good sense to know that nothing is perfect in this world.

The Deffinition:

World English Dictionary

terrorism  (ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm)
 
— n
1. systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal
2. the act of terrorizing
3. the state of being terrorized

So if anything, what the Chantry and Templars do to mages, is an act of terrorism against mages ;P

One of my favorite quotes:

"If the basis of a popular government in peacetime is virtue, its basis in a time of revolution is virtue and terror -- virtue, without which terror would be barbaric; and terror, without which virtue would be impotent." [Robespierre, speech in French National Convention, 1794]

Don't think what happened to us (Being the U.S.) is something I'd ever condone... I just want people to understand that there is very little seperating revolutionary with terroism. It boils down to who wins.

Modifié par Heidenreich, 28 juin 2011 - 05:36 .

[DaiyoukaiGeisha]

Heidenreich wrote...

Don't get defensive, I'm not attacking Fenris. I love Fenris. He's my Romance ;p

Trust me. I'm not getting defensive. I don't get mad at people I barely know (who barely know me, lol) on forums.

Heidenreich wrote...

I'm just sticking up for anders. Yes he kills innocent people, but hell so does Hawke should you chose not to take the blame for Merrill (See, the dalish attack and you have to kill them.. Innocents. Mind you innocents who defend themselves from a proceved threat.)

As to why you wont touch my Terroism comment.. well I can only conclude that you disagree with terrorism not being evil, or perhaps because I used a religious reference.. one which is actually close to my heart because I'm ACTUALLY catholic, I just have good sense to know that nothing is perfect in this world.

I was just addressing your quote really.  "Why don't I like Anders?"...Well the reasons I stated are why I was anti-Anders in my playthrough. (Heh, I did take the blame for Merrill in my initial playthrough actually. I felt partially to blame because I should have told her, "no, I won't help you." On my other playthroughs the Dalish attacked me first. They didn't wait for an explaination. You can see them as innocents, and if I had the choice I wouldn't have fought them, but the game didn't really give you much choice there.)

Not touching the terrorism comment because yes, I do disagree with you. Having had people close to me who died during those "non-evil" terrorist attacks does make one not see your statement as valid. Jihad, Crusades, etc. No need to show me a definition, I am well aware of it. Evil is subjective. In my mind, terrorism is evil. Even though history is written by the victors, that does not make the act in and of itself non-evil. Just my 2 copper.

[Patriciachr34]

@Heidenreich...I don't classify Anders as a terrorist. His goal was not to intimidate or cause fear to achieve a goal. Anders wanted to remove any chance of compromise. It was Althena and the chantry that kept the conflict between Meredith and Orsino from coming to a head. Without her or chantry intervention the conflict would and did escalate. Anders wanted a war and fear had nothing to do with it.

[Tealsie]

In the end everything pretty much boils down to whether or not you agree with "the end justifying the means".

...as a random complaint...

Why did we not have a companion who agreed with Anders? It seemed like in Origins you had a bit more diversity as far as companion-opinion goes. You had a guarantee that if one character did something, there would always be at least one other companion who would support it. But then Anders pulls out the bomb-trick, and everyone is against him. I wanted at least one of the other companions to even just whistle in approval or something.

Modifié par Tealsie, 28 juin 2011 - 05:56 .

[DaiyoukaiGeisha]

Tealsie wrote...

In the end everything pretty much boils down to whether or not you agree with "the end justifying the means".

Yeah, pretty much.

Tealsie wrote...

...as a random complaint...

Why did we not have a companion who agreed with Anders? It seemed like in Origins you had a bit more diversity as far as companion-opinion goes. You had a guarantee that if one character did something, there would always be at least one other companion who would support it. But then Anders pulls out the bomb-trick, and everyone is against him. I wanted at least one of the other companions to even just whistle in approval or something.

Good point. I think all the companions were like "OMFG!!!!! :blink:" when they saw the Chantry go up in fiery glory. Varric and Isabela seemed to be "neutral" but there were definitely no Pro-Anders comments made.

Modifié par DaiyoukaiGeisha, 28 juin 2011 - 06:02 .

[Heidenreich]

Tealsie wrote...

In the end everything pretty much boils down to whether or not you agree with "the end justifying the means".

...as a random complaint...

Why did we not have a companion who agreed with Anders? It seemed like in Origins you had a bit more diversity as far as companion-opinion goes. You had a guarantee that if one character did something, there would always be at least one other companion who would support it. But then Anders pulls out the bomb-trick, and everyone is against him. I wanted at least one of the other companions to even just whistle in approval or something.

To be fair Bela kinda does. Sort of. ;p

[CulturalGeekGirl]

DaiyoukaiGeisha wrote...

Not touching the terrorism comment because yes, I do disagree with you. Having had people close to me who died during those "non-evil" terrorist attacks does make one not see your statement as valid. Jihad, Crusades, etc. No need to show me a definition, I am well aware of it. Evil is subjective. In my mind, terrorism is evil. Even though history is written by the victors, that does not make the act in and of itself non-evil. Just my 2 copper.

But here's the question: 

Woud it have been more acceptable if a mage army had flown over Kirkwall and carpet bombed the Chantry? Would it have been better if Anders had burst into the Chantry with an elite group of commandos and gone straight for Elthina?" Does having an army make what you do less evil? Dead is dead, for me. Any civilian casualty is just as bad as any other civilian casualty. I've had people I care about who were civilians killed in "non-evil" military actions. In my mind, terrorism is no more objectively evil than any military or aggressive action that kills civilians. If it's the North Korean army killing someone who came too close to the border, why is that less evil than terrorism? If it's [Army of country you consider good] destroying a [civilian location] how is that any better, morally?

I'm not gonna argue whether or not Anders is whatever he is. I am going to argue that the Chantry was a valid military target in this case, like when the Canadians burned down the White House during the war of 1812. Probably a lot of innocent people died, but because it was a War it was ok? Now, to be fair, we did totally burn and loot Toronto first. But still! STILL!

I do wish that Anders had just hired a nice Zevran to kill Elthina. That would have been so much neater. A nice assassination, now everyone can agree with that. We all love our Nates and our Zevs.

Now, if given the chance, I'd also march on Teviniter and take out its central government with a nice shiny blackpowder and magic bomb. Don't all the magisters gather in like... one location to do their little council thing? Just one little sneaky rogue in the cellars and... as long as I'm not actually a Tevinter citizen, it wouldn't even be treason! Just gunpowder and plot! I wonder what people would think of that act, even if it killed some innocent slaves. To free millions of others from the Imperium... good idea or not?

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 28 juin 2011 - 06:10 .

[Annarl]

Maximilien Robespierre was a tyrant, who murdered anyone who disagreed with him. Robespierre may have started with ideal intentions but became an example of how power corrupts. Post Danton almost 1300 people were killed under the Law of 22 Prairial. A law Robespierre passed without Committee of Public Safety permission (although it was introduced by Couthon). It allowed people to be executed for being suspected of being counter-revolutionaries, while of course limiting their ability to defend themselves. The tide turned against Robespierre as the public began to feel others were being executed for little reason. Robespierre was arrested, then guillotined. He has few defenders for a reason.
As for Anders, he's no Robespierre. Anders doesn't, to my knowledge want to start a Reign of Terror. To me, he's more John Brown.  By that I mean he is willing to use force (a bomb in this case) to end the Circle.  As a opposed to using fear in order to control the public. (which is what happened to Robespierre... well in my opinion)

Modifié par omearaee, 28 juin 2011 - 07:35 .

[DaiyoukaiGeisha]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
But here's the question: 

Woud it have been more acceptable if a mage army had flown over Kirkwall and carpet bombed the Chantry? Would it have been better if Anders had burst into the Chantry with an elite group of commandos and gone straight for Elthina?" Does having an army make what you do less evil? Dead is dead, for me. Any civilian casualty is just as bad as any other civilian casualty. I've had people I care about who were civilians killed in "non-evil" military actions. In my mind, terrorism is no more objectively evil than any military or aggressive action that kills civilians. If it's the North Korean army killing someone who came too close to the border, why is that less evil than terrorism? If it's [Army of country you consider good] destroying a [civilian location] how is that any better, morally?

Didn't say anything about being less or more evil than terrorism. I'm just saying terrorism in and of itself, in my opinion, IS evil. Period. Also, the mages are not a miltary force, they were also not at war with the Chantry at that point. The carpet bombing/commando (LOL mage commandos on speed gripphons ) argument doesn't hold much weight.

Now, if given the chance, I'd also march on Teviniter and take out its central government with a nice shiny blackpowder and magic bomb. Don't all the magisters gather in like... one location to do their little council thing? Just one little sneaky rogue in the cellars and... as long as I'm not actually a Tevinter citizen, it wouldn't even be treason! Just gunpowder and plot! I wonder what people would think of that act, even if it killed some innocent slaves. To free millions of others from the Imperium... good idea or not?

Blowing up the Magister council along with the Archon...Good idea? Perhaps. Evil? You bet your boots. Like another poster already said, it still boils down to "do the ends justify the means".

[Heidenreich]

omearaee wrote...

Maximilien Robespierre was a tyrant, who murdered anyone who disagreed with him. Robespierre may have started with ideal intentions but became an example of how power corrupts. Post Danton almost 1300 people were killed under the Law of 22 Prairial. A law Robespierre passed without Committee of Public Safety permission (although it was introduced by Couthon). It allowed people to be executed for being suspected of being counter-revolutionaries, while of course limiting their ability to defend themselves. The tide turned against Robespierre as the public began to feel others were being executed for little reason. Robespierre was arrested, then guillotined. He was few defenders for a reason.
As for Anders, he's no Robespierre. Anders doesn't, to my knowledge want to start a Reign of Terror. To me, he's more John Brown.  By that I mean he is willing to use force (a bomb in this case) to end the Circle.  As a opposed to using fear in order to control the public. ( which is what happened to Robespierre well in my opinion)

I didn't say he was a good man ;p I said it was a good quote ;p

Now, have a Fenris!

Modifié par Heidenreich, 28 juin 2011 - 06:24 .

[DaiyoukaiGeisha]

Heidenreich wrote...

http://clarityrose.d...t.com/#/d3hvarg

I think Hawke's face pretty much sums up my reaction whenever they go at it in-game.

[Heidenreich]

DaiyoukaiGeisha wrote...
I think Hawke's face pretty much sums up my reaction whenever they go at it in-game.

YamiSnuffles drew that for me. She's awesome. She lurks in my signature ;p

[DaiyoukaiGeisha]

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

Ridding Tevinter of slavery would probably not be so easy since the Imperium is built on it and since there are many who would gladly step into the magisters shoes, mages or no, and keep on trucking the same way they've had for ages. But you probably meant it as a rethorical example so I'm just going to stand over here now. Also, hello Fenris thread! I don't believe I've posted here before.

"Not easy" is an understatement. It would be insane. You'd basically need to take out all the high ranking magisters, the archon, AND get the slaves to revolt. Yipe. <_< Even if you managed to do all that there would be anarchy while you tried to put together a stable government.

And welcome to the Fenris thread!

[Annarl]

In some games I like Anders a lot and want to help him and in others not so much, it depends on the character I'm playing. For me, I reason I never romance him is, frankly I don't like his romance. I don't like the way it was written. It's a little too much for me.  He's too intense. I think that's the best way to describe it. It doesn't strike me as healthy.  But I enjoy his role in the game.   He makes you think about your position on the Chantry and the Circle that's for certain. 


Heidenreich, that picture is adorable!!

Modifié par omearaee, 28 juin 2011 - 06:33 .

[Tealsie]

omearaee wrote...
 It doesn't strike me as healthy.  . 

I don't think any part of Anders is healthy.  Being a healer, he probably doesn't really get sick(at least, not for long before fffwt *heal'd*  ) but that's about the only "healthy" part of him. In my mind, I always make him scrawnier than he seems in-game, and any Hawke I romance him with probably shoves food down his throat... and shoves him into the bath on a regular basis.  

[Annarl]

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
.

Now, if given the chance, I'd also march on Teviniter and take out its central government with a nice shiny blackpowder and magic bomb. Don't all the magisters gather in like... one location to do their little council thing? Just one little sneaky rogue in the cellars and... as long as I'm not actually a Tevinter citizen, it wouldn't even be treason! Just gunpowder and plot! I wonder what people would think of that act, even if it killed some innocent slaves. To free millions of others from the Imperium... good idea or not?

Ridding Tevinter of slavery would probably not be so easy since the Imperium is built on it and since there are many who would gladly step into the magisters shoes, mages or no, and keep on trucking the same way they've had for ages. But you probably meant it as a rethorical example so I'm just going to stand over here now. Also, hello Fenris thread! I don't believe I've posted here before.

Yeah, I would guess ridding Tevinter of slavery would involve a war.  But it could be interesting game especially with Fenris as a companion:D

Hello Queen-Of-Stuff!

[CulturalGeekGirl]

DaiyoukaiGeisha wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
But here's the question: 
Woud it have been more acceptable if a mage army had flown over Kirkwall and carpet bombed the Chantry? Would it have been better if Anders had burst into the Chantry with an elite group of commandos and gone straight for Elthina?"

Didn't say anything about being less or more evil than terrorism. I'm just saying terrorism in and of itself, in my opinion, IS evil. Period. Also, the mages are not a miltary force, they were also not at war with the Chantry at that point. The carpet bombing/commando (LOL mage commandos on speed gripphons ) argument doesn't hold much weight.

The carpet-bombing question isn't an argument. It's an honest to gosh QUESTION, regarding which I'd be interested to hear people's opinions.

What makes an army? How many people does it take? What kind of organization? If you start out as an army and are reduced to a single man, do your actions still count as military actions? 

You also don't answer whether you consider all civilian casualties equally bad or not. I'm not saying you have an opinion one way or another, rather I'm saying that knowing your opinion on that fact will help me figure out how we can move forward rhetorically. It establishes goalposts. It facilitates discourse.

It's impossible in my mind to have an intelligent discussion about Anders and Fenris and the morality of different kinds of violence without knowing how someone views the moral problem of, say, blowing up the Chantry or the Archon as it compares to the moral problem of an Exalted march on the Dales, or on Orgrimmar.

It may boil down to "do the ends justify the means," but that doesn't explain anything about the finer points, and the world is made up of finer points. Otherwise all Hawkes would be pacifists and nobody would survive the first bandit attack. So ok, if it's OK to kill Bandits, is it OK to kill the Templars who attack you in the Chantry? If it's ok to kill anyone who attacks you first, is it OK to kill Templars who are taking your sister from you? If it's ok to kill Templars who are actively taking your sister from you, is it OK to kill the ones who are hunting her before she is discovered? 

"Do the ends justify the means" isn't ever a black or white question, as simple as you're trying to make it. The question itself is really "How far is too far? What makes this particular means bad? Why is this particular ends to means ratio objectionable?"

And that's what I'm curious about.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 28 juin 2011 - 06:46 .

[Dr. Doctor]

Knocking out Tevinter seems like it would be a strategicaly bad idea. With their war with the Qunari keeping forces from Par Vollen away from the rest of Thedas, the final collapse of the Imperium could draw the Qunari Army back into the other nations (The Arishok did say that they would return one day)

[Annarl]

Dr. Doctor wrote...

Knocking out Tevinter seems like it would be a strategicaly bad idea. With their war with the Qunari keeping forces from Par Vollen away from the rest of Thedas, the final collapse of the Imperium could draw the Qunari Army back into the other nations (The Arishok did say that they would return one day)

Your logic destroys any chance for Fenris as a companion in a future game. 

Modifié par omearaee, 28 juin 2011 - 07:03 .