57020 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

The first part refers to the mages in Kirkwall, the latter refers to the mages outside of Kirkwall. Two different cases, those.

Are they?
Do we know that mages did not rebel because it was the Templars who started to crack down on them after what happened in Kirkwall? We don't know how the rebellion started, so it's too early to say anything about it.

And even if mages were stupid enough to be inspired by their debacle in Kirkwall alone (which on its own, does not make sense to me), that really does not change much. Anders may not have forced them, but he certainly created an environment that may give the mages the impression that they have no other choice. Which is what he wanted. 

Now I wouldn't really mind that much, if Anders was a leader of some sort, with some legitimacy amongst mages with an actual plan in mind, and wasn't an unstable mess who I wouldn't trust to lead a bunch of sheep.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 juillet 2011 - 04:58 .

[legbamel]

highcastle wrote...
[snip]
This is also the impression I get in DAA when he has that banter with Justice. Justice asks why he doesn't do more to help other mages, and Anders says it sounds difficult and he doesn't want to die for his cause. He also claims to have no obligation to help other mages. Given his actions in DA2, it's clear he doesn't entirely believe this. But there is some part of him that does. Call it selfishness, call it self-preservation, whatever. This is the part of himself that Anders gives up and overcomes when he enters into the merger with Justice.

In part I think Anders isn't so much selfish with regard to not helping other mages but a little contemptuous: he's escaped seven freaking times.  Most of them don't even try and a lot of them sypathize and even agree with the system.  I picture him saying, "Screw you guys.  I'm outta here!" more than "My freedom is more important than yours."

[SurelyForth]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

How is it not relevant? Anders may have decided that death was preferrable to the status quo for the mages in Kirkwall, and forced them to fight to the death by provoking a Right of Annulment.
 

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

Which doesn't change the fact that they decided on their own that they wanted to fight.

I think she means that the mages throughout Thedas decided on their own that they wanted to fight. But it holds for the mages in Kirkwall, too. They didn't have to defend themselves (although many players fault them for trying). Also, if the Right was going to be called no matter what Anders did (as Meredith was going over Elthina's head to get it approved), the Kirkwall mages were already doomed. What he did was hold a spotlight up to the issue, which is that the lives of mages are pretty much forfeit according to the whims of the templars. They can be abused, they can be tranquiled, they can be sentenced without process and they can be killed en masse for crimes that they did not commit. 

And I don't think he did it just so the general populace could see it and think "that's not right." I think he did it so MAGES would have the fire lit beneath them once they saw how quickly Meredith, the head of the order that was supposed to be protecting them, turned against them. 

[Rinji the Bearded]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Are they?
Do we know that mages did not rebel because it was the Templars who started to crack down on them after what happened in Kirkwall? We don't know how the rebellion started, so it's too early to say anything about it.

And even if mages were stupid enough to be inspired by their debacle in Kirkwall alone (which on its own, does not make sense to me), that really does not change much. Anders may not have forced them, but he certainly created an environment that may give the mages the impression that they have no other choice. Which is what he wanted. 

Now I wouldn't really mind that much, if Anders was a leader of some sort, with some legitimacy amongst mages with an actual plan in mind, and wasn't an unstable mess who I wouldn't trust to lead a bunch of sheep.

The mages rebelled because of what actions Meredith took.  Whether you side with the mages or the templars, it was Meredith's actions (that is, calling for the Right of Annulment to punish one obviously guilty mage) that provoked the Circle to rebel.  Her actions were provoked by Anders, and she was also being affected by the idol.

He did have a plan.  And it worked.

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 03 juillet 2011 - 05:03 .

[upsettingshorts]

SurelyForth wrote...

They didn't have to defend themselves

Wat.

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

They are different cases!

Anders certainly didn't consider them different, unless it's your assertion that he only cared about the mages in Kirkwall.

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

You can say that it was selfish of him to fan the flames of rebellion and I wouldn't argue, but saying that he decided it for them is incorrect when it's more correct to say that he pushed them into deciding it for themselves.

I have been saying that he pushed them into deciding for themselves.

The point is he doesn't have that right, and pushing them without that right is selfish.

That his goals are ultimately altruistic in nature - as ipgd has pointed out - doesn't change that.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 juillet 2011 - 05:08 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

RinjiRenee wrote...
The mages rebelled because of what actions Meredith took.  Whether you side with the mages or the templars, it was Meredith's actions (that is, calling for the Right of Annulment to punish one obviously guilty mage) that provoked the Circle to rebel.  Her actions were provoked by Anders, and she was also being affected by the idol.

He did have a plan.  And it worked.

I am talking about the Circles elsewhere in Thedas, not Kirkwall. We know next to nothing about how and why they rebelled.

And by plan, I mean a plan to win the war and more importantly, a plan to build something after.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...


You can say that it was selfish of him to fan the flames of
rebellion and I wouldn't argue, but saying that he decided it for them
is incorrect when it's more correct to say that he pushed them into
deciding it for themselves.

I have been saying that he pushed them into deciding for themselves.

Pushed them in a corner (or gave that impression).

That's not Anders taking a referendum amongst mages to see if the majority want war or not.

[Rinji the Bearded]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I am talking about the Circles elsewhere in Thedas, not Kirkwall. We know next to nothing about how and why they rebelled.

And by plan, I mean a plan to win the war and more importantly, a plan to build something after.

Except that's exactly why they did rebel, if you listened to what Varric said afterward.  I can also imagine that the Templars who broke off from the chantry also caused them to start fighting back.

Anders didn't need to have a plan for building afterward exactly -- he stated himself that the plan was to ignite a war and force change, whether it meant freedom or death for all mages.  No compromises.  Yes, he is crazy, but he had a plan and followed through with it.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

Are they?
Do we know that
mages did not rebel because it was the Templars who started to crack
down on them after what happened in Kirkwall? We don't know how the
rebellion started, so it's too early to say anything about it.

Wouldn't that fan the flames of rebellion even more? The Chantry can't be that stupid.

Hence, my interpretation of "Templars rebelling from the Chantry". They acted on their own.

As an aside, seeing how almost everyone is acting like an idiot in DA2, I wouldn't be surprised if they made the Chantry even more idiotic.

[ipgd]

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

Wouldn't that fan the flames of rebellion even more? The Chantry can't be that stupid.

That's likely exactly what happened. And what else could they do, if the events in Kirkwall inspired more activity from the Resolutionists and other fringe groups of the Circle?

[KnightofPhoenix]

RinjiRenee wrote...
Except that's exactly why they did rebel, if you listened to what Varric said afterward.  I can also imagine that the Templars who broke off from the chantry also caused them to start fighting back.

Anders didn't need to have a plan for building afterward exactly -- he stated himself that the plan was to ignite a war and force change, whether it meant freedom or death for all mages.  No compromises.  Yes, he is crazy, but he had a plan and followed through with it.

Except I don't see Varric as a reliable source of information at that point, nor do I see his two lines to be enough to know what happened. My theory now is that Templars rebelled and acted on their own to fight mages in reaction to what happened in Kirkwall, which caused mages to act in self-defense.

He didn't need one for you. He needed one for me to qualify to make such a decision.

[Rinji the Bearded]

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

Wouldn't that fan the flames of rebellion even more? The Chantry can't be that stupid.

Templars don't need the Chantry to crack down on mages anymore.

[upsettingshorts]

Even if he had a perfect plan for ultimate victory for freedom, kittens, and rainbows he still wouldn't have had the authority to do what he did.

That's kind of a big part of what I've been saying:  A mandate is crucial.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 juillet 2011 - 05:14 .

[Rinji the Bearded]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Except I don't see Varric as a reliable source of information at that point, nor do I see his two lines to be enough to know what happened. My theory now is that Templars rebelled and acted on their own to fight mages in reaction to what happened in Kirkwall, which caused mages to act in self-defense.

He didn't need one for you. He needed one for me to qualify to make such a decision.

My theory is that it was a little of both sides that caused the fighting after Kirkwall.

Just because you didn't agree with his actions doesn't mean he didn't have a plan though.

[KnightofPhoenix]

RinjiRenee wrote...

Just because you didn't agree with his actions doesn't mean he didn't have a plan though.

He didn't have a plan for winning the war and building something afterwards. This has nothing to do with me agreeing with him or not.

Anders certainly had a plan to start the war and it worked. That for me is nothing, winning the war is what's important.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 juillet 2011 - 05:16 .

[legbamel]

highcastle wrote...
[snip]
Like I said, I
don't fully disagree with you here. But I think there's a devil's
advocate arguement to be had. Anders "freedom is worth the cost" view
seems to be mostly internalized. That's where his "there are some things
more important than my life" comes into play. He is absolutely willing
to die for his cause. I just don't think he expects all mages to die for it. That would be redundant. There'd be no freedom to fight for; they'd all be dead. I think he expects some will die, but the rest will earn their freedom and be happier for it.
[snip]

I don't think he's too concerned about how many mages alive at that moment survive the war.  He's taking a "someday our children and their children" sort of view: sacrficing for the lives of future mages.  Of course, if all of the mages die that means that they lost.  It doesn't necessarily preclude a horrified reaction that gets people to rethink the system but I doubt it would make for effective change.

[Rinji the Bearded]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Even if he had a perfect plan for ultimate victory for freedom, kittens, and rainbows he still wouldn't have had the authority to do what he did.

That's kind of a big part of what I've been saying.  A mandate is crucial.

Yeah, I'm kinda wondering if the new novel will give us some more insight as to what other mages were thinking around this same time period.  Not that Anders got any of their permission either -- Justice didn't need their permission or support.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Even if he had a perfect plan for ultimate victory for freedom, kittens, and rainbows he still wouldn't have had the authority to do what he did.

That's kind of a big part of what I've been saying:  A mandate is crucial.

I think a mandate is crucial too, hence me saying I wouldn't mind if he was a leader. But I don't think he needed a mandate from the majority. A sizeable number of supporters would have been enough imo, alongside a long term plan.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 juillet 2011 - 05:20 .

[ipgd]

Oh, it's this debate again.

[highcastle]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Even if he had a perfect plan for ultimate victory for freedom, kittens, and rainbows he still wouldn't have had the authority to do what he did.

That's kind of a big part of what I've been saying:  A mandate is crucial.

Except a mandate is not always possible. Do we even know how the Circle elects its leaders? Do they elect their leaders, or are the First Enchanters appointed by the Chantry? Regardless, an apostate could never be elected to a position of authority even if the mages wanted him as their leader. But in this situation, you can read Anders a bit like Spartacus. The slaves had neither the ability nor the authority to appoint Spartacus as their de facto leader. Does that mean he was selfish when he stood up to the Romans? Should he not have acted because maybe some slaves were fine with the status quo? Or did the abuses he and others suffered obligate him to speak out?

Fantasy lit is rife with people who have no real authority challenging those who do because the leaders are corrupt. Look at Luke Skywalker. No one elected him. No one appointed him. But he still blew up the Death Star and likely killed innocent prisoners, independent contractors, and visiting dignitaries. I don't remember him consulting with the billions of Empire citizens likely content with the status quo. But the abuses of the Empire were so great that he felt he had to act, had to do something. Is he selfish? Is he acting illegally?

[SurelyForth]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

SurelyForth wrote...

They didn't have to defend themselves

Wat.

It's exactly what I said? They didn't have to defend themselves, and I've seen people expressing disdain for the fact that they did defend themselves. If you annul the Circle in Ferelden, there's no mention of the mages there fighting back. It's part and parcel of being a mage under the Chantry. You're imprisoned, you have to take the Harrowing or be made tranquil, and at any time your life could be ended because of something you're completely innocent of doing.

[upsettingshorts]

highcastle wrote...

Except a mandate is not always possible. Do we even know how the Circle elects its leaders? Do they elect their leaders, or are the First Enchanters appointed by the Chantry? Regardless, an apostate could never be elected to a position of authority even if the mages wanted him as their leader.

There's the meeting of the mages at Cumberland, which will supposedly be described in David Gaider's next book.

highcastle wrote...

But in this situation, you can read Anders a bit like Spartacus.

I can?  Point me at Anders' accomplices and comrades-in-arms. 

highcastle wrote...

Fantasy lit is rife with people who have no real authority challenging those who do because the leaders are corrupt. Look at Luke Skywalker. No one elected him. No one appointed him. But he still blew up the Death Star and likely killed innocent prisoners, independent contractors, and visiting dignitaries.

He was part of an organized rebellion with recognized leaders and a mutually-agreed-upon set of goals, in the case of A New Hope the Death Star mission was planned and led by General Dodonna and Princess Leia.

SurelyForth wrote...

It's exactly what I said?

I'm just not sure how it contradicts "Anders forced mages to choose between fighting an death," though. 

Those that don't fight back chose death.

Those that joined in the rebellion chose fighting at the risk of death.

There is no "I would like to keep doing what I'm doing" option, because Anders unilaterally removed it.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 juillet 2011 - 05:35 .