57020 réponses à ce sujet

[Alessa]

Cantina wrote...

The Librarian wrote...

Love is never an excuse nor does it justify an act of terrorism. All my Hawke's stand by moral and justice. They support the mages as it should be. But unlike most others here it seems they are not hypocrites. Supporting and helping Anders and then claim to believe in justice.... Urgh <__<
Anders always ends up with dagger between his shoulder blades when justice and moral prevail.

No offense to you or to anyone here, but it really grits my
teeth to hear Anders being called a “terrorist.” Beyond that, I shake my head
to hear those people who killed him, simply because there pissed at what he
did. That is your game, your opinion, but I highly disagree with it.

The way I see things is what Anders did needed to be done,
not exactly the right thing to do but it needed to be done. The Chantry for
over a thousand years has punished mages and used their religion to whip the
populace into fear about the mages. Sure, other Circles outside of Kirkwall
were no were near as bad, but Kirkwall was proof of how bad things can get and
the Chantry does nothing to step in.

Elthina was preaching that she does not agree with Meredith’s
methods, yet allowed her to continue to do them. The Grand Cleric was offered
outside help from the Divine to calm the storm before it got worse and told Elthina
to leave and she refused. Elthina believed she could settle the dispute with
cookies and tea, but when you have argument that was festering for seven years
then add a thousand years on top of that, peaceful talks are not going to work.


Elthina was trying to save the system, because she knows
that without the Templar Order the Chantry would be nothing. She acts as if she
is trying to calm the dispute, but taking a step back, she does nothing, all
Elthina was doing was making the situation worse not better.

The Templars and Chantry forced Anders to do what he did.
Instead of to finding a solution through peaceful means (which was not going to
happen), he pushed the Templars and Mages in open war. You think it is better
for the mages to sit back, be completely powerless, letting Meradith continue down
her path of crushing the mages while the Chantry looks on and twiddles their thumbs.


I do not believe Anders was solely responsible for his actions;
he did after all have a spirit of Justice inside him who no doubt had a larger
hand in the destruction of the Chantry. Besides if, Anders did not destroy the
Chantry, chances of an open war with the mages and Templars was bound to
happen. Other mages such as the Revolutionist were already pushing for war with
their actions. People like to point fingers at Anders, but refuse to
acknowledge what other mages were doing. Granted it was not as big as what
Anders did, but still they had their hand in the cookie jar too (my mage being
one of them).

Beyond that, people are saying “Think of all the innocents killed
in the Chantry.” OK, do you have a list of people who were in the Chantry? As
far as I can tell from the cut scene, there was only a handful of Templars, the
Grand Cleric and another priestess. I did not see the Chantry packed with by
standards and the debris afterward was thrown out to sea and the bits that were
in the city disintegrated into dust before hitting the ground. Anders stated in
the game, he would make sure few innocents as possible were killed; maybe he
had a plan to keep people from going into the Chantry. Maybe people stayed in
their homes and avoided the Chantry. We do not know all the details, so claiming
thousands upon thousands of lives died is pure speculation not fact.

Even IF my character were not in love with him, she would
have not killed him. I believe it is better to live with the consequences of
your actions then slink off into the shadows and have everyone else fix it for you.
 Did Anders make a mistake? In my opinion,
I view it as a means of necessary. Something like this was bound to happen
sooner or later, Anders just made it come sooner than later.

I think the problem is people try to use real life
situations to compare Anders actions too. The problem is two things: One, there
is nothing in real life you can compare his actions too. Secondly trying to use
real life situations on a game is just, well idiotic. Minus well try to compare
and apple and orange while you are at it.

The best thing to do is use all the information in the game
to come to your own conclusion/opinion on the matter because that is what
matters. Furthermore reading “Asunder” is a good idea too. After I was done
reading it, my views on supporting the Mage Rebellion and not killing Anders
and staying with him was the right choice.

I am a role player, so I tend to get inside my character’s
head (so to speak) and choose how I want to build her to ensure I get the best possible
gaming experience. She believes in mage freedom as much as Anders does. She
supports him in destroying the Chantry because it was necessary. It is hard for
her to hate someone when she has the same views as he does and then you add her
being in love with him that just makes it harder for her to hate him.

Killing Anders is not going to make up for what happened nor
is it going to rebuild the Chantry. IF you are looking for someone to point the
finger at, blame the Chantry, The Templars and The Seekers. If they were not
such ****s to the mage community, then no doubt the Kirkwall Rebellion
probably would not have taken place. It is easy to point the finger at the
person who standing in front of you, while the real culprit(s) stand on the
sidelines, laughing, letting that person take the full blame.

second this

[cowoline]

Agree with statement above.

Also i have a question, that "the clock is ticking down"speech, do you only get that one if you are his rival? Only got it the time i rivalmanced Anders, the other playthroughs (when in a relationship with him or not) i didn't get it.

[esper]

I've actually never gotten that one to trigger. I imagine that it is a not full friendship/rivaly speech after Justice (the quest). It think it is instead of the pillow.

[cowoline]

Thats the point i don't get i got the pillow quest right after. And i was full rival before i even started act 3. Just found it wierd also because i don't get the questioning beliefs quest in my log when i am friendly. It triggers when i talk to Anders, but it never show up in log.

[esper]

It is the finishers for Justice (the quest). It exist in both a friendship and a rivalry version - that is what I know for a fact (have youtube them.)

If you have the question belief (full friendship or rivalry), the pillow talk overrides the finish for the Justice quest and is one and the same hence you're not really noticified about it. At least I think that is how it is supposed to work.

[Koire]

[quote]The Librarian wrote...
Well it's not like he blew up a building, kiling people to enforce his own view and politics.
Oh wait.......[/quote]
The problem is, loud words are usually not helpful because of strong emotional connotations. Instead of discussing event "a" as it is one would try to use the logic: "a" is in "A", "A" is BAD, hence "a" is BAD, and the other would try to prove that "a" is not in "A", while actually the point is - "A" in its formal definition is not always BAD. But the thought is too scandalous to voice

[quote]He wont stop. He would have continued to bring blood, death, widows, sorrow through Thedas because HE wanted it. He is trying to changed the world after his view based on his own opinions giving no opinions to the rest of the world. And those who isn't with his is against him. That includeds those who simply wants peace.[/quote]
I think you are overreacting. 
Anders didn't force Meredith to go over Elthina's head before the very beginning of Act 3 and to request ROA from the Divine, or did he? He didn't force the Divine to contemplate an Exalted March, also in the very beginning of Act 3 (and now we know these weren't empty words:  the entire unrealeased expansion to DA2 was to be dedicated to this Exalted March). He didn't force Lambert to attack the conclave. He didn't force Adrian and Rhys to vote that mages fight. The last three characters have even never met Anders. They wanted it. Themselves. Based on their own opinions. A little stone can start an avalance, but you need specific conditions for that in the first place.
The situation is such that there is no peace, just like that. It happens) Anders only showed the Kirkwall mages that no matter how faithfully they serve the Circle, they are deemed expendable by the templars.

[quote]I am very much against that, but that do not mean that I should go and blow up a mosque or a church.[/quote]
I think you misunderstand. He did not blow up the Chantry because he disliked it or something) I think he's done it because it was the only way to provoke Meredith: she had no formal right to invoke ROA if the Grand Cleric or any of the revered mothers was alive.

[quote]People could have risen with out violoence. As happend many times before.[/quote]
I don't think so. In a perfect world they could, of course. But we have a Dark Fantasy here) 
Templars under Meredith were beating, raping and tranquilizing mages and hunting their families. Meredith wanted Elthina to invoke ROA. The Divine for some reasons planned an Exalted March. Lambert attacked the conclave sanctioned by the Chantry. What was exactly the peaceful way out in your opinion?

[quote]And because of that Anders murdering her is right? Shame on Elthina for wanting a peaceful solution.[/quote]
It is not "good." But it is "necessary." Whether you believe that necessary evil can be "right" or not is up to you. I think it can, but I won't argue on that - morals are non-universal

[quote] Because diplomacy never works and she could obviously see into the future.
I too like most others would want to see the peacful solution. How you can see blowing up a shurch and the people with in to start a war to be the right choice is truly beyond me.
[/quote]

No, I think it is naive to assume that diplomacy would work in that situation. It could work when the mages have a better bargaining position, though. The trick is, such position itself can't be achieved without drastic actions.

[quote][quote]Cantina wrote... 
Elthina was trying to save the system, because she knows
that without the Templar Order the Chantry would be nothing.[/quote]
This is you assuming. The chantry would still be what it was seeing that it was the religion that the people belived in. Even Anders. The humans of Thedas belive in Andraste and their Maker. The chantry is first of all a place of their religion. And in there lies their power.[/quote]
The Seekers and the templars disagree with you) Lord Seeker Lambert, end of Asunder:

"He imagined the Divine reading that. Without the templars, the Chantry was toothless—nothing more than a bunch of old women armed only with words. What would she do? Try to convince the people, after ages of teaching them mages were to be feared and contained, that now everything was different? In three days the templar host would march on Andoral’s Reach. With any luck, by the time he returned victorious the Chantry would have come to its senses and chosen a new Divine … one that would be eager to reach a new Accord with the seekers, placing the power much more firmly where it belonged.
Gaider, David (2011-12-20). Dragon Age: Asunder (Kindle Locations 6928-6932). Macmillan. Kindle Edition. "

[quote]But she tries to act as a peace maker. To prevent blood runing down the streets.
And it is she who keep Orsino and Meridith at bay throw out the years.[/quote]
I agree with that.

[quote]Last time I checked every thing was Anders idea and doing. And the chantry never wanted war.[/quote]
You were inattentive. See above re ROA and the Exalted March. Also, read this. Might help a bit)

[quote]Changes was unavoidable. But the road could have been another one then war.[/quote] 
Just which one exactly?

[quote][quote]Cantina wrote... 
I do not believe Anders was solely responsible for his actions;
he did after all have a spirit of Justice inside him who no doubt had a larger
hand in the destruction of the Chantry.[/quote]
No doubt? This is you assuming. Or wishing would be more fiting.[/quote]
I think it is 95% his own doing on the friendship path, and 95% Vengeance doing on the rivalry path. Or so it seems from the dialogues.

[quote]That Anders was the one makes it more right? Dear lord. Fangirlism is delusion on high levels.[/quote]
Sometimes harsh decisions are necessary. "Fangirlism" has nothing to do with that.

[quote]But it was Anders and not them who blew up the chantry, killing people and starting a bloody war.[/quote]
Did you read Asunder at all? The war started more that an year later due to combined efforts of a lot of people. All of them acted on their own. The situation became much more heated after Kirkwall, this is true. But it was the Divine who disbanded the conclave. And it was Jeannot who attempted to kill her. And it was the Divine who ordered Pharamond to conduct his reasearch into Tranquility. And it was Pharamond who found how to reverse the Rite. And it was Wynne who made the results known. And it was Grand Enchanter Fiona who compaigned for independance from the Chantry. And it was Lambert who ordered to kill Wynne and Co and then ordered to kill the First Enchanters. And it was Adrian and Rhys who voted that the mages fight. 
Do you imply that Anders is directly responsible for all that?  Just how exactly?

[quote]And they did what exactly to deserve being murderd?[/quote]
No. And that is tragic that they died.

[quote]Those with in was still innocent. At least when it comes down to being murderd in the name of one mans opinions. [/quote]
This is true.

[quote]And with a war ragin on around Thedas due to Anders doing.[/quote]
And this is not, see above)

[quote]Not if it would mean him runing free and continuing what he does.
If sending one to jail wasn't an option what would you do with a serie killer who has every intentions of continuing?[/quote]
Why would he continue? He has no more Meredith to provoke) I think you totally misunderstand his motives.

[quote]Suporting Anders actions are not suporting the mages. That is only suporting fanatic terorrism or an extreme personal view.[/quote]
I disagree with that. It is also supporting the mages.

[quote]What Anders did was an act solemly based on his own view.[/quote]
Sure. He is the only one who has such views. And the Libertarians don't exist. And Adrian doesn't exist (not that I like her, but yet).

“You’re not acting like you do.” She put a hand on his shoulder, looking at him earnestly. “If news of what Pharamond learned gets out, it will remind everyone how desperate the templars are to keep power over us. When they try to punish you, it will be just like in Kirkwall. This is our chance, Rhys. This is what the Libertarians have been waiting for.”

And Fiona doesn't exist:

"“F*ck the Divine.” She sighed when the others stared at her, stunned by her blasphemy, and rubbed her forehead in agitation. “I’m certain the Divine is a perfectly nice person,” she continued in a more conciliatory tone. “So was Grand Cleric Elthina in Kirkwall. She did her best to keep everyone happy, and what happened? Nothing was resolved, until finally her inaction killed her.” 
Wynne frowned. “She was killed by the act of one madman.”
“I’m not going to condone what Anders did,” Fiona said, “but I understand why he did it. I’m only suggesting that we act, not blow up the White Spire.”
“Aren’t you? How do you think the templars will respond to this?”
“We are not responsible for their actions. We’re only responsible for our own.” Fiona turned her gaze to each of the first enchanters in turn. “You all know who I am. I came to the Circle from the Grey Wardens because I saw something had to be done. In the Wardens, we learn to watch for our moment and seize it—and that moment is now.”"

And Rhys doesn't exist:

“You all know who my mother was,” he said to the crowd, “and she taught me something before she died. It was that the time has come for us to put aside our assumptions of the past—the assumptions of others as well as our assumptions about ourselves. We know nothing of Tranquility, or of demons, or even our own limitations. Whatever comes next, we will only survive if we learn to look upon it with new eyes. If we don’t, we will simply make those old mistakes over again … and whatever our fate, we will deserve it.” Some nodded at his words, but no one spoke. Grand Enchanter Fiona waited, and then looked at him with a perplexed expression. “Forgive me, Enchanter Rhys,” she said, “but I do not believe you made your vote clear.” Rhys took a deep breath, and then cast the final die. “I vote that we fight.”

[quote]The mages around Thedas are neither terorrists nor posseds like Anders. They do not agree with his actions.[/quote]
And they are not supposed to. That's the price he knew he would have to pay: although he was not alone in his views, his actions were too extreme to be condoned.

Modifié par Koire, 09 avril 2012 - 01:35 .

[Cantina]

Ok, we need to liven this thread up.........

[Always Alice]

Since this is an Anders discussion thread, I hope you don't mind me dropping by. He is one of my favorite characters, even if it doesn't seem like it at times, lol.
[quote]Koire wrote...

[quote]The Librarian wrote...
Well it's not like he blew up a building, kiling people to enforce his own view and politics.
Oh wait.......[/quote]
The problem is, loud words are usually not helpful because of strong emotional connotations. Instead of discussing event "a" as it is one would try to use the logic: "a" is in "A", "A" is BAD, hence "a" is BAD, and the other would try to prove that "a" is not in "A", while actually the point is - "A" in its formal definition is not always BAD. But the thought is too scandalous to voice [/quote]

Just because a word has an emotional connotation doesn't mean the definition is inaccurate. If you were to go around asking people what to label a person who blew up a building in a civilian area to make a political statement I think you know what answer you would get.




[quote][quote]He wont stop. He would have continued to bring blood, death, widows, sorrow through Thedas because HE wanted it. He is trying to changed the world after his view based on his own opinions giving no opinions to the rest of the world. And those who isn't with his is against him. That includeds those who simply wants peace.[/quote]

I think you are overreacting. 
Anders didn't force Meredith to go over Elthina's head before the very beginning of Act 3 and to request ROA from the Divine, or did he? He didn't force the Divine to contemplate an Exalted March, also in the very beginning of Act 3 (and now we know these weren't empty words:  the entire unrealeased expansion to DA2 was to be dedicated to this Exalted March). He didn't force Lambert to attack the conclave. He didn't force Adrian and Rhys to vote that mages fight. The last three characters have even never met Anders. They wanted it. Themselves. Based on their own opinions. A little stone can start an avalance, but you need specific conditions for that in the first place.
The situation is such that there is no peace, just like that. It happens) Anders only showed the Kirkwall mages that no matter how faithfully they serve the Circle, they are deemed expendable by the templars.[/quote]
I wouldn't use the cancelled Exalted March expansion as "proof" of anything, especially since we know no details about it except the name. After reading Asunder the first thing that sprung into my mind when I heard the title was that Lambert and his rogue seekers/templars were going to march against Justinia's wishes.

And I don't recall him asking all the mages in the Gallows what their opinion of the matter was. They were his sacrifices; he knew full well that there was a possibility that they would all be slaughtered but viewed it as an acceptable sacrifice for the dangerous concept of "the greater good." And the fact that he happily talks about continuing his revolution and fighting the templars if you let him stay with you in the Gallows gives no indication that his tactics will change.

Anders isn't the only mage to want freedom, but we knew that since the first game.  



[quote][quote]I am very much against that, but that do not mean that I should go and blow up a mosque or a church.[/quote]

I think you misunderstand. He did not blow up the Chantry because he disliked it or something) I think he's done it because it was the only way to provoke Meredith: she had no formal right to invoke ROA if the Grand Cleric or any of the revered mothers was alive.[/quote]
The fact that he wanted Meredith to invoke the RoA in the first place is the problem. He has the blood of those mages on his hands as well.

[quote][quote]Cantina wrote... 
Elthina was trying to save the system, because she knows
that without the Templar Order the Chantry would be nothing.[/quote]
This is you assuming. The chantry would still be what it was seeing that it was the religion that the people belived in. Even Anders. The humans of Thedas belive in Andraste and their Maker. The chantry is first of all a place of their religion. And in there lies their power.[/quote]
The Seekers and the templars disagree with you) Lord Seeker Lambert, end of Asunder:

"He imagined the Divine reading that. Without the templars, the Chantry was toothless—nothing more than a bunch of old women armed only with words. What would she do? Try to convince the people, after ages of teaching them mages were to be feared and contained, that now everything was different? In three days the templar host would march on Andoral’s Reach. With any luck, by the time he returned victorious the Chantry would have come to its senses and chosen a new Divine … one that would be eager to reach a new Accord with the seekers, placing the power much more firmly where it belonged.
Gaider, David (2011-12-20). Dragon Age: Asunder (Kindle Locations 6928-6932). Macmillan. Kindle Edition. "[/quote]
You don't honestly believe that Elthina wants to keep the status quo to solidify her political power, do you? Because if she did she would have left when she was warned instead of staying in danger with the rest of her flock.

And you certainly don't need an army to have power. Words can be extremely powerful, as we have seen time and time again in RL. Without the seekers and templars they won't have the might to enforce it, but public perception and support could be just as important.




[quote][quote]Last time I checked every thing was Anders idea and doing. And the chantry never wanted war.[/quote]

You were inattentive. See above re ROA and the Exalted March. Also, read this. Might help a bit)[/quote]
I fail to see how any of those suggest that the Chantry wanted a war. (and again, Exalted March can't be used as evidence since it was cancelled. If we find out in a later game that there was indeed an exalted march then obviously it could count as support, but not at this point in time).




[quote][quote]That Anders was the one makes it more right? Dear lord. Fangirlism is delusion on high levels.[/quote]

Sometimes harsh decisions are necessary. "Fangirlism" has nothing to do with that.[/quote]
If that "harsh decision" resulted in countless deaths and destruction, along with a complete betrayal of trust then you should understand why some are completely baffled how some fangirls are so quick to forgive Anders.


[quote]But it was the Divine who disbanded the conclave.[/quote]
Did she? I'm not saying you're wrong since it's been a while since I read the book but I do distinctly recall allowing for Wynne and the other mages to meet, against Lambert's wishes.

[quote][quote]Not if it would mean him runing free and continuing what he does.
If sending one to jail wasn't an option what would you do with a serie killer who has every intentions of continuing?[/quote]
Why would he continue? He has no more Meredith to provoke) I think you totally misunderstand his motives.[/quote]
He would continue if he thinks another bombing could prove his point. And given the amount of anti-mage sentiment throughout Thedas it wouldn't be surprising if there was someone else he thought he had to kill in the name of Justice. If he's on the rivalry path he's not in control of his actions, and if he's on the friendship path he just doesn't care.



[quote][quote]Suporting Anders actions are not suporting the mages. That is only suporting fanatic terorrism or an extreme personal view.[/quote]

I disagree with that. It is also supporting the mages.[/quote]
You don't have to support terrorist actions and the murder of innocents to support the cause of mage freedom.
And judging by how other mages in Asunder view him, they feel the same way.

Modifié par Always Alice, 10 avril 2012 - 12:30 .

[cowoline]

I just found these comments in another part of the forum:

Meredith: And you, Knight-Captain,
have forsaken your responsibilities to keeping law and order in this
city. I should have known that you and your entire organization deserved
to be replaced from the start.

*****

Meredith:
And we have Hawke's faithful pet dwarf, I see. Tell me, merchant, for
what possible reason could you have for participating in this treason?

*****

Meredith:
A blood mage and a heathen. It seemed that the Champion's loyalities
were clear from the start. To think that she would take a creature like
you into her bed only demonstrates how corrupting the influence of mages
truly is.

*****

Meredith:  The pirate responsible for stealing the Qunari tome. There will be no one left to protect you once I am finished here.

*****

Meredith:
A Grey Warden, typical. Once I am finished here, girl, I shall bring
your Order to task for harbouring apostates. The Wardens have mocked the
authority of the Chantry and her templars long enough.



Anyone know what she says to Anders? Been playing the last battle five times now to get her to stab Anders and no luck, google wasn't much help either.

[Cantina]

Always Alice wrote...

That Anders was the one makes it more right? Dear lord. Fangirlism is delusion on high levels.

Sometimes harsh decisions are necessary. "Fangirlism" has nothing to do with that.

If that "harsh decision" resulted in countless deaths and destruction, along with a complete betrayal of trust then you should understand why some are completely baffled how some fangirls are so quick to forgive Anders.

<Laughs> Oh my, this discussion has turned into lions
fighting over scraps. I’m not going to make a pyramid and reply to every
comment that was said, mostly because it would be repeating myself. But there
are some things worth repeating.

I find it amusing how those who chose to stay with Anders
are easily seen as “monsters”. Perhaps I was not clear on my opinion earlier. Believe
me I am fully aware of what betrayal is and what Anders did is not betrayal unless
those with a weak stomach will view it as such. Anders lied about his actions
because he was not sure how Hawke would react furthermore he was protecting
her/him. This man was willing give up everything to set mages free, his life,
love, everything. How could you hate someone who was being so selfless?

As I said my character believes in mage freedom as much as
Anders did and IF she knew about his plan before hand, she would not have
stopped him. Over the thousands of years, many people have died especially
mages due to the abuses the Chantry has allowed the Templars to get away with.
The Chantry is just as much at fault as the Templars are. They tell the world
through religion that mages are evil, the Templars then use the religion as a
means of power, which drives the mages to act out in ways the Chantry warns the
populace with, and then the cycle starts over again. The vicious cycle needs to
stop and if “innocents” die in the process, so be it. In order to save the
lives of people years from now in Thedas sometimes there is no other way then
to take drastic measures.

No not every mage in Thedas is going to throw a party for
what Anders did, but there are some that do, others view it as necessary and
others are just simply willing to be content with the way things are to save
their own ass.

There comes a time to where you have a choice, either fight
and die, or just die. My character would rather die fighting then living out her
days watching other people of her kind become empty husks or kicked around
simply because they were born the way they are and cannot help it.

My character will never kill Anders for what he did, she is
no doubt slightly pissed he did not tell her his plan before hand, but as in
the action he did do, well there is nothing to forgive. IF you wish to play
your game and kill Anders for his actions, that is your choice. I however in my
game will choose my character’s own path. Forgiveness is a powerful emotion,
you can choose to use it or not use it. Sometimes it is harder for other people
to use it and others it is easier. I for one cannot claim to be all for mage
freedom yet kill the person who was willing to give up everything to see it
happen.

Sometimes it takes a drastic action in order to change the
world and to show the world we will not tolerate oppression anymore. If you
feel that, the world could have changed without the destruction of the Chantry
and perhaps by sitting down with cookies and tea and having a calm peaceful meeting,
please keep thinking that. I for one will be over in the Anders column that the
talks of peace are in the past and the only way to have the same rights as any
other man in Thedas is to fight for them. This is my opinion this is my choice
I made in my game. IF other people view my choices or anyone else choices on
choosing to keep Anders alive and stay with him then I certainly will not lose
sleep over it, it is a game after all and has no real effect on real life.

[Archedes]

Long-time reader, first-time writer, blahblah. Allow me to burst in on your discussion. c;

Cantina wrote...

I find it amusing how those who chose to stay with Anders
are easily seen as “monsters”. Perhaps I was not clear on my opinion earlier. Believe
me I am fully aware of what betrayal is and what Anders did is not betrayal unless
those with a weak stomach will view it as such. Anders lied about his actions
because he was not sure how Hawke would react furthermore he was protecting
her/him. This man was willing give up everything to set mages free, his life,
love, everything. How could you hate someone who was being so selfless?

I don't recall anyone here claiming that those who spared Anders were "monsters". I'll get it out of the way right now and say that I do consider Anders a terrorist:

Wiktionary wrote...

A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals; frequently in an attempt to coerce either a more powerful opponent, (such as a citizen or group targeting a government), or conversely, a weaker opponent, (such as a government, or even an internal citizen or group, being targeted by a larger government).

The line between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" is rather vague. I'll get back to this later, but suffice to say, had Anders attacked a templar institution rather than a religious place meant for civilians, there would be many more people in the "freedom fighter" camp.

I always spare him because I--as the player--like him as a character, and killing him would hardly fix anything. As for whether or not he would continue blowing things up, well...you can hardly punish a man because he might do something. Someone already mentioned that if there was a jail option, they would have opted for that. I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment. But I digress.

Anders did indeed betray Hawke. Lying about one's motives and going around behind someone's back is betrayal; claiming it was in the name of protection does not justify it whatsoever (especially since there is an overwhelming amount of evidence proving that Hawke simply does not need to be protected).

No one is talking about hating Anders. Right now, I see this as a debate about whether or not Anders's actions were "right", which is entirely subjective. There is no need to take offense; nobody is casting any judgements on the decisions of other players.

In my opinion, I do not consider him selfless so much as obsessed with his cause. I feel the chantry explosion was meant to drive home the fact that Anders was to the point where he simply did not care who got caught up in his crusade for mages' rights. He's a consequentialist, definitely, and not everyone will agree that the end justifies the means.

Cantina wrote... 

As I said my character believes in mage freedom as much as
Anders did and IF she knew about his plan before hand, she would not have
stopped him. Over the thousands of years, many people have died especially
mages due to the abuses the Chantry has allowed the Templars to get away with.
The Chantry is just as much at fault as the Templars are. They tell the world
through religion that mages are evil, the Templars then use the religion as a
means of power, which drives the mages to act out in ways the Chantry warns the
populace with, and then the cycle starts over again. The vicious cycle needs to
stop and if “innocents” die in the process, so be it. In order to save the
lives of people years from now in Thedas sometimes there is no other way then
to take drastic measures.

That is your character's and your own opinion. That does not change the fact that, according to the dictionary, Anders is a terrorist. As to whether or not his actions were "necessary" (and personally, I feel it wasn't, considering Asunder revealed that the Mage-Templar War was inevitable and Anders was merely the one to light the metaphorical powder keg) is, again, subjective.

Cantina wrote... 

No not every mage in Thedas is going to throw a party for
what Anders did, but there are some that do, others view it as necessary and
others are just simply willing to be content with the way things are to save
their own ass.

I think it's safe to say that none of the mages (a la Asunder) are content with the status quo. As someone already said, you do not need to support acts of terrorism in order to support mage freedom. Because the Kirkwall chantry was not a military institution, blowing it up is an act of terrorism.

Cantina wrote... 

There comes a time to where you have a choice, either fight
and die, or just die. My character would rather die fighting then living out her
days watching other people of her kind become empty husks or kicked around
simply because they were born the way they are and cannot help it.

Again, that is your opinion. Please don't let your own opinions cloud the facts.

Cantina wrote... 

My character will never kill Anders for what he did, she is
no doubt slightly pissed he did not tell her his plan before hand, but as in
the action he did do, well there is nothing to forgive. IF you wish to play
your game and kill Anders for his actions, that is your choice. I however in my
game will choose my character’s own path. Forgiveness is a powerful emotion,
you can choose to use it or not use it. Sometimes it is harder for other people
to use it and others it is easier. I for one cannot claim to be all for mage
freedom yet kill the person who was willing to give up everything to see it
happen.

Opinion once more. As aforementioned, I personally do not kill Anders, yet I am able to see why someone wouldkill him (and there is no shortage of good reasons to kill him). It's a gray area. There is no "right" or "wrong" choice here.

Cantina wrote... 

Sometimes it takes a drastic action in order to change the
world and to show the world we will not tolerate oppression anymore. If you
feel that, the world could have changed without the destruction of the Chantry
and perhaps by sitting down with cookies and tea and having a calm peaceful meeting,
please keep thinking that. I for one will be over in the Anders column that the
talks of peace are in the past and the only way to have the same rights as any
other man in Thedas is to fight for them. This is my opinion this is my choice
I made in my game. IF other people view my choices or anyone else choices on
choosing to keep Anders alive and stay with him then I certainly will not lose
sleep over it, it is a game after all and has no real effect on real life.

Why does the opposite of "terrorism" have to be "cookies and tea"? If Anders wanted to blow something up and make a statement, why not attack the templar stronghold in Kirkwall? There is a difference between an act of war and an act of terrorism. The chantry was a place for Andrastians to gather and worship; it was, by no means, a templar headquarters. The only people who would have ever been in there would be priests and believers (with maybe a handful of templars to guard it). I just don't agree that Anders has the right to decide who dies for the "greater good".

Modifié par Archedes, 10 avril 2012 - 06:54 .

[Alessa]

Archedes wrote...

Why does the opposite of "terrorism" have to be "cookies and tea"? If Anders wanted to blow something up and make a statement, why not attack the templar stronghold in Kirkwall? There is a difference between an act of war and an act of terrorism. The chantry was a place for Andrastians to gather and worship; it was, by no means, a templar headquarters. The only people who would have ever been in there would be priests and believers (with maybe a handful of templars to guard it). I just don't agree that Anders has the right to decide who dies for the "greater good".

Sir Peter Ustinov, a great actor and wise man, once stated: "War is the terrorism of the powerful and terrorism is the war of the powerless." ... something to think about ...

[Fox In The Box]

Archedes wrote...

Why does the opposite of "terrorism" have to be "cookies and tea"? If Anders wanted to blow something up and make a statement, why not attack the templar stronghold in Kirkwall? There is a difference between an act of war and an act of terrorism. The chantry was a place for Andrastians to gather and worship; it was, by no means, a templar headquarters. The only people who would have ever been in there would be priests and believers (with maybe a handful of templars to guard it). I just don't agree that Anders has the right to decide who dies for the "greater good".

I think you misunderstand what Anders was trying to accomplish. The Chantry might not be a templar HQ, but as an institution it is - technically - in charge of the templars, and thus is responsible for the oppression of mages. Throughout the game, the Chantry and Elthina especially, represents the status quo. She doesn't want to side with the mages or allow Meredith to destroy them all through the Rite of Annulment, but insists instead on a peaceful compromise between the two -  this "peaceful compromise" being the continued existence of the Circle, which is exactly what Anders is trying to change. By blowing up the Chantry and killing Elthina, he provokes Meredith to invoke the Rite and forces the mages of Kirkwall to fight for their freedom, while doing so in such a manner that there is no doubt in anyone's mind that he alone was responsible and that the Annulment was unjust. He wasn't making a statement - he was trying to spark a mage revolution across Thedas. Killing a few templars or Meredith herself wouldn't have accomplished that.

[Cantina]

Archedes wrote...

Long-time reader, first-time writer, blahblah. Allow me to burst in on your discussion. c;

Cantina wrote...

I find it amusing how those who chose to stay with Anders
are easily seen as “monsters”. Perhaps I was not clear on my opinion earlier. Believe
me I am fully aware of what betrayal is and what Anders did is not betrayal unless
those with a weak stomach will view it as such. Anders lied about his actions
because he was not sure how Hawke would react furthermore he was protecting
her/him. This man was willing give up everything to set mages free, his life,
love, everything. How could you hate someone who was being so selfless?

I don't recall anyone here claiming that those who spared Anders were "monsters". I'll get it out of the way right now and say that I do consider Anders a terrorist:

Wiktionary wrote...

A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals; frequently in an attempt to coerce either a more powerful opponent, (such as a citizen or group targeting a government), or conversely, a weaker opponent, (such as a government, or even an internal citizen or group, being targeted by a larger government).

The line between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" is rather vague. I'll get back to this later, but suffice to say, had Anders attacked a templar institution rather than a religious place meant for civilians, there would be many more people in the "freedom fighter" camp.

I always spare him because I--as the player--like him as a character, and killing him would hardly fix anything. As for whether or not he would continue blowing things up, well...you can hardly punish a man because he might do something. Someone already mentioned that if there was a jail option, they would have opted for that. I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment. But I digress.

Anders did indeed betray Hawke. Lying about one's motives and going around behind someone's back is betrayal; claiming it was in the name of protection does not justify it whatsoever (especially since there is an overwhelming amount of evidence proving that Hawke simply does not need to be protected).

No one is talking about hating Anders. Right now, I see this as a debate about whether or not Anders's actions were "right", which is entirely subjective. There is no need to take offense; nobody is casting any judgements on the decisions of other players.

In my opinion, I do not consider him selfless so much as obsessed with his cause. I feel the chantry explosion was meant to drive home the fact that Anders was to the point where he simply did not care who got caught up in his crusade for mages' rights. He's a consequentialist, definitely, and not everyone will agree that the end justifies the means.

Cantina wrote... 

As I said my character believes in mage freedom as much as
Anders did and IF she knew about his plan before hand, she would not have
stopped him. Over the thousands of years, many people have died especially
mages due to the abuses the Chantry has allowed the Templars to get away with.
The Chantry is just as much at fault as the Templars are. They tell the world
through religion that mages are evil, the Templars then use the religion as a
means of power, which drives the mages to act out in ways the Chantry warns the
populace with, and then the cycle starts over again. The vicious cycle needs to
stop and if “innocents” die in the process, so be it. In order to save the
lives of people years from now in Thedas sometimes there is no other way then
to take drastic measures.

That is your character's and your own opinion. That does not change the fact that, according to the dictionary, Anders is a terrorist. As to whether or not his actions were "necessary" (and personally, I feel it wasn't, considering Asunder revealed that the Mage-Templar War was inevitable and Anders was merely the one to light the metaphorical powder keg) is, again, subjective.

Cantina wrote... 

No not every mage in Thedas is going to throw a party for
what Anders did, but there are some that do, others view it as necessary and
others are just simply willing to be content with the way things are to save
their own ass.

I think it's safe to say that none of the mages (a la Asunder) are content with the status quo. As someone already said, you do not need to support acts of terrorism in order to support mage freedom. Because the Kirkwall chantry was not a military institution, blowing it up is an act of terrorism.

Cantina wrote... 

There comes a time to where you have a choice, either fight
and die, or just die. My character would rather die fighting then living out her
days watching other people of her kind become empty husks or kicked around
simply because they were born the way they are and cannot help it.

Again, that is your opinion. Please don't let your own opinions cloud the facts.

Cantina wrote... 

My character will never kill Anders for what he did, she is
no doubt slightly pissed he did not tell her his plan before hand, but as in
the action he did do, well there is nothing to forgive. IF you wish to play
your game and kill Anders for his actions, that is your choice. I however in my
game will choose my character’s own path. Forgiveness is a powerful emotion,
you can choose to use it or not use it. Sometimes it is harder for other people
to use it and others it is easier. I for one cannot claim to be all for mage
freedom yet kill the person who was willing to give up everything to see it
happen.

Opinion once more. As aforementioned, I personally do not kill Anders, yet I am able to see why someone wouldkill him (and there is no shortage of good reasons to kill him). It's a gray area. There is no "right" or "wrong" choice here.

Cantina wrote... 

Sometimes it takes a drastic action in order to change the
world and to show the world we will not tolerate oppression anymore. If you
feel that, the world could have changed without the destruction of the Chantry
and perhaps by sitting down with cookies and tea and having a calm peaceful meeting,
please keep thinking that. I for one will be over in the Anders column that the
talks of peace are in the past and the only way to have the same rights as any
other man in Thedas is to fight for them. This is my opinion this is my choice
I made in my game. IF other people view my choices or anyone else choices on
choosing to keep Anders alive and stay with him then I certainly will not lose
sleep over it, it is a game after all and has no real effect on real life.

Why does the opposite of "terrorism" have to be "cookies and tea"? If Anders wanted to blow something up and make a statement, why not attack the templar stronghold in Kirkwall? There is a difference between an act of war and an act of terrorism. The chantry was a place for Andrastians to gather and worship; it was, by no means, a templar headquarters. The only people who would have ever been in there would be priests and believers (with maybe a handful of templars to guard it). I just don't agree that Anders has the right to decide who dies for the "greater good".

Let me be very clear here, <pulls out the crayons and
paper> everything I said and did in MY game has brought me to my own
opinion. I merely was trying to show a different side of how I see things,
nothing more.  I am not offended by anyone’s opinion, sure, I may joke about it or counter that opinion but it
certainly is not my way of coming off offended.  My character and well I have a sense of compassion;
I tend to view the situation from all sides and the events that lead up to that
moment to come to my own conclusion. I still refuse to call Anders a terrorist,
invoke as many definitions as you must in order to try to make people see he is
one, when clearly that is a stretch and the word seems to have no place in
Thedas. Again, that is your opinion on the matter, not based on fact. Someone
can be obsessed with a cause and be selfless at the same time; one does not
need to exclude the other.  

Other players may view Anders actions as betrayal; I for one
do not see it as such. I very rarely use outside influence to make an opinion
on something; I suppose in this case I shall do that. Everyone has a tendency
to lie and there are those who are willing to do what he or she can to reach their
goal no matter what. They may even do it in such a way they do not want the
person knowing what they are doing for the sake of loving them so damn much
they want to protect them from the consequences. I am not saying betrayal does
not exist in my world-it does-I am saying I see betrayal on a different level.

Understanding why the person did what they did gives me the room for compassion
and willing to forgive. In Anders case, I understand why he did it, I
understand why he lied to me, and I understand it from every angle. Just by
seeing the look on his face when the explosion happens to the events that led
up to it is enough to forgive him. Forgiving someone is hard to come by then it
is to be pissed at someone.

This something I like about Dragon Age, there is no perfect
romance just as there is none in the real world. People will view things as
they chose to view them, I have come to my own opinion and conclusion on the
matter, if this bothers people, well perhaps some fresh air might help.

Modifié par Cantina, 10 avril 2012 - 01:51 .

[cowoline]

Sorry for reposting this, but it seemed like my question vanished in the good VS bad discussion.

I just found these comments in another part of the forum:

Meredith: And you, Knight-Captain,
have forsaken your responsibilities to keeping law and order in this
city. I should have known that you and your entire organization deserved
to be replaced from the start.

*****

Meredith:
And we have Hawke's faithful pet dwarf, I see. Tell me, merchant, for
what possible reason could you have for participating in this treason?

*****

Meredith:
A blood mage and a heathen. It seemed that the Champion's loyalities
were clear from the start. To think that she would take a creature like
you into her bed only demonstrates how corrupting the influence of mages
truly is.

*****



Anyone know what she says to Anders? Been playing the last battle five times now to get her to stab Anders and no luck, google wasn't much help either.

[Fox In The Box]

cowoline wrote...


Anyone know what she says to Anders? Been playing the last battle five times now to get her to stab Anders and no luck, google wasn't much help either.

Are you sure those interactions occur in the actual game, or were they invented by the poster on the "Dialogue options you would've liked to have"-thread?

[Koire]

Always Alice wrote...
Just because a word has an emotional connotation doesn't mean the definition is inaccurate. If you were to go around asking people what to label a person who blew up a building in a civilian area to make a political statement I think you know what answer you would get.

Sure, but that was not my point.
If you ask a random person if murder is bad, the answer will be "yes." If you ask the same person if "murder in self-defence" is bad, the answer most likely will be "no."  Simply put, I dislike "good vs bad" generalizations of any sorts - imho they are all blurred, "terorrism" included.
Saying "I hate and despise him because he killed innocent people" would meet much more understanding from me than saying "I hate and despise him because he is a terrorist."

I wouldn't use the cancelled Exalted March expansion as "proof" of anything, especially since we know no details about it except the name. After reading Asunder the first thing that sprung into my mind when I heard the title was that Lambert and his rogue seekers/templars were going to march against Justinia's wishes.

I think we know enough. a) the Divine contemplated an Exalted March in 9:37, we learn it from Elthina during Faith  the Exalted March was indeed about to happen (because of the expansion name).

And I don't recall him asking all the mages in the Gallows what their opinion of the matter was. They were his sacrifices; he knew full well that there was a possibility that they would all be slaughtered but viewed it as an acceptable sacrifice for the dangerous concept of "the greater good."
<...>
He has the blood of those mages on his hands as well.
<...>

If that "harsh decision" resulted in countless deaths and destruction, along with a complete betrayal of trust then you should understand why some are completely baffled how some fangirls are so quick to forgive Anders.

You think that Meredith wouldn't slaughter them otherwise, don't you? Because I don't. She was desperately seeking evidence to make Elthina invoke ROA. She wanted to search the entire tower top to bottom in order to find it. I'm pretty sure she would use anything as a proof at this point.. for instance Orsino's books on blood magic. Or who knows what else - there really were blood mages in the Gallows, we killed quite a few. Then she would brand the Circle mages maleficarum and "annul" them, but Hawke or anyone else wouldn't have any reason to interfere. Mages were "already doomed", and without Anders it would only be worse. Because of Anders Meredith used a poor, injust excuse instead of a good reason (blood magic), and that worked as a catalyst. 

You don't honestly believe that Elthina wants to keep the status quo to solidify her political power, do you? Because if she did she would have left when she was warned instead of staying in danger with the rest of her flock.
And you certainly don't need an army to have power. Words can be extremely powerful, as we have seen time and time again in RL. Without the seekers and templars they won't have the might to enforce it, but public perception and support could be just as important.

 
Did I ever imply that I think Elthina wants political power? No, I don't think so. But there is a difference between Elthina (and/or the Divine) and the Chantry as a whole. And Elthina protects the Chantry.
Also the public support is a tricky thing, and I don't think the Chantry has it by default. Should the templars say that a) the current Chantry is corrupt and by its actions allowed the cursed-and-evil-mages to revolt and the templars fullfill the will of the Maker and are going to purity it, who will the common folk support? And I bet this is exactly what they will say - it's the most logical course of action.

If we find out in a later game that there was indeed an exalted march then obviously it could count as support, but not at this point in time.

Lets wait then)

Did she? I'm not saying you're wrong since it's been a while since I read the book but I do distinctly recall allowing for Wynne and the other mages to meet, against Lambert's wishes.

Yep, after the "rebellion in Kirkwall." This is one of the reasons why Jeannot tried to kill her. The mages were subsequently allowed to meet one last time despite the previous ban, though. 

He would continue if he thinks another bombing could prove his point. And given the amount of anti-mage sentiment throughout Thedas it wouldn't be surprising if there was someone else he thought he had to kill in the name of Justice. If he's on the rivalry path he's not in control of his actions, and if he's on the friendship path he just doesn't care.

I agree re rivalry - I would kill him in that case. I disagree re friendship though, he doesn't seem to be too happy after the explosion to do that again. YMMV, of course.
He wasn't proving a point - he was chaning the world! 

You don't have to support terrorist actions and the murder of innocents to support the cause of mage freedom.

No, you don't have to, but you can.

Modifié par Koire, 10 avril 2012 - 05:00 .

[Archedes]

Fox In The Box wrote...

I think you misunderstand what Anders was trying to accomplish. The Chantry might not be a templar HQ, but as an institution it is - technically - in charge of the templars, and thus is responsible for the oppression of mages. Throughout the game, the Chantry and Elthina especially, represents the status quo. She doesn't want to side with the mages or allow Meredith to destroy them all through the Rite of Annulment, but insists instead on a peaceful compromise between the two -  this "peaceful compromise" being the continued existence of the Circle, which is exactly what Anders is trying to change. By blowing up the Chantry and killing Elthina, he provokes Meredith to invoke the Rite and forces the mages of Kirkwall to fight for their freedom, while doing so in such a manner that there is no doubt in anyone's mind that he alone was responsible and that the Annulment was unjust. He wasn't making a statement - he was trying to spark a mage revolution across Thedas. Killing a few templars or Meredith herself wouldn't have accomplished that.

I know what Anders wanted to accomplish by blowing up the chantry. I'm just not so sure the same could not have been accomplished by attacking the templars directly. Remember, Meredith was itching for a reason to invoke the RoA; is it so out-there that she would use any excuse that she could? I am merely offering an alternative here that would have resulted in no innocent deaths (innocent according to Anders, naturally, who doesn't view any templar as "innocent"). 

Cantina wrote... 

Let me be very clear here, <pulls out the crayons and
paper> everything I said and did in MY game has brought me to my own
opinion. I merely was trying to show a different side of how I see things,
nothing more.  I am not offended by anyone’s opinion, sure, I may joke about it or counter that opinion but it
certainly is not my way of coming off offended.  My character and well I have a sense of compassion;
I tend to view the situation from all sides and the events that lead up to that
moment to come to my own conclusion. I still refuse to call Anders a terrorist,
invoke as many definitions as you must in order to try to make people see he is
one, when clearly that is a stretch and the word seems to have no place in
Thedas. Again, that is your opinion on the matter, not based on fact. Someone
can be obsessed with a cause and be selfless at the same time; one does not
need to exclude the other.

My apologies. I thought I had made it clear that the obsessed/selfless thought was my opinion. I didn't intend to present it as fact. ^^; And I don't see how it is a stretch. You saw the definition yourself, and that describes exactly what Anders did. There is no proof that it has no place in Thedas. I imagine the writers shied away from using it because of--as mentioned--the emotional connotations.

Cantina wrote...  

Other players may view Anders actions as betrayal; I for one
do not see it as such. I very rarely use outside influence to make an opinion
on something; I suppose in this case I shall do that. Everyone has a tendency
to lie and there are those who are willing to do what he or she can to reach their
goal no matter what. They may even do it in such a way they do not want the
person knowing what they are doing for the sake of loving them so damn much
they want to protect them from the consequences. I am not saying betrayal does
not exist in my world-it does-I am saying I see betrayal on a different level.

Oh, I'm not saying it's the backstabbing sort of betrayal; it is a betrayal of trust. Anders lied about the nature of the potion he asked Hawke to help him with, and then he used Hawke as an unwitting accomplice when he went to plant the bomb. Naturally, the fact that he lied about something so massive (i.e. blowing up a building vs. curing his possession) makes it even worse. He got Hawke involved into something dangerous without Hawke even knowing the full nature of what it was.

Cantina wrote...

Understanding why the person did what they did gives me the room for compassion
and willing to forgive. In Anders case, I understand why he did it, I
understand why he lied to me, and I understand it from every angle. Just by
seeing the look on his face when the explosion happens to the events that led
up to it is enough to forgive him. Forgiving someone is hard to come by then it
is to be pissed at someone.

I understand why he did it as well, but the core of any relationship is honesty. I'm not saying "no, you shouldn't forgive Anders, how dare you". I'm simply saying that there was a betrayal of trust that should not be taken so lightly, hence why some are mystified at how easily people can brush off the fact that Anders essentially manipulated Hawke into helping him blow up the chantry.

[cowoline]

Fox In The Box wrote...

cowoline wrote...


Anyone know what she says to Anders? Been playing the last battle five times now to get her to stab Anders and no luck, google wasn't much help either.

Are you sure those interactions occur in the actual game, or were they invented by the poster on the "Dialogue options you would've liked to have"-thread?

Yes, i have gotten the one with cullen and aveline lots of times. It's not dialogue exactly, It happens in the very last stage of the battle( right after her monolog where everyone gets stunned) when she spears a person on her bada** sword.

[Fox In The Box]

Archedes wrote...

I know what Anders wanted to accomplish by blowing up the chantry. I'm just not so sure the same could not have been accomplished by attacking the templars directly. Remember, Meredith was itching for a reason to invoke the RoA; is it so out-there that she would use any excuse that she could? I am merely offering an alternative here that would have resulted in no innocent deaths (innocent according to Anders, naturally, who doesn't view any templar as "innocent"). 

The Knight-Commander was not itching for an excuse - she was itching for permission. Elthina was above her in rank, and without her say-so, Meredith could not have invoked the Rite of Annulment. She was so desperate for it that she sent the request to the only person in Thedas who outranks the Grand Cleric, and that is the Divine. With Elthina out of the picture, however, the authority landed directly into Meredith's hands.

[Archedes]

Fox In The Box wrote...

The Knight-Commander was not itching for an excuse - she was itching for permission. Elthina was above her in rank, and without her say-so, Meredith could not have invoked the Rite of Annulment. She was so desperate for it that she sent the request to the only person in Thedas who outranks the Grand Cleric, and that is the Divine. With Elthina out of the picture, however, the authority landed directly into Meredith's hands.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree until one of the writers states whether or not blowing up the chantry was necessary. You make a good point, though.

@cowoline And I can't seem to find where I saw Meredith's dialogue when she stabs a romanced Anders. I think she said something pertaining to Hawke's "abomination lover", but don't quote me on that.

Modifié par Archedes, 10 avril 2012 - 07:01 .

[Fox In The Box]

Archedes wrote...


Then we'll have to agree to disagree until one of the writers states whether or not blowing up the chantry was necessary. You make a good point, though.

Whether or not blowing up the Chantry was necessary in order to invoke the Right of Annulment is up to player interpretation, I suppose. I do have a statement from one of the writers that killing the Grand Cleric was necessary, however;

David Gaider wrote...

So long as the Grand Cleric was alive and refused Meredith's request for the Right of Annulment, Meredith's only option was to appeal to the Divine. Once the Grand Cleric was dead, and no immediate successor in evidence, Meredith had the legal authority she needed.

This does not mean the Divine could not theoretically call her to the mat later on for choosing wrongly... and one could argue that she was morally obligated to wait for the Divine's answer, but she certainly wasn't legally obligated to do so. Beyond that, one can conjecture until the cows come home with regards to what the repercussions of such a decision would be.

Modifié par Fox In The Box, 10 avril 2012 - 07:23 .

[Koire]

Archedes wrote...

Fox In The Box wrote...
The Knight-Commander was not itching for an excuse - she was itching for permission. Elthina was above her in rank, and without her say-so, Meredith could not have invoked the Rite of Annulment. She was so desperate for it that she sent the request to the only person in Thedas who outranks the Grand Cleric, and that is the Divine. With Elthina out of the picture, however, the authority landed directly into Meredith's hands.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree until one of the writers states whether or not blowing up the chantry was necessary. You make a good point, though.

I will cite it for you, as it was already discussed:

David Gaider wrote...

The Angry One wrote...
Please show us where the Right of Annulment can only be granted if evidence is presented in a court of law or something rather than a judgement call on the Knight-Commander's part which can be supported or denied by the Grand Cleric.

So long as the Grand Cleric was alive and refused Meredith's request for the Right of Annulment, Meredith's only option was to appeal to the Divine. Once the Grand Cleric was dead, and no immediate successor in evidence, Meredith had the legal authority she needed.

This does not mean the Divine could not theoretically call her to the mat later on for choosing wrongly... and one could argue that she was morally obligated to wait for the Divine's answer, but she certainly wasn't legally obligated to do so. Beyond that, one can conjecture until the cows come home with regards to what the repercussions of such a decision would be.

 
and 

David Gaider wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Meridith is not a member of the Chantry Clergy and certainly not the Grand Cleric.  She had no more right to declare a Right of Annulment than KCGregoire did (under far more dire conditions).  She was obligated to seek permission from Divine Justina in absence of a local Grand Cleric,

And you decided this when, exactly?

A Knight-Commander is second-in-command next to the Grand Cleric. With Elthina's death, Meredith was legally in command of the Kirkwall Chantry-- such as it was, and certainly in the absence of any ranking Revered Mother or the Divine herself. Cullen's objection was not that her invocation of the Rite was illegal, it was that it was unjustified.

and

David Gaider wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
There are other codex entries (specifically dealing with the Rite of Annulment) that clearly state that that the Grand Cleric (not any Templar parallel rank but the GRAND CLERIC) is the only one that has the authority to issue a Rite of Annulment.  Since you can't tell me where KC Meridith falls in the Chantry Chain of Command (and you admit that she doesn't), then you are contradicting your own game lore....and common sense.

Perhaps you mean dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Codex_entry:_The_Rite_of_Annulment?

The one that says Grand Clerics have the authority to issue a Rite of Annulment, but which doesn't say what happens when a Grand Cleric dies? Or what rights a Knight-Commander possesses? And there is no "chain of command"-- that codex defined the heirarchy of a religious order, not a military unit. A religious order that is part of a fantasy world, and one where "common sense" -- especially the brand you've been peddling -- need not apply.

Let me ask you this:  If a KC can do whatever they like (as long as they can remove the Grand Cleric first), then are there any meaningful checks to Templar power at all?

I don't think so.

I'm sorry, am I in the position of defending the templars, now? You're going to sit there with your arms crossed because the fanfic you got going in your head makes more sense to you? To answer your question: yes, I imagine in a theoretical world if a Knight-Commander could conspire to remove a Grand Cleric, and also keep any clear successor from manifesting, they would be able to do as they please with the Circle of Magi-- subject to scrutiny once the Divine got wind of it, no doubt. Or does the possibility of political scheming make no sense to you? Shall I go into the intricacies of authority between the Grand Clerics and the Divine, as well? Or did the fact such things are not all explicitly laid out mean you've decided how it works already?

 
Source1, Source 2
PS1 No, I don't remember all developer posts by heart, I just know where to find the links)
PS2 While I was typing Fox In The Box cited the first post too

Modifié par Koire, 10 avril 2012 - 07:52 .

[Cantina]

Archedes wrote...

Cantina wrote...

Understanding why the person did what they did gives me the room for compassion
and willing to forgive. In Anders case, I understand why he did it, I
understand why he lied to me, and I understand it from every angle. Just by
seeing the look on his face when the explosion happens to the events that led
up to it is enough to forgive him. Forgiving someone is hard to come by then it
is to be pissed at someone.

I understand why he did it as well, but the core of any relationship is honesty. I'm not saying "no, you shouldn't forgive Anders, how dare you". I'm simply saying that there was a betrayal of trust that should not be taken so lightly, hence why some are mystified at how easily people can brush off the fact that Anders essentially manipulated Hawke into helping him blow up the chantry.

Oh honey, <laughs> if I ever had a relationship that was one hundred percent
honest, I would ask someone to pinch me because I must be dreaming. Everyone
lies no matter how much you proclaim your feelings towards someone.

I cannot view Anders actions as betrayal because of a variety of factors.
One he warns you numerous times before the relationship
takes off he will break your heart. You have two options either
walk away or continue down the path. I chose to continue down the path because
as I have said before no relationship is perfect. Then when Anders lied about
what he was doing, I understood afterwards why he lied about it. He was afraid
my character was going to stop him or worse help (in a round about way she did
help, but that is a writers mistake). So my view point is this, how can I see
his actions as betrayal when he warned me early on, my character agrees this
needed to happen and lastly understands from every side why he did it.


People will interpret if Anders betrayed them in their own way, I certainly do not see
it as such, but that is the beauty of the game. You are able to make your own
choices and come to your own conclusions even if other gamers do not necessarily
agree with them.

Modifié par Cantina, 11 avril 2012 - 01:36 .

[Always Alice]

[quote]Koire wrote...

[quote]Always Alice wrote...
Just because a word has an emotional connotation doesn't mean the definition is inaccurate. If you were to go around asking people what to label a person who blew up a building in a civilian area to make a political statement I think you know what answer you would get.[/quote]
Sure, but that was not my point.
If you ask a random person if murder is bad, the answer will be "yes." If you ask the same person if "murder in self-defence" is bad, the answer most likely will be "no."  Simply put, I dislike "good vs bad" generalizations of any sorts - imho they are all blurred, "terorrism" included.
Saying "I hate and despise him because he killed innocent people" would meet much more understanding from me than saying "I hate and despise him because he is a terrorist."[/quote]
I think this is a point we'll just have to agree to disagree on. I personally don't see the harm in calling a spade a spade; Meredith demonstrates tyrannical behavior so I call her a tyrant, anf Anders demonstrates methods of terrorism so I call him a terrorist. You can argue that terorism is justified in this case since it's a grey area, but it doesn't lessen the extent of what is done. But for the purpose of this discussion I will try to avoid referring to him as such when speaking with you.


[quote]I wouldn't use the cancelled Exalted March expansion as "proof" of anything, especially since we know no details about it except the name. After reading Asunder the first thing that sprung into my mind when I heard the title was that Lambert and his rogue seekers/templars were going to march against Justinia's wishes.[/quote]

[quote]I think we know enough. a) the Divine contemplated an Exalted March in 9:37, we learn it from Elthina during Faith  the Exalted March was indeed about to happen (because of the expansion name).[/quote]
Given what's going on with politics in Orlais I just don't think she would be willing to waste the resources. She also seems to want a compromise, going by her behavior in Asunder. Until we get more plot details we can't claim to know for certain the circumstances behind it.

[quote]And I don't recall him asking all the mages in the Gallows what their opinion of the matter was. They were his sacrifices; he knew full well that there was a possibility that they would all be slaughtered but viewed it as an acceptable sacrifice for the dangerous concept of "the greater good."
<...>
He has the blood of those mages on his hands as well.
<...>

If that "harsh decision" resulted in countless deaths and destruction, along with a complete betrayal of trust then you should understand why some are completely baffled how some fangirls are so quick to forgive Anders.
[/quote]
[quote]You think that Meredith wouldn't slaughter them otherwise, don't you? Because I don't. She was desperately seeking evidence to make Elthina invoke ROA. She wanted to search the entire tower top to bottom in order to find it. I'm pretty sure she would use anything as a proof at this point.. for instance Orsino's books on blood magic. Or who knows what else - there really were blood mages in the Gallows, we killed quite a few. Then she would brand the Circle mages maleficarum and "annul" them, but Hawke or anyone else wouldn't have any reason to interfere. Mages were "already doomed", and without Anders it would only be worse. Because of Anders Meredith used a poor, injust excuse instead of a good reason (blood magic), and that worked as a catalyst. 
[/quote]
She would still need permission from a Chantry official. Elthina clearly wasn't going to give it, which is why Anders had her killed. The Divine most likely rejected her request too, as Meredith would have otherwise stormed the Gallows long befiore the Chantry explosion.

[quote]You don't honestly believe that Elthina wants to keep the status quo to solidify her political power, do you? Because if she did she would have left when she was warned instead of staying in danger with the rest of her flock.
And you certainly don't need an army to have power. Words can be extremely powerful, as we have seen time and time again in RL. Without the seekers and templars they won't have the might to enforce it, but public perception and support could be just as important.[/quote] 

[quote]Did I ever imply that I think Elthina wants political power? No, I don't think so. But there is a difference between Elthina (and/or the Divine) and the Chantry as a whole. And Elthina protects the Chantry[/quote]
You didn't say it, but one of the people earlier on the thread said that Elthina didn't do anything because she wanted to solidify the Chantry's political power. Whilean arguement can be made about Elthina's effectiveness as a political leader, the one thing that is made clear is that she wants whatever is best for her flock. She wanted to keep the peace because she believed it would be the safest course of action.

[quote]Also the public support is a tricky thing, and I don't think the Chantry has it by default. Should the templars say that a) the current Chantry is corrupt and by its actions allowed the cursed-and-evil-mages to revolt and the templars fullfill the will of the Maker and are going to purity it, who will the common folk support? And I bet this is exactly what they will say - it's the most logical course of action.[/quote]
It will be interesting to see the result of this schism. I know in Kirkwall at least that a lot of the templars are viewed as thugs (Cullen explains how some citizens are shutting doors in their faces). Since the Chantry plays more of a role in their day-to-day life I think they would be more inclined to listen to the Chantry, but it's all speculation.


[quote]Yep, after the "rebellion in Kirkwall." This is one of the reasons why Jeannot tried to kill her. The mages were subsequently allowed to meet one last time despite the previous ban, though. [/quote]
Right, that makes sense. Thanks!


[quote]I agree re rivalry - I would kill him in that case. I disagree re friendship though, he doesn't seem to be too happy after the explosion to do that again. YMMV, of course.[/quote]
He seemed upset right after the initial explosion, but right after you tell him he could join back up with you he gets so eager more more bloodshed, and then there's his happiness in the Gallows. But I guess we'll have to wait to see how he acts in DA3, assuming he makes a cameo.
[quote]He wasn't proving a point - he was chaning the world! 
[/quote]
He changed the world by proving a point

Modifié par Always Alice, 11 avril 2012 - 04:26 .