nekhbet wrote...
What I'd be interested in knowing is whether people who killed Anders also killed Connor. Is a well-meaning Anders more culpable for inviting a spirit of the Fade to possess him because he's an adult? Compared to an ignorant child who invites a demon into him and lets loose.
That's kind of how I look at it. Connor was a different situation for me because... well, he was a child and didn't know much about magic. Yes, he was partially trained by Jowan, but I don't believe he fully knew the consequences of his actions. Anders, on the other hand, very much knows what may (and does) happen if he invites this spirit in (although we all know his intentions were good and may have been unaware of the corruption that a spirit might undertake during his/her stay within a living host).
Of course they're quite different situations, and not entirely comparable. But the interesting question is when does a possessed mage become culpable for the bad stuff that happens due to the possession? Is putting the possessed mage out more of a punishment to the mage or a quick-fix solution to limit the possible damage?
Those are interesting questions to ponder, and believe me, ponder I have! I'm not exactly sure when a possessed mage becomes "culpable," but in the case of Anders versus Connor, I see Anders as much more responsible for his actions than a child that wasn't fully trained in magic. I think you can only take it on a case by case basis, which honestly muddles any consistancy in punishment for possessed mages, which seems to be a major reason why the Chantry seems to have such a linear view of what that punishment must be (meaning they supply that consistancy by simply enforcing a "no-mercy" policy; at least in my view).
As for your second question, I honestly think it's more of a quick-fix solution rather than a punishment. I believe that they are trying to minimize "the possible damage" as you stated, and knowing that a possession could end very badly (and bloody) I can see where their fears and quick action is justified (although, as has been argued in the thread before, I don't necessarily enjoy the generalizations and prejudices that are heaped upon mages simply because they COULD become an abomination... but that's beside the point).
It is an interesting analogy of real-life crime committed by mentally unstable people, and my guess is that real-life political stances kind of divide people on their game opinions, too. Well, I have killed Connor once myself, but I felt absolutely horrible and despite hating Isolde's stupidity, I swore never to do it again.
I killed Connor once too and I had to reload because I just couldn't let my Warden go on with that decision. Lame I know, but I'm a total soft touch. I have yet to play a Renegade Shephard, let alone a Templar siding Hawke or pragmatic (I'm not sure if that's the best way to describe it) Warden... meh.
After typing that, I'm not even sure I made sense. Oh well... SUBMIT.