Addai67 wrote...
thebrute7 wrote...
I don't know. It seems to me that the typical goals of terrorism invlolve directly harming the populace to instil fear and provoke change.
Anders attack to me seems directed only at the Chantry itself and the templars, not at the people. The effect on the people of Kirkwall would be a secondary effect, but I feel his main goal was simply to get rid of the chance for compromise, not to instil fear into the regular people.
But hey, that's just me.
It's an attack on their religious center, intended to cause a war that would upend the entire civilization. It's pretty harmful to everyday society.
As for whether to kill Anders or not, on my 1st pt I didn't because I thought he ought to fight, but the dialogue with him was very unsatisfying. He took my Hawke's support of the innocent Circle mages as an endorsement for his cause. I don't recall it exactly, except that my Hawke was all
and Anders was all
and in the end it was very
.
I pretty much felt the same way. I really, really wanted an "apply serious beat down" option, but it was not to be. I had to be content with my imagination. <_<
IRL, I am totally non-violent and have trouble squishing bugs, so I would have trouble knifing someone I loved no matter how heinous the act he commited. I'd just leave him.
My husband and I play "Zombie Apocalypse What-if" and I hate to say it, but if he turns first, he's taking a lot of us with him. I can't kill it!
Modifié par shiba5, 11 avril 2011 - 07:34 .