I'm apparently one of the few people who didn't have a problem with what Anders did (well, beyond the initial "Creators! What have you done?!?" reaction).
The main sticking point seems to be the idea that the Chantry (and Elthina in particular) were completely innocent in the matter of the Templar abuses in Kirkwall. But they weren't.
Guilty? No.
Complicit? Yes.
Elthina could have put a stop to Meredith when it became apparent that she was going off the deep end. She could have relieved her of her command and ordered the other Templars to enforce it. Which they would
have to do, since it is the
Chantry and
not the Knight-Commander who is ultimately in charge of the Templars, and as the ranking member of the clergy in Kirkwall Elthina was the highest figure of authority present. As much as she would have liked to remain neutral, by the very nature of being the Grand Cleric she was up to her eyebrows in it. She
should have gotten involved. She had a
duty to get involved. Meredith was quite clearly overstepping her authority by preventing the selection of a new Viscount and enforcing Templar rule.
After the death of the Viscount and his son, Elthina became the most important public figure in Kirkwall. As the supreme local authority in both secular and religious matters, she
had to take a stance.
But she refused. She shirked her responsibility.
Did she deserve to
die for her non-action? No.
Was she entirely
innocent in the whole sorry mess? No.
To my mind, the entire reason why Anders chose Elthina and the Chantry as the target of his magical explodey... thing, is painfully obvious. Leaving aside the question of difficulty of planting an explosive unnoticed in the very seat of Templar power, and the proximity of the Circle and the certainty of heavy Mage casualties, Anders' motivation has to be examined.
He doesn't
want to remove Meredith from power. He doesn't
want to resolve the situation for the Kirkwall Circle. His aims are not to simply put an end to the Kirkwall Templar abuses, but to tear down the very institution itself. He
wanted to provoke a war between the Templars and the Mages. He
wanted to spark a revolution. And destroying both the Chantry and the only person who could prevent full-blown war was the only way to do it.
So was it an act of terrorism?
Hard to say. I suppose if you want to define it as any use of violence by a minority (or in this case a single person), then yes. By this definition, whether or not the Chantry is a civilian or a military target is irrelevant. It's an act of terrorism regardless.
But let's examine the other argument, for a moment: that it was
not terrorism, but an
act of war. In this instance, the nature of the Chantry as a place of worship versus a viable military target is all important. If it can be defined as the latter, then its destruction is a perfectly acceptable opening salvo/declaration of war. Yes, presumably a lot of worshippers would have been killed (although it depends entirely upon the time of day and whether or not there were any religious services going on - especially since every time Hawke goes in there there's hardly anyone there at all, and during the cutscene Elthina seems to be pretty much alone on that little podium in front of the statue of Andraste) but even so, it is the seat of Chantry and Templar authority in Kirkwall, and represents an important tactical/military target, and one that is integral to Anders' goals.
Killing Meredith would resolve the situation in Kirkwall, but it would not liberate all the mages in Thedas. For that he needed something bigger than the assassination of a single politically inconvenient target. He needed a symbol, something that would put a spark to the tinderbox that is the Circle of Magi. And he succeeds. The mages all across Thedas rise up in open rebellion against the Chantry, which proves that no matter what you want to argue about whether or not Kirkwall is atypical (which I suspect it is) there was certainly a deep undercurrent of tension/discontent in all the Circles, and that the situation in Kirkwall was merely the instigating event for a war that had been coming for quite some time.
Revolutions are
not civilized. They are
not bloodless (even the so-called "Glorious/Bloodless Revolution"). Casualties occur on all sides, whether Revolutionary, Counter-revolutionary or even those who do not take either side. And the Chantry are, by reason of supporting the Templars, certainly firmly in the counter-revolutionary camp. In Anders' war, the Chantry are the enemy. They prop up a regime that he is trying to tear down, that he feels is a great force for evil in the world.
It is important to note that the concept of 'Civilians' did not enter into the medieval concept of war. If your prince went to war, you were dragged along with him, whether as soldiers or providing the coin/materials for him to prosecute his war. If you were unfortunate enough to live in a war zone, then you were up to your neck in it. You were pretty much guaranteed to be screwed over at some point, often by
both sides. Non-combatant casualties were a fact and fixture of medieval warfare, whether to direct attack, starvation, or incidental raping/murdering. It doesn't enter into the medieval mindset
not to kill as many of your enemies as you can, and to use whatever methods are at your disposal to do so - including killing their supporters/peasants to deprive them of resources. Those who were in the Chantry at the time were also complicit in propping up the Templar regime, as were Meredith and Elthina. To a lesser extent, yes.
But complicit nonetheless.
Can his attack be
both terrorism
and an act of war? I don't know.
Good and evil; right and wrong: it's all subjective in the end. The world of Dragon Age has no clear cut morally-superior choices/outcomes (apart from a few isolated incidents in DA:O, like the whole Connor mess). We are bombarded by the concept of the inescapable duality of Good versus Evil, where
we're always the former, and
they're always the latter. It's difficult to see in shades of grey, and some would argue that they don't exist. A '
with us or against us' attitude pervades modern culture, and we can't help but project it onto situations that are unfamiliar to us or make us uncomfortable.
The question of terrorism versus act of war will probably rage for quite some time. Perhaps it will
never be resolved. But in the end we all come down on one side or the other. And I'm on the latter.
To me, Anders' actions were extreme, but necessary. And justified.
The situation with the Circle
needed to change. Yes, some mages resort to blood magic (and I found it very odd that Mage!Hawke sounded horrified at the thought, yet the first specialisation I picked was Blood Mage) but not all of them do. Yes, the majority of mages, when backed into a corner will resort to it. But why shouldn't they? At the end, the Templars are invoking the Rite of Annulment, and are going to kill all the mages regardless. At that point, they have literally nothing to lose, and who wouldn't use every means at their disposal in order to survive? Sure, mages have an extra option, but merely having it does not make them inherently evil, nor does it make them any more prone to corruption than non-mages. Meredith proved that. Nor are they alone in being at risk from demonic possession, something that DA2 goes to great lengths to point out.
Is Anders a bad person for doing it? Of that I have no doubt: of course he is, but so are a lot of other people.
Does the fact that others do similar things justify his actions? No.
Does it excuse him? Of course not.
It wasn't nice. It wasn't pretty. But it was necessary.
TLDR: Anders is an awesome murdering b******, the Chantry and Templars suck.
And I swear if Cassandra even
tries to get Hawke to help her bring the mages back under Chantry authority she's getting a fireball to the face.
Modifié par Dr_Vile, 15 mars 2011 - 03:40 .
Retour en haut
