552 réponses à ce sujet

[Sarah1281]

drvaughn1999 wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

1) You can't clean with dirt -- you can't build a good world by doing evil things.
2) The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.
3) When you find yourself in a hole, the first step to getting out is to STOP DIGGING.

History would disagree with you on the first and the second is kind of why Anders felt the need to blow up the Chantry in the first place. Meredith and Orsino were just going to complain to the Grand Cleric who would tell them to go away and stop fighting. Again. And for the third, Anders isn't looking to get out of his own metaphorical 'hole.' He's looking to spur the mages on to breaking out of theirs.

With this logic, I guess that is why terrorist blow up innocent people, to get more terrorist to do the same.

Um...no. Not at all. How did you get that from what I said? 

[drvaughn1999]

"He was looking to spur the mages on to breaking out of theirs."

I may have misunderstood, sorry.

[Sarah1281]

What I meant by that was that Anders wasn't looking to make life better for himself personally as he expected to die or, failing that, be hated and hunted everywhere he went. What he was trying to do for the mages (regardless of how that works out for them) was to convince them to stop submitting to the templars and fight for freedom. This doesn't really have to be done by killing innocents as they'll have quite enough to deal with with the templars and any other anti-free mage forces trying to stop them.

[drvaughn1999]

I do see your point, I just thought blowing up the chantry was the wrong move. I thought going after the templars would prove his point more.

[bulwaa]

Hey all.
Bad Anders. I wanted to kill him so much...
But he was my only character with healing spells! Lucky psycho. XD
Oh, at least I would like to punch him in the face for his betrayal (like I did to Isabela).

[catabuca]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Yes, I saw where you think it was justified. 

I'm sure certain people have felt that blowing up buildings full of innocent people was fully justified as an attack on some institution they didn't approve of.   I can think of a few examples, in fact.  

Whatever.

Yeah, like half the western world's military. But I digress ...

[Miri1984]

drvaughn1999 wrote...

I do see your point, I just thought blowing up the chantry was the wrong move. I thought going after the templars would prove his point more.

It wouldn't have, because blowing up the Templars wouldn't have provoked enough anger to spark a war. He wanted a war, to force the conflict. Meredith played into his hands perfectly, he couldn't have known she would react by attempting to annul the circle, but by doing that she conformed to all Anders' stereotypes about Templars and even Fenris is outraged that she decides to take out the actions of one mage on all of them.

[Killjoy Cutter]

catabuca wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Yes, I saw where you think it was justified. 

I'm sure certain people have felt that blowing up buildings full of innocent people was fully justified as an attack on some institution they didn't approve of.   I can think of a few examples, in fact.  

Whatever.

Yeah, like half the western world's military. But I digress ...

You're also so very wrong, on so many levels.

[Miri1984]

@Killjoy Cutter: Blanket statements of "You're very wrong" with no justification or explanation go into the troll basket for me. The fact of the matter is that military targets often contain civilian personnel, it's a necessary evil in war (if you follow the line that war is a necessary evil, which I don't necessarily). And the Chantry in this case, as has been discussed earlier in the thread, was not simply a terrorist target because it contained civilians, it was a symbol of authority that was misused. The Templars are run by the Chantry, the Chantry could have done something to stop Meredith's abuses and it didn't. Hence Anders' choice of target.

[Addai]

Miri1984 wrote...

drvaughn1999 wrote...

I do see your point, I just thought blowing up the chantry was the wrong move. I thought going after the templars would prove his point more.

It wouldn't have, because blowing up the Templars wouldn't have provoked enough anger to spark a war. He wanted a war, to force the conflict. Meredith played into his hands perfectly, he couldn't have known she would react by attempting to annul the circle, but by doing that she conformed to all Anders' stereotypes about Templars and even Fenris is outraged that she decides to take out the actions of one mage on all of them.

I think here you're contradicting yourself that he chose what he chose because it was a military target.  He chose the Chantry precisely because it wasn't.  Its destruction couldn't be written off as a matter of war damage.  Terrorism seeks to strike at the heart of the civilian populace, creating fear and destabilization so that governments are forced to respond.  That's much closer to what Anders did than just taking out a military HQ.

[renaissancemom]

There really needs to be a way to exorcise Vengeance from Anders. DLC PLS LOL! Anders without Vengeance was still rational. He could have been talked down by Hawke as evidenced here with rivalmanced Anders but his body and the convo was taken over by  Vengeance: www.youtube.com/watch. Anders sadly says he's too weak to fight him. () Plus, how "one in the same" can they be if he/they refers to themself/himself in the 3rd person?  I mean isn't it as simple as killing Vengeance in the Fade like the Warden did with Connor? Ijs...  

[Miri1984]

@ Addai it wasn't JUST a civilian target, is what I was trying to say. Yes it killed innocents, and that was part of the point, he needed to provoke outrage, but it was also the seat of Chantry authority. If he'd chosen to destroy the Templars only (a purely military target) it wouldn't have had the same impact precisely because no "innocents" would have been harmed. The Chantry isn't clear cut, one way or another, and because of this it suited his purpose perfectly.

[MG800]

His being an idiot didn't affect decision of my Hawke - sure he wanted to do something nasty to him, but ended up telling him to get the **** off (punching buttom in next DA please! ).
He took him for last battle thought, since he cooled down a little and I made him such a practical man (after all they could never make it) . But I'd like to think that after they left Kirkwall he got all angry and dwell a on this for a long time (that would be very in-character for him). 

Modifié par MG800, 19 mars 2011 - 11:07 .

[Addai]

Miri1984 wrote...

@ Addai it wasn't JUST a civilian target, is what I was trying to say. Yes it killed innocents, and that was part of the point, he needed to provoke outrage, but it was also the seat of Chantry authority. If he'd chosen to destroy the Templars only (a purely military target) it wouldn't have had the same impact precisely because no "innocents" would have been harmed. The Chantry isn't clear cut, one way or another, and because of this it suited his purpose perfectly.

Ok, agreed.  I would say the outrage goes beyond just the deaths in the explosion, however, and even further because of how the Chantry represents the center of that society's culture and religion.

I wonder if it will end up provoking a conflict between Tevinter and the rest of the Andrastian world.  That seems to be the implication of "the world is at the brink of war."  It's a little odd, though.  Inter-Andrastian conflict does not seem to be in the forefront at this point, and you would think that the Andrastians would be coming together in light of the Qunari threat.  But it's the only way I can see Anders' plan even working.  Otherwise the mages would not have enough sympathy from the populace to carry out their revolution, even if all of them rose up.

Modifié par Addai67, 18 mars 2011 - 09:33 .

[sassperella]

So why no outrage against Zevran who admits in DA:O that he sometimes kills innocents if they're caught in crossfire of his assassinations and blatently says he enjoys killing people? why no outrage at conner who's in the same boat as Anders?

Because we've been manipulated to feel more outrage in this game, not just because innocents were a casualty but because Bioware used terrorism that is such a huge issue in our real world. By making Anders take arguably terrorist action in the game they played on emotions that have been at the forefront of our news for the last few years, especially since 9/11.

oh and did no one else even consider that Isabella is responsible for many more innocent deaths because of her relic. How many of the city did the Qunari kill all as a direct result of her actions? Ah yes there was no terrorism in that so it's forgivable...

Modifié par sassperella, 18 mars 2011 - 11:36 .

[drvaughn1999]

sassperella wrote...

So why no outrage against Zevran who admits in DA:O that he sometimes kills innocents if they're caught in crossfire of his assassinations and blatently says he enjoys killing people? why no outrage at conner who's in the same boat as Anders?

Because we've been manipulated to feel more outrage in this game, not just because innocents were a casualty but because Bioware used terrorism that is such a huge issue in our real world. By making Anders take arguably terrorist action in the game they played on emotions that have been at the forefront of our news for the last few years, especially since 9/11.

oh and did no one else even consider that Isabella is responsible for many more innocent deaths because of her relic. How many of the city did the Qunari kill all as a direct result of her actions? Ah yes there was no terrorism in that so it's forgivable...

I killed Zevran when he tried to kill me.  I sent Isabella with the Qunari.  After what Anders did, killed him also.  They had to pay for their actions, no matter if their my friends as was Anders and Isabella case.  I have issues with people who try to kill me, lie to me and use me. 

Modifié par drvaughn1999, 18 mars 2011 - 11:58 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

sassperella wrote...

So why no outrage against Zevran who admits in DA:O that he sometimes kills innocents if they're caught in crossfire of his assassinations and blatently says he enjoys killing people? why no outrage at conner who's in the same boat as Anders?

Because we've been manipulated to feel more outrage in this game, not just because innocents were a casualty but because Bioware used terrorism that is such a huge issue in our real world. By making Anders take arguably terrorist action in the game they played on emotions that have been at the forefront of our news for the last few years, especially since 9/11.

oh and did no one else even consider that Isabella is responsible for many more innocent deaths because of her relic. How many of the city did the Qunari kill all as a direct result of her actions? Ah yes there was no terrorism in that so it's forgivable...

1)  Not a big fan of Zevran.
2)  The Qunari could have avoided all that bloodshed were they not so... Qunnish about the whole thing.
3)  Conner in DA:O is a child, manipulated by a demon, and tutored by a second-rate mage.

[Conway044]

Miri1984 wrote...

drvaughn1999 wrote...

I do see your point, I just thought blowing up the chantry was the wrong move. I thought going after the templars would prove his point more.

It wouldn't have, because blowing up the Templars wouldn't have provoked enough anger to spark a war. He wanted a war, to force the conflict. Meredith played into his hands perfectly, he couldn't have known she would react by attempting to annul the circle, but by doing that she conformed to all Anders' stereotypes about Templars and even Fenris is outraged that she decides to take out the actions of one mage on all of them.

Really?  I don't see Meredith inovking the Rite of Annulment all that surprising.

The funny thing is if Anders hadn't killed the Grand Cleric, the Rite of Annulment wouldn't have been invoked. 

[Raiil]

Conway044 wrote...

Miri1984 wrote...

drvaughn1999 wrote...

I do see your point, I just thought blowing up the chantry was the wrong move. I thought going after the templars would prove his point more.

It wouldn't have, because blowing up the Templars wouldn't have provoked enough anger to spark a war. He wanted a war, to force the conflict. Meredith played into his hands perfectly, he couldn't have known she would react by attempting to annul the circle, but by doing that she conformed to all Anders' stereotypes about Templars and even Fenris is outraged that she decides to take out the actions of one mage on all of them.

Really?  I don't see Meredith inovking the Rite of Annulment all that surprising.

The funny thing is if Anders hadn't killed the Grand Cleric, the Rite of Annulment wouldn't have been invoked. 

Eh, I think part of the issue with Meredith is that it seems like she would have in the near future, thanks to that damn idol infecting that brain of hers. She was becoming more and more unhinged. All she needed is an excuse and once you get past a certain level of crazy, any excuse is good enough.

[Ryzaki]

The problem with Meredith invokig the right of Anullment is that it's mindboggling backwards logic.

She has the apostate that she would need to kill right in front of her She completely ignores him and goes after the *Circle*

Wat.

[sassperella]

Yes I thought that odd too Ryzaki. It's like if you don't kill Anders he almost gets forgotten.

[Jayce]

Really?  I don't see Meredith inovking the Rite of Annulment all that surprising.

The funny thing is if Anders hadn't killed the Grand Cleric, the Rite of Annulment wouldn't have been invoked. 

That's why Ander's blew up the chantry. He out and out states he destroyed it and killed the Grand Cleric to prevent any possibility of reconcilliation. He knows exactly how Meredith and the Divine will react to such an action and he's perfectly willing to sacrifice himself and the entire Kirkwall circle if it triggers a revolt in every circle in Thedas either through mages wanting freedom or simply out of desperation to survive the backlash.

Modifié par Jayce F, 19 mars 2011 - 12:36 .

[Clover Rider]

sassperella wrote...

Yes I thought that odd too Ryzaki. It's like if you don't kill Anders he almost gets forgotten.

It was the sword of crazy that did it:whistle:.

Modifié par Some Geth, 19 mars 2011 - 12:36 .

[Inside_Joke]

FadeTheAssassin wrote...

What was your guy's thoughts when Anders ...

Honestly?
"HOLY ****!" O_O 

Followed by:


And then:
"Heh heh. And boom goes the dynamite. Anders - wins!"

[mhendon]

I had a bad feeling during his companion quest. He actually says someone is going to die. So when he came out I got this monstrous sinking feeling. The thing blew up and I just felt horrible! I seriously contemplated killing him even though I was romancing him. In the end, I let him go and told him to leave for good at the ending battle. I hate what he did but I feel like it wasn't really him, nor was it justice...it was vengeance.