2340 réponses à ce sujet

[thegreateski]

Yeah, but I felt bad about it.

[Retserof]

cglasgow wrote...
Especially since I know that Anders will flip out and kill a fellow mage if he even suspects that they're not anti-templar-hardcore enough for his preferences.  I watched him do it in act 2.

You didn't talk him out of it? (bottom left option If I recall) He didn't kill the mage girl in my playthrough. I told him to "calm down" and he was all "that was almost horrible" and ran off, back to his clinic. Had he killed the mage girl in cold blood during my game, I could see your point I suppose.

Modifié par Retserof, 20 mars 2011 - 11:46 .

[LobselVith8]

cglasgow wrote...

Ahahahahaha... I'm supposed to let the insane abomination, who just confessed to mass murder, stand behind me with a loaded mage staff?  During the upcoming firefight?   That's even crazier than he is!

Considering his goal is the freedom of his people, I don't see why Anders would attack Hawke if he brings him along. Anders didn't try to kill me when I brought him and Merrill along to stop the templars from murdering men, women, and children in cold blood.

cglasgow wrote...

Especially since I know that Anders will flip out and kill a fellow mage if he even suspects that they're not anti-templar-hardcore enough for his preferences.  I watched him do it in act 2.

Not if Hawke talks Justice down so Anders can regain control.

cglasgow wrote...

There is a place for crazy mass murderers.  That place is not 'at my back'.

Considering Hawke needs to stop the actual crazy mass murderers from butchering the mages of the Kirkwall Circle, I think Anders would be valuable in the fight.

[Yebisu85]

Hell ye, he was so annoying in DA2.

Such a let down, since he used to be a great character in DA:A.

[cglasgow]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Considering his goal is the freedom of his people, I don't see why Anders would attack Hawke if he brings him along.

For the same reason that he attacked the mage girl in 'Dissent' (act 2); he's a freaking nutjob.

I mean, seriously.  Anders walks into a scene where an abusive templar is about to Tranquil and rape a young mage girl.  So, he first goes berserk and wastes the templars, which makes perfect sense... and then he goes on to kill the girl, which is straight out whackjob ville.

Not if Hawke talks Justice down so Anders can regain control.

Which doesn't always happen.  I tried to talk him down; he killed her anyway.   That scene flag is very conditional, and I'm not sure of all the variables necessary.

Have you ever spoken to Anders after he actually kills her?  He flat-out admits that there are times when he simply cannot remain in control of Vengeance.  That he just wakes up and boom, there's blood on his hands and a dead body in front of him.

I mean, in hindsight, I should have expected the act 3 tragedy; act 2 gave me some blatant foreshadowing.  My fault for not taking it seriously enough at the time, my first playthrough.   But I'm not making that mistake again.

[Heldenbrand]

Did it. Don't feel bad about it. My rogue was subjected to his whining for a second playthrough where I needed a healer. Seven years of that blither and I bet the rogue wishes he could have done it sooner.

[ZombiePowered]

I just feel bad for Ser Pounce-a-lot...

[lobi]

I wanted to kill him as soon as he told me he was abomination, got to kill wynn during ashes similar option would have been nice. Could end with Patrice or Merrill blowing up chantry. Just kicked him to kurb after Circle tunnels.

Modifié par lobi, 21 mars 2011 - 03:28 .

[emyln]

Sigh... Just finished DA2, man was that a surprise when the building blew up. Dammit, I really liked Anders and romanced him and was so faithful to him, defending him and all that and the ass gave mages a very bad name.

I spared his life and asked him to continue on with me. Sigh... since Kingship of Kirkwall was out, I am a mage after all and killing all mages was out. But I declined to travel with him into the sunset. **sob** I should have romanced Fenris instead if I had know what a dick Anders was going to be.

BTW is it just me or were the last few battles from the Anders event on just ... tedious? I was on Hard the whole time and after the Anders event, I turned it down to casual just to get through it. The Meridith battle would have been a HUGE pain in the ass. Almost as bad as the one vs the Arashock.

Modifié par emyln, 21 mars 2011 - 03:33 .

[LobselVith8]

cglasgow wrote...

For the same reason that he attacked the mage girl in 'Dissent' (act 2); he's a freaking nutjob.

I mean, seriously.  Anders walks into a scene where an abusive templar is about to Tranquil and rape a young mage girl.  So, he first goes berserk and wastes the templars, which makes perfect sense... and then he goes on to kill the girl, which is straight out whackjob ville.

That was Justice, not Anders. The whole point of talking Justice down is for Anders to regain control, and he doesn't kill the girl once that happens.

cglassgow wrote...

Which doesn't always happen.  I tried to talk him down; he killed her anyway.   That scene flag is very conditional, and I'm not sure of all the variables necessary.

Have you ever spoken to Anders after he actually kills her?  He flat-out admits that there are times when he simply cannot remain in control of Vengeance.  That he just wakes up and boom, there's blood on his hands and a dead body in front of him.

I've never had a problem talking him down. I remember when he discusses his difficulty in dealing with Justice after Tranquility. He references the difficulty he has maintaining control over Justice when he sees templars. The story arc isn't the same when you help Anders regain control over himself.

cglasgow wrote...

I mean, in hindsight, I should have expected the act 3 tragedy; act 2 gave me some blatant foreshadowing.  My fault for not taking it seriously enough at the time, my first playthrough.   But I'm not making that mistake again.

The lives of the mages are tragic. Anders wanted to see the mages across Thedas free. Considering no one else in a thousand years was able to accomplish what Anders did, I don't see him as the villain that some people try to portray him as.

[cglasgow]

LobselVith8 wrote...

That was Justice, not Anders.

So, we're just ignoring the part where Anders says that him and Justice are one being now, after the Chantry blows.

[Pandaman102]

No, in subsequent playthroughs I won't spare him either. I would've understood it if he was poisoning the Chantry's lyrium stores to kill a bunch of Templars, but blowing up the neutral party that prevented the "Tranquil Solution" from passing? Ignoring that one of the functions of the Templars was also to protect mages? Forcing the dissolution of the Circle that was as much about teaching mages as it is preventing blood magic?

He complained a lot about the system, but the fact was he never tried to change it. He only tried to undermine and sabotage it - and when that failed he destroyed it and forced his singular ideal onto the world with no regard to the consequences.

[Pandaman102]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The lives of the mages are tragic. Anders wanted to see the mages across Thedas free. Considering no one else in a thousand years was able to accomplish what Anders did, I don't see him as the villain that some people try to portray him as.

Tevinter Imperium, anyone?

[Emada]

My first playthrough I was romancing him, and I felt I invested too much effort in the idiot to kill him.
So I played again and killed him. Didn't even do his quests. I was angry rawr!

[Retserof]

Pandaman102 wrote...

No, in subsequent playthroughs I won't spare him either. I would've understood it if he was poisoning the Chantry's lyrium stores to kill a bunch of Templars, but blowing up the neutral party that prevented the "Tranquil Solution" from passing?

The Chantry is not a neutral party. The Templars are a military order of the Chantry, which enforces Chantry Law (as defined and set forth by Chantry Leadership).

From the codex entry "The History of the Chantry, Chapter 4":

"Drakon, by then Emperor Drakon I, created the Circle of Magi, the Order of Templars and the holy office of the Divine."

[cljqnsnyc]

If you romanced him or was his friend, after that act of terrorism, how could he be trusted again? He used you, lied to you, and betrayed you! Proved he is willing to murder innocent people to get what he wants. What kind of healer does that?  More like a fanatic!  A true hero wouldn't be able to live with himself/herself after something like that.

My Warden is a mage all the way from DAO through Witch Hunt. My Hawke as well. It's true, you can't lock someone up simply because they MIGHT be a danger....but to commit an act of terrorism to prove a point can never be condoned. No matter the cause. My mage killed him...DEAD!

I would never side with the Templars...but Bioware didn't have to make it seem that only a handful of mages in Kirkwall are capable of resisting demons

Modifié par cljqnsnyc, 21 mars 2011 - 05:04 .

[Pandaman102]

Retserof wrote...

The Chantry is not a neutral party. The Templars are a military order of the Chantry, which enforces Chantry Law (as defined and set forth by Chantry Leadership).

From the codex entry "The History of the Chantry, Chapter 4":

"Drakon, by then Emperor Drakon I, created the Circle of Magi, the Order of Templars and the holy office of the Divine."

The office of the Divine also has authority over the Circle, but it doesn't lead either branches directly. The Templars enforce Chantry rules while the Circle enforces Chantry-approved magic, both are acting as agents of the Chantry and it seems internal disputes are resolved by the Grand Mother. The only thing that wouldn't make the office of the Divine a neutral party is personal preference, not organizational structure.

[Retserof]

Pandaman102 wrote...
The office of the Divine also has authority over the Circle, but it doesn't lead either branches directly. The Templars enforce Chantry rules while the Circle enforces Chantry-approved magic, both are acting as agents of the Chantry and it seems internal disputes are resolved by the Grand Mother. The only thing that wouldn't make the office of the Divine a neutral party is personal preference, not organizational structure.

You just said the templars enforce Chantry rules. Who makes Chantry rules? The Chantry.

If the actions commited by the Templars are unjust, and they're enforcing rules as set forth by the Chantry... then the Chantry cannot be a neutral party. If the Templars are operating outside of Chantry Law, then the Chantry itself is indeed a neutral party. However, you said poisoning Templars would be understandable... though you didn't state if said Templars had operated outside of Chantry Law or not. If they haven't, then your statement regarding the Chantry's neutrality is illogical.

The question becomes, who exactly defines Chantry law specifically? Is it the Grand Mother? Is it the Divine? If it's the office of the Divine, she can't be a neutral party either.

Modifié par Retserof, 21 mars 2011 - 05:40 .

[Rockpopple]

Anders wasn't an LI, but he was a buddy. I stuck with him nearly the entire game. I sided with the Mages. I did all his quests and supported him like only a buddy could. So then he had to do suck a dick move and blow up the Chantry and kill everyone inside.

So I had to kill him. Damn it if I didn't want to, but he really didn't leave me any choice. Extremists in all walks of life bug the **** out of me.

[Retserof]

Rockpopple wrote...
Extremists in all walks of life bug the **** out of me.

Ah, but is justice in moderation justice at all? Rhetorical food for thought.

Rockpopple wrote...
So then he had to do suck a dick move...

Freudian slip, by the way?

...sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Modifié par Retserof, 21 mars 2011 - 06:42 .

[Pandaman102]

Retserof wrote...

You just said the templars enforce Chantry rules. Who makes Chantry rules? The Chantry.

If the actions commited by the Templars are unjust, and they're enforcing rules as set forth by the Chantry... then the Chantry cannot be a neutral party. If the Templars are operating outside of Chantry Law, then the Chantry itself is indeed a neutral party. However, you said poisoning Templars would be understandable... though you didn't state if said Templars had operated outside of Chantry Law or not. If they haven't, then your statement regarding the Chantry's neutrality is illogical.

The question becomes, who exactly defines Chantry law specifically? Is it the Grand Mother? Is it the Divine? If it's the office of the Divine, she can't be a neutral party either.

Is it impossible to abuse the spirit of law without breaking the letter of the law? Are judges not neutral parties in cases where law enforcement agents face trial for such abuses? Does the Templar branch enforcing one part of Chantry rule make the Circle, which enforces another part of Chantry rule, any less of a subordinate?

And how does stating that I would "understand" Anders for poisoning Templars be illogical without stating my opinion of Meredith's abuse of powers? Are you saying it's illogical to understand that a man would attack something he complained about for more than seven years? Understanding is not synonymous with approving.

Modifié par Pandaman102, 21 mars 2011 - 06:45 .

[Greed1914]

I ended up killing Anders.  I probably would have let him live since I usually side with companions, but Sebastian leaves permanently if you don't execute Anders.  I give Bioware credit for making characters that have such conflicts among each other that might not be fixed, even with player help.  Sure, DAO had chances for members to leave, but there weren't any choices where it was one companion or the other. 

I also figured that I couldn't very well let him live, even if the point was for him to try to make up for his actions.  Hawke would then be responsible for protecting the man who provoked open confict.  Considering that the Chantry already seemed to think Hawke was responsible at the start of the game, it seemed like a bad idea to help the one who actually did it. 


Also, I was pretty mad at him for using me to help in his plot.  I should have known he was up to something when he didn't drink that "potion" of his. 

Modifié par Greed1914, 21 mars 2011 - 08:04 .

[theskywalker]

I kept him alive. My character romanced him, and I just didn't have the heart to do it. I felt sympathy for him, all these years on the run drove him mad enough to do this. I sided with the mages in the end, and I think that was ultimately the right decision, and I'll be doing it again and again in the future.

[Retserof]

Pandaman102 wrote...
Is it impossible to abuse the spirit of law without breaking the letter of the law?

Depends on what the law is, and how it is stated of course.

Pandaman102 wrote...
Are judges not neutral parties in cases where law enforcement agents face trial for such abuses?

Judges are neutral parties, but judges do not create law--they exist to interpret it.

The Chantry creates the law, and are saying that restricting the freedom of mages (by confining them to their circles) is what is to be done. Then they pay the Templars (I'm assuming the Templar Order is funded by the Chantry, which seems logical but doesn't need to be true for this point) to carry out the law they've created.

If I say all persons "A" are to be put in cages, then order persons "B" to put all of the "A's" into cages, I'm not a neutral party, even though I didn't physically do anything to the "A's." My orders are causing the actions of the "B's," and I am responsible for what has happened to the "A's."

Pandaman102 wrote...
Does the Templar branch enforcing one part of Chantry rule make the Circle, which enforces another part of Chantry rule, any less of a subordinate?

I'm not really sure what you're asking. The Templar branch seems to be the only thing directly enforcing Chantry law. The DA wiki states the circle is "governed and monitored by the Chantry," and I'm unaware of the specifics unlike the Templar Order (which has had a more detailed explanation), but it seems the Circle is just a result of the law and the Templar's enforcement--having no power of it's own (again, unfamiliar).

Pandaman102 wrote...
And how does stating that I would "understand" Anders for poisoning Templars be illogical without stating my opinion of Meredith's abuse of powers? Are you saying it's illogical to understand that a man would attack something he complained about for more than seven years? Understanding is not synonymous with approving.

You said you could understand him poisoning Templars, but not the "neutral party" that is the Chantry. I was arguing that the Chantry is not in fact a neutral party, and that the distinction you were making between the two was therefore illogical.

Indeed, I never suggested you approved of it (nor was that information necessary), only that there isn't a distinction where you suggested there was one (in the particular manor you suggested it--were you to call them "non-combatants" the statement would certainly be logical).

Essentially, the Chantry's law defines the actions of the Templars, they pay the Templars, and they directly support the Templars--the Chantry is not a neutral party in relation to the oppression of mages (providing the Templars are acting within the law as defined by the Chantry, which they are in this generalized case).

Modifié par Retserof, 21 mars 2011 - 10:00 .

[Pandaman102]

Retserof wrote...
The Chantry creates the law, and are saying that restricting the freedom of mages (by confining them to their circles) is what is to be done. Then they pay the Templars (I'm assuming the Templar Order is funded by the Chantry, which seems logical but doesn't need to be true for this point) to carry out the law they've created.

If I say all persons "A" are to be put in cages, then order persons "B" to put all of the "A's" into cages, I'm not a neutral party, even though I didn't physically do anything to the "A's." My orders are causing the actions of the "B's," and I am responsible for what has happened to the "A's."

Ah, I see where our interpretation of the game's lore diverge. You're interpreting the Chantry as the source of the rules, whereas I'm interpreting the Chantry as the the "judicial" branch of a system established by Emperor Drakon. In the former case I can see the argument for them not being neutral, but in the latter case I see them more as "our hands are tied and we're going to be holier-than-thou while we're at it because that's our coping mechanism."

Retserof wrote...
I'm not really sure what you're asking. The Templar branch seems to be the only thing directly enforcing Chantry law. The DA wiki states the circle is "governed and monitored by the Chantry," and I'm unaware of the specifics unlike the Templar Order (which has had a more detailed explanation), but it seems the Circle is just a result of the law and the Templar's enforcement.

The codex entry you quoted specifically states that all three branches were created by Drakon, that seems to suggest the Circle was created for a purpose and not just something that developed later to make things easier for the Templars. I was arguing that the Circle and Templars are both branches of the same organization with the Chantry being a neutral third party that tries to balance keeping mages in check and preventing the Templars from going all Qun on them.

Either way, it still doesn't change the fact that Anders broke a system that allowed Andrasteans to tolerate legal mages and effectively strengthened the rhetoric against mages by forcing them into a situation where they have to resolve to blood magic to survive (since Templar abilities are more effective against regular magic).