ChaplainTappman wrote...
Relix28 wrote...
Look dude, I really don't want to argue here. I just think you have some misconceptions about what Anders was trying to achieve by blowing up that chantry. I don't think it was BioWare's intention to depict Anders as mass murderer terrorist. He was meant to be a freedom fighter type of "terrorrist" and I think the fact that freedom for mages is pretty much the only thing he talks about, kinda proves my point.
Offcourse you are entitled to your opinion and by the end of the day you will believe what you want to believe, so I won't try to convince you otherwise. I do, however, think you are not seeing Anders the way BioWare intended when they were designing the character.
And I think you're misunderstanding what Bioware was attempting with Anders. Bioware is clearly a fan of "grey space" when it comes to certain issues. I think the point of Anders' destruction was to highlight that, a lot of times, the difference between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" is a matter of perception. If Anders was meant to be a "freedom fighter," without any room for interpretation, his inciting act of defiance would've been different, it would've been less morally nebulous.
During Act 2, one sees Anders working in consort with the Mages Underground. A group, which under the active support of even the locals (I'm guessing common folk of Kirkwall), is attempting to help rebel mages flee Kirkwall. This movement kind of dies at the start of ACT 3, when templars are well and truly in control of Kirkwall, after Viscount Dumar dies and the City Guard loses numbers. The whole environment in Kirkwall changes, and I don't know what happens to the Underground - perhaps members caught and made tranquil? It is not because of nothing that Anders runs out of options. The issue with all this is that it is such a small part of the story, so as to go somewhat neglected. So, then, is one ought to think of Anders as a "freedom fighter" in ACT 2 and as a "terrorist" in ACT 3?
And there is the element of fusion of Justice and Anders, one having an influence upon the other. So where does one begin to blame Anders, and not Justice?
My biggest issue is that people on both sides of the debate equate supporting Anders with supporting the mages. I condemn Anders' destruction of the chantry, so clearly that makes me pro-templar. Except I'm not, at all.
The issue to me aren't only the templars. Looking at it from some perspectives, they're as much abused as mages. Except the abuse of the templars themselves is less apparent than the abuse of the mages by templars. For instance, some of the freedoms that mages forego with - not being able to fraternize, not being able to marry, and so on, are probably also applicable to templars. And let's not forget the lyrium addiction. And doesn't Varric at the end also tells that the templars had rebelled also? Now why would that be? Looking at the situation as purely mages vs. templars is kind of myopic in my view, to say the least.
The Chantry, and all its rules regulations, and incompetance is also to blame. The inflexibility of the 1000 years or so of ruling has caught up with the Chantry finally, it appears.
And regarding the point of simply assassinating Elthina. Couldn't that have been easily construed as Anders' hatred for Elthina alone? So, no, according to Anders the Chantry had to go. And in this regard, his logic was correct. (NOTE: I'm not necessarily supporting his actions here.)
Yet another point: the debate to me to some extent looks something like about "the end justifying the means." In this context, Anders thinking the mage freedom as justifying the destruction of the Chantry. But the case is that the end itself is somehow not acceptable to many. Nobody (perpahs apart from a few mages themselves) desires complete mage freedom, and everyone seems to have differing opinions as to how much mages should be allowed to roam free. And the reasoning given by some is that another Tevinter would arise because of this, although not knowing how Tevinter Imperium came to power in the first place; or that common folk will always be at risk from mages.
So whatever the issue is, it's clearly not a simple one, in the sense that one cannot look ten steps into the future and predict what might happen, in any scenario. And this is done intentionally by the writers and developers - it's all going according to plan.
Retour en haut
