Aller au contenu

Photo

Did anyone else kill Anders?


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
2340 réponses à ce sujet

#1926
Ryzaki

Ryzaki
  • Members
  • 34 423 messages

caradoc2000 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why is that double standards?

Hawke asks the Arishok to hand over murderers - the Arishok refuses.
The Arishok asks Hawke to hand over a thief - Hawke refuses.

I would have wanted a dialogue option:
" I can accept butt-ugly, heathen dirtbags with bad breath. but I can't accept double standards"


Seriously I like the Arishok but a "If you refuse to hand over criminals who committed crimes on our citizens to be subjected to our laws why should I pay any more consideration to your laws?" wouldn't have been uncalled for.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 21 mars 2012 - 01:33 .


#1927
aimichan

aimichan
  • Members
  • 20 messages
When I romanced him, I kept him alive but... Sebastian's accent is too sexy for me to send him away, so all other playthroughs, I kill him. xD If only he'd stayed the way he was in Awakening. T_T

#1928
Silfren

Silfren
  • Members
  • 4 748 messages

Ryzaki wrote...

caradoc2000 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why is that double standards?

Hawke asks the Arishok to hand over murderers - the Arishok refuses.
The Arishok asks Hawke to hand over a thief - Hawke refuses.

I would have wanted a dialogue option:
" I can accept butt-ugly, heathen dirtbags with bad breath. but I can't accept double standards"


Seriously I like the Arishok but a "If you refuse to hand over criminals who committed crimes on our citizens to be subjected to our laws why should I pay any more consideration to your laws?" wouldn't have been uncalled for.


I would have loved Hawke to have a line like that, simply so the Arishok could shoot back with something like "You didn't subject them to your laws in the first place, so why do you want to start now?"

I really don't understand why people keep referring to alleged double standards and hypocrisy on the part of the Arishok.  Is the letter of the law really that much more important than the actual details surrounding each case?  I guess there's no such thing as mitigating circumstances? 

#1929
Hurbster

Hurbster
  • Members
  • 773 messages
I have always killed Anders.

#1930
CrimsonZephyr

CrimsonZephyr
  • Members
  • 837 messages

Silfren wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

caradoc2000 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why is that double standards?

Hawke asks the Arishok to hand over murderers - the Arishok refuses.
The Arishok asks Hawke to hand over a thief - Hawke refuses.

I would have wanted a dialogue option:
" I can accept butt-ugly, heathen dirtbags with bad breath. but I can't accept double standards"


Seriously I like the Arishok but a "If you refuse to hand over criminals who committed crimes on our citizens to be subjected to our laws why should I pay any more consideration to your laws?" wouldn't have been uncalled for.


I would have loved Hawke to have a line like that, simply so the Arishok could shoot back with something like "You didn't subject them to your laws in the first place, so why do you want to start now?"

I really don't understand why people keep referring to alleged double standards and hypocrisy on the part of the Arishok.  Is the letter of the law really that much more important than the actual details surrounding each case?  I guess there's no such thing as mitigating circumstances? 


That sets a very bad precedent, though. It's not about whether the elves were justified. It's about whether the Qunari, being guests in Kirkwall, were subject to Kirkwall law, and therefore obligated to comply with the demands of the Captain of the Guard. By allowing the elves to remain with the Arishok, it establishes a precedent that the Qunari do not need to follow the local laws of the land while on foreign soil.

Also, it's not Aveline's job to consider mitigating circumstances. She's not a judge, arbiter, or equivalent official. She is there to see that the law is enforced, not to debate over how it is interpreted.

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 22 mars 2012 - 01:35 .


#1931
Ryzaki

Ryzaki
  • Members
  • 34 423 messages

Silfren wrote...
I would have loved Hawke to have a line like that, simply so the Arishok could shoot back with something like "You didn't subject them to your laws in the first place, so why do you want to start now?"

I really don't understand why people keep referring to alleged double standards and hypocrisy on the part of the Arishok.  Is the letter of the law really that much more important than the actual details surrounding each case?  I guess there's no such thing as mitigating circumstances? 


Except they were. Not very well with the amount of corruption in kirkwall but they were.

They were going to be arrested so they could find out the actual circumstances. That and Crimson said it better than I could.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 22 mars 2012 - 03:27 .


#1932
Ildun

Ildun
  • Members
  • 57 messages
If I didn't do the quest - "Justice", will he still able to bomb chantry?

I want to spare Anders, but Sebastian say he will lead his army to attack Kirkwall for revenge :(

I already risk Qunari revenge for Isabela, I don't want to do it again...

#1933
Dutchess

Dutchess
  • Members
  • 3 510 messages
Anders will bomb the Chantry no matter what you do. He will do it when you refuse to do Justice. He will even come back to do it when you tell him to leave after his quest in act 2.

#1934
Silfren

Silfren
  • Members
  • 4 748 messages

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

caradoc2000 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why is that double standards?

Hawke asks the Arishok to hand over murderers - the Arishok refuses.
The Arishok asks Hawke to hand over a thief - Hawke refuses.

I would have wanted a dialogue option:
" I can accept butt-ugly, heathen dirtbags with bad breath. but I can't accept double standards"


Seriously I like the Arishok but a "If you refuse to hand over criminals who committed crimes on our citizens to be subjected to our laws why should I pay any more consideration to your laws?" wouldn't have been uncalled for.


I would have loved Hawke to have a line like that, simply so the Arishok could shoot back with something like "You didn't subject them to your laws in the first place, so why do you want to start now?"

I really don't understand why people keep referring to alleged double standards and hypocrisy on the part of the Arishok.  Is the letter of the law really that much more important than the actual details surrounding each case?  I guess there's no such thing as mitigating circumstances? 


That sets a very bad precedent, though. It's not about whether the elves were justified. It's about whether the Qunari, being guests in Kirkwall, were subject to Kirkwall law, and therefore obligated to comply with the demands of the Captain of the Guard. By allowing the elves to remain with the Arishok, it establishes a precedent that the Qunari do not need to follow the local laws of the land while on foreign soil.

Also, it's not Aveline's job to consider mitigating circumstances. She's not a judge, arbiter, or equivalent official. She is there to see that the law is enforced, not to debate over how it is interpreted.


Well, yes it is about whether the elves were justified.  What has been said is that the Arishok was being a hypocrite, insisting on a double standard, and it is this that I'm focusing on, not whether it's a bad idea to let the Arishok have his way because of the precedent it will set.  The only way for this to be true is if one completely disregards context.  That was the source of my interest, basically: that some people here consider following the letter of the law to be more important than the full context of the particular situation. 

What you're ignoring, while talking about the possibility of establishing that the qunari aren't subject to the local laws, is that the elves in question were Kirkwall citizens.  If they are expected to be subject to the law, then they can expect to be protected by it as well.  They attempted to go through legal channels in order to receive justice, and were ignored.  I think that is a perfectly reasonable setup for arguing that if they aren't considered citizens worthy of being protected by the law, then they aren't obligated to follow it, either, if we're going to talk about precedents. 

If Aveline is there to see the law enforced, then where exactly was she when the elves sought out legal justice for the rape of one of their friends?  She insists on bringing the elves in to face the legal consequences of murder, but she apparently wasn't around to insist on a guard facing the legal consequences for rape, which is what brought about the elves actions in the first place.  I'm not sure of the timeline of the events here, but since this takes place in Act II, she's already the guard captain by this point, so....

#1935
Silfren

Silfren
  • Members
  • 4 748 messages

Ildun wrote...

If I didn't do the quest - "Justice", will he still able to bomb chantry?

I want to spare Anders, but Sebastian say he will lead his army to attack Kirkwall for revenge :(

I already risk Qunari revenge for Isabela, I don't want to do it again...


The bombing of the Chantry is the single most pivotal part of the whole game, a necessary part of the plot to set the stage for the mage war.  So yes, it will happen regardless of what you do.  He'll do it even if you order him to leave in Act 2. 

Go ahead and spare Anders.  From a gameplay standpoint you don't have to worry about Sebastian coming back to wreak havoc, because DA2's story is officially done. 

Story-wise, I don't think Sebastian has the capability of destroying Starkhaven.  He's far too capricious. 

#1936
themikefest

themikefest
  • Members
  • 21 614 messages
f*** yeah never liked his character showed him my brand of justice

#1937
Auriel

Auriel
  • Members
  • 27 messages
The only reason I would have wanted to spare Anders was so I could drag him along to show him how many innocents would die because of what he did. I was so angry at him.

Killing him did not grant much satisfaction, though.

#1938
PinkDiamondstl

PinkDiamondstl
  • Members
  • 1 099 messages
I could't do that to my Anders....

#1939
AnImpossibleGirl

AnImpossibleGirl
  • Members
  • 439 messages
Every time. Without fail. He better stay dead this time. Offed him in Awakening too.

#1940
SiIencE

SiIencE
  • Members
  • 568 messages
Only the first time because he 'ninja romanced' me. After that i killed him every time even denied all his quests where possible. He's pretty cool in Awakening (imo) but in DA2 pfff i wish you had the option to kick him out of Kirkwall, like : 'gtfo if you don't like it here' I mean there's loads of other places to go why stick around.

#1941
Paul E Dangerously

Paul E Dangerously
  • Members
  • 1 884 messages
I did. The way I see it, it was a mercy killing - I still miss the Anders from Awakening, but I realize Anders (Awakening), Varric, and Isabela together would have probably broken some sort of "too many funny companions at one time" rule.

Character assassination aside, the whole bomb thing did ****** me the hell off.

#1942
TJX2045

TJX2045
  • Members
  • 1 111 messages
 I could not kill him.  I should've but I just could not...I hope I will not regret that in Dragon Age 3.

Meredith was a b**** and seemed fake to me from the very beginning.  To me Meredith hides behind her "faith" to justify her rash and intense decisions.

With that said, I sided with the Mages in a heartbeat.  I believe that there needed to be a Circle but not the way Kirkwall has it.  It set itself up for all the madness it created.  Even the Qun saw how f****d up Kirkwall was while everyone else either shrugged or pretended like the corruption wasn't there.

I was really pissed that Elthina died because I felt she genuinely wanted to help the mages while also being reasonable and understanding the need of the Templar Order.  However she knew they needed to be kept in check.

When Sebastian said he would leave and come back with an army, I told him I didn't care.  It was funny to me because he talks about how he wants to be a brother in the Chantry and he wouldn't throw it away to be greedy and selfish, yet he forces you to take matters into your own hands otherwise he will seek out revenge...again.  After that I felt like he wasn't truly as "devout" as he made himself out to be and was putting on a show.

#1943
Carmen_Willow

Carmen_Willow
  • Members
  • 1 637 messages

Silfren wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

caradoc2000 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why is that double standards?

Hawke asks the Arishok to hand over murderers - the Arishok refuses.
The Arishok asks Hawke to hand over a thief - Hawke refuses.

I would have wanted a dialogue option:
" I can accept butt-ugly, heathen dirtbags with bad breath. but I can't accept double standards"


Seriously I like the Arishok but a "If you refuse to hand over criminals who committed crimes on our citizens to be subjected to our laws why should I pay any more consideration to your laws?" wouldn't have been uncalled for.


I would have loved Hawke to have a line like that, simply so the Arishok could shoot back with something like "You didn't subject them to your laws in the first place, so why do you want to start now?"

I really don't understand why people keep referring to alleged double standards and hypocrisy on the part of the Arishok.  Is the letter of the law really that much more important than the actual details surrounding each case?  I guess there's no such thing as mitigating circumstances? 


That sets a very bad precedent, though. It's not about whether the elves were justified. It's about whether the Qunari, being guests in Kirkwall, were subject to Kirkwall law, and therefore obligated to comply with the demands of the Captain of the Guard. By allowing the elves to remain with the Arishok, it establishes a precedent that the Qunari do not need to follow the local laws of the land while on foreign soil.

Also, it's not Aveline's job to consider mitigating circumstances. She's not a judge, arbiter, or equivalent official. She is there to see that the law is enforced, not to debate over how it is interpreted.


Well, yes it is about whether the elves were justified.  What has been said is that the Arishok was being a hypocrite, insisting on a double standard, and it is this that I'm focusing on, not whether it's a bad idea to let the Arishok have his way because of the precedent it will set.  The only way for this to be true is if one completely disregards context.  That was the source of my interest, basically: that some people here consider following the letter of the law to be more important than the full context of the particular situation. 

What you're ignoring, while talking about the possibility of establishing that the qunari aren't subject to the local laws, is that the elves in question were Kirkwall citizens.  If they are expected to be subject to the law, then they can expect to be protected by it as well.  They attempted to go through legal channels in order to receive justice, and were ignored.  I think that is a perfectly reasonable setup for arguing that if they aren't considered citizens worthy of being protected by the law, then they aren't obligated to follow it, either, if we're going to talk about precedents. 

If Aveline is there to see the law enforced, then where exactly was she when the elves sought out legal justice for the rape of one of their friends?  She insists on bringing the elves in to face the legal consequences of murder, but she apparently wasn't around to insist on a guard facing the legal consequences for rape, which is what brought about the elves actions in the first place.  I'm not sure of the timeline of the events here, but since this takes place in Act II, she's already the guard captain by this point, so....


You might also consider whether or not the Qunari compound is an embassy. A case could be made that since the city donated that area to the Qunari, they created, in essence an embass and foreswore the right to prosecute local laws inside the compound.  If, in fact, it can be considered as such, then once the elves were in the compound, they were immune from prosecution so long as they remained there (a little like religious sanctuary of medieval times), and the Arishok refused to turn them over to the local authorities.  While the Arishok is not formally an ambassador with diplomatic immunity, he may, de facto, have diplomatic immunity or consider himself to have diplomatic immunity and those within his compound to be exempt from local prosecution.

#1944
dralkjin

dralkjin
  • Members
  • 34 messages
I played through the game twice so far and had to kill him both times because I made Hawke side with the templars. On my first playthrough, my Hawke was in a romance with Anders. That was the most heart breaking ending ever. At first I chose to make her kill him right after he destroyed the chantry, but I was crying so much, that I had to go back to my last save and do it over and let him go. I was still very sad that I had to kill him later anyway, but it wasn't as bad as making the choice to kill him without him attacking first. I could never do that again. I don't think I could romance him again either. It's just too tragic.

#1945
Lazy Jer

Lazy Jer
  • Members
  • 656 messages

Carmen_Willow wrote...
You might also consider whether or not the Qunari compound is an embassy. A case could be made that since the city donated that area to the Qunari, they created, in essence an embass and foreswore the right to prosecute local laws inside the compound.  If, in fact, it can be considered as such, then once the elves were in the compound, they were immune from prosecution so long as they remained there (a little like religious sanctuary of medieval times), and the Arishok refused to turn them over to the local authorities.  While the Arishok is not formally an ambassador with diplomatic immunity, he may, de facto, have diplomatic immunity or consider himself to have diplomatic immunity and those within his compound to be exempt from local prosecution.


Not sure I buy that.  First of all, given the time period of Dragon Age I'm not sure if they've even really heard of embassies yet.  Secondly if that were true then it's something that needs to be implicitly stated on the outset.  If it's not then the Qunari in Kirkwall are still supposed to be bound by the laws of Kirkwall.  The problem is that the Arishok in his single-minded world view, sees the Qun to be the only legitimate authority, and thus he sees himself as above Kirkwall law simply because he's the Arishok.

#1946
Plaintiff

Plaintiff
  • Members
  • 6 998 messages

Silfren wrote...

Well, yes it is about whether the elves were justified.  What has been said is that the Arishok was being a hypocrite, insisting on a double standard, and it is this that I'm focusing on, not whether it's a bad idea to let the Arishok have his way because of the precedent it will set.  The only way for this to be true is if one completely disregards context.  That was the source of my interest, basically: that some people here consider following the letter of the law to be more important than the full context of the particular situation. 

What you're ignoring, while talking about the possibility of establishing that the qunari aren't subject to the local laws, is that the elves in question were Kirkwall citizens.  If they are expected to be subject to the law, then they can expect to be protected by it as well.  They attempted to go through legal channels in order to receive justice, and were ignored.  I think that is a perfectly reasonable setup for arguing that if they aren't considered citizens worthy of being protected by the law, then they aren't obligated to follow it, either, if we're going to talk about precedents. 

If Aveline is there to see the law enforced, then where exactly was she when the elves sought out legal justice for the rape of one of their friends?  She insists on bringing the elves in to face the legal consequences of murder, but she apparently wasn't around to insist on a guard facing the legal consequences for rape, which is what brought about the elves actions in the first place.  I'm not sure of the timeline of the events here, but since this takes place in Act II, she's already the guard captain by this point, so....

Well all she hears of the rape is rumours. The elves never approached her directly, if they approached the guard at all, which they likely did not. She never met them before. What was she supposed to do? Chase down a whisper among a sea of other whispers? Kirkwall is a nasty place, unreported rapes probably occur daily. We know they're a frequent occurence in the Gallows, and the guard has no power to do anything about that.

Even if she checked it out, rape is an extremely difficult crime to prove, even with our current technology. And it's not as if Kirkwal has a convenient rape kit just lying around. It would be one person's word against another's, with no evidence. And regardless of who Aveline believes, she does not have the legal power to determine who is guilty or innocent. Her job is merely to bring them in, where they will then be subjected to the due process of law by the Viscount or whoever is in a position to make those judgements.

I don't necessarily agree with Aveline's opinion. The law in Kirkwall is clearly corrupt and biased, but Aveline doesn't have the ability to do anything about that. Guard Captain is not a position of great power.

#1947
TEWR

TEWR
  • Members
  • 16 988 messages

Plaintiff wrote... Well all she hears of the rape is rumours. The elves never approached her directly, if they approached the guard at all, which they likely did not.


They said they did report it to the guard and nothing happened. And if rumors were swirling around town, then it's obviously being talked about. If they didn't report it themselves, someone else may have.

But even so, if an Elf murdered a human, that Elf would probably be executed. But if a human murdered an Elf, the punishment would probably be more lenient simply because the roles are reversed. And we see this in-game, actually. 

Kirkwall's shown in the past that it isn't a place where Elves receive proper justice, what with the local Magistrate protecting his own ass by keeping his son locked up rather then recusing himself from the position of Magistrate temporarily. The fact that he goes out of his way to hire Hawke -- even trying to bribe him with the notion of a Magistrate's support -- rather then telling the City Guard information they need to know says that he cares little about true justice.

Especially given his remark "I care for justice Fereldan, not unbridled slaughter". Gee, I wonder who had committed slaughter of people and even admitted such? Ah that's right, Kelder. 

Whether he legitimately cares for his son and not his job is arguable, but he was never fit to preside over that case in the first place. He could be considered a person to make appeals on his son's behalf, but he was never fit to be the one to decree what punishment Kelder received.

However, it seems that he just wants to ignore the situation entirely, chalking up what the Elves say as being "ridiculous stories" simply because it came from the mouths of Elves.

Kelder should've been executed or placed in an asylum under lock and key with 24/7 guard, but he wasn't. He had kidnapped and murdered dozens of Elven children and escaped numerous times from prison.

And this line of thought -- "What human would punish a human for crimes against Elves? None" -- is even believed by Varric, Merrill, and Fenris. The latter you could chalk down to biased sourcing, maybe. But if Varric says it's not going to happen, then you can be certain that it wouldn't happen. Because he has connections all throughout Kirkwall and very little news -- if any -- escapes his ears.

The law is corrupt and Elves receive no justice. If they don't report crimes, it's not because they don't want to. It's because they have so little faith in the system that's supposed to protect them that they feel they need to take matters into their own hands.

Mages are the same way, especially in the Gallows. Whose word do you think would be taken as being true? A Mage's or a Templar's? Especially when there is no Seeker presence to report to, who are supposed to be the watchers of the watchmen?

This is why Alain joined the rebellion that Thrask wanted to wage against Meredith and her like-minded cronies. Because the Circle system was not the way it should be and he could only think of one way that he could end the abuse he had suffered -- fighting back, taking matters into his own hands.

Plaintiff wrote...

Kirkwall is a nasty place, unreported rapes probably occur daily. We know they're a frequent occurence in the Gallows, and the guard has no power to do anything about that


Of course they don't. The guard isn't responsible for what goes on in the Gallows or other Circles. The Templars and Seekers are. The guards should be able to take Templars that abuse their charges -- the Mages -- in for prosecution though.

If a person has no faith that his/her word will be considered in regards to a crime that happened to them or someone close to them, then a person has very little reason to report it if nothing will come of it.

This is what happens with the Elves and the Mages.

Rumors or not, they should be investigated. If the accusation is that a guard raped an Elven woman, then that guard should be put on mandatory leave pending an investigation.

Sure, it's going to be hard to prove it. But that's no excuse for not even trying to investigate, which is what the City Guard did. The City Guard didn't bother to investigate. Aveline may have said she was going to, but the Elves probably felt that they couldn't place their trust in her if the people that are under her command refused to do their job.

Plaintiff wrote...

It would be one person's word against another's, with no evidence


That depends on the nature of the rape and how injured the Elves' sister was. It's never told to the player.

Even psychological exams can tell you some things pertinent to an investigation. But I doubt Thedas has anything like our psychological exams. But sometimes, rape victims have some very clear signs that they were raped.


Plaintiff wrote...

And regardless of who Aveline believes, she does not have the legal power to determine who is guilty or innocent. Her job is merely to bring them in, where they will then be subjected to the due process of law by the Viscount or whoever is in a position to make those judgements.


Magistrates (who are -- shock of shocks -- humans). 

I again reference Varric's claims, for the sake of discussion. See here for Varric's remark and push it back about 30 seconds for all the remarks made by companions at that part -- though the video doesn't have all the remarks made during the quest itself.



Plaintiff wrote...

The law in Kirkwall is clearly corrupt and biased, but Aveline doesn't have the ability to do anything about that. Guard Captain is not a position of great power.


Indeed the law is corrupt and biased.

She might not have that much official power, but Hawke certainly does have enough clout with the Viscount to begin changing things. Or would, if Dumar wasn't a figurehead noble and Meredith wasn't the overseer of what gets authorized and what doesn't.

But even so, Aveline is willing to openly defy the Viscount's wishes in favor of her own -- seen when Seneschal Bran brings her a parade suit of armor.

She's clearly not afraid to voice her opinions. She may not be able to do much, but she came off as the type of person that would speak as loud as she could until someone began to create rules that were fair to the citizens.

Plus, she can order her men to investigate, whether they want to or not. And she can say that all evidence should be brought to her for reviewing, if she felt her men were still biased.

I don't actually consider her a great Captain of the Guard myself, despite what the game would have us believe. I actually think she's ill-fit for the role, based on what happens in-game in various quests.

She's a good commander of forces, but I don't consider her a person that's a good upholder of the law when her friends aren't the subject of it. I understand she's willing to bend it for her friends, which I don't chastise her for. It's for the other things I do. Sometimes I even view her as idiotic.

One point I'll cast in her favor is that she began recruiting Elves into the Guard -- seen by Lia, so we can assume she did it elsewhere with other Elves.

But that point also disappears once I realized that she doesn't place Nyssa under protection detail after her escaped husband -- who is believed to have become mentally unstable by Nyssa -- contacted her, when Aveline will have heard everything Nyssa said on the matter.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 02 juin 2012 - 01:47 .


#1948
Gamba6

Gamba6
  • Members
  • 2 messages
 He wanted to be a martyr. I obliged him :P

#1949
hussey 92

hussey 92
  • Members
  • 592 messages
no, I was on the mages side

#1950
Dabrikishaw

Dabrikishaw
  • Members
  • 3 245 messages
No, I only ever sided with the Chantry/Templars once, for the trophy. I fully support Anders destryoing the Chantry in Kirkwall.