2340 réponses à ce sujet

[EricHVela]

Lord Aesir wrote...

My Hawke saw Anders as losing himself to the spirit of vengeance, which might be observed in his increasingly frantic efforts over the course of Act 3. In the end, it was meant as a mercy killing.

I saw it as both that and what Justice would have wanted if it had been pure.

If just felt "tainted" (for lack of thinking of a better word) to let him live. Though, I let him live in several play throughs to see the reactions.

With as much as they railroaded the ending, I am surprised that they didn't decide his fate as well.

[Fallstar]

It's hard to decide whether or not Justice would have done what Anders did prior to their merging. You have to remember what Anders says about Justice, "Justice is cold. Justice is hard." Since Elthina's inaction is one of the major causes of the situation in Kirkwall getting as bad as it does, perhaps her death was justice. On the other hand, the deaths of the sisters and other minor chantry members were almost certainly not warranted. That was certainly the act of Vengeance rather than Justice to me.

I've said in this thread previously that I always let Anders live. Although what he does is extreme, he kickstarted the mages into action. In the end, the good that comes of his actions if they lead to reformed or abolished circles may outweigh the damage he caused. When you think of the number of cases of torture, rape and downright murder that he may have saved over the course of an age or more, combined with all the good he has done in Amaranthine with the Warden, I think Anders will balance the books.

The real test is if you knew what was going to happen, and had the chance to prevent Anders from setting the bomb off, would you do it. Personally I'd let him go through with it.

[Renmiri1]

Anders also says that Justice doesn't know how to wait for the best moment to strike.

In Awakenings Justice joins the Warden because it knows it won't survive in this strange world without help. It is just too clueless and impulsive. A completely dominated Anders or Justice alone would die in a blaze of glory, doing a poorly planned frontal attack to templars somewhere.

PS: I would try to change his target to teh gallows / Meredith

Modifié par Renmiri1, 05 septembre 2012 - 10:41 .

[EricHVela]

Anders jumped the gun. Orsino was taking the conflict directly to Elthina.

We can throw assumptions all around, but the fact stays the same: We didn't see if Orsino, Elthina and Meredith would find their own solutions. Anders forced his solution upon all of them.

That's not what Justice would want. You don't judge people on what they might or might not do. Justice had nothing to do with it.

If Justice was pure, it would judge the actions of Anders and Vengeance as criminal and bring the consequences of their actions upon them.

I felt it was only appropriate to do what Justice would wish, as an act of mercy for it and an act of Justice when it could no longer do that for itself.

[Xilizhra]

If Justice was pure, it would judge the actions of Anders and Vengeance as criminal and bring the consequences of their actions upon them.

Those consequences being the war. The most just outcome is Anders trying to end the conflict he started as quickly and decisively as possible.

[EricHVela]

Xilizhra wrote...

If Justice was pure, it would judge the actions of Anders and Vengeance as criminal and bring the consequences of their actions upon them.

Those consequences being the war. The most just outcome is Anders trying to end the conflict he started as quickly and decisively as possible.

I already explained that one doesn't define justice on what someone might or might not do.

Justice cannot judge what Anders might or might not do. Justice can only judge what Anders and Vengeance did. Anders and Vengeance denied Orsino, Elthina and Meredith the option to find their own solution by murdering one of them. They judged the three based on what they thought might happen. That's not Justice. Justice would never do that. Vengeance is the suffering of Justice.

One cannot force the responsibility for the actions upon the perpetrator. One can only force the consequences upon them. Murdering someone that has done nothing wrong to the perpetrator (especially if that person simply hasn't done what the perpetrator wanted) has consequences defined by the local law. That's Justice.

Anders/Vengeance admitted the crime. All that was left was the consequence of the law. They performed the deed. By doing so, they accept the consequences whether or not they want to accept them (though they claim to accept the consequences). What they might or might not do is immaterial until they actually do them, but the consequences of their actions of murder is to deny them the option to solve the situation in the same manner that they denied others according to local law. That's Justice.

[Cartims]

I freaking killed him, how dare he lie to me. I hate to be lied to, I can handle the truth better than any lie.

[Xilizhra]

Anders/Vengeance admitted the crime. All that was left was the consequence of the law. They performed the deed. By doing so, they accept the consequences whether or not they want to accept them (though they claim to accept the consequences). What they might or might not do is immaterial until they actually do them, but the consequences of their actions of murder is to deny them the option to solve the situation in the same manner that they denied others according to local law. That's Justice.

I disagree, and if that's the definition of justice, I don't believe that it's always right. I believe in the greater good, and if this form of justice must be denied for it to happen, so be it. An acceptable sacrifice.

I freaking killed him, how dare he lie to me. I hate to be lied to, I can handle the truth better than any lie.

Well, he admits lying rather early on.

[EricHVela]

Xilizhra wrote...

Anders/Vengeance admitted the crime. All that was left was the consequence of the law. They performed the deed. By doing so, they accept the consequences whether or not they want to accept them (though they claim to accept the consequences). What they might or might not do is immaterial until they actually do them, but the consequences of their actions of murder is to deny them the option to solve the situation in the same manner that they denied others according to local law. That's Justice.

I disagree, and if that's the definition of justice, I don't believe that it's always right. I believe in the greater good, and if this form of justice must be denied for it to happen, so be it. An acceptable sacrifice.

Then you are equally unjust as Anders/Vengeance were and by your own admission as well.

Who are you to decide what is for the greater good? Who are you to decide who gets to be sacrificed for your plan? That's not justice. That's arrogance.

Who are you to know what might or might not happen to the greater population? As I've mentioned in two posts now, Justice does not judge based on what might or might not happen.

Justice doesn't bend to the whims of idealism. It only exists in solid realism, period. Without such definition, there's no justice -- just witch-hunts and assassinations.

(Also, the rule of thumb is: Those who think they know what's best for everyone likely don't.)

If you choose to defy Justice because it inconveniences your plans, then you are unjust.

Modifié par ReggarBlane, 06 septembre 2012 - 08:09 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

ReggarBlane wrote...

Justice cannot judge what Anders might or might not do. Justice can only judge what Anders and Vengeance did. Anders and Vengeance denied Orsino, Elthina and Meredith the option to find their own solution by murdering one of them. They judged the three based on what they thought might happen. That's not Justice. Justice would never do that. Vengeance is the suffering of Justice.

Unless their solution involved the immediate release of the Kirkwall Circle I'm fairly sure Justice would have found it unacceptable.

ReggarBlane wrote...

One cannot force the responsibility for the actions upon the perpetrator. One can only force the consequences upon them. Murdering someone that has done nothing wrong to the perpetrator (especially if that person simply hasn't done what the perpetrator wanted) has consequences defined by the local law. That's Justice.

The person in charge of administering said consequences is sort of frothing at the mouth with the desire to Kill All Mages. Civil order has broken down and it's up to Hawke to decide what Anders' punishment should be (or if indeed there should be one).

ReggarBlane wrote...

Anders/Vengeance admitted the crime. All that was left was the consequence of the law. They performed the deed. By doing so, they accept the consequences whether or not they want to accept them (though they claim to accept the consequences). What they might or might not do is immaterial until they actually do them, but the consequences of their actions of murder is to deny them the option to solve the situation in the same manner that they denied others according to local law. That's Justice.

Okay. Consequences: Anders is conscripted to fight in the war he started until the day the mages are free.

Also you're confusing justice and law. Justice himself asserts that the laws governing mages are unjust. I doubt he'd want people to submit to them.

[Renmiri1]

Elthina would have waffled as she did at the start of Act 3. Is all she does, wait for the Maker to use his magic ways to make Orsino and Meredith see reason.

Which can be argued he did. After all, Meredith being enslaved by the idol , the idol's existence and Elthina's jello spine are all the Maker's doing. So Anders was - perhaps - doing the makers work

[Xilizhra]

ReggarBlane wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Anders/Vengeance admitted the crime. All that was left was the consequence of the law. They performed the deed. By doing so, they accept the consequences whether or not they want to accept them (though they claim to accept the consequences). What they might or might not do is immaterial until they actually do them, but the consequences of their actions of murder is to deny them the option to solve the situation in the same manner that they denied others according to local law. That's Justice.

I disagree, and if that's the definition of justice, I don't believe that it's always right. I believe in the greater good, and if this form of justice must be denied for it to happen, so be it. An acceptable sacrifice.

Then you are equally unjust as Anders/Vengeance were and by your own admission as well.

Who are you to decide what is for the greater good? Who are you to decide who gets to be sacrificed for your plan? That's not justice. That's arrogance.

Who are you to know what might or might not happen to the greater population? As I've mentioned in two posts now, Justice does not judge based on what might or might not happen.

Justice doesn't bend to the whims of idealism. It only exists in solid realism, period. Without such definition, there's no justice -- just witch-hunts and assassinations.

(Also, the rule of thumb is: Those who think they know what's best for everyone likely don't.)

If you choose to defy Justice because it inconveniences your plans, then you are unjust.

Then Justice is deontological. I am not.

[TEWR]

I've killed him on some playthroughs for political considerations -- ensuring Starkhaven's support in the coming war, being able to tell the populus I killed the perpetrator of the act even if I personally agreed with it, while also standing up to a tyrant woman.

And I've let him live on other playthroughs for poetic justice, the usefulness of the bomb in the Mage-Templar War -- though I might be able to just recreate that recipe without him anyway --, and other reasons.

[lil yonce]

I'm never certain what to do with the man of maniacal psyche and balls of a brass-assed monkey. But...

I've killed Anders; Sebastian wanted his head on a stick, Fenris advocated his death, and Aveline was of the opinion fervent belief was no excuse for blowing up a chantry. Varric and Isabela didn't express feelings either way. Merrill was the only one who spoke up for Anders, so I gave into the lynch mob mentality.

Sorry, Anders.

I do wonder if his beliefs on how to combat mage injustice would have changed over time though; Mellowed, had he been free of Justice. I'm no historian, nor am I a psychologist, so I'm not certain this is a perfect comparison, but once he left the Nation of Islam, Malcolm X's views on how to attain civil rights changed substantially.

Why couldn't you try separation first, Anders? Why?!

Modifié par Youth4Ever, 06 septembre 2012 - 11:13 .

[TEWR]

Youth4Ever wrote...

Why couldn't you try separation first, Anders? Why?!

Wouldn't have worked, I think. While Justice/Vengeance isn't barred from the Fade, he no longer has an actual presence there -- because of what happened in Awakening, where his entire being was sundered from the Fade by the Baroness.

So despite it being a willing merger, without Justice/Vengeance having a presence in the Fade you can't go the whole "Connor route" on him.

[expanding panic]

Cartims wrote...

I freaking killed him, how dare he lie to me. I hate to be lied to, I can handle the truth better than any lie.

Figures New Yorker. Let me just make sure I understand what you mean. You don't care that Anders killed many innocent people by blowing up the chantry. You don't care that he kille more by starting a war across all of thedas. Instead having it naturally occurr possibly in kirwal alone. Or putting all of your friends in danger and forcing them to pick a side and having to kill them. All you are upset about is that he lied to you to get you to get the bomb ingredients. 

[InfiniteAvenger]

Fannlyn wrote...

No.

I kept Anders alive, and ran away with him. Was a mage, sided with mages. The time for negotiations was over. The Chantry promoted slavery in the form of locking up mages because of what they /could/ do. You can't charge someone with a crime before they commit it. And Tranquils? Zomg. Crime against nature much? I liked the leader woman from the Chantry (forget her name, forgive me), but she was an enabler of this situation. A situation that should never have been tolerated to begin with.

Judge me if you will, but I'm sticking to it.

I did exactly the same thing for exactly the same reason.  I like the way you think, Fannlyn.  You're alright.  That is why I like you.

-IA

Modifié par InfiniteAvenger, 08 septembre 2012 - 12:35 .

[Treacherous J Slither]

I killed Anders because he messed up big time by making a bad situation even worse. Killing all those people was wrong. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. His death wouldn't have brought anyone back or fixed anything at all but he had to pay for what he did. All his talk about how badly people are being treated and he goes and commits an atrocity himself. Fool.

I didn't want to kill him but I saw that he was already losing it and that if he didn't somehow gain better control over himself, our relationship was going to come to a head at some point. I'm referring to that time he killed/almost killed that mage girl. A rational mind would have blown up the Templar headquarters and freed the Kirkwall Circle. A slightly less rational mind would have at least let Orsino talk to Elthina and see if any positive gains could be made before going and doing something completely stupid.

I kill him every time. To run away with him would make me akin to a terrorist because that is exactly what Anders is after he did that. A terrorist. Killing innocents in the name of the "greater good". Murdering a bunch of people because of their "connection" to your "enemy". Foolishness.

[LobselVith8]

Fannlyn wrote...

No.

I kept Anders alive, and ran away with him. Was a mage, sided with mages. The time for negotiations was over. The Chantry promoted slavery in the form of locking up mages because of what they /could/ do. You can't charge someone with a crime before they commit it. And Tranquils? Zomg. Crime against nature much? I liked the leader woman from the Chantry (forget her name, forgive me), but she was an enabler of this situation. A situation that should never have been tolerated to begin with.

Judge me if you will, but I'm sticking to it.

I didn't kill Anders. He killed members of an organization that enslaved his people for nearly a millennia. An anti-mage religious organization that preaches hatred and intolerance towards mages, that has lead to innocent mages being killed by mobs, and to some mages committing suicide. The Chantry preaches that mages are "cursed," and we see the effects of this with Keili and Bethany.

Anders wanted to see his people free. If I was a mage, I wouldn't capitulate to the templars, either.

[babymoon]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Fannlyn wrote...

No.

I kept Anders alive, and ran away with him. Was a mage, sided with mages. The time for negotiations was over. The Chantry promoted slavery in the form of locking up mages because of what they /could/ do. You can't charge someone with a crime before they commit it. And Tranquils? Zomg. Crime against nature much? I liked the leader woman from the Chantry (forget her name, forgive me), but she was an enabler of this situation. A situation that should never have been tolerated to begin with.

Judge me if you will, but I'm sticking to it.

I didn't kill Anders. He killed members of an organization that enslaved his people for nearly a millennia. An anti-mage religious organization that preaches hatred and intolerance towards mages, that has lead to innocent mages being killed by mobs, and to some mages committing suicide. The Chantry preaches that mages are "cursed," and we see the effects of this with Keili and Bethany.

Anders wanted to see his people free. If I was a mage, I wouldn't capitulate to the templars, either.

Agree with all of this.

[Treacherous J Slither]

babymoon wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Fannlyn wrote...

No.

I kept Anders alive, and ran away with him. Was a mage, sided with mages. The time for negotiations was over. The Chantry promoted slavery in the form of locking up mages because of what they /could/ do. You can't charge someone with a crime before they commit it. And Tranquils? Zomg. Crime against nature much? I liked the leader woman from the Chantry (forget her name, forgive me), but she was an enabler of this situation. A situation that should never have been tolerated to begin with.

Judge me if you will, but I'm sticking to it.

I didn't kill Anders. He killed members of an organization that enslaved his people for nearly a millennia. An anti-mage religious organization that preaches hatred and intolerance towards mages, that has lead to innocent mages being killed by mobs, and to some mages committing suicide. The Chantry preaches that mages are "cursed," and we see the effects of this with Keili and Bethany.

Anders wanted to see his people free. If I was a mage, I wouldn't capitulate to the templars, either.

Agree with all of this.

I'm all for the freedom of mages. I also despise the Chantry. That said, I refuse to support terrorism/terrorists and it sickens me that you do.

[unbentbuzzkill]

I kill anders every single time he's a douche in dragon age 2 innocent lives had no right to be slain.

[LobselVith8]

JSlither wrote...

I'm all for the freedom of mages. I also despise the Chantry. That said, I refuse to support terrorism/terrorists and it sickens me that you do.

You could consider the American revolutionaries and the revolting slaves of Saint Dominique (modern day Haiti) to be terrorists; it's a term that's thrown around quite a bit, and has no universal definition. That said, Anders killed members of an organization that conducts slavery against mages; he didn't target civilians.

[jdckelly]

he killed the only one who was able to keep Meredeth on somewhat of a leash and forced his ideal on the world which will result in countless innocents dying in the wake of the mage-templar war, either from overzealous templars going a bit bat**** crazy or idiotic/weak mages giving into demons becoming abominations who summon some of their friends and go nuts on whomever is in the vicinity and to top it off hes an abomination himself

Yeah he dies