1411 réponses à ce sujet

[Shadow Wing]

LobselVith8 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

I've enjoyed this thread, and the dicussion.  For a while.

Like others, I think Lobsel has a rigid and incorrect view of what slavery is, of what the lore of the game is, and of what the situation is.

By rigid and incorrect, you mean I address what's actually said by characters who refer to the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery? Or do you mean the actual definition of the word slave, which is:



1:[/b] a person held in servitude as the chattel of another

2:[/b] one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence

3:[/b] a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another
Well, the mages are completely subservient to the dominating influence of the Chantry, who control the Circles, and the templars, who are in command of the Circles. As for templars being in control of mages, let's read the codex:

"Some are saying, however, that this needs to change. They remind the world that mages are not controlled by templars everywhere in Thedas: not among the Rivaini witches, the Dalish keepers or the Tevinter magisters… and those societies are, arguably, no worse off. "

TJPags wrote...

You can't simply keep calling something slavery, when numerous people have pointed out you incorrect use of the term, and expect us to change our minds.

You mean I can't call it slavery because it directly addresses why Anders attacked the Chantry - the organization that's enslaved the mages for a thousand years? I shouldn't address that characters call it slavery in the game, and even Hawke can use the term slavery?

TJPags wrote...

After all, if we are going to take everything that any character says in the game and accept it as true, then there was no Blight in DAO (Loghain), the Warden kidnappd Anora (Anora to Cauthrien), Hawke was trying to kill the mage-Templar collaberators (pretty much all of them said it), and the mages all deserved to die (Meredith).  Are all these things true?  Didn't think so.

You're intentionally conflating the fact that characters recognize the Circle mages as slaves with Loghain refusing to believe it was a Blight because of Flemeth's prophecy, or how Arl Howe could intentionally slander the Warden and Arl Eamon by framing them for the death of Queen Anora, and this isn't a legitiment argument. Look at the tranquil and how they have no agency over themselves - I don't see how they can't be considered slaves when they can't remember who they once were and take orders from templars in command (as we learn from the discussion between a tranquil mage and someone the tranquil no longer recognized in the Gallows).

Furthermore, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. You're welcome to think whatever you like. I'm providing an alternative point of view on the issue.

TJPags wrote...

You're defending a man who knowingly and intentionally killed hundreds of innocent people, based on a mistaken definition a word and the belief that if a character says it, then it must be true.

There's no arguing with you.

And yet, that doesn't really stop people like you from arguing with me, does it? The way you make it sound, it's as if only people who share your point of view hold the truth, and everyone else should be dismissed. Let's forget that Anders wanting to emancipate his people from slavery because it's much easier to villify him than it is to see how dark the situation really was, when the Grand Cleric did nothing in the face of mage oppression and the Chantry had oppressed mages for almost a millennia.

But that doens't hide the fact that hundreds of unnecessary death still occured, death if people who didn't have a say in the matter anyway, plus it didn't really resolve anything, all it it did was start a war that could or could no be won my mages, not really a convincing reason to kill a whole load of poeple.

As for the Chantry oppresseing the mages, true but as far I can tell the Grand cleric at kirkwall seems to be pretty decent to the mages and in fact actually sees the unfair treatment by the templars especially by meredith..so killing her seems totally counter productive as anders pretty much killed the few mage sympathyzers in the chantry....not really the smartest idea.

[DrGulag]

I already wrote this in the another topic but I was really disappointed with this plot device :

A terrorist explosion inside a church killing innocent people? A calculated effort to incite hatred between the two parties? The only thing missing was Anders saying "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

I see this stuff in the news ALL THE TIME. Why do we need to have it in a fantasy rpg? Bioware ruined a perfectly good character from Awakening.

I'm fine with summoning abominations and all that but I don't want to see this terrorism crap in a medieval setting involving elves and mages. That's why I play these games, to escape from real world.

Modifié par DrGulag, 18 mars 2011 - 09:05 .

[Lithuasil]

DrGulag wrote...

I see this stuff in the news ALL THE TIME. Why do we need to have it in a fantasy rpg? Bioware ruined a perfectly good character from Awakening.

I'm fine with summoning abominations and all that but I don't want to see this terrorism crap in a medieval setting involving elves and mages. That's why I play these games, to escape from real world.

We totally need that in an medieval setting. I can only speak for myself, but the reason I roleplay, is to explore different, human (in mind not necessarily body) characters, and how they react to the pressures put upon them in a setting different from the one I live in, with different tools at their disposal. Not so much escapism, as a study of the variety of human minds. That's at least what I want out of it, and bioware certainly delivered that.             

[DrGulag]

I thought the whole point about elves, magic, dwarves and darkspawn was about escapism by using various folktales. 

It's obviously a personal preference but I would like to keep the current world politics to a minimum. The whole ghetto elf angle is also a bit tiresome altough Dragon Age handled it pretty well with the alienage and Dalish.

Now it's freedom fighters and terrorists. Are we going to have primaries in Dragon Age 3?

Modifié par DrGulag, 18 mars 2011 - 09:41 .

[Fentz1]

 well, in this game world the religion is true, the maker actually exist (or atleast andraste did)

[Lithuasil]

DrGulag wrote...

I thought the whole point about elves, magic, dwarves and darkspawn was about escapism by using various folktales. 

It's obviously a personal preference but I would like to keep the current world politics to a minimum. The whole ghetto elf angle is also a bit tiresome altough Dragon Age handled it pretty well with the alienage and Dalish.

Now it's freedom fighters and terrorists.

Are we going to have primaries in Dragon Age 3?

I fail to see the "current world politics" unless you're projecting really, really hard. If anything, the templar - mage conflict is an "how much freedom can you give up for safety" and "who watches the watchmen" thing. It's also one of very few fantasy worlds that actually think the idea of magic through to the end (those people either end up running the show, or in prison). Which makes it so interesting to play in, to witness the different (human) reactions that this conflict evokes in different persons.
Both the conflicts you mentioned aren't so much real world references, as they are attempts to break up the tired lotr formula. But then, someone also said that lotr is about racism and white power, so I suppose you can find "current world politics" anywhere, if you just project hard enough.

[DrGulag]

I just think there could have been a better way to handle the whole Anders incident. He had such a care-free attitude before even if he had no love for the Circle of Magi.  And now he's bombing churches? There's no believable character development.

My game went in a matter of moments from this :

Anders saying to Merrill after Marethari dies :

"That was the most noble thing I have ever seen. The world is a poorer place with you in it instead of her" (something along those lines)

To ->

A fundamentalist bomber who believes that he will live on as a martyr after death.

So my conclusion is that it's all about cheap shock value and Bioware used the most obvious way to do it.  Something that people will recognize instantly from real world.

Modifié par DrGulag, 18 mars 2011 - 09:46 .

[UgnokOfOtherThings]

I support Anders, I never liked the Chantry. Go Anders!

[Lithuasil]

I don't know if you did any of his quests, or talked to him, but I do recall a whole lot of getting more and more unstable, and a whole lot of "what if I'm wrong, what if I can't control it" doubt from Anders. And me standing by telling him his cause is right, and I know he can do it. (Which made how it turned out all the more awesome).

And I still fail to see the connection to a real world scenario, when a mentally unstable wizard utilizes dark magic to kill people he delusionally blames for something he deems unjust.
Sure, the basic stuff of fighting for your freedom, wanting to die for a cause you believe in but don't think you can actually win, desperate measures, that's all there. But if you use that as means to connect it to real world incidents, the writers simply cannot win. Humans have those emotions, humans are stupid. It's what they do. That doesn't imply a real world connection, it just proves the whole thing to be well written.

[DrGulag]

Well we just have to disagree here.

Bombing a church in order to quell any possibility for a compromise and speaking about martyrdom afterwards.

I dont like the whole thing but I can see how others found it entertaining.

Modifié par DrGulag, 18 mars 2011 - 10:01 .

[Gabey5]

DrGulag wrote...

I just think there could have been a better way to handle the whole Anders incident. He had such a care-free attitude before even if he had no love for the Circle of Magi.  And now he's bombing churches? There's no believable character development.

My game went in a matter of moments from this :

Anders saying to Merrill after Marethari dies :

"That was the most noble thing I have ever seen. The world is a poorer place with you in it instead of her" (something along those lines)

To ->

A fundamentalist bomber who believes that he will live on as a martyr after death.

So my conclusion is that it's all about cheap shock value and Bioware used the most obvious way to do it.  Something that people will recognize instantly from real world.

huh? From awakenings his anti- templar stance and multiple escapes are known and he shows no love for them. iN DA2 you see him change, see his friend being made tranquil along with many others, see the crackdowns and his whole " i don't know if i can handle it".  Not to mention Justice, who you know hungers for justice. As long as the status quo reamains mages will never be free. He didn't just "bomb a church", he showed that the chantry and templars weren't all powerful and mages could defy them. He accomplished his goal, circle is broken, teh templars are rebelling. If you talked to him you could see he was drifting progressively to the end he chose.

Modifié par Gabey5, 18 mars 2011 - 10:50 .

[NeoGuardian86]

ReggarBlane wrote...

[tl;dr version: Anders unilaterally and arrogantly made an impatient and paranoid action. The result was just as awful.]

Anders knew who was to blame in his mind: The Templars and the Circle. He even says so. The only reason he destroyed the Chantry was to prevent mediation, which he felt merely caused stagnation on the issue and no resolution. The Chantry was not his target but merely an annoying obstacle.

By that, the Chantry was being used by all -- Templars, Circle and even Anders himself. It was the victim in the scenario, but not without its own fault of allowing itself to be used (excepting Ander's purpose). Removing it did force the two opposing forces to deal with each other directly. Directness is an honest method without any meddling, but honesty can easily be brutal if not tempered by something... such as a Chantry mediating, meddling in the exchanges.

Anders was impatient and paranoid. This could be a product of Justice's binding. His actions are no better than anyone who is impatient and paranoid.

The Chantry served a purpose -- a good purpose. It was a much-needed buffer between people. It provided alternatives for people through other points of view. Like all organizations, it had its bad apples, but such individuals do not define the entire whole.

Destroying the Chantry was a bad idea. It has nothing to do with religion. It had to do with stability. The Chantry happened to be the established and respected organization for providing that. Any other organization that accomplished such wide-spread influence could possibly substitute, religious or not. Religion has shown to be a successful means of gaining influence and respect (even though there will always be those opposed to it, who often gather together, ignore all others and begin to feel that everyone they know -- and therefore in their minds, everyone -- thinks like they do).

I Quote this guy for truth.

I may be Muslim - personally, and yet i sided with the Mages, while not technically against the idea of the cricle. I thought both the Templar's and the Mage's had points and problems of their own. If anything at the big fight, it should be a big sign when Orsino and Meredith go mad and do exactly the worst possible thing each one could do (Orsino - uses blood magic with corpses, and Meredith goes power mad with a genocidal streak).

Making a blow at religion, didn't strike me as Anders's goal. he even quotes religion several times (when it suits him of course).

He wanted to force a confrontation, and the only force that would mediate and thus stop it was Chantry. yes it's religious in nature.

but from what i gather, a modern day example would be blowing the UN when the Assembly is full, destroying a organ that the world relies on (whether or not it's power is felt) to mediate amongst one another.

Even then, think about it - to the anti-religion people -
would blowing up Mecca/Jerusalem/Vatican/other REALLY solve anything? or wouldn't that just kickstart a massive holy wars? [This is rhetorical not intended to derail the thread]

  But see i don't know, i was simply shocked by his act of terror and murder of the Chantry, by removing the option of peace from the table. I didn't view it in Muslim terms either, just merely on humanistic terms. Anders had to die, and i found it rather self-serving with his "i'll die a martyr" talk.

Nontheless ingame, i was still siding with the mages 90% of the time, and hell when you do Meredith's missions you still find 2 mages went bad - whether intentionally or not, and one was innocent. You see Mages' going bad often ingame anyhow.
Both sides had good points.

Do think the Circle's could be more lenient, but still, the power that mages wield is very very great, and i wish Bioware takes us to Tevinter Imperium to really show us just how much abuse the Mages wield in that realm -still.

Modifié par NeoGuardian86, 18 mars 2011 - 10:48 .

[TobiTobsen]

DrGulag wrote...

I just think there could have been a better way to handle the whole Anders incident. He had such a care-free attitude before even if he had no love for the Circle of Magi.  And now he's bombing churches? There's no believable character development.

I fail to see why so many people think of Anders as the Anders from Awakening. That Anders doesn't exist anymore! He ceased to exist when he choose to share his body with Justice. He said it himself. There is no more Anders or Justice, just the abomination Vengeance. And even then it seems like the part of Justice turned Vengeance is taking over the shared body. In a rivalmance Anders says he has blackouts, cant remember what he did, cant control when his "Justice" side shows up and so on.

At the beginning of Act3 or maybe even earlier than that the part of Anders that still was in the body of Vengeance has lost. Justice/Vengeance is in control now, even if his eyes don't glow. They have the same goal now: Vengeance. Pure and simple. You're with them or against them. No compromise.

[Fallout_IX]

I thought the whole blowing up the chantry thing was retarded, he killed the only possible ally to tell the templars to back down and caused a lot of mages to be killed because of it. I dont really care about the terrorist/freedom fighter aspect of it, or that he killed innocents (seriously the chantry only ever had about 4 people in it) but it just seemed like a really stupid idea in the first place.

Modifié par Fallout_IX, 18 mars 2011 - 10:59 .

[wicked_being]

I wish Bioware had us do another quest to collect sela petrae and drakestone, mix it then blow Anders up. Really, that little [expletives] didn't deserve a bloodless knife in the back. It was too merciful.

[Oneiropolos]

Okay.
One question for everyone defending Anders.

Do you also think Sister Petrice did the right thing in pushing for a war with the Qunari at any cost? I haven't heard anyone say, "Well, but see, they wouldn't leave and they clearly were having a negative influence and ignoring the law of the city." Which, the Qunari were. Aveline had to go in because the Arishok did not feel he had to obey anything but the Qun. Frankly, I find what Sister/Mother Petrice did abhorrent. It escalated things like she wished though and people died because of what she did. My guess is that most people mark her down in the 'evil' category even though she was following her personal beliefs that weren't totally off the mark with the Qunari, but she was never a potential LI and she was part of a 'religious institute'. The latter part is of course what makes her crimes TOTALLY DIFFERENT than Anders. Except it doesn't. If you read the countless books around the game, the Qunari weren't going to sit there peacefully forever in most people's eyes. It's not like they advertised, "Hey! If you manage to help us find this book, we'll leave!" Their stance in other countries spoke differently. And the Arishok himself kills the guards that came with Aveline, tried to kill you, and killed the Viscount and planned on killing all the nobles present. The Arishok is a 'villain'. People have spoke of him being a rather well-done villain and I agree. Personally, I hated Petrice and wanted to knife her early. I didn't feel badly when those arrows landed in her. But what she did was act against a small, select group in the city that had a history and culture of violence and oppression (look what they do to THEIR mages!). The cost? People died.

I certainly sympathize for why Anders was such a freedom fighter, but freedom fighters are common throughout history. Most of them do not finally resolve to kill innocents in order to achieve their ends. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to sneer at Petrice's actions (which....should be sneered at) but vehemently defend Anders? Both killed innocents. Both felt justified in doing so based on past and present situations. Both were wrong to do it. End of story. You cannot excuse the one you like just because you like them. At least be honest with yourself about what happened. You can be sympathetic, feel bad, even understand what drove a man to such madness. But what he did is WHAT HE DID. Dismissing his actions because you understand them but condemning someone else because you do not understand them is MISSING THE POINT OF WHAT THE GAME WAS TRYING TO SAY THE ENTIRE TIME. Her actions actually foreshadow what Anders will do.

I love Anders. But I'm having trouble even preparing myself in the playthrough I am now in for sparing him. I KNOW I'm going to spare him in this particular roleplay. But the idea of it is making me grit my teeth and consider not even recruiting Sebastian because I AGREE with what I know Sebastian will yell at me in the end about Anders. I don't have a chip on my shoulder about religion in real life and I'm not playing an evil character, so I find it much harder to make the right choices IG to have a romance with Anders. I'm in Act II and I want to shake him -now- and go "Freaking, don't do it!" Honestly...I'm not shocked at people defending Anders. But it does sadden me as a Historian to see all these references to slavery to justify what Anders did. It was not the violent uprisings that brought an end to inequality and slavery. It was not the Civil War. It was not laws passed by the government. It was normal people speaking strongly and staging non-violent protests. It was those people sitting in jail, enduring their families being terrorized, enduring so very, very much and yet not resorting to violence that changed the world. So please. Stop the references to slavery. You demean the actions of thousands of men and women who stood up and let their voices be heard... and not their fists.I cannot think of ONE act of terror ever used in Human history that actually successfully caused a change for the better by those who did it when it was not already a full-blown war and the attempts were being made to end it.

I think the quote sums it up:
"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent." -Mahatma Gandhi

[VenetianLunacy]

I've been thinking about this topic for days now. I've beaten the game (with Anders as my love interest) and my first impression of it all was that the story left me very emotionally drained and a bit disappointed (but mostly because I couldn't have a happy ending, again!). However, after thinking on this for some time, I think I've found an answer that convinces me that Anders' decision was the only way to go.

My thoughts are: 

-- We know that Meredith was already possessed by the idol, so her loss of control could have occurred at any point. Would it have really been better if this happened behind closed doors, where she would tranquilize or kill mages out of public view, as she did? She could have gone to the Gallows at any point and executed every mage, even without being provoked, but by the virtue of her insanity. In fact, SHE could have killed the Grand Cleric, had the idol seized her mind. What then?

-- Mages have fought for independence for hundreds of years it seems, utilizing different means available to them. They rely to blood magic in a moment when they are pressed against the wall, with no other option. We know that mages are always at the risk of possession, and the only thing that keeps them from being taken over is their control. Take that away, and their fear leaves them defenseless. They are human beings who fear pain and death just as much as anyone else, so why is it surprising that they use whatever means available to them to stay alive?Any peaceful efforts to achieve freedom have never succeeded. How many mages died in the process, I wonder... Dozens, hundreds, thousands? Those are ALSO countless innocent lives, and the number may even be higher than for those who died in the Chantry... Anders put an end to what he called a silent death, death that many chose to never acknowledge...

-- I think it had to take something like this to really turn things around. And even though I wish Anders had shared his plan with Hawke, I understand that he did not want her to be blamed for his crime... and there is a measure of nobility in that.

[InvaderErl]

Oneiropolos wrote...

Okay.
One question for everyone defending Anders.

Do you also think Sister Petrice did the right thing in pushing for a war with the Qunari at any cost? I haven't heard anyone say, "Well, but see, they wouldn't leave and they clearly were having a negative influence and ignoring the law of the city." Which, the Qunari were. Aveline had to go in because the Arishok did not feel he had to obey anything but the Qun. Frankly, I find what Sister/Mother Petrice did abhorrent. It escalated things like she wished though and people died because of what she did. My guess is that most people mark her down in the 'evil' category even though she was following her personal beliefs that weren't totally off the mark with the Qunari, but she was never a potential LI and she was part of a 'religious institute'. The latter part is of course what makes her crimes TOTALLY DIFFERENT than Anders. Except it doesn't. If you read the countless books around the game, the Qunari weren't going to sit there peacefully forever in most people's eyes. It's not like they advertised, "Hey! If you manage to help us find this book, we'll leave!" Their stance in other countries spoke differently. And the Arishok himself kills the guards that came with Aveline, tried to kill you, and killed the Viscount and planned on killing all the nobles present. The Arishok is a 'villain'. People have spoke of him being a rather well-done villain and I agree. Personally, I hated Petrice and wanted to knife her early. I didn't feel badly when those arrows landed in her. But what she did was act against a small, select group in the city that had a history and culture of violence and oppression (look what they do to THEIR mages!). The cost? People died.

I certainly sympathize for why Anders was such a freedom fighter, but freedom fighters are common throughout history. Most of them do not finally resolve to kill innocents in order to achieve their ends. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to sneer at Petrice's actions (which....should be sneered at) but vehemently defend Anders? Both killed innocents. Both felt justified in doing so based on past and present situations. Both were wrong to do it. End of story. You cannot excuse the one you like just because you like them. At least be honest with yourself about what happened. You can be sympathetic, feel bad, even understand what drove a man to such madness. But what he did is WHAT HE DID. Dismissing his actions because you understand them but condemning someone else because you do not understand them is MISSING THE POINT OF WHAT THE GAME WAS TRYING TO SAY THE ENTIRE TIME. Her actions actually foreshadow what Anders will do.

I love Anders. But I'm having trouble even preparing myself in the playthrough I am now in for sparing him. I KNOW I'm going to spare him in this particular roleplay. But the idea of it is making me grit my teeth and consider not even recruiting Sebastian because I AGREE with what I know Sebastian will yell at me in the end about Anders. I don't have a chip on my shoulder about religion in real life and I'm not playing an evil character, so I find it much harder to make the right choices IG to have a romance with Anders. I'm in Act II and I want to shake him -now- and go "Freaking, don't do it!" Honestly...I'm not shocked at people defending Anders. But it does sadden me as a Historian to see all these references to slavery to justify what Anders did. It was not the violent uprisings that brought an end to inequality and slavery. It was not the Civil War. It was not laws passed by the government. It was normal people speaking strongly and staging non-violent protests. It was those people sitting in jail, enduring their families being terrorized, enduring so very, very much and yet not resorting to violence that changed the world. So please. Stop the references to slavery. You demean the actions of thousands of men and women who stood up and let their voices be heard... and not their fists.I cannot think of ONE act of terror ever used in Human history that actually successfully caused a change for the better by those who did it when it was not already a full-blown war and the attempts were being made to end it.

I think the quote sums it up:
"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent." -Mahatma Gandhi

Modifié par InvaderErl, 18 mars 2011 - 12:19 .

[Vilegrim]

Oneiropolos wrote...

Okay.
One question for everyone defending Anders.

Do you also think Sister Petrice did the right thing in pushing for a war with the Qunari at any cost? I haven't heard anyone say, "Well, but see, they wouldn't leave and they clearly were having a negative influence and ignoring the law of the city." Which, the Qunari were. Aveline had to go in because the Arishok did not feel he had to obey anything but the Qun. Frankly, I find what Sister/Mother Petrice did abhorrent. It escalated things like she wished though and people died because of what she did. My guess is that most people mark her down in the 'evil' category even though she was following her personal beliefs that weren't totally off the mark with the Qunari, but she was never a potential LI and she was part of a 'religious institute'. The latter part is of course what makes her crimes TOTALLY DIFFERENT than Anders. Except it doesn't. If you read the countless books around the game, the Qunari weren't going to sit there peacefully forever in most people's eyes. It's not like they advertised, "Hey! If you manage to help us find this book, we'll leave!" Their stance in other countries spoke differently. And the Arishok himself kills the guards that came with Aveline, tried to kill you, and killed the Viscount and planned on killing all the nobles present. The Arishok is a 'villain'. People have spoke of him being a rather well-done villain and I agree. Personally, I hated Petrice and wanted to knife her early. I didn't feel badly when those arrows landed in her. But what she did was act against a small, select group in the city that had a history and culture of violence and oppression (look what they do to THEIR mages!). The cost? People died.

I certainly sympathize for why Anders was such a freedom fighter, but freedom fighters are common throughout history. Most of them do not finally resolve to kill innocents in order to achieve their ends. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to sneer at Petrice's actions (which....should be sneered at) but vehemently defend Anders? Both killed innocents. Both felt justified in doing so based on past and present situations. Both were wrong to do it. End of story. You cannot excuse the one you like just because you like them. At least be honest with yourself about what happened. You can be sympathetic, feel bad, even understand what drove a man to such madness. But what he did is WHAT HE DID. Dismissing his actions because you understand them but condemning someone else because you do not understand them is MISSING THE POINT OF WHAT THE GAME WAS TRYING TO SAY THE ENTIRE TIME. Her actions actually foreshadow what Anders will do.

The world is changed by violence or the threat of it, Ghandis none violence only worked brcause the Empire had been shattered by WW2, and did not have the ability, resources or willingness to fight another war especially so far from home.    Mandelas none-violence only worked because the threat of public opinion in the west getting to the stage of calling for armed intervention was there.  Both where incredible men, but do not be decieved that their campaigns of none violence worked in a vacum.   The Republic of Ireland gained indepence through violence both for and against Britain, they swore off it later, but first they fought and raised armies..because thats what it takes.

[TobiTobsen]

VenetianLunacy wrote...

I've been thinking about this topic for days now. I've beaten the game (with Anders as my love interest) and my first impression of it all was that the story left me very emotionally drained and a bit disappointed (but mostly because I couldn't have a happy ending, again!). However, after thinking on this for some time, I think I've found an answer that convinces me that Anders' decision was the only way to go.

My thoughts are: 

-- We know that Meredith was already possessed by the idol, so her loss of control could have occurred at any point. Would it have really been better if this happened behind closed doors, where she would tranquilize or kill mages out of public view, as she did? She could have gone to the Gallows at any point and executed every mage, even without being provoked, but by the virtue of her insanity. In fact, SHE could have killed the Grand Cleric, had the idol seized her mind. What then?

-- Mages have fought for independence for hundreds of years it seems, utilizing different means available to them. They rely to blood magic in a moment when they are pressed against the wall, with no other option. We know that mages are always at the risk of possession, and the only thing that keeps them from being taken over is their control. Take that away, and their fear leaves them defenseless. They are human beings who fear pain and death just as much as anyone else, so why is it surprising that they use whatever means available to them to stay alive?Any peaceful efforts to achieve freedom have never succeeded. How many mages died in the process, I wonder... Dozens, hundreds, thousands? Those are ALSO countless innocent lives, and the number may even be higher than for those who died in the Chantry... Anders put an end to what he called a silent death, death that many chose to never acknowledge...

-- I think it had to take something like this to really turn things around. And even though I wish Anders had shared his plan with Hawke, I understand that he did not want her to be blamed for his crime... and there is a measure of nobility in that.

I would like to ask you what do you think will be better now for mages? Don't you think that mages will be feared even more after this (in my opinion) senseless waste of human life? If he had bombed templars, i could understand if some people  would support him, but he bombed the brothers and sisters of the chantry. He bombed the only voice of reason in the city that was slowly but surely beginning to sympathise with the mages.

I would really like to understand what pro Anders people think about the long term problems of his attack. Do you think people will sympathise with the mages after what he has done?

And thats no attack on your opinion, I'm just curious

[Akron1983]

Hi!
Just want to say that its a game and no real people were harmed or killed during the making of it.
... as far as we know o.O

Jokes aside, I think that story-wise it was excellent to let Anders do what he did. No matter how "wrong" he was something like this had to happen if you wanted the mages to rebell.
Theres several rreasons to why Anders was the right person to do it. He is no Blood mage, not a "real" abomination. Just a guy who thinks the Chantry, templars and cricles have it wrong. He was a character we all knew so he is easier to understand and sympathize with.

[Veronica Ward]

Shadow Wing wrote...

Volourn wrote...

"Is conscription slavery? What about a prison work detail? "

Yes, to both.

ooohhh be careful how you say that, especially about the first one, there are a couple of countries who still use conscription and the citizens don't really see it as slavery but as service, just saying....whatever country you're from, the rest of the world may not necessariy have the same sentiment.

Lifelong consctiprion for being born. You keep bringing up some one losing a loved one, but the same can be said for the mage's side. They lose loved ones as well, or did you miss the part where they take you from your family and you never get to see them again? You could be killed or made tranquil. I wonder if that might upset a mother or a brother?

That said, this is not real life. Don't drag it there.

[VenetianLunacy]

TobiTobsen wrote...

I would like to ask you what do you think will be better now for mages? Don't you think that mages will be feared even more after this (in my opinion) senseless waste of human life? If he had bombed templars, i could understand if some people  would support him, but he bombed the brothers and sisters of the chantry. He bombed the only voice of reason in the city that was slowly but surely beginning to sympathise with the mages.

I would really like to understand what pro Anders people think about the long term problems of his attack. Do you think people will sympathise with the mages after what he has done?

And thats no attack on your opinion, I'm just curious

Interesting question. I suppose there are many possible roads this could all lead to, but I'd like to think that mages without Chantry control are capable of deciding their own fate. By the chantry exploding, templar injustices were brought to light, so perhaps the people would even sympathize for mages /more/ (not likely ). Also, by being freed, the mages were given a chance to join a war rather than live in imprisonment... and as we've seen throughout the game, perhaps that is the option they prefer.

[TobiTobsen]

VenetianLunacy wrote...

TobiTobsen wrote...

I would like to ask you what do you think will be better now for mages? Don't you think that mages will be feared even more after this (in my opinion) senseless waste of human life? If he had bombed templars, i could understand if some people  would support him, but he bombed the brothers and sisters of the chantry. He bombed the only voice of reason in the city that was slowly but surely beginning to sympathise with the mages.

I would really like to understand what pro Anders people think about the long term problems of his attack. Do you think people will sympathise with the mages after what he has done?

And thats no attack on your opinion, I'm just curious

Interesting question. I suppose there are many possible roads this could all lead to, but I'd like to think that mages without Chantry control are capable of deciding their own fate. By the chantry exploding, templar injustices were brought to light, so perhaps the people would even sympathize for mages /more/ (not likely ). Also, by being freed, the mages were given a chance to join a war rather than live in imprisonment... and as we've seen throughout the game, perhaps that is the option they prefer.

Okay, thanks for the answer.

But i would like to quote myself

Thanks to his "rebellion" even the loyalists, aequitarians, lucrosians and isolationists will get slaughtered because he thought his extrem libertarian worldview should count for everybody.

It's not as if the mages have a chance to say no anymore. They have to fight if they want to live. Exactly what Anders wanted. But I don't think that most of the mages would've wanted that. The Codex even states that only some of the libertarians want to be completly free of the chantry. Just look at Orsinos reaction to Anders attack. He was horrified. He knows that every mage will now be measured by the "fault" of one.

[Vilegrim]

TobiTobsen wrote...

VenetianLunacy wrote...

TobiTobsen wrote...

I would like to ask you what do you think will be better now for mages? Don't you think that mages will be feared even more after this (in my opinion) senseless waste of human life? If he had bombed templars, i could understand if some people  would support him, but he bombed the brothers and sisters of the chantry. He bombed the only voice of reason in the city that was slowly but surely beginning to sympathise with the mages.

I would really like to understand what pro Anders people think about the long term problems of his attack. Do you think people will sympathise with the mages after what he has done?

And thats no attack on your opinion, I'm just curious

Interesting question. I suppose there are many possible roads this could all lead to, but I'd like to think that mages without Chantry control are capable of deciding their own fate. By the chantry exploding, templar injustices were brought to light, so perhaps the people would even sympathize for mages /more/ (not likely ). Also, by being freed, the mages were given a chance to join a war rather than live in imprisonment... and as we've seen throughout the game, perhaps that is the option they prefer.

Okay, thanks for the answer.

But i would like to quote myself

Thanks to his "rebellion" even the loyalists, aequitarians, lucrosians and isolationists will get slaughtered because he thought his extrem libertarian worldview should count for everybody.

It's not as if the mages have a chance to say no anymore. They have to fight if they want to live. Exactly what Anders wanted. But I don't think that most of the mages would've wanted that. The Codex even states that only some of the libertarians want to be completly free of the chantry. Just look at Orsinos reaction to Anders attack. He was horrified. He knows that every mage will now be measured by the "fault" of one.

It had ALREADY reached fight or die, if the Chantry let merdith (who could have been replaced at the word of Leliana easily, and maybe even at the word of the local chantry) go as far as she did with no attempt to stop her, then her actions where condoned.  If her actions where condoned, then how long before they are policy?