1411 réponses à ce sujet

[SkitSkit]

I thoroughly enjoyed that plot point, any moment where i had to walk away and come back, like when legion gives you the choice between genocide and mass brain washing. I had been working towards freeing mages the entire game but wanted to compromise, be on the fence. Anders took that option away and made me chose a side. I picked mages, because "the horse you rode in on" right? And I figured, we're either all going to die, in which case Anders would die too, or we would all live and be hero's.

It was a scary revelation, but i think that works if you sided with the Templars at the end and supported the mages during the game, you follow until its time to act. If you sided with anders however in certain instances you condone terrorism.

In reguards to the arashok, I kinda saw his point of view, the elf thing was an extradtion application, and the elves had a good reason to seek asylum, as did the Arashok for refusing.

Pertrice, though her methods were the same as Anders, I dissagreed with her politics. I don't think the Arashok should have killed her, she should have been put on trial. Anders... I didn't agree with what Anders did, but I wanted equality for Mages and understood why he did it. However afterwards i would have put him on trial if i had a say, but as they say "The Task At Hand, ************". IRL, if someone did that with politics i agreed with i would be conflicted, but i'd deal with it after the TAHMF

Also, when Sebastian said, "You let him live and i'm leaving" i could not push that button fast enough, and then Fenris turned and i was like "awesome". The Chastady Briggade and Emo Mc Cut's Him Self go bother some one else. yeah... not much love for Fenris or Sebastian in this corner

but basicly; Anders supporters = Terrorists

bravo Bioware

Modifié par SkitSkit, 18 mars 2011 - 02:14 .

[LobselVith8]

Shadow Wing wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

A thousand years of subjugation will push people to the edge to see their people freed. That's what happened to Anders: he wanted to free the mages. In the end, the Circles broke free from the Chantry, so Anders' gambit clearly paid off.

Doesn't make it right....its like saying a servant broke free  from his master by killing him and his family even though the other family members had done nothing to deserve death. Anders literally took the lives of others who had no say in the mattter anyway and just thought of them as colateral damage, something to use..he's actually no better than meredith.

Anders literally attacked an organization that enslaved his people for centuries, intentionally targetting a high ranking member who was specifically doing nothing to stop the abuses being committed against his people in the name of neutrality. Anders didn't want peace, he wanted to see an end to the slavery of his people that would never have happened otherwise. Whether Anders was right or wrong is a matter of debate, and there's no conclusive truth to the issue.

It's a matter of perspective, no different than the debates over whether the templars or the mages are correct or the debates over Loghain. I also think wanting to put an end to slavery makes him better than Knight-Commander Meredith, but you're welcome to disagree.

Shadow Wing wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Pile, you don't like the fact that characters call it and consider it slavery? Take it up with the writers of the game. Honestly, I have no interest in explaining why your opinion isn't fact when characters in the actual game, including the possibility of a pro-Mage Hawke, don't share it. This discussion isn't getting us anywhere. You're entitled to your opinion, you're not entitled to force your opinion as fact, especially when characters in canon don't share it.

what does the characters in canon think anyway, as far as i can tell tell canon hawk can have a couple of stance about it...so technically, both your and piles opinion can be canon....so you can actually say "characters in canon don't share it" since they can depending on how you choose the act as Hawk.

I already addressed that Hawke has the possibility of having the same view that mages are enslaved, I never said it was definitive for every Hawke of every background. And my point was that Piles can't outright dismiss that there are characters who see the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery simply because he personally disagrees with it.

[Morogrem]

SomeoneStoleMyName wrote...

(End game spoilers)


Am i the only one who thinks Anders did the right thing by blowing up the chantry? I mean religion is purposly spreading lies to deceive and control people in the false pretense of bringing hope and peace. Disinformation and lies are evils that goes hand in hand with religion. There is no empirical evidence that the maker is real, therefore brainwashing and manipulating children and weak minded grown ups into this web of lies is evil in nature.

Anders blew up the chantry, and it was rightious in every way. There are no innocents, the world is what it is based on our actions aswell as our inactions. Allowing the chantry to spread fairytales is a crime, and falling for them is also a crime. So all who died in the explosion had it comming.

When Anders did what he did i smiled from ear to ear. Such a blow to superstition is a great victory for Thedas`s future. If this future first needs to be cleansed in a tidal wave of blood to remove the parasites that believes in the maker, then it is totally fine. There must be sacrifices before things can get better.

Just as the body first weakens from disease, it will then be strengthened against it after. The disease in this matter being the "maker"

HAIL ANDERS!

well I'm sure that there are other idiots that agree with you, but hekilled ppl that werent spreading lies (at least not purposefully) so much as worshiping there god. The fact that others in that religion were using the power they amassed through that religion to subjigate a people doesnt mean that everyone involved are evil. There are ppl in the middle east claiming to be muslims who kill people because they think god would want them to, even though every true muslim knows that god doesnt want that. Does that mean that the muslims that actually follow his teachings are evil too? no.

And I get it youre an athiest. that doesnt mean other people arent entitled to their beliefs, get over yourself.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Shadow Wing wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]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. [/quote]

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. "

<snip>[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

Was Anders' actions unnecessary? Isn't that part of the debate, whether Anders' actions were necessary in the first place? Since the Circles of Thedas have emancipated themselves from the Chantry, and the mages are presently not under templar or Chantry control, then Anders' actions have basically afforded mages a freedom that they never had for a thousand years. He inspired mages to break free from slavery by showing them that the Chantry can be defied, as Varric explicitly mentions at the end of DA2.

The Grand Cleric seemed more interested in neutrality than in the plight of the mages. Killing her was meant to end the stalement and force the issue forward, because when faced with the choice between subjugation and freedom, I can see why Anders made the choice that he did.

[quote]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? [/quote]

Since the mages have been enslaved for a thousand years, and Anders was focused on seeing his people freed from slavery while Sister Petrice was focused on people converting to the Qun, no.

[quote]Oneiropolos wrote...

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'. [/quote]

Anders is religious. Listen to his discussions with Merrill. He clearly follows the Andrastian faith, and sees the spirits representing different aspects based on the teachings. Also, Anders wasn't my love interest (and I'm sure he wasn't a love interest for a few other people who don't think he was evil incarnate). The difference between Sister Petrice and Anders is that the former wanted to see a threat to her religion put down, and the latter wanted to end slavery.

[quote]Oneiropolos wrote...

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. [/quote]

Actually, wanting to eliminate a threat to your dominant religion and wanting to emancipate the enslaved are two very different goals that are mutually exclusive.

[quote]Oneiropolos wrote...

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. [/quote]

People don't dismiss his actions, and the people who don't think Anders is evil look at it in the context of him wanting to see an end to slavery. You can't compare him with Sister Petrice when all she's focused on is the threat to how many members she has following the Andrastian faith. Anders is focused on putting an end to the rape, torture, tranquility, and murder of his people.

[quote]Oneiropolos wrote...

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.[/quote]
 
If given the choice between siding with a man who wants to put an end to slavery, and siding with a coward who couldn't avenge the deaths of his family himself and discusses with Fenris handing over the apostates in the group to the templars as well as saying he'll murder the people of Kirkwall to exact revenge for the death of the Grand Cleric, then I'll side with Anders every time.

[quote]Oneiropolos wrote...

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. [/quote]

Considering characters in Thedas specifically refer to it as slavery, and even Hawke can refer to it as such to get Fenris to side with the mages, you shouldn't be surprised.

[quote]Oneiropolos wrote...

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. [/quote]

You demean the actual history of countless people who fought to see themselves emancipated. The slaves of Saint Dominique didn't write a strongly worded letter to the French, they fought to be freed. The revolution against the dictatorship of Batista ended in Cuba when the rebels fought against the tyranny of the General's government when their oppressors were raping women and killing innocents. World War II didn't end by sending a strongly worded letter to the Germans, it ended with war. And there's Hiroshima and Nagasaki to parallel what Anders did when he attacked an institution he saw as dangerous, because it was oppressing and enslaving his people for almost a millennia. You think references that are made in the actual game of Dragon Age 2 should be stopped? Why? Because characters see the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery?

[quote]Oneiropolos wrote...

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 [/quote]

According to Patrick Henry, "Is security so dear, or wealth so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

[Dean_the_Young]

Vilegrim wrote...

Pileyourbodies wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Please refrain from calling me names simply because I don't share your view on the issue, Pile. I don't share your view on mages. I don't share your view on Anders. Clearly, we disagree. That's fine, because characters in Dragon Age disagree about these issues, too. We are allowed to have our opinion, which is why we can side with templars or mages, and why we can spare or condemn Anders, because we're allowed to do so.

I'm not name calling you, I'll gladly take back the troll comment as soon as you answer the question.
Is conscription slavery?
Is prison slavery?
Its not that you disagree with me personally but you disagree with the english language on what slavery is your definition of slavery is extremly broad and simply wrong. Just because we can have opinions doesn't mean all opinions are right, some...nay Most opinions are wrong.

It has been pointed out time and time again that my opinion on all mages being a danger is wrong and i accept the fact that there are good mages. That does not invalidate the fact that mages are dangerous as a whole and what the issue is or my argument.


Sacrafices need not be lives. The indian people sacraficed greatly to get their freedom but not that many lives, Muslim terrorists in india didn't get them their freedom but the masses of people who boycotted british goods sometimes at a great loss of profit to themselves, is what got India freedom.

The Civil rights movement made sacrafices again in monetary ways but not in lives to get what they wanted.

incomparable situations should be refering to the Warsaw uprising or Soviet partisans.


Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property and are forced to work.[1] Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation. In some historical situations it has been legal for owners to kill slaves.[2]

Sounds EXACTLY like the chantry.

Besides the property and forced to work bits, sure. Just like the Circles.

[Dean_the_Young]

Pileyourbodies wrote...

To me living in a communist society would be no better than slavery. As all of the prisoners were convicts then no the gulags were not slavery. They were not nice but they were not slavery. The soviet system was broken and unjust as people who spoke out were sent to gulags or executed unlike the circle of magi who were allowed to speak out, Orsino for example spoke out quite a bit.

And yet, it you killed everyone else in a communist society, or forced them to get themselves killed, no one could argue you were freeing them to live a better life. Whereas, even in an unjust communist society, so long as they live they could fight against it (if that is what THEY wanted), they could seek to escape it, and they could seek to bring good into the world.

Anders had no plan for building a more just society. Building a more just society isn't even his intent: ending this unjust society is, regardless of whether or not it produces anything more just.

[sonofalich]

Anders is a douchebag, glad i stabbed that sucker.

[Blood-Lord Thanatos]

I think that the dwarves should cut-off the lyrium trade to the chantry, and seal the entrances to Kal Sharok and Orzammar, so the chantry cannot create new templars.

[phantomdragoness]

The Revered Mother was just going to let them fight it out - she was neutral, and that certainly was not helping the mages OR the templars. I believe in order for something to happen, the Chantry had to be taken out of the game. This act was saying: "Face it head on, and stop relying on silence and empty words to make the problem go away." It was harsh, yes, but this is a war that has been going on for ages. Anders waited for Meredith and the First Enchanter to come to an agreement - he gave them plenty of time to try to settle differences - but Meredith was too proud to step down - so, Anders decided enough was enough. I'm not completely justifying his act, because what he's done will make issues for mages everywhere - the public will blame the mages as a whole for an act they did not commit; yet, it will also make them finally step up. Basically, I approve of what he did - but I don't envy his fate.

[DrowNoble]

I have to say I was surprised Anders blew up the Chantry. I also, didn't agree with it. It wasn't the Chantry's fault but the Templars that were driving the mages to blood magic. In fact, had Anders not blown it up, killing many innocents in the process, the mage/templar situation probably could have been resolved with less bloodshed. If anything he should of blown up the Templar's building and not the Chantry as it was the Templars who were persecuting the mages, not the priests of the Chantry.

[thegreateski]

The right thing? If Anders wanted to do the right thing he should have killed Merdith.

But no, because the Templars wronged the mages he goes and attacks the Chantry instead of the Templars.

Makes perfect sense.

Modifié par thegreateski, 19 mars 2011 - 12:53 .

[Shadow Wing]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Shadow Wing wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

A thousand years of subjugation will push people to the edge to see their people freed. That's what happened to Anders: he wanted to free the mages. In the end, the Circles broke free from the Chantry, so Anders' gambit clearly paid off.

Doesn't make it right....its like saying a servant broke free  from his master by killing him and his family even though the other family members had done nothing to deserve death. Anders literally took the lives of others who had no say in the mattter anyway and just thought of them as colateral damage, something to use..he's actually no better than meredith.

Anders literally attacked an organization that enslaved his people for centuries, intentionally targetting a high ranking member who was specifically doing nothing to stop the abuses being committed against his people in the name of neutrality. Anders didn't want peace, he wanted to see an end to the slavery of his people that would never have happened otherwise. Whether Anders was right or wrong is a matter of debate, and there's no conclusive truth to the issue.

It's a matter of perspective, no different than the debates over whether the templars or the mages are correct or the debates over Loghain. I also think wanting to put an end to slavery makes him better than Knight-Commander Meredith, but you're welcome to disagree.

Shadow Wing wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Pile, you don't like the fact that characters call it and consider it slavery? Take it up with the writers of the game. Honestly, I have no interest in explaining why your opinion isn't fact when characters in the actual game, including the possibility of a pro-Mage Hawke, don't share it. This discussion isn't getting us anywhere. You're entitled to your opinion, you're not entitled to force your opinion as fact, especially when characters in canon don't share it.

what does the characters in canon think anyway, as far as i can tell tell canon hawk can have a couple of stance about it...so technically, both your and piles opinion can be canon....so you can actually say "characters in canon don't share it" since they can depending on how you choose the act as Hawk.

I already addressed that Hawke has the possibility of having the same view that mages are enslaved, I never said it was definitive for every Hawke of every background. And my point was that Piles can't outright dismiss that there are characters who see the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery simply because he personally disagrees with it.

You're right meredith is worst due to her intentions but in terms of methodology, Anders is just as bad though with good intentions, and thats what bothering me about it, he reminds a lot of the terrorist who would actually kidnapped red cross or other neutral party that try to help the victims during war.

Going back to my orignal post, when i said that he killed people who had no say in the matter I meant people who were not even chantry people, people who happened to be in the temple or a poor family praying in temple at that time were killed. During the building explosion and the battle afterwards, many people who were not chantry but simple folks were also killed. And thats the problem, Anders just sees it as collateral damage that is necessary.

As for killing chantry people, well the chantry may have a stance on neutrality but this is the stance of the chantry not of the lowly priests who works there, as I once replied to another person before, in a religious organization the head of the organization may have ulterior plans but a lot times the lowly priests who works in small chapel just wants to help others and not really have anything to do with what the religious organization have in plan..so wouldn't it possible as well that those who were working in the chantry building when the explosion happen were good people trying to help others and does not really have a say in the chantry stance.

[Shadow Wing]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Oneiropolos wrote...

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.

 
If given the choice between siding with a man who wants to put an end to slavery, and siding with a coward who couldn't avenge the deaths of his family himself and discusses with Fenris handing over the apostates in the group to the templars as well as saying he'll murder the people of Kirkwall to exact revenge for the death of the Grand Cleric, then I'll side with Anders every time.

Just curious why would you call Sebastian a coward? As for saying that he will murder the people of kirkwall, what difference is that to anders , who would incite a war that would mean the death of the people of kirkwall for the mages, its just that they are in different sides. And don't tell me that sebastian is only doing it for revenge, because when anders blew up the chantry building, you have to know that there is a bit of vengeance tainted in that action. In fact, it may have been mentioned during the earlier dialogue that justice as turn to vengeance now or something. 

[Mikozilla]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Shadow Wing wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]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. [/quote]

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. "

<snip>[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

Was Anders' actions unnecessary? Isn't that part of the debate, whether Anders' actions were necessary in the first place? Since the Circles of Thedas have emancipated themselves from the Chantry, and the mages are presently not under templar or Chantry control, then Anders' actions have basically afforded mages a freedom that they never had for a thousand years. He inspired mages to break free from slavery by showing them that the Chantry can be defied, as Varric explicitly mentions at the end of DA2.

The Grand Cleric seemed more interested in neutrality than in the plight of the mages. Killing her was meant to end the stalement and force the issue forward, because when faced with the choice between subjugation and freedom, I can see why Anders made the choice that he did.

[quote]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? [/quote]

Since the mages have been enslaved for a thousand years, and Anders was focused on seeing his people freed from slavery while Sister Petrice was focused on people converting to the Qun, no.

[quote]Oneiropolos wrote...

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'. [/quote]

Anders is religious. Listen to his discussions with Merrill. He clearly follows the Andrastian faith, and sees the spirits representing different aspects based on the teachings. Also, Anders wasn't my love interest (and I'm sure he wasn't a love interest for a few other people who don't think he was evil incarnate). The difference between Sister Petrice and Anders is that the former wanted to see a threat to her religion put down, and the latter wanted to end slavery.

[quote]Oneiropolos wrote...

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. [/quote]

Actually, wanting to eliminate a threat to your dominant religion and wanting to emancipate the enslaved are two very different goals that are mutually exclusive.

[quote]Oneiropolos wrote...

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. [/quote]

People don't dismiss his actions, and the people who don't think Anders is evil look at it in the context of him wanting to see an end to slavery. You can't compare him with Sister Petrice when all she's focused on is the threat to how many members she has following the Andrastian faith. Anders is focused on putting an end to the rape, torture, tranquility, and murder of his people.

[quote]Oneiropolos wrote...

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.[/quote]
 
If given the choice between siding with a man who wants to put an end to slavery, and siding with a coward who couldn't avenge the deaths of his family himself and discusses with Fenris handing over the apostates in the group to the templars as well as saying he'll murder the people of Kirkwall to exact revenge for the death of the Grand Cleric, then I'll side with Anders every time.

[quote]Oneiropolos wrote...

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. [/quote]

Considering characters in Thedas specifically refer to it as slavery, and even Hawke can refer to it as such to get Fenris to side with the mages, you shouldn't be surprised.

[quote]Oneiropolos wrote...

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. [/quote]

You demean the actual history of countless people who fought to see themselves emancipated. The slaves of Saint Dominique didn't write a strongly worded letter to the French, they fought to be freed. The revolution against the dictatorship of Batista ended in Cuba when the rebels fought against the tyranny of the General's government when their oppressors were raping women and killing innocents. World War II didn't end by sending a strongly worded letter to the Germans, it ended with war. And there's Hiroshima and Nagasaki to parallel what Anders did when he attacked an institution he saw as dangerous, because it was oppressing and enslaving his people for almost a millennia. You think references that are made in the actual game of Dragon Age 2 should be stopped? Why? Because characters see the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery?

[quote]Oneiropolos wrote...

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 [/quote]

According to Patrick Henry, "Is security so dear, or wealth so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"[/quote]

Well, I don't even need to post my reply at this point. Very well stated.

[Emzamination]

Yes anders did the right thing and set the foundation for Da3 revenge of the mages!  

[Madriker]

He definitely had the right idea only he went obscenely, drastically overboard with it...

The Chantry was the middleman and was attempting to keep peace between two opposing factions. Unfortunately the compromise was always shifting in favor of the Templars, the ones holding the leashes. It was only a matter of time before a Mage realized the middleman had to be nullified in order for their side to gain any ground (or freedom). Full scale massacre... a bit much, but definitely got people's attention... to say the least.

[sassperella]

DrGulag wrote...

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.

My personal opinion is that they used terrorism because we'd judge it as evil instantly based on real world emotions and experiences rather than in the context of the fantasy setting and all the other bad things people have done. 

They obviously wanted Anders to do something unforgivable and realised that a) - killing innocents accidentally during assassinations as admitted by Zevran (hell the guy even said he loved killing) b - killing a whole village nearly with undead while possessed - conner etc. ect. seemed to be too forgivable by the gamer. So they went straight for the heart. "We can't come up with something creative that is abhorrent so let's use 9/11"  That's why I object to it as a plot device and why I was disappointed by the game's ending. We are dragged out of the immersion of the game and forced to judge something using a real world event that caused such a huge effect on our real world rather than something that we could debate within the context of Thedas.

[SkittlesKat96]

In Dragon Age though it seems most people are pretty religious and what he did was still murder, personally I think compromise between mages and templars would have been better, Anders and Meredith though completely ruin that from happening, they are both jerks.

As for Orsino, he seems like a strong willed person at first but it turns out he's weak and kinda proves that any mage can be seduced by blood magic, he's a moron.

Back to the Chantry though I still think Anders is too pro mage for my liking (think of the mages and templars being two political alignments for example, he's way too far on the spectrum if you get what I'm saying) and he took things too far, then again who knows, maybe he was right and actually prevented a longer and more destructive crapstorm from happening in Kirkwall.

Also what happens if you don't help Anders with going into the Chantry? Does he still manage to destroy it anyway?

[Emzamination]

Madriker wrote...

He definitely had the right idea only he went obscenely, drastically overboard with it...

The Chantry was the middleman and was attempting to keep peace between two opposing factions. Unfortunately the compromise was always shifting in favor of the Templars, the ones holding the leashes. It was only a matter of time before a Mage realized the middleman had to be nullified in order for their side to gain any ground (or freedom). Full scale massacre... a bit much, but definitely got people's attention... to say the least.

^ This

When diplomacy fails the only thing left to do is to blow up a structure of signifigance to gain the peoples attention and let them know your dangerous and you mean buisness.


Auuuu anders 

[TeamLexana]

WTF?! So you are saying the peeps that crashed airplanes into the twin towers are just? He's a terrorist. Pure and simple. Soon as you start blowing up buildings full of people you lose all creditablity.

[Emzamination]

TeamLexana wrote...

WTF?! So you are saying the peeps that crashed airplanes into the twin towers are just? He's a terrorist. Pure and simple. Soon as you start blowing up buildings full of people you lose all creditablity.

Well to be fair they didn't try diplomacy to begin with

The circle and its fraternities however did and from leliana's remark stating that the frats were "tolerated" by the divine meaning they pretty much weren't paid attention to I'd say tearing apart that chantry was the only way to get some attention amd recognition .

[Vilegrim]

thegreateski wrote...

The right thing? If Anders wanted to do the right thing he should have killed Merdith.

But no, because the Templars wronged the mages he goes and attacks the Chantry instead of the Templars.

Makes perfect sense.

It does, the Chantry are the masters of the Templars andmake  the propoganda that supports them, decapitation strike, poorly executed, but classic military strategy.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Vilegrim wrote...

thegreateski wrote...

The right thing? If Anders wanted to do the right thing he should have killed Merdith.

But no, because the Templars wronged the mages he goes and attacks the Chantry instead of the Templars.

Makes perfect sense.

It does, the Chantry are the masters of the Templars andmake  the propoganda that supports them, decapitation strike, poorly executed, but classic military strategy.

The "propaganda" isn't made, it was al ready there because of Tevinter, justified or not. If Anders truly wanted to cut off the head of the snake, he should've killed Meredith; what he did now was pretty much destroy what was basically the only high-ranked insider on his side.

[SealKudos]

Y'know, it was bound to happen sooner or later. The way the templars vs. magi situation was set up, it was an impossible stalemate. Templars were way too strict, sometimes to the point of unreasonable, but at the same time it was justifiable because apparently every other mage and their mother was a blood mage or possessed blood magic abilities.

What Anders did made my jaw drop (I mean the chantry? Not even the Gallows WTF?), but it had to be done. The Circle is a prison, not solution. Neither side's motives are right nor wrong. The line was drawn and bloodshed WAS going to turn into war. Anders was simply the catalyst.

"There can be no peace."