Warheadz wrote...
So it was a good idea to blow the church up to incite an all-out war? He didn't even remove the Chantry or the religion from existence which you claim to be a good thing, he blew up one church.
Because blowing up
*this* particular church allowed Meredith to declare the Right of Annulment unhindered (by removing the only one in Kirkwall who could have prevented her from doing so, Elthina; as well as plunging the city into a state of emergency situation, thus forcing the Knight-Commander to make a very quick call without too many of her own people questioning her sanity, or the validity of such a call at this point).
By having Meredith call fo the ROA, then all mages in Kirkwall are forced into a fight, flee, or die situation.
Eventually, news of this event reached the other Circles, and either fearing retribution from their own Templars, or having seen that opposing them
*is* an option (or then again perhaps no longer trusting them to offer any sense of "security"), all the other Circles rebelled and either "made a run for it", or decided to fight back as well.
The Templars broke free from Chantry authority in order to go after all the rebels, with some actually defecting from the Order in order to help the apostates in their fight for freedom (I suppose that, among the Templars, some see themselves as the mages' guardians and protectors above anything else, and may already have been at odds with the way that the Chantry is approaching that duty; like it was the case with Ser Thrask).
Having lost control over their two main factions (the Templars, and the Circles), the Chantry finds itself on the brink of collapse (as confirmed by Varric in the epilogue). They are losing power and political / social influence, they know it, and are thus sending Seekers after the only person (the Champion) that they believe have the power to convince one of the two sides (either mages or Templars) to trust them ,and collaborate with them once again, in the hopes that they can save face, and avoid to lose
*everything*.
So what Anders did wasn't go after a small city Chantry. He was trying to bring down the whole system.
That people still believe in the Maker, and/or are Andrastians is a bit irrelevent. People don't have to forsake their religion; they need to question how their religious leaders are using and/or abusing their powers. Is it really in everyone's best interest? Can they truly offer any kind of garantee to protect them agains the dark side of magic, while allowing magic to "serve" mankind (the reason why it exists)?
If segregation lead to an all-out war where all the Circles managed to break free from the Templars; perhaps the Chantry never really had that much control/power over them in the first place. Perhaps the only thing that has really been preventing mages from doing more harm to the population was the mages' own sense of responsibility towards their gift to begin with.
The only thing that we know for sure that Anders succeeded in doing, is crippling an oppressive totalitarian dictatorship. From there, he has no way to know if things will be better for mages (the general population and their leaders willing to compromise), or worse (everyone deciding that magic is indeed the greatest of evil, and hunting them down even more mercilessly to the point of near extinction).
But he gave the mages a chance to fight for themselves and created an opportunity for change. Something that had been sorely lacking so far.
Did he do the
*right* thing? Yeeesh...
Okay, I'll say this... I think that he did the best he could do using the means, the leverage, the amount of power, and the time he had... As well as the mental state he was in.
Anders' methods were as extreme as his lack of power / influence / ability to bring positive change to his world was extreme. And yes, ultimately, they were a by-product of his despair.
But all the people who
*did* wield any semblance of power in Kirkwall, and could have forced change throught more peaceful means were no longer intervening, or completely absent from the equation (no more viscount, city under martial law, etc.).
If Anders had been living in Denerim, with easy access to King Alistair (providing he would be granted an audience), then I might have felt like his actions were much, much harder to justify.
Alistair has shown that he is willing to antagonize potential political allies (Kirkwall and the Free Marches) in order to protect apostates. And if you have Anders with you when you meet him, and he asks why the King isn't freeing Circles from Templars oversight, Alistair will reply something along the lines that his country isn't at its strongest right now, since they had a Blight to contend with.
So Alistair isn't saying he is opposed to the idea. Probably just that if he intends to declare that mages are now free to watch over themselves and regulate the use of magic on their own... Well, there could be a serious backlash from the Divine, and his country wouldn't be able to sustain that
*for now*.
The last thing they need after the Blight, is to have the Orlesian Divine threatening an exalted march on Ferelden as well. Not to mention that this could give the opportunity for the Orlesian nobles, that have been trying to push for regaining their "lost province", to act. Thus, as the country's leaders, he has more than one threat to his people to consider before he can act.
Anyway, to go back to Anders and what he did.
I would always advocate for ways to oppose the oppressors through peaceful resistance, and civil disobedience first and foremost (and this is what Anders has been doing for a decade).
But when it becomes apparent that such methods are failing, or that you completely lack any leverage to bring change through peace... Then, unfortunately, I still say that violence is a better option than acceptance when you need to confront a dictatorship.
Is that the most moral of all most moral choices? No. But at some point, I wonder just how "100% moral" a character like Anders can be expected to remain, especially after having witnessed the horrors he has (and experiencing a few of them first hand).
If you punch me in the face, I might give you a first warning, and tell you why I am unwilling to accept such a behavior from you... Do it again, I'll give you a second one, in case my first warning wasn't clear enough for you, and explain how your actions make me feel, the negative impact they have on myself, and our relationship, etc. Do it again, I may, if I'm feeling
particularly patient, give you a third one, describing a little bit more in details what just
*might* happen if you punch me a fourth time.
But, if you punch me again, and there's no way for me to remove myself from the conflict (i.e. you have locked all the doors of a room that is completely soundproofed and there's no way for me to call for help, or be surrounded by allies that could force you to back down without needing to land a single, actual blow).
Well, I'm sorry to say, but I will fight you back with every fiber of my being until you're on your rear end, and unable to hurt me again. That's only human.
Peaceful resistance is, like Justice perhaps, an ideal and a beautiful concept that has a certain amount of effective applications. But like Justice, it also has its limitations.
Modifié par River5, 11 juillet 2011 - 02:48 .
Retour en haut
Like, shut up about your bloody "appeasements". D: Et. al.
