ThePhoenixKing wrote...
Red Viking wrote...
Anders murdered a bunch of people for his precious cause and I hope he's burning in the Dragon Age equivalent of Hell I sent him to. I used to merely condemn his actions and refused to feel sorry for him. But now?
I'm Norwegian and now, I flat out hate the guy.
I realize that this whole thing with Anders and the massacre in Norway is pure coincidence, but Anders' in-game actions simply hit too close to home now.
My condolesences for the great tragedy you and your countrymen have suffered. Not that I had planned to make any, really, but I'll definitely avoid any references to what's going on in Norway in this thread, I can understand it's a very raw and painful subject.
But, for a moment, let's avoid the moral and ethical questions surrounding Anders' deed, or if the Chantry (as an institution) deserved it, or if Elthina deserved it, or anything like that. When examined as a decision of purely ruthless pragmatism, as something designed to get from Point A (the status quo of the Circles) to Point B (the liberation of mages) in the quickest and most efficient method possible, as a purely goal-centered, consequentalist action, morality be damned, it's still dumb.
It's pretty clear by the time that Act III starts that Meredith is going off the deep end. There is rebellion in her own ranks, the population of Kirkwall (rich and poor, civilian and soldier), with a few exceptions are becoming increasingly sick of the templars, if not genuinely hostile and resisting. They're stepping on everyone's toes, and strutting about like they own the place to boot, which is eroding their popular support quickly. Moreover, Meredith's actions are becoming more and more harsh and tyrannical. Preventing the city from electing a new viscount, sending out roaming death squads to punish the families and supporters of mages, forcibly Tranquilizing Harrowed mages; she's riding roughshod over every law and principle that stands in her way if it means hunting mages.
I think the important point in this is that Meredith has become a tyrant, and as The Stolen Throne put it, "One did not honor tyrants; one appeased them." (pg. 135) The people of Kirkwall do not allow Meredith to do this because they like her, but because they fear her, or they think that no one could effectively stand against her, or they're more scared of mages than they are of her, or they don't want to defy an agent of the Maker, or their sense of moral outrage has yet to eclipse their apathy. With a few possible exceptions (mostly drunks at the Hanged Man, or Fenris), no one is saying, 'You know, that Meredith is really great, she should keep running things."
To get to the poorly-edited point, Meredith's rule is weak, and is becoming weaker by the moment. But how does this invalidate Anders' deed?
Because, eventually the city would have turned on her without the need for Anders to start reading the Anarchist's Cookbook. In Act III, the city is a powder keg of discontent against her; disparite, fearful, but there all the same. Aveline and the guards hate how the templars are trying to subsume them and turn them into cannon fodder, the nobility hate how she's put herself into the viscount's seat. There is some random dialogue from workers on the Docks saying how trade has been slowed with Meredith in power, which is probably not making the city's merchants, bankers and tradesmen all that pleased. No ruler can ever hope to govern effectively or stay in power long under such conditions. Fear is a good tool for keeping people in line, but not keeping them loyal, and if they see an opportunity to live free of that fear, they will take it sooner or later.
Moreover, at the rate Meredith was going, it was only a matter of time before she did something stupid enough to stoke that resentment and turn it into rebellion. Her attempting to search the Circle Tower might not have done it, but eventually, something would have occurred. As well, such an act doesn't have to be particularly massive in the grand scheme of things, it's merely the spark that ignites already existing tensions. To use some real world examples, the 2005 French banlieue riots started in response to several teens being (apparently, it has been disputed) chased into a substation by police and electrocuted, while one of the major events in the history of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States was that of, at its core, a tired, middle-age woman refusing to move to the back of the bus.
(Not to mitigate its impact, or suggest that Rosa Parks was in the wrong, or that segregation wasn't a terrible and utterly inhumane system, but compared to lots of other injustices against American blacks during this period, this specific incident was relatively minor at face value and replicated on numerous occasions. We remember it, and we should, because it was the catalyst for something greater and transformative.)
So the city was close to open rebellion against the templars, and they had a potential leader to guide and direct it in the form of Hawke, and it's likely that Meredith's actions would stain the reputation of the templars across Thedas. As such, in the short term, at least, Anders' bombing was unnecessary. Think of it; the Templar Order humbled by a rebellion against them and shamed by the extreme actions Meredith took to police the mages. All that anger and resentment against the templars could very well translate into sympathy for the mages, as well as stricter guidelines and policies on their jailers. I could definitely see the Chantry forcing the templars to ease up in response, or ensure they have greater safeguards against such abuses of power in the future. If nothing else, it would mean better conditions for the Circle in Kirkwall; the main target of Meredith's persecutions, they would be ideally placed to benefit from the city's sympathy, and establish more humane conditions for themselves.
Would it solve the problems related to the Circles? Maybe. Would it last forever? Debatable. Would it appease Anders/Justice? Definitely not. Would it be a step towards a better future, however tentative? Absolutely!
Moreover, Anders' bombing is inheritely counterproductive. It utterly destroys all that sympathy people have for mages, a feeling that both Cullen and Thrask mention, and it tosses the mages into the cauldron of war without any real organization, warning or plan for victory. Besides, it is only very rarely that the aggressor party in any confrontation maintains the moral high ground, something the mages are going to need to survive, much less win (unless they plan on either enslaving or exterminating the rest of Thedas). Any guerrilla movement, insurgent force or any other group that relies upon unconventional warfare (as the mages certainly will, at least in the opening stages of the war) also relies upon having a sympathetic population in which they can find support and shelter. They're not going to get that now, with Anders having struck the first blow.
That's also why pre-emptive warfare doesn't work; everyone loves the valiant defender standing up to the belligerent bully, but no one sheds any tears for the bully. Once you lose the support of the population, it's exceptionally difficult to get it back, and as a result of Anders, the mages are on the back foot and demonized by all of Thedas. Even Orsino admits it; whatever support they had outside the Circles vanished when the Chantry was destroyed. Anders forced everyone to take sides, all right, but most won't be going to the side he wanted. Thedas would have acted out of pity to help the mages if Meredith went on an unprovoked rampage, now they'll support the templars out of hate.
Wow...Dude you just owned this thread!
Retour en haut
One of the common flaws in people's anaysis of a plan (not just with Anders or even games, but any type of reform) is that they'll shoot down any new system with a flaw. If the system can fail, they think it sucks even if it's vastly superior to the current one. They want perfection, and perfection doesn't exist.
but it appears I was. To be frank, I killed Anders, had Meredith been removed by any other Templar order this situation wouldn't have gone the way it did. There was no need for war, there wasn't, there never is. War is always for a cause, but there should always be another way.
