1411 réponses à ce sujet

[Jamie9]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

I will always see it as one crazy person setting off thousands of other crazy people.

The entire system is rotten to the core and Anders gave it a mighty kick that brought the whole thing down..... right on top of tons of people who had nothing to do with it. However it also had tons of other people taking turns at trying to knock it down, Anders just got a lucky shot in.

The circle needed an over haul not a nuke to be fixed.
But now its to late since all the pieces have fallen apart and god knows what will take its place.

A new Tevinter where mages decide to protect themselves by enslaving others?
A brutal Chantry police state a hundred times worse then what it was?
Constant brutal war between mage states and templar states?
A movement to eradicate every single mage to be safe?
A continent left wide open for a Darkspawn or Qunari invasion?

There may be the possibility of a better tomorrow coming... but I have extreme doubts about that.

This. Nothing good will come of Anders actions. 2 wrongs do not make a right. He will have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. If he wanted the mages free, he had to do it gradually, by removing Meredith, getting the common folk to rise against the templars and purify their order. Only then, could the mages be free. They are not free now, they are at war.

[Red Viking]

Rifneno wrote...

Red Viking wrote...

You do realize that you telling me to "Suck up and deal. End of story" right? Wow. There are just so many things I can say to that but I'm not going to because it's something I'll just regret later on.

With due respect about the real life tragedy, that's not at all what he said. You're associating Anders with a real life sore spot, blaming him only because he reminds you of something personal and not because of the events of DA2. You said as much yourself when you said you only hated him after the real life event. So what are you expecting here? We're not supposed to disagree with you because you're lashing out here because of a real tragedy?

...

Did you...did you seriously just imply that I'm using a real life tragedy in order to win this arguement?  Because that's what those last two sentences just came across as.

Why would you even say something like that?  He told me "Like it or not."  How the Hell was I supposed to take it?

Don't you dare for one second pretend that you're a psycologist who can psychoanalyze someone based on a handful of forum posts.  You do not have a backdoor into my mind and I would greatly appreciate it if you didn't pretend that you do.

Am I mad?  Is this a sore spot for me?  Yeah, it is.  Do I now have a gut reaction whenever someone says that Anders' actions were justified?  Yes, I will admit to even that.  But other people have a right to their opinions, and unlike that son of a b**** who killed all those people, I can respect that.  Just because I believe something doesn't mean everyone who disagrees with me is wrong by default on this issue.  Even after everthing that has happened, I still believe that.

You are telling me I only hate Anders because of what happened in Oslo and Utoya.  I have never liked Anders,
not  after what he did.  My dislike turned to hate when Friday made me realize what the full extent and consequences of such actions truly mean.

Never accuse me of lacking the wisdom to tell the difference between a fictional character and a real murderer ever again, especially when the two share the same name.

That is insulting to both me and to your reasoning abilities.

Modifié par Red Viking, 25 juillet 2011 - 12:48 .

[Jamie9]

Red Viking wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Red Viking wrote...

You do realize that you telling me to "Suck up and deal. End of story" right? Wow. There are just so many things I can say to that but I'm not going to because it's something I'll just regret later on.

With due respect about the real life tragedy, that's not at all what he said. You're associating Anders with a real life sore spot, blaming him only because he reminds you of something personal and not because of the events of DA2. You said as much yourself when you said you only hated him after the real life event. So what are you expecting here? We're not supposed to disagree with you because you're lashing out here because of a real tragedy?

...

Did you...did you seriously just imply that I'm using a real life tragedy in order to win this arguement?  Because that's what those last two sentences just came across as.

Why would you even say something like that?  He told me "Like it or not."  How the Hell was I supposed to take it?

Don't you dare for one second pretend that you're a psycologist who can psychoanalyze someone based on a handful of forum posts.  You do not have a backdoor into my mind and I would greatly appreciate it if you didn't pretend that you do.

Am I mad?  Is this a sore spot for me?  Yeah, it is.  Do I now have a gut reaction whenever someone says that Anders' actions were justified?  Yes, I will admit to even that.  But other people have a right to their opinions, and unlike that son of a b**** who killed all those people, I can respect that.  Just because I believe something doesn't mean everyone who disagrees with me is wrong by default on this issue.  Even after everthing that has happened, I still believe that.

You are telling me I only hate Anders because of what happened in Oslo and Utoya.  I have never liked Anders,
not  after what he did.  My dislike turned to hate when Friday made me realize what the full extent and consequences of such actions truly mean.

Never accuse me of lacking the wisdom to tell the difference between a fictional character and a real murderer ever again, especially when the two share the same name.

That is insulting to both me and to your reasoning abilities.

Ok, as I have said on a similar post on the Dragon Age wiki; we should not be comparing Anders to a real life murderer. We should be grieving and praying that the families of the ones he has hurt will be able to get on with their life and not be forever hindered by one man's stupidity. It is natural to be angry, but I think it is better to be sympathetic to the ones that he has hurt.

[Jamie9]

This Anders-Anders thing needs to stop, it isn't valid and it isn't what we should be doing. If we are thinking about those attacks, it should be trying to help those in need of it.

Now let's get back to the topic of Dragon Age II and put all this real life baggage behind us, of course people were going to get upset about it.

[CrimsonZephyr]

Jamie9 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

I applaud Anders standing up to what he thinks is right. However, the amount of innocents that will be lost in this war he has caused will far surpass the amount of innocent people in Kirkwall. So if the Divine had just wiped out Kirkwall (Not right either) less innocents would have died than what will with Anders' actions. He wanted mages free, I wanted mages free. He did it by starting a war. It would have been a gradual process but it would have gotten there.

No it wouldn't.  People often make the MLK comparison.  But it's a faulty comparison.  MLK advanced the rights of a people that was already free.  They were being treated badly, but they were free.  And they got that way (free) by way of war.  Anders can't take the MLK route because his people aren't free yet.  In a response to a post asking what happened with the magi boon from DAO, a dev said "What dictatorship has ever been turned over because someone asked politely?  Really, think about what you're saying."  It's hard to gleam anything from that except that the Chantry was never going to relinquish its hold except by war.  And that makes sense, because dictatorships ARE like that.

Both me, and my Hawke, are idealists, we like to look optimistically and believe, truly believe, there is always a diplomatic solution to every situation. Also, I didn't realise I was making a MLK comparison  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.

You act as though no one has ever tried to subvert Chantry control over the mages or simply live free. Many, many people have tried. Bethany, Merrill, Anders, a Mage Hawke, possibly a Warrior/Rogue Hawke, Malcolm Hawke, Jowan, Uldred, Irving, Karl, Grace, Orsino, Feynriel, Alain, Terrie, the Mage Underground, the Mages' Collective, a Mage Warden, and the entire Libertarian Fraternity. These mages are not all the same. They come from different lands, different backgrounds, and have different morals, but they are all in the same situation. They are running from a system stacked against them.

Centuries of mages and their loved ones have tried to eke out some freedoms for these people and they fail. The Templars make them Tranquil, kill them, or annul the Circle in fear, whether justified or not. They have no political rights, no method of recourse, and precious few rights to their own bodies and minds, which are summarily tossed out as soon as the Templars get even a little suspicious. And, say the mages behave like good little Andrastians and never touch blood magic, necromancy, or the like. What reward do they get? Possibly their lives, but that is not a guarantee. They are still viewed with fear and suspicion, and still lack any rights. Mages cannot marry without permission, raise their own children, own property, or, for that matter, do anything that does not benefit the Chantry. How is that not slavery?

More importantly, how would anything short of violent uprising change anything? The mages are not negotiating with the Templars from the position of equals. Nothing short of a brutal asskicking would convince them to relinquish any control over mages.

[Rifneno]

FieryDove wrote...

Wonderfully said.

+10 Cookies (Or 5 Brownies, your choice)

Yum, thank ye.

Jamie9 wrote...

Both me, and my Hawke, are idealists, we like to look optimistically and believe, truly believe, there is always a diplomatic solution to every situation. Also, I didn't realise I was making a MLK comparison 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.

I didn't mean you were making an MLK comparison, but someone ends up making it whenever there's the 'peaceful solution' debate. I figured I'd nip it in the bud. And no, there's not always a diplomatic solution or a better way. Hitler is the most obvious example, but history is riddled with rat bastards that are simply evil to the core and will only be stopped by lots of bombs (or in earlier cases, a Braveheart deal).

Giggles_Manically wrote...

The circle needed an over haul not a nuke to be fixed.
But now its to late since all the pieces have fallen apart and god knows what will take its place.

The only way the mages will stop being oppressed is if the Chantry's sword arm gets lopped off. There is no other way. A religious empire is even more dangerous than a non-religious one because one of the psychological effects of religion is when people are using it to commit abuses like this, they're doubly sure they're doing the right thing. After all, their own mortal ethics might be wrong, but not their gods'.

Jamie9 wrote...

This. Nothing good will come of Anders actions. 2 wrongs do not make a right. He will have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. If he wanted the mages free, he had to do it gradually, by removing Meredith, getting the common folk to rise against the templars and purify their order. Only then, could the mages be free. They are not free now, they are at war.

That MAY, and I stress MAY, improve the living conditions of one Circle. Out of ten. It will make none of them free and it will do nothing at all for the other nine.

Red Viking wrote...

*snip*

Don't worry about me "insulting" you anymore. I think I'll just skip your posts from now on. Takes enough time to get through the "there HAD to have been a peaceful solution!" posts without a big old box of crazy too.

[Jamie9]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

I applaud Anders standing up to what he thinks is right. However, the amount of innocents that will be lost in this war he has caused will far surpass the amount of innocent people in Kirkwall. So if the Divine had just wiped out Kirkwall (Not right either) less innocents would have died than what will with Anders' actions. He wanted mages free, I wanted mages free. He did it by starting a war. It would have been a gradual process but it would have gotten there.

No it wouldn't.  People often make the MLK comparison.  But it's a faulty comparison.  MLK advanced the rights of a people that was already free.  They were being treated badly, but they were free.  And they got that way (free) by way of war.  Anders can't take the MLK route because his people aren't free yet.  In a response to a post asking what happened with the magi boon from DAO, a dev said "What dictatorship has ever been turned over because someone asked politely?  Really, think about what you're saying."  It's hard to gleam anything from that except that the Chantry was never going to relinquish its hold except by war.  And that makes sense, because dictatorships ARE like that.

Both me, and my Hawke, are idealists, we like to look optimistically and believe, truly believe, there is always a diplomatic solution to every situation. Also, I didn't realise I was making a MLK comparison  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.

You act as though no one has ever tried to subvert Chantry control over the mages or simply live free. Many, many people have tried. Bethany, Merrill, Anders, a Mage Hawke, possibly a Warrior/Rogue Hawke, Malcolm Hawke, Jowan, Uldred, Irving, Karl, Grace, Orsino, Feynriel, Alain, Terrie, the Mage Underground, the Mages' Collective, a Mage Warden, and the entire Libertarian Fraternity. These mages are not all the same. They come from different lands, different backgrounds, and have different morals, but they are all in the same situation. They are running from a system stacked against them.

Centuries of mages and their loved ones have tried to eke out some freedoms for these people and they fail. The Templars make them Tranquil, kill them, or annul the Circle in fear, whether justified or not. They have no political rights, no method of recourse, and precious few rights to their own bodies and minds, which are summarily tossed out as soon as the Templars get even a little suspicious. And, say the mages behave like good little Andrastians and never touch blood magic, necromancy, or the like. What reward do they get? Possibly their lives, but that is not a guarantee. They are still viewed with fear and suspicion, and still lack any rights. Mages cannot marry without permission, raise their own children, own property, or, for that matter, do anything that does not benefit the Chantry. How is that not slavery?

More importantly, how would anything short of violent uprising change anything? The mages are not negotiating with the Templars from the position of equals. Nothing short of a brutal asskicking would convince them to relinquish any control over mages.

When you put it that way, I can clearly see you are right. But as I said, I am idealistic, I personally would never commit these actions or condone those who do. I know they probably need to happen, and I, as Hawke, try to help every mage I can, but without hurting innocents.

To end this, we are both right. We both know these events likely needed to take place for change. The only difference is I don't agree with the way it was brought about. My morals just don't agree with them. We can't argue about those because they are unique to each person.

I just hope Anders' actions will end up being worth the ammount of innocents that will be killed. They may not be in vain yet. We wait with baited breath for the continuation of this story....

[CrimsonZephyr]

If we're talking about morals, then I agree, bombing a Chantry was a pretty horrible thing to do. But how long has the Circle existed? 1,000 years? And in this time, generations of mages have been living under the thumb of generations of Templars. People have tried peaceful solutions and have failed. The Congress of Magi in Cumberland almost voted to break away from the Chantry - not revolt, just emancipate themselves - and the prospect of this terrified Wynne, because she rightly believed that they be killed for doing so by the Templars. When the prospect of voting for independence is met with such terror, you know things have gone past negotiations. War is a dirty business, but it's the only way when the response to diplomacy or protest is violence.

[Jamie9]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

If we're talking about morals, then I agree, bombing a Chantry was a pretty horrible thing to do. But how long has the Circle existed? 1,000 years? And in this time, generations of mages have been living under the thumb of generations of Templars. People have tried peaceful solutions and have failed. The Congress of Magi in Cumberland almost voted to break away from the Chantry - not revolt, just emancipate themselves - and the prospect of this terrified Wynne, because she rightly believed that they be killed for doing so by the Templars. When the prospect of voting for independence is met with such terror, you know things have gone past negotiations. War is a dirty business, but it's the only way when the response to diplomacy or protest is violence.

*sigh* I know you're right, and this saddens me. Because this does reflect humans at their most basic. Many abuse power. Now Anders wanted to free the mages, a noble effort and I commend him for that, I really do. If the mages get their freedom in DA3 and many innocents are safed for this, then I will look much the fool for arguing otherwise. And so I very much hope that the actual war is stopped soon, and that the mages get their freedom.

I think that's pretty much all I've got to say on the matter so thanks for a very intriguing conversation. It has enlightened my somewhat in fact.

[Harid]

Rifneno wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

I applaud Anders standing up to what he thinks is right. However, the amount of innocents that will be lost in this war he has caused will far surpass the amount of innocent people in Kirkwall. So if the Divine had just wiped out Kirkwall (Not right either) less innocents would have died than what will with Anders' actions. He wanted mages free, I wanted mages free. He did it by starting a war. It would have been a gradual process but it would have gotten there.

No it wouldn't.  People often make the MLK comparison.  But it's a faulty comparison.  MLK advanced the rights of a people that was already free.  They were being treated badly, but they were free.  And they got that way (free) by way of war.  Anders can't take the MLK route because his people aren't free yet.  In a response to a post asking what happened with the magi boon from DAO, a dev said "What dictatorship has ever been turned over because someone asked politely?  Really, think about what you're saying."  It's hard to gleam anything from that except that the Chantry was never going to relinquish its hold except by war.  And that makes sense, because dictatorships ARE like that.

This is quite frankly one of the most absurd things I've ever read on these boards, and either shows complete misunderstanding of the Civil Rights movement, complete lack of the knowledge of history, pure delusion, or some combination of the three.  Have you heard of the Redemption period?  Grand Father Clauses?  The Ku Klux Klan?  Jim Crow laws?  Not even to mention the Civil War was under the confines of one country, had non-black people who actually wanted Black people to be free in the first place, when nobody wants mages to be free from the majority, and is not a global conflict that 'just happened.'  Most of the western world had already ended slavery prior to the Civil War.  What country has freed mages in Dragon Age?  Not one.  Anders can't take the MLK road because Anders is ****ing crazy, has no concept of time due to Vengance, is constantly fighting Vengance for control of his body, and was not the person to lead this charge in the first place due to the fact that he was neither a circle mage, or a regular joe who will be affected by free mages.  Either take a Black history course and educate yourself, or please, never speak of the Civil rights movement again.  Blacks were free in many parts of this country in name only.

And can someone show proof of these peaceful attempts to change the circle from in game or in the Codex, not including Kirkwall's lunacy?  Based on your logic every single mage that went to Cumberland would have been tranquiled by the Templars, and that did not occur.  They didn't want leinancy, they wanted a full split from the Chantry, which, if I am running a dictatorship, is a far worse offense.  Mind you, you guys are saying that just speaking of freedom to the templars have lead to tranquility, when that was the entire point of Cumberland in the first place.  People claim that the Chantry is a dictatorship, yet they allow the Circle to meet at Cumberland, something a true dictatorship would not allow mages to do.  You can't in one hand use Cumberland to state that mages wanted to be free and in the other call the Chantry a dictatorship, what dictatorship would allow a group to gather to plot sedition?  It's playing both sides in an argument as well (having your cake and eating it too).  A true dictatorship would have cut down mages a long time ago, the Chantry has had a millenia to kill all mages that aren't Loyalists and indoctrinate every mage to follow the chantry from the time they are babies and/or young, and they have not done this, they have not attempted to do this, and they have not drafted ideas to do this.   Do I care what Laidlaw stated?  He compared the Qun to being a muslim, when one is a philosophy, and one is a religion, sometimes his analogies aren't quite perfect and I treat them as such.  As far as freedom goes, they are living in a world where mages aren't free.

On the other hand, we have never seen mages try peaceful demonstration, ever.  Would it kill mages to meet at Cumberland and strike up some leinancy from the Circle?  Is Cumberland completely pointless?  These are things we needed to see and know, first hand.  I stated before, and I'll state it again.  When the people of Fereldan would not stand up for the ****ing Hero of Fereldan, mages seriously have problems in Thedas when it comes to the common man, problems people seemingly have trouble seeing.  Why can't mages gain freedom through taking the higher road?  When they aren't normal and haven't drafted any ideas of protecting those who are from mages?  When they have nothing but the fear and contempt from the common man?  When no nation has a problem with the Chantry outside of *possibly* Fereldan? (And even in that case as far as we know it's only an issue among leadership.)  When no nation allows mages to be free under it's borders?  When there is no non-mage free mage group or movement erupting anywhere?  Based on that, why have we not seen one prior peaceful attempt prior?  (Cumberland lead to nothing, and was not a middle ground.)  Who is this war a revolution against?  It's more than the Chantry as far as it's been written as of now, and as far as mages aren't taking over Thedas, what's the result here?   Freedom through bloodied nose?  Shattering the Chantry when the majority of the world is happily Andrastian and no religion is around to take it's place?  You think a bunch of dirt farmers are in large going to be athiest when there are no scientific movements (to explain the unexplainable) anywhere outside of the Qunari?

Most of the examples cited, (Jowan, Anders, Uldred) were under Chantry control via being Circle mages, and were punished for escaping, because they were Demon Thralls, or they were Blood Mages, people who most people see as deserving punishment in the first place.  The exceptions to this (Mage Collective) aren't actively doing anything to change anything, they just want to be able to do whatever they please without oversight, which doesn't help mages at large, it only helps them.   I laugh when people say they respect Anders for standing up for what he believed in when I guarantee you they've whined about or deplore people in life who have done the same.  Every boss that bleeds you for free overtime and no raises, every CEO fat cat that needs another jet, every Terrorist that bombs a building, do these people garner your respect?  Does that same respect get forwarded to Meredith?  **** is more complicated than standing up for your beliefs, you need plans and forsight, and you need to think of the people that will suffer under the results of your actions, something neither Anders or Meredith thought of.

Modifié par Harid, 25 juillet 2011 - 02:43 .

[In Exile]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...
War is a dirty business, but it's the only way when the response to diplomacy or protest is violence.

But war isn't a stupid business unless you're in the business of losing wars, and what Anders did is a kind of epic stupid. Not only does he strike a blow against public opinion for the mages, but he's practically beggining for an Exalted March (if the mage rebellion isn't just about freedom, but about destorying the Chantry). 

That aside, I replayed DA2 recently, and when Anders orbital lazers the Chantry, the explosion sets fire to all of Kirkwall. Not just Hightown, but the flames reach as low as Lowtown. 

How many innocent people and peasants burned to death because of what he did? The fact that the revolution may well be justified has nothing to do with Anders doing the right thing. 

Modifié par In Exile, 25 juillet 2011 - 03:33 .

[Shadow Fox]

Red Viking wrote...

You honestly believe that the grand cleric was the only person inside the chantry that day?

That's why it's mass murder.

Hell we see other people in that building before it blows.

[Rifneno]

In Exile wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...
War is a dirty business, but it's the only way when the response to diplomacy or protest is violence.

But war isn't a stupid business unless you're in the business of losing wars, and what Anders did is a kind of epic stupid. Not only does he strike a blow against public opinion for the mages, but he's practically beggining for an Exalted March (if the mage rebellion isn't just about freedom, but about destorying the Chantry). 

That aside, I replayed DA2 recently, and when Anders orbital lazers the Chantry, the explosion sets fire to all of Kirkwall. Not just Hightown, but the flames reach as low as Lowtown. 

How many innocent people and peasants burned to death because of what he did? The fact that the revolution may well be justified has nothing to do with Anders doing the right thing. 

1.  The Divine was already planning a crusade on Kirkwall.  So that really doesn't matter.
2.  Since Anders pushed the situation over the edge before the Divine could obliterate Kirkwall, I'd say most of the city that didn't die when a half million religious nuts on drugs waltzed in and started killing pretty much owe Anders their lives.  Those killed in the explosion?  Sucks, but the Chantry was probably going to murder them anyway.

[CrimsonZephyr]

In Exile wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...
War is a dirty business, but it's the only way when the response to diplomacy or protest is violence.

But war isn't a stupid business unless you're in the business of losing wars, and what Anders did is a kind of epic stupid. Not only does he strike a blow against public opinion for the mages, but he's practically beggining for an Exalted March (if the mage rebellion isn't just about freedom, but about destorying the Chantry). 

That aside, I replayed DA2 recently, and when Anders orbital lazers the Chantry, the explosion sets fire to all of Kirkwall. Not just Hightown, but the flames reach as low as Lowtown. 

How many innocent people and peasants burned to death because of what he did? The fact that the revolution may well be justified has nothing to do with Anders doing the right thing. 

Tell me what the result of a more peaceful alternative would have been. Just tell me. This obsession with going the high road is ludicrous when the high road leads to exactly the same place as engaging in warfare. Death. The mages never had any good PR to begin with. They would have been fighting a grinding, losing battle against a paranoid and increasingly draconian foe and a neutral mediator who maintained a poisonous status quo. They would never have gotten any freedoms and likely would have been killed, one by one, or made Tranquil. If every mage was made Tranquil in Thedas, or every Circle annuled, the people would lament their unfortunate end...and then go right back to their business. Because that was how it had always been. The mages were always going to die. When had any country seriously been for them? Better that they die fighting than on their knees in shackles.

Honestly, it's probably better that Thedas is left to the darkspawn. There's really not much of a world worth saving.

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 25 juillet 2011 - 03:55 .

[Harid]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

In Exile wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...
War is a dirty business, but it's the only way when the response to diplomacy or protest is violence.

But war isn't a stupid business unless you're in the business of losing wars, and what Anders did is a kind of epic stupid. Not only does he strike a blow against public opinion for the mages, but he's practically beggining for an Exalted March (if the mage rebellion isn't just about freedom, but about destorying the Chantry). 

That aside, I replayed DA2 recently, and when Anders orbital lazers the Chantry, the explosion sets fire to all of Kirkwall. Not just Hightown, but the flames reach as low as Lowtown. 

How many innocent people and peasants burned to death because of what he did? The fact that the revolution may well be justified has nothing to do with Anders doing the right thing. 

Tell me what the result of a more peaceful alternative would have been. Just tell me. This obsession with going the high road is ludicrous when the high road leads to exactly the same place as engaging in warfare. Death. The mages never had any good PR to begin with. They would have been fighting a grinding, losing battle against a paranoid and increasingly draconian foe and a neutral mediator who maintained a poisonous status quo. They would never have gotten any freedoms and likely would have been killed, one by one, or made Tranquil. If every mage was made Tranquil in Thedas, or every Circle annuled, the people would lament their unfortunate end...and then go right back to their business. Because that was how it had always been. The mages were always going to die. When had any country seriously been for them? Better that they die fighting than on their knees in shackles.

Honestly, it's probably better that Thedas is left to the darkspawn. There's really not much of a world worth saving.

Comprimise?   Allowing mages to see their family?  Asking for mages not to be part from their children?  Gaining the ability to openly aid your country in times of War?  Allowing post Harrowing mages to travel a bit more freely?  We have no evidence taking the high road would lead to death when in Dragon Age 2, no one took the high road.  War will lead to death more than comprimise would over each circle.  They, instead of fighting a grinding war against one person mages will now be fighting a grinding pointless war against all of Thedas.  The point of a neutral mediator taking **** from Templars is to win in the court of public opinion, to get the people to go against the chantry so if you do choose to go to war, you have majority support rather than no support whatsoever.  Mages have made no effort to change public opinion, they do not actively send envoys to heal people, they don't aid in killing bandits and other things that trouble the countryside, they have not attempted to change what the common man thinks of them. 

We have no proof every mage would be killed, or made tranquil, for attempting a middle road as the mages that went to Cumberland weren't killed or tranquiled which is nothing close to a middle road.  You can't paint the entire Chantry as 'Meredith' or you are no better than her.  The fact that the Chantry hasn't annulled every circle with impunity when they could easily get away with it as you have stated yourself doesn't paint the Chantry as a dictatorship.  That is the things dictatorships do.  It leads to the belief that some comprimise could be made.  And when none is attempted, well. . .

Modifié par Harid, 25 juillet 2011 - 04:16 .

[In Exile]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...
Tell me what the result of a more peaceful alternative would have been.

What makes you think I favour a peaceful alternative? I favour an armed uprising that doesn't primarily target the people that aren't implicated in the mage-templar struggle with the greater goal being emancipation. 

Using the orbital laser on the Gallows would be a good start. Killing Meredith directly would also be a good start. Rallying the nobles against her (as/via Hawke) would be a solid way, too. The nobles are already planning for that, as it is.

Just tell me. This obsession with going the high road is ludicrous when the high road leads to exactly the same place as engaging in warfare. Death. 

That's not morally equivalent. There is a difference between killing a soldier in combat and burning people alive in their homes.

The mages never had any good PR to begin with.

Cullen talks at length about mage PR. Templars aren't seen as heroes anymore - they were seen as oppressive, keeping and torturing the poor mages. And this was in Act I! By the time Meredith goes cookoo for Coco Puffs, you've got people publically protesting the templars in the streets and organizing a rebellion against her rule.

They would have been fighting a grinding, losing battle against a paranoid and increasingly draconian foe and a neutral mediator who maintained a poisonous status quo. 

We don't know what would have happened. Orsino was planning on going to Elthina. Meredith was going to stop him. If Elthina continued to be weak and ineffectual, the city itself would have risen up against the templars. 

As for what the mages could do at that point, it depends a lot on what Orsino could do as a leader, and what Hawke wanted. 

They would never have gotten any freedoms and likely would have been killed, one by one, or made Tranquil. If every mage was made Tranquil in Thedas, or every Circle annuled, the people would lament their unfortunate end...and then go right back to their business. Because that was how it had always been. The mages were always going to die. When had any country seriously been for them? Better that they die fighting than on their knees in shackles. 

Melodramatic rant aside, if the mages go to war with the templars, the templars need non-mages to keep their ranks fresh. If people don't side with them, they're just an extra-national army trying to fight a war within a country or city's borders.

[CrimsonZephyr]

Going to Cumberland was a regular occurrence for mages, but it is clear that if they had attempted to break away from Chantry overlordship, or gave too much support to the Libertarian position, they WOULD BE KILLED FOR IT. This is agreed upon by both Wynne and Anders, which is why she wants her botanist colleague Ines to go to Cumberland and prevent this from happening. Wynne is an Aequitarian, the people that are pragmatists, who support some aspects of Chantry rule. Anders is a mage freedom Libertarian, and in Awakening, he pretty much says it is suicidal for the Circle to even attempt to vote themselves more independence. It's pretty clear that congresses at Cumberland are a formality. The Templars might allow little policy changes, but overarching changes will get them killed.

The Circle is like a tinpot African dictatorship. They have elections, but with only one candidate on the ballot. It's the same with the Circle. No one has ever attempted to gain more freedom because they are terrified of the repercussions. It's either "accept Chantry policy or die."

And Orsino started out with very reasonable goals. He tried to get Meredith to step down as acting Viscount. He correctly stated that her duty was to the Order only. For all that, he never once mentioned that the mages must have freedom. What does Meredith do? She tries to have him clapped in irons before Elthina manages to cool things down. And you think these people wanted to negotiate?

[Harid]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Going to Cumberland was a regular occurrence for mages, but it is clear that if they had attempted to break away from Chantry overlordship, or gave too much support to the Libertarian position, they WOULD BE KILLED FOR IT. This is agreed upon by both Wynne and Anders, which is why she wants her botanist colleague Ines to go to Cumberland and prevent this from happening. Wynne is an Aequitarian, the people that are pragmatists, who support some aspects of Chantry rule. Anders is a mage freedom Libertarian, and in Awakening, he pretty much says it is suicidal for the Circle to even attempt to vote themselves more independence. It's pretty clear that congresses at Cumberland are a formality. The Templars might allow little policy changes, but overarching changes will get them killed.

The Circle is like a tinpot African dictatorship. They have elections, but with only one candidate on the ballot. It's the same with the Circle. No one has ever attempted to gain more freedom because they are terrified of the repercussions. It's either "accept Chantry policy or die."

And Orsino started out with very reasonable goals. He tried to get Meredith to step down as acting Viscount. He correctly stated that her duty was to the Order only. For all that, he never once mentioned that the mages must have freedom. What does Meredith do? She tries to have him clapped in irons before Elthina manages to cool things down. And you think these people wanted to negotiate?

The problem with your first point is that asking for little policy changes (in order to change mages position over time) is not something mages try to do, to get to something closer to outright freedom, which isn't going to happen in a short period of time, with the support, or rather lack thereof that mages have.  I still say that if speaking of freedom was tantamount to death, the Chantry (as it's apparently a dictatorship) would have wiped out the mages meeting at Cumberland in the first place, by not doing this they don't come off as a dictatorship to me.

You can't in one breath say Wynne is afraid of breaking off from the Chantry, as it would be tantamount to death, and in the same breath say that Cumberland is a formality.  Is it a formality or is it a big deal?  Wynne was an older member of the Circle, why would she fear something she knew to be a formality?  This wasn't likely her first meeting, Wynne has to be in her mid to late 50's and was spoken of as replacing the First Enchanter.  Why would you fear something that you know isn't going to lead to anything?  You are trying to have it both ways, here.  The true result of Cumberland is until Asunder comes out,  absolutely nothing, the Resolutionists/Libertarians lose.

Your second point. . .I have no idea what you are basing it on.  We've never seen a First Enchanter recieve the position before.  And we have no indication on what happens when mages strive for more rights, because we haven't seen what occurs in normal circles, and Kirkwall's roving Blood Magic, thin veils, and crazy Red Lyrium idols skew everything.

And as far as your third point, Orsino was a Blood Mage, so I can't take his postering seriously, and Meredith was crazy as a result of the Idol, Kirkwall was a giant flustercuck, and is not indicative of the circle, it's hierarchy, or the way things are resolved in the rest of Thedas.  Orsino should have known given Kirkwall Templars have actively killed past Viscounts that he would have to go about changing things by circumventing Meredith in the first place.  You can't use Meredith as a position of the entire Chantry, as we have knowledge every Knight Commander does not act like her; if they did why wasn't the Fereldan Circle anulled post Blight, they had every reason to do so based on the philosophy of Meredith.  They don't because each Circle has different leadership, different rules, and different attitudes on mages.

Which is why this rebellion is stupid in the first place.

Modifié par Harid, 25 juillet 2011 - 05:24 .

[CrimsonZephyr]

Your point about Orsino is purely ad-hominem. The fact that he eventually used blood magic (which he used for the first time then) does not make his point any less salient. Meredith was using her power as KC to become a military dictator. Orsino said nothing about mage freedom. His rally was about keeping the various powers in Kirkwall separate, a point which makes sense no matter who brings it up.

As for Cumberland being a formality, it is a formality because mages simultaneously are allowed to decide some issues by themselves, but constantly have blades at their backs. It is not contradictory to be allowed to meet in a congress by an institution which will kill you for reaching a consensus they do not approve of. It just shows who really has the final say. Which is exactly what Wynne was fearful of. The meeting does lead to anything because it is strongly implied that Wynne manages to drum up enough mages to derail that consensus. Why would she do this if she would benefit? The short answer is: because she wouldn't, and neither would the Circle.

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 25 juillet 2011 - 05:30 .

[In Exile]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Your point about Orsino is purely ad-hominem. The fact that he eventually used blood magic (which he used for the first time then) does not make his point any less salient. Meredith was using her power as KC to become a military dictator. Orsino said nothing about mage freedom. His rally was about keeping the various powers in Kirkwall separate, a point which makes sense no matter who brings it up.

That's because a lot of mages aren't ready to die at the altar of idealism. They want what most people want: safety, security and freedom of movement. If the Chantry released the yoke a little, they'd likely would have kept control of the mages and quickly squashed the rebellion. But that would be too intelligent for them. 

[Harid]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Your point about Orsino is purely ad-hominem. The fact that he eventually used blood magic (which he used for the first time then) does not make his point any less salient. Meredith was using her power as KC to become a military dictator. Orsino said nothing about mage freedom. His rally was about keeping the various powers in Kirkwall separate, a point which makes sense no matter who brings it up.

As for Cumberland being a formality, it is a formality because mages simultaneously are allowed to decide some issues by themselves, but constantly have blades at their backs. It is not contradictory to be allowed to meet in a congress by an institution which will kill you for reaching a consensus they do not approve of. It just shows who really has the final say. Which is exactly what Wynne was fearful of. The meeting does lead to anything because it is strongly implied that Wynne manages to drum up enough mages to derail that consensus. Why would she do this if she would benefit? The short answer is: because she wouldn't, and neither would the Circle.

I already answered your first point.  You must have glossed over it when you saw the word Blood Mage.  I still have trouble believing one could master Blood Magic from reading a few books (and not practicing it), but that's Bioware Storytelling™ for you.

As for your second point, It doesn't make sense given what we know about Cumberland and the College of Magi; I have trouble believing that Fraternities vie for power in what is a farce, it makes little sense.  The US Senate could not up and state that states are freeing themselves from the United States without it being considered treason and being summarily punished for it, and mages splitting from the Chantry when they don't have the right to do so is no different.  Because the Senate lacks that power, does that make the US Senate farcical?  (for that point, not for any others)  They are overstepping their bounds and getting punished for it.  It doesn't mean the organization is farcical when the College has enough power to be in direct contact with the Divine, through the Grand Enchanter.  The NAACP cannot state that they are going to make their own country in the US, and GLADD cannot state gay marriage is legal US-wide, or anything comparable to be as outlandish as mage freedom.  Does that make those organizations farcical?  Being an organization does not give that organization carte blanche to do whatever it damn well pleases, which you seem to think mages should be able to, based on your logic of the College of Magi being farcical because their power is limited.  Why shouldn't their power be limited?  (Note that I am not saying the Chantry should be able to do what they want with impunity either, so don't go down that road.)

If the case of the Libertarians were so strong I have trouble believing there would be no after effects from Awakening to DA:2 that we heard of in game.  Close outcomes on complete paradigm shifts would be mentioned.  By someone.  But does that occur?  Not the crazy blood mages, not Bethany once she joins the circle, not Orsino, not Anders, not anyone.  (Anders especially would have mentioned it)  Not one angry mage stating it should have went the other way, not one other circle rising up because they did not agree with the College, nothing happens.  I have trouble reconciling the idea that the college was close to voting for freedom when we hear no mages speak of it ever.

Modifié par Harid, 25 juillet 2011 - 06:07 .

[CrimsonZephyr]

Harid wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Your point about Orsino is purely ad-hominem. The fact that he eventually used blood magic (which he used for the first time then) does not make his point any less salient. Meredith was using her power as KC to become a military dictator. Orsino said nothing about mage freedom. His rally was about keeping the various powers in Kirkwall separate, a point which makes sense no matter who brings it up.

As for Cumberland being a formality, it is a formality because mages simultaneously are allowed to decide some issues by themselves, but constantly have blades at their backs. It is not contradictory to be allowed to meet in a congress by an institution which will kill you for reaching a consensus they do not approve of. It just shows who really has the final say. Which is exactly what Wynne was fearful of. The meeting does lead to anything because it is strongly implied that Wynne manages to drum up enough mages to derail that consensus. Why would she do this if she would benefit? The short answer is: because she wouldn't, and neither would the Circle.

I already answered your first point.  You must have glossed over it when you saw the word Blood Mage.

As for your second point, It doesn't make sense given what we know about Cumberland and the College of Magi; I have trouble believing that Fraternities vie for power in what is a farce, it makes little sense.  The US Senate could not up and state that states are freeing themselves from the United States without it being considered treason and being summarily punished for it, and mages splitting from the Chantry when they don't have the right to do so is no different.  Because the Senate lacks that power, does that make the US Senate farcical?  (for that point, not for any others)  They are overstepping their bounds and getting punished for it.  It doesn't mean the organization is farcical when the College has enough power to be in direct contact with the Divine, through the Grand Enchanter.  The NAACP cannot state that they are going to make their own
country in the US, and GLADD cannot state gay marriage is legal US-wide, or anything comparable to be as outlandish as mage freedom.  Does that
make those organizations farcical?  Being an organization does not give that organization carte blanche to do whatever it damn well pleases, which you seem to think mages should be able to, based on your logic of the College of Magi being farcical because their power is limited.  Why shouldn't their power be limited? 

If the case of the Libertarians were so strong I have trouble believing there would be no after effects from Awakening to DA:2 that we heard of in game.  Close outcomes on complete paradigm shifts would be mentioned.  By someone.  But does that occur?  Not the crazy blood mages, not Bethany once she joins the circle, not Orsino, not Anders, not anyone.  Not one angry mage stating it should have went the other way, not one other circle rising up because they did not agree with the College, nothing happens.  I have trouble reconciling the idea that the college was close to voting for freedom when we hear no mages speak of it ever.

For one thing, the US Senate is part of an organized mechanism of government that can, in fact, overturn the rulings of an executive veto. If the president finds a vote displeasing, he does not send out the military to crush the Senate. The Grand Enchanter is the representative of the mages to the Divine, but that doesn't mean he has any true power, because the Divine effectively has every single one of his subordinates held hostage. If the Grand Enchanter displeases the Divine, or let's say the Congress of Magi reaches a consensus that mages should be granted freedoms, not total freedom, but freedoms, there is still a chance that the Divine will view it as insubordination and order military action. This is the same organization that once considered an Exalted March because some mages refused to light a few goddamn candles. Not every Templar is Meredith, not every priest is Elthina. Wynne is clearly very concerned that a groundswell of Libertarian support would lead to disaster. She wants Ines at the Congress for that very reason, to derail it. The College of Magi shouldn't have unlimited power, but it is pretty clear that the Templars are the ones who are really calling the shots and wouldn't hesitate to kill every mage there if a Libertarian victory was imminent. And being allowed to vote on ridiculously small issues but having a military order that kills you immediately if a vote goes against them is the definition of tyranny.

[Harid]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

For one thing, the US Senate is part of an organized mechanism of government that can, in fact, overturn the rulings of an executive veto. If the president finds a vote displeasing, he does not send out the military to crush the Senate. The Grand Enchanter is the representative of the mages to the Divine, but that doesn't mean he has any true power, because the Divine effectively has every single one of his subordinates held hostage. If the Grand Enchanter displeases the Divine, or let's say the Congress of Magi reaches a consensus that mages should be granted freedoms, not total freedom, but freedoms, there is still a chance that the Divine will view it as insubordination and order military action. This is the same organization that once considered an Exalted March because some mages refused to light a few goddamn candles. Not every Templar is Meredith, not every priest is Elthina. Wynne is clearly very concerned that a groundswell of Libertarian support would lead to disaster. She wants Ines at the Congress for that very reason, to derail it. The College of Magi shouldn't have unlimited power, but it is pretty clear that the Templars are the ones who are really calling the shots and wouldn't hesitate to kill every mage there if a Libertarian victory was imminent. And being allowed to vote on ridiculously small issues but having a military order that kills you immediately if a vote goes against them is the definition of tyranny.

I did not bring up the different powers that each branch of the goverment has for the reason that those are appointed powers, I chose something outlandish and illegal by law (sedition/secession) to create an analogy as to why mages can't do something similar, which is also illegal based on the laws they knowingly participate in when they are part of the College of Magi, i.e. sedition/secession.

We don't know if mages tried to get the yoke lightened that it would result in military action, because once again, with feeling, outside of total freedom, we have no evidence mages have tried to lighten the yoke and have summarily been shot down.  Your entire argument is based on the actions of Meredith in Kirkwall.  We haven't seen mages vote for a freedom, lets say. . .eased travel to heal villagers from malady, it get voted yay from the College, and then the Templars immediately shut it down.  But you base your argument on the hypothetical of this happening, heck, that's a big request, (you base your argument on smaller concessions being shot down!) and it blows my mind.  Yes, the Chantry has power over them, but that's part of the organization they live under, and knowingly operate under when they come to their decisions.  I state again, a true tyrannical state would not allow them to meet under the college of the magi in the first place, would crack down on Fraternities, and would have wiped out all non loyalists years ago.

We argue in circles about the Wynne's meeting of the College.  The important point is if the vote was as close as you claim it to be, the circles would have rebelled from the point of the meeting, not years later from Kirkwall, ignoring how they are treated in their own circles.  If the Libertarians/Resolutionists gathered enough power to make it an even vote, or anything close to it, why would they not sieze power then and there?  Nothing happened because it wasn't close.  And once again, her worry implies that the College's choices aren't farcical.  Even if it was pure fear, it would have to be as a result of the Templars taking their sediton seriously, which also implies that what the college votes for matters.

Modifié par Harid, 25 juillet 2011 - 06:42 .

[Alexander1136]

I miss the real anders.. i hope there's an expansion afterward were u can free him.. slay justice in the fade like you did the demon in the boy at redcliff. the new one is lame and causes long debates.

[nitefyre410]

Anders no matter how well intended he may have been was wrong.   Yet in light what he and other mages(one how happens to my in-game sister) were facing at  the hands of the Meridith  can't say I don't understand why he did it.   

So lets start first with  the  head of the Chantry in Kirkwall -  I can't decide if she was just a fool doing nothing or if she was playing the fool just "Sitting Still"(being still and doing nothing two very different things) and pulling a very  large scale Zen like move.(I'll make up my mind on that after this current play through.)  

Meridith is and was crazy. See I had  issue with the Templars from the start  with the whole  Tranquil  thing that does not sit very will with me. Stripping someone of there very emotions  bothered me in  DA:O  and DA 2  I found out why. Because of  course   there are  Templars abusing the living hell out  it. Hell  there mostly like(remember long since i played the game memory  is hazy)  Templars that were using the threat of it to  have their way pretty female mages or handsome male mages( depending a preferences) or both and why not right you absolute power at this point and we all know that that does   "Now be a good little mage and do  X or you'll be made Tranquil." Oh and if said Mage cried foul -  BLOOD MAGE and thats all she wrote. 

Right there is the problem  its all knee jerk reaction and no thought  on her part. She so damn afraid that she can't even see that her Order is  making the problem  far far worst.  Whats that old saying about "Pushing things into a corner" Well that is what  the Templars did push.  The reason? Who knows - the cynic in says that they would have pushed anyway just to find a reason to  burn the place down.  I can't even agree with the Templar way of thought its like the Witch Hunts  - " Hey if floats she's a  witch burn her, if she sinks and drowns  she was innocent."   Um ain't she still dead either way - just sounds like an excuse to  kill this person anyway to me. 
 
   Of course you are going to have extremist  in anything thats to be expected the problem lies in driving the  moderates to the extreme's. That right is what drove me up a damn wall because the First Enchanter  was moderate thinking man, reasonable understanding.   Knew there needed to be change but also  new there needed to middle ground but Meridith kept pushing and throwing more wood on the pyre.  By which at that Anders had seen and heard enough having already dumped the gas on the prye (Setting the bomb spell)  and all he need was  good reason to  set it off and Meridith gives it him with actions in  Act 3 and BOOOM.  

What eats at me the most is the got damn it all if he was not right in alot of  ways - this was coming - hell I saw in first game. There is only but so long that some one is going to put up with what Templars and  Chantry were doing till enough is enough. All he did was lite the match and watch the fire burn and that makes me want to punch him. What makes me want to kick him is that he didn't even take into consideration that the Mage  might very well LOSE the war. Well if that happens  he ahs  essentially damned  them forever.  Since I played a male Hawke and Befriended him(which you can do w/o romancing him)  I want to break his arms  for putting my Hawke's sisters neck the blade.  First my Hawke's brother then  my Hawkes mother( Oh and I killed that SOB - killed him good and buried it why? That SOB is not getting the  noterity of even being a Blood mage seriel killer nope he just is  going to be DEAD. Frak Justice for him  I was playing a Rogue  anyway  )  

Now my sister and my girlfriend  Merril(that kinda just happened but hey)  are in danger because   Anders  decide to kick of  the Templar mage war not counting all the other people who are going caught in the crossfire. GREAT!  Once again thanks Anders and Merideth /sacrasm.  Then I blame a little bit of on my Hawke as well - should have known better than to try to negoiate with someone like Meridith. You can never negoiate with someone who does not want peace period. Why becasue they  are not coming to the table in good fatih.  Anders at least early on wanted there to be a peaceful change(A oxymoron I know right) but after his friend and everything that went out the window.  

So now what to do with Anders?- I would be lieing if I said  I did not think long and hard about killing him.  I took all the factors in the  consideration first off.. Killing Anders would have done  absolutely, positively, completely nothing to stop Meridith. Nope   she would have been - " Hey thanks for  one less I have to sully my blade with(a blade that happens to be evil sword of somewhat explained Doom.)   So  lets  I have a a crazy   Templar that now has every right in her eye to much in the Circle and kill everyone there(includeding my sister and my girlfriend).  At that point it was siding the crazy rightly intentioned but idotic mage  best  friend or  Crazy Homicidal,  Genocidal Regilous Zealot  Maniac. Well Lesser of two evils ( In perfect world I would  have killed them both and told the people a big  hub bub and both parties are now dead and everyone can go back their  regular lives.)  Unfortunately -  the DA world much like our own is  far from perfect.  I am going to need that foolish bastard to win war that he started at least he can blow stuff up right way.(Yeah the dead is done. my mood thinking is how fast can end this before its turns to a complete blood bath and Blade blood rave)   


So by the defualt of Lesser of two evils Anders get his  "me stabbing in face before ripping Meridith in half free card"   Yes its lesser of two evils situation and unfortunatly those situations... suck BADLY.  Why becasue there is no right answers... all the answers are just plan suck its just a matter of how much suckege do want have on your plate.

So now I'm looking at  Avilene, Verric, Fenris,Isabela and Merril(this is before I DL'd Se - "Well this is a colossal  cuslter fc"k  in  a Antiven(Sp)  brothel"        Well I  am not going let the kill my sister  and my girlfriend, no self respecting man and/or self respecting brother with a damn is going to let some just march in a kill em.  At this point im thinking even if  am save a many these  Mages who had nothing  with this. Imma have to kill alot of  Templar to do it - yep so I'm going to an enemy of the Church ANYWAY(this whole situation just gets better by the moment) So of course Fenris being  Fenris goes all  "I'm blah, blah blah, slave, mages evil, rawr." Me at this point im kinda like " Dude a blood mage cut my mother to pieces and sewed her head in to  his corpse bride, I feel you but if go other there with Medirith...Imma cut your throat." Now don't get  wrong Fenris was a badass - had some anger issues but still badass and well he went over to Medirith side and I killed him. Yes Seriously I killed him and did not regret it  .  

So now the First Enchanter seeing his circle getting slaughtered just says "AH well their going to kill me ANYWAY so F- IT."  and goes all blood mage.   Now would  he done this under normal rational thinking circumstances.  No of course not  but Meridith is out for blood at  and somebody we now gave her and whole damn city a good reason  to be out mage blood.   So whats the First Echanter to do - he's a dead man  anyway why the hell not. 

See what desperation can do to a person and what alot of power can to another? Anders at heart a good man who in the end was driven do a terrible thing. All of this maddness and a lot of people dieing becasue of extremes absolutes and no middle ground  from start. "Some Mages turn to blood mages so ALL Mages must be locked away."     "Some of theTemplars and the Chantry abuse their power  so they ALL must burn and Circle must fall"   This right  here is what  whole  drama is about Extremes and Absolutes. How thinking and working  etc, etc  can lead to really bad situations  at this point it is everyones fault. Could this have been avoid yes even Anders said but the Templars would not give a inch so afraid of the Blood  Mages that they did not realize they were adding to the problem by pushing moderate mages to extremes. This of course then push Hawke to the extreme of the either  fighting the Templar to protect(Bethany and Merrill) or  Sideing with  Templar( if the player chooses). All of this thuse push the entire world  to the extreme of War.  The  Templars and the Chantry have entirely too much power  in  Circles and checks.  The Mages don't have enough power over their own fates so they gasp at anything will give the power of their own circumstance(even things  that could in the be very harmful).  The People  feel like they have  no power  to protect themselves from the Mages so they turn a to System that in of itself is broken thus making themselves  prision in there own right when the families are broken up.   

The system as it is set to fail eventually it HAD to change - the thing  funny about change is that its fact of life and if held up   forcefully for too long  can come about violently and be destructive(So change in its nature is destructive). In this case Anders starting the war.    Which now after rather long  post  brings me back to the  Mother. Was see being  apathetic or did she see the writing on the wall and realized the neither side  could resolve the whole thing peaceful.  That at some point  Meridith would have stopped listening to her or maybe she get someone new as Knight Commander - that person could be worst than Meridith( That is a possibility).  Now I am so pacifist that hates  war no, sometimes the extremes  ARE the only but only after all other avenues have been extustated. What  aggrivating about the conflict is DA 2 is that they did not even try. Hell at least try. no its This or That. Us or Them.  You  the Chantry did not even  Say  "HEy you know  breaking up families and stripping away peoples emotions is harsh. Give someone that much power over another person is wrong  in same its wrong for a blood mage to domninate a person.  Is this really best way we can go about this?" It was just "Oh there is no other way -  EVEN after exhusting all Options...I don't even think i could condone what the Chantry was doing  and enviroment  they breed and created.  Yet IF the extremes were not taken that enviroment migh not exist anyways.   

This is pretty long...I may just make it a blog.