Am I the only one not upset by what Anders did?
#1
Escrito 21 marzo 2011 - 06:20
#2
Escrito 21 marzo 2011 - 06:21
No. No matter what the question is the answer is NO you are not.
#3
Escrito 21 marzo 2011 - 06:22
#4
Escrito 21 marzo 2011 - 06:25
Editado por electrickalgypsy, 21 marzo 2011 - 07:35 .
#5
Escrito 21 marzo 2011 - 06:32
#6
Escrito 21 marzo 2011 - 06:38
Ryzaki wrote...
If you ever find yourself asking a "AM I the only one...'
No. No matter what the question is the answer is NO you are not.
Thank you.
#7
Escrito 21 marzo 2011 - 06:40
#8
Escrito 21 marzo 2011 - 06:41
#9
Escrito 21 marzo 2011 - 06:46
Editado por Majikks, 21 marzo 2011 - 06:48 .
#10
Escrito 21 marzo 2011 - 07:08
#11
Escrito 21 marzo 2011 - 07:15
#12
Escrito 21 marzo 2011 - 07:16
What he did brings up many sociological and philosophical issues that are relevant to my interests.
#13
Escrito 21 marzo 2011 - 07:27
#14
Escrito 21 marzo 2011 - 07:49
#15
Escrito 21 marzo 2011 - 07:49
#16
Escrito 21 marzo 2011 - 07:57
#17
Escrito 21 marzo 2011 - 08:03
#18
Escrito 21 marzo 2011 - 08:19
My second playthrough I wasn't even siding with the mages and the chantry lady made me seethe, lol.
My mage Hawke was just upset he didn't tell her, but understood why he didn't. They ran off into the sunset having started a revolution.
My rogue Hawke was just "damnit Anders, now I have to side with the templars to try to stop war in its infancy! you're making me see Meredith's point and you know how I despise her!" LOL
Anders point about their compromise not really being a compromise - very well put!
#19
Escrito 21 marzo 2011 - 08:33
Compromise was truly no longer an option, this had to end. Rhiannon and Anders went off into the sunset, fighting for a world where their children could be born free.
#20
Escrito 21 marzo 2011 - 08:36
Omg Exactly there were no peaceful options.Tyrium wrote...
I'm glad there are others. I'm starting to feel pretty in the minority. I don't regard it as terrorism - it was not a civilian building, not was it done in order to kill civilians. It was done to remove someone who refused to take real action when action could have helped, and was now allowing a much worse cycle to continue. More templar squeeze -> more evil mages -> more templar squeeze etc. I don't like the fact that there were innocents in there, but there was no other way to eliminate her, and it was necessary to eliminate her to end this in the only way it could be - open war. That said, I'm glad he didn't tell her, because she would have tried to find another option, then she would have agreed to help, and been paralysed with guilt. She was upset he lied to her, but its better for her this way, and she understands he was protecting her. She was very upset, but when he explained his reasoning for why he blew up the chantry, she realised it was certainly not mad vengeance, it was well reasoned, and honestly the only available option. It also helps that he's not all triumphant, he is devastated that this is the only option. It
Compromise was truly no longer an option, this had to end. Rhiannon and Anders went off into the sunset, fighting for a world where their children could be born free.
#21
Escrito 21 marzo 2011 - 08:47
You can be fine with what he did but don't think that was not terrorism cuz it is=].Tyrium wrote...
I'm glad there are others. I'm starting to feel pretty in the minority. I don't regard it as terrorism - it was not a civilian building, not was it done in order to kill civilians. It was done to remove someone who refused to take real action when action could have helped, and was now allowing a much worse cycle to continue. More templar squeeze -> more evil mages -> more templar squeeze etc. I don't like the fact that there were innocents in there, but there was no other way to eliminate her, and it was necessary to eliminate her to end this in the only way it could be - open war. That said, I'm glad he didn't tell her, because she would have tried to find another option, then she would have agreed to help, and been paralysed with guilt. She was upset he lied to her, but its better for her this way, and she understands he was protecting her. She was very upset, but when he explained his reasoning for why he blew up the chantry, she realised it was certainly not mad vengeance, it was well reasoned, and honestly the only available option. It also helps that he's not all triumphant, he is devastated that this is the only option. It
Compromise was truly no longer an option, this had to end. Rhiannon and Anders went off into the sunset, fighting for a world where their children could be born free.
#22
Escrito 21 marzo 2011 - 09:09
The building in question was a church; this somewhat mirrors history (e.g. Christianity and the various Christian military orders).it was not a civilian building, not was it done in order to kill civilians
In any case, I fail to see how getting the entire general population - already terrified of the mages' power - to side with the templars will help matters. If the mages lose the fight then templars elsewhere will treat mages even more harshly (Kirkwall is what happens if you delay annulment!); if the mages win then the templars, possibly after first slaughtering all mages in their charge, will raise an army and march for Kirkwall (the chantry was blown up and the templar garrison murdered by bloodmages).
However, the Knight-commander was conveniently driven insane by the lyrium idol, avoiding immediate open war. A decision is not necessarily correct just because it happened to lead to the best possible outcome [buying a lottery ticket is dumb even if you buy the winning ticket].
Also, Orsino's demands that the Right of Annulment is revoked since an apostate blew up the chantry is silly - Meredith could just execute any circle mage guilty of a capital offence. The Right of Annulment, however, is invoked specifically to legalize the execution of innocents for the greater good.
Editado por AlexMBrennan, 21 marzo 2011 - 09:13 .
#23
Guest_Ineffable Igor_*
Escrito 21 marzo 2011 - 09:10
Guest_Ineffable Igor_*
#24
Escrito 21 marzo 2011 - 09:22
#25
Escrito 21 marzo 2011 - 09:23
She argued with Anders over what he was doing, attempted to get the Grand Cleric to leave, and when she wouldn't, and gave that 'No one would dare kill me.' speech, decided that if that's the way they wanted it, they'd have blood. Which made the 'Anders, what have you done?' line slightly dodgy because she knew he was going to do something bad to the Chantry, she wasn't stupid.
So yes, in that runthrough, I/she agreed with him, kind of.
Whether my other characters will think the same, time will tell, and on a personal level, I can understand but I still facepalmed mightily. It's a little hard asking 'do I agree' when I'm living in a totally different world to the one they know.





Volver arriba





