4350 réponses à ce sujet

[GavrielKay]

In Exile wrote...

I would certainly agree that the Chantry as a whole and Elthina herself are complicit in enabling the abuses of Meredith and her ilk. But there is a tremendous difference between enabling as a result of inaction and incompetence (or through lack of oversight) and actively perpretating and supporting these individuals.

The Chantry controls a military force that is often larger than the state forces in any given area.  They control this force with dogma and lyrium addiction in a way that no state army or city guard is controlled.  I would argue that the Chantry makes itself a military target because of this.

[In Exile]

Plaintiff wrote...

It's pretty obvious why Anders doesn't target the Templars directly.

1) Their barracks are IN the Gallows, where the mages live. Blowing up the Gallows would defeat his purpose, expecting him to do that is just stupid. Even if he could control the size of the explosion, there is no way to guarantee the safety of the mages, and they need to be alive so they can defend themselves when Meredith flips her ****.

The templars and mages, luckly, don't actually live anywhere near each other. In fact, the templar quarters are (given how the gallows seem to be set up at the endgame) separated by several rooms if not on opposite sides of the gallows.

ETA:

Moreover, you're granting that if the explosion is so massive as to be able to take out the Gallows, that it very likely killed non-Chantry in Hightown. So Anders quite clealry took innocents with him in his bombing. Are you honestly defending this sort of tactic?

More generally, Anders's actions show he doesn't give a flying **** about the safety of the mages, given that he says that aware that his actions would lead to the Rite of Annulment. He wants the mages to rise up and try to kill the templars, and sees any mage dead as a result of his bombing of the Chantry as a martyr of the great cause ™.

If he struck a direct blow against the templars, they'd be so weak as to allow the other mages to potentially kill the survivors and break free.

Of course, that would prevent his victimization, which is (IMO) the real goal. He wanted the Rite against the Kirkwall Circle beause that would make them sympathetic.

2) He has no idea who the guilty individuals are. He only knows of Alrik, who is (probably) dead.

But they're all templars. If (by your argument below) the priests and Grand Cleric are guilty by association, certainly the templars (and these are the templars who didn't rebell against Meredith) are absoutely guilty.

So he'd be killing the guilty, in your and his logic, by killing templars - the abominable evil arm of the Chantry that perpretates these abuses and oppresses the mages.

3) The Chantry is at the root of the problem, ultimately. Killing the Templars will affect nothing, long-term. The Chantry can just send more. It is the Chantry that needs to be attacked and weakened if lasting change is to occur.

Right, because that won't drive up templar recruitment like crazy. You're actually suggesting the mages start a holy war. Do you realize how insane a proposition that is, for the mages?

As for killing Ella, Justice clearly had control and if you pay any attention to the dialogue, it's clear that Justice thinks she's a templar. She doesn't just 'question' him, she says "Get away from me, demon!" (way to be grateful to the guy who just saved you from getting tranquilied and raped, by the way).

Did you miss the part where he is an abomination? Anders lost any capacity to distinguish friend from foe, being possed by an enraged and unstable demon. He mentions several times that he can feel the thoughts from Justice, that he doesn't know where he ends and where Justice begins.

If Justice 'in control' immediately marks Ella as an antagonist, what makes you think Anders doesn't constantly 'hear' whispers about how all the people who worship in the Chantry are complicit, how the priests need to die.. etc.

Justice's response is "I am no demon! Are you one of them (a templar), that you would call me such?" We already know that being called a demon is one of Justice's hot buttons, and her inability to tell a demon from a spirit could be considered evidence that she is a Templar, and thus a sworn enemy.

Anders is an abomination. Again. Pointing that out.

Demons don't posses humans. Anders is a possed human. I think expecting her to take a really nuanced view of the situation (where spirits as a role don't interact with humans) is a little on the silly side.

Modifié par In Exile, 23 mai 2011 - 04:36 .

[In Exile]

dragonflight288 wrote...
You make good, debatable points. The point I was making is that no matter what happens, the winner will write the history of all this. And Anders/Justice does threaten a lot of people. But, as Plaintiff mentions, Justice had control while attacking Ella. 

But Anders himself says that he isn't "Anders" anymore. He's both. And he can hear "Justice's" thoughts and feel "Justice's" feelings. Anders has one worldview - and that's the one where there is an enemy and he is fighting against it. Ella is just proof of Anders' instability.

But I also think that Justice is not even considering his and Anders...exceptional circumstances. Anders and Justice voluntarily merged. I can't think of any other example where a fade spirit and a human both agreed to merge. In Wynne's case she was dying and the spirit pulled her back, what Anders did was a conscious decision.

Justice isn't one for considering much of anything. That's, really, the tragedy of the situation. He (it? is capable of only seeing one thing: injustice. Just like how a demon of desire sees only desires. Anders, thematically, is meant to show us that any virtue, taken to an extreme, is no longer a virtue at all. Think about it: desire, pride, anger ... none of these are in themselves bad. Even sloth protects us from breaking down from overwork.

How would Ella know that? How would any mage that didn't know Anders? Their whole experience with abominations are humans making stupid deals with demons or being forcibly possessed by one.

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that Anders and Justice have a single perspective limited to a certain viewpoint. Anders and his view that everyone hates mages because they're mages, and Justice with the view of ultimate Justice...or vengeance in the case of templars. They aren't really thinking about other viewpoints.

I agree with you. Entirely, actually. But my point is that this makes Anders unstable. He uses his warped view of the world to push a political agenda, and sacrifices the mages in Kirkwall for the sake of his grand cause.

Plaintiff made some good points for not attacking the gallows. Meredith's office is right across the hall from Orsino's after all. Blowing up one will likely blow up the other.

But, again, Anders is happy to have the Kirkwall Circle annuled for his cause. He's shown very little concern for individual mages as 'slaves' (as he put it).

[In Exile]

Silfren wrote...
Oh, I'm aware it was Irving's idea...although honestly, I can easily picture Greagoir being part of that whole plan.  Even without any evidence for it, Irving and Greagoir seemed to be able to work together more or less, even if they did obviously clash.  (I don't especially have any opinion on whether Greagoir knew about that, I just can see it both ways). I'm not particularly concerned with who was responsible for that practice, I still find it despicable.  I mentioned it mainly as an aside, not part and parcel the overall point. 

Which plan? To capture blood mages? I'm not so sure. He was very against Irving's machination with Jowan. I think Gregoire would protest that the lure is too dangerous. Blood magic, at least in his view, does not seem to be a thing to triffle with. He would not stand for blood mages actually being fostered in the Circle to be culled.

It strikes me, the more I think about it, that this was Irving's plan to remove potentially dangerous mages from the Circle and protect it as a whole. It's an injustice you can, fundamentally, lay at the feet of the Chantry for creating an oppresive system, but it goes to show you that Irving's hands aren't clean in this.

GavrielKay wrote...
The Chantry controls a military force that
is often larger than the state forces in any given area.  They control
this force with dogma and lyrium addiction in a way that no state army
or city guard is controlled.  I would argue that the Chantry makes
itself a military target because of this.

The Chantry
controls a well armed police force - unless you would consider the city guard
a standing army?

More generally, would you consider government buildings, staffed with civilians, military targets? That what yo're arguing.

The Chantry could, potentially, direct the templars in the same way that a politician might direct a standing army, but they are no more in charge of their day-to-day operations than an MP is for a Lt's actions.

[Xilizhra]

It strikes me, the more I think about it, that this was Irving's plan to remove potentially dangerous mages from the Circle and protect it as a whole. It's an injustice you can, fundamentally, lay at the feet of the Chantry for creating an oppresive system, but it goes to show you that Irving's hands aren't clean in this.

One reason why I believe Orsino was a better First Enchanter.

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...
One reason why I believe Orsino was a better First Enchanter.

Collaboratin with necromancing serial-killers who he was sure was 'too evil' is the better choice? Irving may be a schemer and a backstabber, but at least he wasn't, well, potentially shielding a serial killer.

[Xilizhra]

In Exile wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
One reason why I believe Orsino was a better First Enchanter.

Collaboratin with necromancing serial-killers who he was sure was 'too evil' is the better choice? Irving may be a schemer and a backstabber, but at least he wasn't, well, potentially shielding a serial killer.

At least Orsino was willing to a finger to protect his own people and not set them up to be mindraped.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xilizhra wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
One reason why I believe Orsino was a better First Enchanter.

Collaboratin with necromancing serial-killers who he was sure was 'too evil' is the better choice? Irving may be a schemer and a backstabber, but at least he wasn't, well, potentially shielding a serial killer.

At least Orsino was willing to a finger to protect his own people and not set them up to be mindraped.

And oh how wonderfully that worked out for him and the rest of the mages.

[Xilizhra]

Hey. they made it seven years without Stalindith killing them all. If Irving was First Enchanter, the Gallows would be empty in a week.

[GavrielKay]

In Exile wrote...

The Chantry controls a well armed police force - unless you would consider the city guard a standing army?

More generally, would you consider government buildings, staffed with civilians, military targets? That what yo're arguing.

The Chantry could, potentially, direct the templars in the same way that a politician might direct a standing army, but they are no more in charge of their day-to-day operations than an MP is for a Lt's actions.

The city guard is not an international military force of lyrium addicted sworn-for-life soldiers.

But the Chantry aren't simple paper pushers in this situation.  They preach the dogma that keeps mages oppressed and motivates the Templars and ordinary citizens to mistrust and fear the mages.  They control the flow of lyrium to keep the Templars in check and limit the powers of the mages.  They are very much involved in the situation, even if they don't track the number of quills on Meredith's desk.

[TEWR]

David Gaider said that the Harvester was basically a super-abomination and not a golem (pretty obvious actually from Amgarrak lore), so I think maybe Quentin was doing research on Abominations and that's what piqued Orsino's interest. How abominations can be even more powerful then what Thedas has faced.

Maybe Quentin was doing this type of research when he was, well, sane.

[Deztyn]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

The Blight and the inlux of Fereldan refugees was a problem the city guard,and weak Viscount were unable to handle.The Qunari attack and the death of the Viscount is what allowed her to take almost complete
control of Kirkwall.

Irrelevent to the mage question. The state of Kirkwall as a city-state is not what we are talking about here and should be of little concern to a KC. It only becomes relevent once the KC involved herself in those concerns, which is a key root of the problem.
Furthermore, they were the ones to put a weak Viscount in the first place.

An influx on refugees has no bearing at all in the mage question. Neither did the Qunari invasion. What it did was pave the way for Meredith to be even more incompetent.

But I'm not, and never was, talking about just the mage question. My original point was that while the thin veil ensured craziness was going to happen with the mages at some point (and annulments had already happened in Kirkwall before) everything else combined to make the situation in Kirkwall so particularly toxic.

If you want to say, "Meredith never should have had that influence." Sure. Fine. But she did have that influence and she had it for some ten years before the game without things reaching critical mass. That happened over the course of seven years in game, and those events lead me to believe that if you just dropped a new Knight Commander in at any point into the same situation things may have still gone to hell. And if you remove a few of the other problems and the crazytime idol, the situation in Kirkwall could have continued to be stable even with Meredith at the head.

Starkhaven was already her responsibility.

One she obviously can't handle.

Perhaps. But Elthina was the Grand Cleric over most of the Free Marches, not just Kirkwall. Moving the mages of one Circle under her jurisdiction into the other
Circle under her jurisdiction does not change the burden placed on her.

[Plaintiff]

In Exile wrote...
The templars and mages, luckly, don't actually live anywhere near each other. In fact, the templar quarters are (given how the gallows seem to be set up at the endgame) separated by several rooms if not on opposite sides of the gallows.

We don't know where the mages live, any mage could inhabit any of the rooms we see. Mages wander the Gallows courtyard frequently.

Moreover, you're granting that if the explosion is so massive as to be able to take out the Gallows, that it very likely killed non-Chantry in Hightown. So Anders quite clealry took innocents with him in his bombing. Are you honestly defending this sort of tactic?

I'm saying no such thing. I have no idea how large either building is, nor did I say the explosion would take out the Gallows. You're the one arguing he could blow up the Templar barracks within and somehow miraculously leave mages unharmed.

I would not defend Anders tactics except for the fact that it is abundantly clear there is no other way. The mages have no leverage or clout, you said earlier that the Circle convention or what-the-****-ever decided not to try and break free of Chantry control, but their reason for doing this, as Wynne points out, is that "the Chantry would sooner see us dead than free". Violence is their only recourse to effect a change in the unconscienable status quo.

More generally, Anders's actions show he doesn't give a flying **** about the safety of the mages, given that he says that aware that his actions would lead to the Rite of Annulment. He wants the mages to rise up and try to kill the templars, and sees any mage dead as a result of his bombing of the Chantry as a martyr of the great cause ™.

I didn't say he cared about their safety in the long term. He needs them alive so they can revolt. And they damn well should. They should've ages ago. 

If he struck a direct blow against the templars, they'd be so weak as to allow the other mages to potentially kill the survivors and break free.

And there's no guarantee the mages would do any such thing. Only  a scant few ever make the effort to escape, whether they desire freedom or otherwise. Their hand nees to be forced. 

But they're all templars. If (by your argument below) the priests and Grand Cleric are guilty by association, certainly the templars (and these are the templars who didn't rebell against Meredith) are absoutely guilty.

So he'd be killing the guilty, in your and his logic, by killing templars - the abominable evil arm of the Chantry that perpretates these abuses and oppresses the mages.

I didn't say they weren't, but you're the one arguing that he should target only the Templars that "abuse" their power (I use sneer quotes because I consider their power abusive by default), and telling you why that is not feasible. He has no way of investigating and taking out only the rapist templars.

Right, because that won't drive up templar recruitment like crazy. You're actually suggesting the mages start a holy war. Do you realize how insane a proposition that is, for the mages?

Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. It's what Anders suggested in the first place, with his attack on the Chantry.  I consider it far less "insane" than allowing themselves to be systematically abused for another millenium. Even if it is "insane", it's the right and only thing to do.

Did you miss the part where he is an abomination? Anders lost any capacity to distinguish friend from foe, being possed by an enraged and unstable demon. He mentions several times that he can feel the thoughts from Justice, that he doesn't know where he ends and where Justice begins.

Except he didn't, because he works in the sewers as a healer for seven years and doesn't rampage around Kirkwall blasting random bystandars with fireballs. He doesn't attack Hawke when he comes into the clinic, he doesn't attack Thrask or Cullen or Meredith on sight, or even Alrik, until the douchebag starts making rape jokes.

However entangled they may be, it is still easy to discern which one currently holds dominance. Anders has even demonstrated the ability to force Justice into dormancy if so required.

If Justice 'in control' immediately marks Ella as an antagonist, what makes you think Anders doesn't constantly 'hear' whispers about how all the people who worship in the Chantry are complicit, how the priests need to die.. etc.

Because it's her cry of "demon!" that triggers an outburst, not her mere presence. Justice isn't even facing her when she says it, he's talking to Hawke. If he was going to kill her initially, he would've during the fight.

Anders is an abomination. Again. Pointing that out.

So is Wynne, what's your point? We know that abominations and possession aren't as clear cut as the Chantry and Templars would have the people of Thedas believe.

Demons don't posses humans. Anders is a possed human. I think expecting her to take a really nuanced view of the situation (where spirits as a role don't interact with humans) is a little on the silly side.

I think antagonising her saviour is just as, if not more silly. Abominations are generally not in the business of saving strangers. Clearly she's in shock and can't be expected to analyse the situation critically, but commonsense dictates that when your rescuer is ranting about killing templars and you're a mage, you're not exactly in any immediate danger. 

[Silfren]

In Exile wrote...

It strikes me, the more I think about it, that this was Irving's plan to remove potentially dangerous mages from the Circle and protect it as a whole. It's an injustice you can, fundamentally, lay at the feet of the Chantry for creating an oppresive system, but it goes to show you that Irving's hands aren't clean in this.

No doubt.  I don't like the idea of allowing mages like Jowan to be so manipulated.  Sure, you could catch potential troublemakers like Uldred, but I don't think Jowan was really ever a threat.  He says himself that he studied blood magic because he thought it would make him a better mage, and insists he didn't know anything about demons.  I think he's an example of a mage who let innocent curiosity get the better of him, and I find it very difficult to condemn someone for that, especially when the goddamn forbidden books are left within easy access of the apprentices.  The concept of that kind of culling--of cutting down the mostly harmless people damned not by their ill-intentions but by mere curiosity...I find the implications to be abhorrent.  And no, Irving's hands aren't clean in that.  My mention of it was not to lay the blame on any particular set of feet, just to remark on how much I loathe the idea.

It does put me in mind of Anders' comment in Awakening that he hated the First Enchanter.  I never really understood why, but I'd wager Irving's willingness to sacrifice the Jowans of the world was one of the reasons.  I'd hate him too, frankly.

[GavrielKay]

Silfren wrote...

It does put me in mind of Anders' comment in Awakening that he hated the First Enchanter.  I never really understood why, but I'd wager Irving's willingness to sacrifice the Jowans of the world was one of the reasons.  I'd hate him too, frankly.

Yeah, thinking about it, it would be easy for Anders to hate someone who was complaisant in the status quo.

I think the key to Anders' personality is that he is absolutely against the current system.  He believes that anything is better than what is happening to the mages now - even death.  Now, there are likely lots of mages who would disagree and would rather live whatever life was offerend than none at all, but Anders with Justice on board doesn't care about that.

For 1000 years the citizenry have been feeling safer at the mage's expense.  It isn't too hard to imagine Anders/Justice wanting to send a very clear public message that some mages are tired of it.

[In Exile]

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
We don't know where the mages live, any mage could inhabit any of the rooms we see. Mages wander the Gallows courtyard frequently. [/quote]

No, they don't. When Anders exeuted the Master Plan ™ the mages were locked in their rooms.

We know, from the layout in the Gallows, that Meredith's room (and Orsino's) happens to be in the right wing of the Gallows, away and removed from the rest of the building. Just firebombing that gives Anders his chance to kill the real culprit.

[quote]I'm saying no such thing. I have no idea how large either building is, nor did I say the explosion would take out the Gallows. You're the one arguing he could blow up the Templar barracks within and somehow miraculously leave mages unharmed. [/quote]

I didn't argue he could leave the mages unharmed at all. I'm saying Anders is perfectly happy to sacrifice all of the mages on the altar of Vengeance for the sake of his goal. Sacrificing them to kill someone who matters might be justified; but he's not doing that. He's targeting a peripheral if symbolic target to fan the flames of hatred so strongly that war is unavoidable, knowing full well that retaliation from the templars means genocide.

[quote]I would not defend Anders tactics except for the fact that it is abundantly clear there is no other way. The mages have no leverage or clout, you said earlier that the Circle convention or what-the-****-ever decided not to try and break free of Chantry control, but their reason for doing this, as Wynne points out, is that "the Chantry would sooner see us dead than free". Violence is their only recourse to effect a change in the unconscienable status quo.[/quote]

But free =! changes to the circle. I actually said a conference was organized where freedom was discussed. You (or someone else?) mentioned that the Chantry supresses dissent, but that's clearly not the case - the conference went foward and we haven't heard of any mage being imprisoned, killed, or otherwise persecutted for taking part or discussing the issue.

It's not clear at all that there was no choice but to bomb the Chantry. I happen to agree that the mages, given the position of the Chantry, had their backs to the wall and have to fight for their freedom.

But as I'm pointing out right now, there were other more legitimate and justified hammerblows for Anders to strike. That he chose the Chantry, to kill Elthina and spark the Rite, and not even bother to weaken the templars or try to strike a blow for freedom within Kirkwall (just cause a massacre for the sake of his cause) makes him the vilest sort of murderer, and just as guilty as Meredith for what happened because he knew and hoped she would invoke the Rite.

[quote]I didn't say he cared about their safety in the long term. He needs them alive so they can revolt. And they damn well should. They should've ages ago. [/quote]

No, he doesn't. He makes it very clear that the mages in Kirkwall are a sacrifice. His entire plan was that the Circle would be pushed to the bring of Annulment in the hope they would fight back. He doesn't actually care that they live - only that they fight.

He wanted war, not freedom.

[quote]And there's no guarantee the mages would do any such thing. Only  a scant few ever make the effort to escape, whether they desire freedom or otherwise. Their hand nees to be forced. [/quote]

By forcing genocide on them? Are you serious? You're actually saying Anders was justified in encouraging a madwoman to commit genocide? You're rejecting the plan because it didn't push the mages enough with fear of death?

[quote didn't say they weren't, but you're the one arguing that he should target only the Templars that "abuse" their power (I use sneer quotes because I consider their power abusive by default), and telling you why that is not feasible. He has no way of investigating and taking out only the rapist templars.[/quote]

That's not what I'm arguing at all. That's a fiction you've invented. I'm saying Anders was justified in bombing the Chantry - it was all a mad sacrifice for the sake of his vanity and worldview. I'm saying that if Anders actually cared about mage freedom, he'd have done lots of other things - like the things I listed.

I'm saying the people who are defending Anders (i.e. I am accusing you) of vilifying, at best, an enabler while effectively defending the real murders. Sure, you have stern words for them... but your plan seems to involve totally hoping the mages could win (which, if Kirkwall is any indication... no, not really). Karras just gets a free pass to rape prisoners of war, and any would be Alirk gets all the tranquils he/she from terrified mages that surrender.

[quote]Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. It's what Anders suggested in the first place, with his attack on the Chantry.  I consider it far less "insane" than allowing themselves to be systematically abused for another millenium. Even if it is "insane", it's the right and only thing to do.[/quote]

Genocide is the right thing to do? Seriously? You're arguing that the system of rape and imprisonment is wrong, but the action done for the sole sake of having the Circle die brutally, to the last child, at the hands of the templars is justified?

[quote]Except he didn't, because he works in the sewers as a healer for seven years and doesn't rampage around Kirkwall blasting random bystandars with fireballs. He doesn't attack Hawke when he comes into the clinic, he doesn't attack Thrask or Cullen or Meredith on sight, or even Alrik, until the douchebag starts making rape jokes.

However entangled they may be, it is still easy to discern which one currently holds dominance. Anders has even demonstrated the ability to force Justice into dormancy if so required.[/quote]

Except for how he says that Justice overwhelms him more and more, and he's losing control, and he can't force him back? And when he sees Arlik, he's completely overwhlemed, and if not for Hawke (and sometimes even with Hawke) he cannot get control over Justice before he kills Ella?

Not to mention that you've avoided the main point entirely: Anders hears Justice's thoughts. Justice is incapable of judging friend from foe (that's who I was refering to in my post, in case it wasn't clear) and for all we know Justice is just whispering "Kill the templars!" non-stop for years.

Anders is, at best, hearing benelovent voices. That's the lead his following in his grand crusade.

[quote]Because it's her cry of "demon!" that triggers an outburst, not her mere presence. Justice isn't even facing her when she says it, he's talking to Hawke. If he was going to kill her initially, he would've during the fight.[/quote]

He does killer her. If you don't stop him. So I don't know what game you played, but Justice was 100% aboard the kill train.

[quote]So is Wynne, what's your point? We know that abominations and possession aren't as clear cut as the Chantry and Templars would have the people of Thedas believe.[/quote]

Except that they are. We've seen one not go horribly wrong (yet): Wynne. And Anders is very clearly not Wynne from the start. Anders just about embodies the whole "Don't go out and make deals with spirits!" line of the Chantry, gvien that he's at the very least driven half mad (by his own admission) by Justice, if not twisted so much so that he can no longer even consciously choose whether or not to engange in terrorism.

[quote]I think antagonising her saviour is just as, if not more silly. Abominations are generally not in the business of saving strangers. Clearly she's in shock and can't be expected to analyse the situation critically, but commonsense dictates that when your rescuer is ranting about killing templars and you're a mage, you're not exactly in any immediate danger. [/quote]

If he's glowing and is everthing you've ever been told to fear, and the nightmare that you're afraid of becoming, yeah, I'd say there's a hell of a lot to be afraid of.

Actual abominations have plenty of reasons to kill templars (e.g. templars hunt them).

Modifié par In Exile, 23 mai 2011 - 06:45 .

[Dave of Canada]

Xilizhra wrote...

Hey. they made it seven years without Stalindith killing them all. If Irving was First Enchanter, the Gallows would be empty in a week.

Because he'd let blood mages be punished?

[In Exile]

Silfren wrote...
No doubt.  I don't like the idea of allowing mages like Jowan to be so manipulated.  Sure, you could catch potential troublemakers like Uldred, but I don't think Jowan was really ever a threat. He says himself that he studied blood magic because he thought it would make him a better mage, and insists he didn't know anything about demons.  I think he's an example of a mage who let innocent curiosity get the better of him, and I find it very difficult to condemn someone for that, especially when the goddamn forbidden books are left within easy access of the apprentices.

I don't particularly like it when anyone is used as pawns. I can relate to the situation that Irving is in - sacrifices for the greater good and so on.

That being said, why isn't Jowan a threat? He's a liar and pretty selfish (e.g. worked with Loghain to poison Eamon). He says he studied blood magic because he thought it would make him a better mage, but it isn't clear at all where that progression ends.

I happen to think Jowan would have easily justified mind-control or the more sadistic aspects of blood magic if the right opportunity came along, as easily as he justified poisoning the Arl.

The concept of that kind of culling--of cutting down the mostly harmless people damned not by their ill-intentions but by mere curiosity...I find the implications to be abhorrent.  And no, Irving's hands aren't clean in that.  My mention of it was not to lay the blame on any particular set of feet, just to remark on how much I loathe the idea.

I just think it's important to point out that a lot of the abuses of the Circle system, even if mages are granted freedoms, won't go away.

Children will still need to be taken from their parents to be trained. Even if you have absolutely freedom for mages (e.g. Tevinter), that's just the cost effective way to do it. If mages forbid blood magic themselves, for example,

It does put me in mind of Anders' comment in Awakening that he hated the First Enchanter.  I never really understood why, but I'd wager Irving's willingness to sacrifice the Jowans of the world was one of the reasons.  I'd hate him too, frankly.

Irving isn't all bad. But he'll protect the group at the cost of the individual, and he'll sacrifice people in a hurry for his aims (like with Lily, to punish the Chantry).

[In Exile]

GavrielKay wrote...
I think the key to Anders' personality is that he is absolutely against the current system.  He believes that anything is better than what is happening to the mages now - even death.  Now, there are likely lots of mages who would disagree and would rather live whatever life was offerend than none at all, but Anders with Justice on board doesn't care about that.

For 1000 years the citizenry have been feeling safer at the mage's expense.  It isn't too hard to imagine Anders/Justice wanting to send a very clear public message that some mages are tired of it.

It's more than that, though. Anders feels that all current mages need to be against it. He bombed the Chantry to make it so that all mages have to be against it  - that their only other choice would be to die. Anders didn't do what he did to send a message to non-mages; he did it to send a message to the mages.

[TEWR]

GavrielKay wrote...

Silfren wrote...

It does put me in mind of Anders' comment in Awakening that he hated the First Enchanter.  I never really understood why, but I'd wager Irving's willingness to sacrifice the Jowans of the world was one of the reasons.  I'd hate him too, frankly.

Yeah, thinking about it, it would be easy for Anders to hate someone who was complaisant in the status quo.

I think the key to Anders' personality is that he is absolutely against the current system.  He believes that anything is better than what is happening to the mages now - even death.  Now, there are likely lots of mages who would disagree and would rather live whatever life was offerend than none at all, but Anders with Justice on board doesn't care about that.

For 1000 years the citizenry have been feeling safer at the mage's expense.  It isn't too hard to imagine Anders/Justice wanting to send a very clear public message that some mages are tired of it.

a lot of people have said that the two incarnations of Anders are completely different people, but really they aren't. Anders was a fairly dark and twisted person in Awakening. He just covered it up very well using jokes as a defense mechanism.

• He makes no secret of how he hates Chantry oversight
  
• He wants to kill every Templar in creation
  
• The only reason he dislikes the notion of mages pulling away from the Circle is because it would lead to death, though in DA2 he does see this as better than what they have to suffer now.
  
• Wasn't he torn away from his family in chains? That had to have affected his mindset.
  
• The solitary confinement for a year probably didn't help either.
  
• He took joy in watching a possessed Mr. Wiggums kill 3 Templars. Then again, who wouldn't? That would make me start laughing uncontrollably.

and there are probably others. Anders definitely grew fed up with it. I imagine that for a time when he was with the Wardens he was happier until the Templar Warden incident.

also, another reason to abhor Meredith is addressed in banter between Anders and Aveline in Act 3.



[*]Anders: Your husband agrees with me.

[*]Aveline: About what?

[*]Anders: He thinks the knight-commander's mad. He told me she's gone behind your back to investigate guardsmen she suspects as secret mages.

[*]Aveline: Even if that were true, he wouldn't tell you.

[*]Anders: He won't fight for her when the time comes. Would you turn against your own husband?

[*]Aveline: I don't know if you're lying or crazy.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 23 mai 2011 - 06:55 .

[Dave of Canada]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

also, another reason to abhor Meredith is addressed in banter between Anders and Aveline in Act 3.

To be fair, Anders isn't the sanest and most reasonable person in Act 3. His banter in general suggests he's trying to provoke/blame Aveline, it wouldn't be the first time he's lied / exaggerated to try and spread his opinion.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 23 mai 2011 - 06:58 .

[TEWR]

considering Donnic is friendly with most of Hawke's companions, I wouldn't rule it out. I doubt this is to provoke Aveline as it is something I can see Meredith trying to pull.

Remember this is the woman who accuses her Templars of being blood mage thralls after an Annulment has been carried out and accuses you of being a blood mage thrall if you were honest with her about Orsino having nothing to do with the rebellion.

[Drachasor]

GavrielKay wrote...

In Exile wrote...

The Chantry controls a well armed police force - unless you would consider the city guard a standing army?

More generally, would you consider government buildings, staffed with civilians, military targets? That what yo're arguing.

The Chantry could, potentially, direct the templars in the same way that a politician might direct a standing army, but they are no more in charge of their day-to-day operations than an MP is for a Lt's actions.

The city guard is not an international military force of lyrium addicted sworn-for-life soldiers.

But the Chantry aren't simple paper pushers in this situation.  They preach the dogma that keeps mages oppressed and motivates the Templars and ordinary citizens to mistrust and fear the mages.  They control the flow of lyrium to keep the Templars in check and limit the powers of the mages.  They are very much involved in the situation, even if they don't track the number of quills on Meredith's desk.

That's certainly true, but what are you going to do about it?  This would be like abolitionists before the American Civil War bombing southern Churches whose ministers quoted bible passages that endorse slavery.  It's absolutely INSANE on many levels.  First, you are going to kill a lot of innocents.  Second, it is going to provoke a reactionary response, cementing opposition more firmly than anything else could.  Third, it isn't going to get rid of those beliefs...what's the big plan there, Anders, kill everyone that believes in the Maker or likes the Chantry?  Fourth, it is just bad strategy, since it will get the people AGAINST you rather than for you.

Targeting Templars, helping Mages escape to Tevinter (not ideal, but better than nothing), etc, etc, would all be more sensible ways to go.  Going by how DA has shown the situation, mages rebelling is going to end with them all dead.  Bias against mages runs very deep and support of the Chantry is very strong.  If they rebelled then they'd all be killed by Templars and the common folk.  The odd thing is how at the end of DA2 the Templars inexplicably leave the Chantry (this makes no sense on many levels), and so the mages magically are able to declare their freedom.  It's a very...inexplicable way to go.

[In Exile]

Drachasor wrote...
The odd thing is how at the end of DA2 the Templars inexplicably leave the Chantry (this makes no sense on many levels), and so the mages magically are able to declare their freedom.  It's a very...inexplicable way to go.

I think the deal is this: the mages rise up in other places, and the Chantry preaches restraint. The templars tell the Chantry to go to hell and they pursue mages on their own.

[DKJaigen]

In Exile wrote...

Silfren wrote...
No doubt.  I don't like the idea of allowing mages like Jowan to be so manipulated.  Sure, you could catch potential troublemakers like Uldred, but I don't think Jowan was really ever a threat. He says himself that he studied blood magic because he thought it would make him a better mage, and insists he didn't know anything about demons.  I think he's an example of a mage who let innocent curiosity get the better of him, and I find it very difficult to condemn someone for that, especially when the goddamn forbidden books are left within easy access of the apprentices.

I don't particularly like it when anyone is used as pawns. I can relate to the situation that Irving is in - sacrifices for the greater good and so on.

That being said, why isn't Jowan a threat? He's a liar and pretty selfish (e.g. worked with Loghain to poison Eamon). He says he studied blood magic because he thought it would make him a better mage, but it isn't clear at all where that progression ends.

No your wrong on that. Jowan made stupid mistakes but if he is so selfish then why would he stick around to safe eamon. furthermore its clear that Jowan poisoned the Arl because he was led to beleive that he was doing his country a favor.

I happen to think Jowan would have easily justified mind-control or the more sadistic aspects of blood magic if the right opportunity came along, as easily as he justified poisoning the Arl.

Same can be said for you and me.

The concept of that kind of culling--of cutting down the mostly harmless people damned not by their ill-intentions but by mere curiosity...I find the implications to be abhorrent.  And no, Irving's hands aren't clean in that.  My mention of it was not to lay the blame on any particular set of feet, just to remark on how much I loathe the idea.

I just think it's important to point out that a lot of the abuses of the Circle system, even if mages are granted freedoms, won't go away.

Children will still need to be taken from their parents to be trained. Even if you have absolutely freedom for mages (e.g. Tevinter), that's just the cost effective way to do it. If mages forbid blood magic themselves, for example,

Thats not abuses, thats pragmatism and even i a fervent mage supporter realise thatyour own ability's must be controlled. Also some aspects of the chantry doesnt make sense. Why are the mages not allowed the aid the coomon people with magic. have a family and marriage, Because all these things would erode the people's fear of magic. And if people do not fear they are not as easily controlled by the chantry.

Do you beleive that the chantry is created for the common good? wake mate and learn about human history. Dicatators and religious institutions have controlled the masses for centuries with imagined fears.  

Modifié par DKJaigen, 23 mai 2011 - 10:16 .