350 réponses à ce sujet

[CRISIS1717]

You can't justify murder, Anders destroyed the thing that was holding the peace together and now everyone will suffer because of it. Innocents will die and continue to die now.

[ShrinkingFish]

Lianaar wrote...

It matters not if they were innocent or not, because Anders didn't care. The possible chance of having a wedding in the chappel just then, and having all folks there, or not having instead a how to harm non-Chantry believes cleric meeting just then was there. He didn't take into consideration who will die. He attacked an institute. He ignored the individual people. So I would relaly htink innocence is secondary in this part. He killed people because they were not thinking like him.

He knew. He knew what he did was wrong. That it was unforgivable. That it was a reprehensible crime. That he was taking a turn down a dark and terrible road from which there was no return. But he also knew that it was necessary. And he had the strength to make the hard choice that no one wants to make.

[ShrinkingFish]

CRISIS1717 wrote...

You can't justify murder, Anders destroyed the thing that was holding the peace together and now everyone will suffer because of it. Innocents will die and continue to die now.

Maybe you can't, but I certainly can.

And the Chantry wasn't holding peace together. It was perpetuating a cycle of abuse, death and torment. He broke the Chantry and thusly broke the only thing holding that cycle together. He made change possible.

Plus, this type of war is a good thing. It gets rid of the bad blood. All the zealots will happily and enthusiastically kill one another until they're all dead. And good riddance to them. In the end we can enjoy some well earned peace purchased with the blood of thousands.

Happy ending.

[Ingu]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

The fact that you don't see future, enormous, world changing explosions is a bit troubling. Plus, if he lives, he's going to rush off and fight in the war he just started!

AND! Justice and Anders were tied for second place as my favorite companion in Awakening.... you know what that means right?

Thats right... Anders/Justice blew my f**king mind!

Tied second... who's first? O.o Or is this in the sense that they're both first and second at the same time...

And, hey, wait, I can see it... though who he is exploding? D= Running off to Orlais to explode the Divine?  Makes scary sense considering all arrows pointing towards Orlais for the setting of the next game. And he regretted blowing up the Chantry enough from what I can see, don't tell me his going to dig himself into a deeper hole! D=

[Lianaar]

ShrinkingFish wrote...He knew. He knew what he did was wrong. That it was unforgivable. That it was a reprehensible crime. That he was taking a turn down a dark and terrible road from which there was no return. But he also knew that it was necessary. And he had the strength to make the hard choice that no one wants to make.

He killed people because they didn't agree with him. That simple. It doesn't matter wether he was right or not. He killed simply because they didn't agree. He didn't kill Meredith, he didn't kill Templars. He killed a group that didn't support him in his goals. So they didn't agree with him.  He didn't kill those who actually commited the crimes. He didn't care wether those people are good or bad. He accepted, that some good people will die for him to be correct.

It is like.. uhm... blowing up the parlament for inducing tax on me, because I don't want to pay taxes. I bet many politicians are not innocent. It will still be a narrow minded murder. Ideological? Aimed at the good? Yeah. But still wrong.

You should never act for a group in a manner the group does not seek it. And from the reaction most mages were pretty pissed at him for this.

I say, he has his reasons and within his life it was not random, as in there were steps leading to it, and the action is not off character. I can see some personalities that would side and agree with his methods. But it bleeds from many wounds as soon as you step away from the base preset, that all mages are happy with his choice.

[ShrinkingFish]

PlumPaul82393 wrote...


so is justice still in anders by the end or does he magically disappear? if he's still in him isn't that more of a reason why anders can't be left alive?

Justice is not so much within him as Ander and Justice are one and the same person.

And no. That is most certainly a reason that Anders must be left alive.

[Ingu]

CRISIS1717 wrote...

You can't justify murder, Anders destroyed the thing that was holding the peace together and now everyone will suffer because of it. Innocents will die and continue to die now.

1. Well, what about capital punishment? That was justified for a long time before society decided otherwise.

2. Part of the process...

3. Yep.

But do the ends justify the means? O.o That's the biggest question really.

[ShrinkingFish]

Lianaar wrote...

He killed people because they didn't agree with him. That simple. It doesn't matter wether he was right or not. He killed simply because they didn't agree. He didn't kill Meredith, he didn't kill Templars. He killed a group that didn't support him in his goals. So they didn't agree with him.  He didn't kill those who actually commited the crimes. He didn't care wether those people are good or bad. He accepted, that some good people will die for him to be correct.

See my earlier analogy to an abusive family in regards to the Templars, the Chantry and the Mages.

[Ingu]

Lianaar wrote...

Ingu wrote...
More innocents will die either way, he started a war...

It matters not if they were innocent or not, because Anders didn't care. The possible chance of having a wedding in the chappel just then, and having all folks there, or not having instead a how to harm non-Chantry believes cleric meeting just then was there. He didn't take into consideration who will die. He attacked an institute. He ignored the individual people. So I would relaly htink innocence is secondary in this part. He killed people because they were not thinking like him.

Justice is blind to third parties. It's black, or white.

The thing is I don't know how much influence Justice has over Anders and the other way round. I think it's implied that they're basically the same entity in the end. So is it Anders that you're against, or the cost of Justice?

Modifié par Ingu, 26 mars 2011 - 10:09 .

[Lianaar]

Uhm... killing the father of another family, just because you -think- they abuse their children is still wrong.....You can decide for yourself, but really, if you want to act in the interest of others? Please make sure the others agree such is their interest....

[0o-Constance-o0]

I really enjoyed reading that, you brought up alot of the points I was thinking myself.

When I played through that scene, I was actually more upset that he tricked my Hawke into being his accomplice in the matter. Blowing up the chantry was completely unexpected for me when I played and and I actually had to put my controller down and think about it for a few miniutes from Ander's point of view. By that point in the game, my character being a mage, I was pretty attached to the mages and wanted to stick by them, so I chose to keep him along and ended up with a pretty happy ending for me.

As difficult as his decision was, I can understand it. And all your points are pretty much exactly what I was thinking. Whatever part of his mind Justice/Vengance took from him, it replaced any neutral feelings or doubts about his ideals with red-hot anger and defiance. I'm sure being controlled from the inside by a demon makes you lose all those senses.

If you bring Anders with you when you're going to finalise Merril's quest for the mirror, there's party banter where he's explaining how it feels to be posessed, something along the lines of "It's like you're seeing out your own eyes while someone else controlls your body like a puppet."

That's a scary thought, and while I don't think blowing up the chantry was an action caused by Justice/Vengance alone, all his sense of "right" and "wrong" have been completely warped until everything is so starkly black and white that right and wrong become one and the same.

And at the end of it all, there's only Justice.

[Ingu]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Maybe you can't, but I certainly can.

And the Chantry wasn't holding peace together. It was perpetuating a cycle of abuse, death and torment. He broke the Chantry and thusly broke the only thing holding that cycle together. He made change possible.

Plus, this type of war is a good thing. It gets rid of the bad blood. All the zealots will happily and enthusiastically kill one another until they're all dead. And good riddance to them. In the end we can enjoy some well earned peace purchased with the blood of thousands.

Happy ending.

I don't suppose you feel the way about modern events...in regards to the role of the UN?

[ShrinkingFish]

Ingu wrote...

Justice is blind to third parties. It's black, or white.

The thing is I don't know how much influence Justice has over Anders and the other way round. I think it's implied that they're basically the same entity in the end. So is it Anders that you're against, or the cost of Justice?

Reading this it finally clicked why I love that character so much...

Also, well said.

[Lianaar]

Ingu wrote...
Justice is blind to third parties. It's black, or white.

The thing is I don't know how much influence Justice has over Anders and the other way round. I think it's implied that they're basically the same entity in the end. So is it Anders that you're against, or the cost of Justice?

It certainly makes the character interesting. It is not one that leaves people untouched. It evokes responses and that is the strength of him. While I personally dislike Anders, I had characters in my various play throughs who sided with him and agreed with his decisions. A character is well written, if different personalities can find justification to hate him as well as to love him. He is certainly a very tradic character, and leaves quite a bit of room for contemplation on what happened. Kudos for that.

[ShrinkingFish]

Lianaar wrote...

Uhm... killing the father of another family, just because you -think- they abuse their children is still wrong.....You can decide for yourself, but really, if you want to act in the interest of others? Please make sure the others agree such is their interest....

I disagree entirely. Killing an abusive father is not wrong. Especially if you know the abuse is taking place. And it was certainly well known that the Templars were abusing the Mages. And as far as I'm concerned those who allow abuse to take place when it is within their power to do something about it are just as reponsible for the abuse as those actually performing the act.

[ShrinkingFish]

Lianaar wrote...

It certainly makes the character interesting. It is not one that leaves people untouched. It evokes responses and that is the strength of him. While I personally dislike Anders, I had characters in my various play throughs who sided with him and agreed with his decisions. A character is well written, if different personalities can find justification to hate him as well as to love him. He is certainly a very tradic character, and leaves quite a bit of room for contemplation on what happened. Kudos for that.

I agree entirely. Incredible amounts of kudos are due.

[Ingu]

0o-Constance-o0 wrote...

I really enjoyed reading that, you brought up alot of the points I was thinking myself.

When I played through that scene, I was actually more upset that he tricked my Hawke into being his accomplice in the matter. Blowing up the chantry was completely unexpected for me when I played and and I actually had to put my controller down and think about it for a few miniutes from Ander's point of view. By that point in the game, my character being a mage, I was pretty attached to the mages and wanted to stick by them, so I chose to keep him along and ended up with a pretty happy ending for me.

As difficult as his decision was, I can understand it. And all your points are pretty much exactly what I was thinking. Whatever part of his mind Justice/Vengance took from him, it replaced any neutral feelings or doubts about his ideals with red-hot anger and defiance. I'm sure being controlled from the inside by a demon makes you lose all those senses.

If you bring Anders with you when you're going to finalise Merril's quest for the mirror, there's party banter where he's explaining how it feels to be posessed, something along the lines of "It's like you're seeing out your own eyes while someone else controlls your body like a puppet."

That's a scary thought, and while I don't think blowing up the chantry was an action caused by Justice/Vengance alone, all his sense of "right" and "wrong" have been completely warped until everything is so starkly black and white that right and wrong become one and the same.

And at the end of it all, there's only Justice.

I admit I'm shocked you read that whole thing. Thank you! =D

And I have to say I agree, it's basically stated by him towards the end that they're the same entity. Anders = Justice, and because of that he is blind. Blind in his pursuit of justice for all mages...

Another thing is I found that whole 'seeing out your own eyes' thing interesting... since he claims to 'lose his memory'/parts of himself, especially if Hawke was pushy enough after the Justice quest to bring out Justice...that seems to contradict what he's said before...

Though maybe one side is starting to cancel each other out... I find that whole thing very fascinating...

[AlexXIV]

Ingu wrote...

Mm, though that's where many people would argue otherwise - you never 'need' to kill innocents! D=

That's a nice idea in a world of ideas. Just sayin'.

[Lianaar]

ShrinkingFish wrote...
I disagree entirely. Killing an abusive father is not wrong. Especially if you know the abuse is taking place. And it was certainly well known that the Templars were abusing the Mages. And as far as I'm concerned those who allow abuse to take place when it is within their power to do something about it are just as reponsible for the abuse as those actually performing the act.

He wasn't killing the father, who was abusive. He let the abusive father live. He killed the mother, whom he thought was supporting the abusive father. But he let the abuser live..... that is the awkward part.
It would have been way better and open-minded, if he made a situation where the Chantry -must- take sides, instead of just killing it off. The real reason I find it awkward that he picked the Chantry is, that he left the Templars live. That is so hypocritical. He picked the easy target, instead of mastering the guts and act against Meredith. If he would have killed Meredith? Or ask me: come, let us sneak in and kill that woman? My character would have said: I am no assassin, but I can associate with this, let's do it. Show that those who step out of the line (be them mage or templar) will pay. It can still demand the Chantry, the Templars and the Mages to react, it can still lead to a freedom war. But here the anger is aimed at its very source instead of the easy to target branches.

[ShrinkingFish]

Lianaar wrote...

He wasn't killing the father, who was abusive. He let the abusive father live. He killed the mother, whom he thought was supporting the abusive father. But he let the abuser live..... that is the awkward part.

I'm pretty sure we killed them both.... just saying.

Not like Meredith lived through that night or anything... just that particular explosion.

[PlumPaul93]

Lianaar wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...
I disagree entirely. Killing an abusive father is not wrong. Especially if you know the abuse is taking place. And it was certainly well known that the Templars were abusing the Mages. And as far as I'm concerned those who allow abuse to take place when it is within their power to do something about it are just as reponsible for the abuse as those actually performing the act.

He wasn't killing the father, who was abusive. He let the abusive father live. He killed the mother, whom he thought was supporting the abusive father. But he let the abuser live..... that is the awkward part.
It would have been way better and open-minded, if he made a situation where the Chantry -must- take sides, instead of just killing it off. The real reason I find it awkward that he picked the Chantry is, that he left the Templars live. That is so hypocritical. He picked the easy target, instead of mastering the guts and act against Meredith. If he would have killed Meredith? Or ask me: come, let us sneak in and kill that woman? My character would have said: I am no assassin, but I can associate with this, let's do it. Show that those who step out of the line (be them mage or templar) will pay. It can still demand the Chantry, the Templars and the Mages to react, it can still lead to a freedom war. But here the anger is aimed at its very source instead of the easy to target branches.

This

[ShrinkingFish]

PlumPaul82393 wrote...

This

I don't see the problem with it.


Edit: Outside the obvious travesty and murder of innocents, of course... but still. Necessary evil and all that jazz.

Modifié par ShrinkingFish, 26 mars 2011 - 10:21 .

[0o-Constance-o0]

Ingu wrote...

0o-Constance-o0 wrote...

I really enjoyed reading that, you brought up alot of the points I was thinking myself.

When I played through that scene, I was actually more upset that he tricked my Hawke into being his accomplice in the matter. Blowing up the chantry was completely unexpected for me when I played and and I actually had to put my controller down and think about it for a few miniutes from Ander's point of view. By that point in the game, my character being a mage, I was pretty attached to the mages and wanted to stick by them, so I chose to keep him along and ended up with a pretty happy ending for me.

As difficult as his decision was, I can understand it. And all your points are pretty much exactly what I was thinking. Whatever part of his mind Justice/Vengance took from him, it replaced any neutral feelings or doubts about his ideals with red-hot anger and defiance. I'm sure being controlled from the inside by a demon makes you lose all those senses.

If you bring Anders with you when you're going to finalise Merril's quest for the mirror, there's party banter where he's explaining how it feels to be posessed, something along the lines of "It's like you're seeing out your own eyes while someone else controlls your body like a puppet."

That's a scary thought, and while I don't think blowing up the chantry was an action caused by Justice/Vengance alone, all his sense of "right" and "wrong" have been completely warped until everything is so starkly black and white that right and wrong become one and the same.

And at the end of it all, there's only Justice.

I admit I'm shocked you read that whole thing. Thank you! =D

And I have to say I agree, it's basically stated by him towards the end that they're the same entity. Anders = Justice, and because of that he is blind. Blind in his pursuit of justice for all mages...

Another thing is I found that whole 'seeing out your own eyes' thing interesting... since he claims to 'lose his memory'/parts of himself, especially if Hawke was pushy enough after the Justice quest to bring out Justice...that seems to contradict what he's said before...

Though maybe one side is starting to cancel each other out... I find that whole thing very fascinating...

I was wondering through the whole game too, Anders still has SOME control over himself so technically he's not a complete abomination, though through the game it seems to be veering towards that fact.

If you can travel to the Fade in DA:O to help Connor (Arl Eammon's son) by destroying the Desire Demon, surely you can go to the Fade and convince Justice to let go of Anders. Anders is still a living host after all so hopefully it won't kill him, and he's pretty much achieved what he wanted to do by inspiring mages to stand up against their opressors. Just how much more does Justice need before Anders is gone completely? Hopefully in the next DA or in some delicious dowloadable content we can see more.

[Lianaar]

ShrinkingFish wrote...
I'm pretty sure we killed them both.... just saying.
Not like Meredith lived through that night or anything... just that particular explosion.

Letting Meredith live or die was not his choice. He left that to others. It would have been braver, more justified, understandbale and harder to counter if he went after Meredith. On the other hand, I would have not have a moral dilemma of what the hell to do, if he picked that option, so I understand why the story creators didn't go with that choice.

[IncendiarySheep]

Lianaar wrote...
He killed people because they didn't agree with him. That simple.
...
It is like.. uhm... blowing up the parlament for inducing tax on me, because I don't want to pay taxes.

My Hawke killed people who didn't agree with her.  So did my Warden, for that matter.  So have many, many of our greatest heroes.

Ideas are powerful things.  In times of war, it is often necessary to kill the leaders.  Indeed, I would go as far as to suggest that killing the ideas man (or institution) behind the oppressive regime is far more just than slaughtering the foot soldiers.  The Chantry can't sit by and claim clean hands when it is the source of the templar's legitimacy and is the only power that can stop them.

In nay case, this is not even remotely akin to blowing up parliament because you don't like being taxed.  First, in a modern democracy, there are other options,  Run for parliament, get a mandate, change the law, use the media. All these are sensible options.  None were available to the mages.  But more importantly, being made to pay some tax is not in the same league as being enslaved, raped, and killed (which is effectively what being tranquil is).  Even in real life (and I hate making such comparisons - we don't have mages, demons or magic in real life and such comparisons don't do justice to the real life people caught in these circumstances) in countries where that kind of rubbish is happening, rebellion, violent or not, is often the only option.

Modifié par IncendiarySheep, 26 mars 2011 - 10:25 .