350 réponses à ce sujet

[Ingu]

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.

Actually, I felt like he needed a rallying point, something to FORCE all mages to fight. If he killed Meredith, it would only have brought back  a semblence of peace, because then the mages would no longer have anything to seriously fight against/complain about, and can go back to being pacified under the templars, with the support of the Grand Cleric telling everyone that peace is the only way.

Destroying the chantry meant destroying compromise, it left the representatives of both extremist sides healthy and eager to tear each others' throats out, and THAT will start the war. Not to mention that the Chantry really isn't a third party, the templars operate 'under' them, not away from them. Their name reveals as much. It's more like the teachers of a boarding school abusing its permanent members as they like and the principal just shaking her finger saying I don't want to hear it. Removing the highest authority means that the two sides actually involved can actually act.

[PlumPaul93]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

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.

[ShrinkingFish]

Lianaar wrote...

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.

The destruction of the Chantry was the perfect choice. It was the one act that would force the conflict. Simply killing Meredith wouldn't change anything, the Chantry would just replace her with someone else.

But the destruction of the Chantry forced the issue entirely. The death of perceived innocents forced everyone to ackowledge the issue and pick a side.

If he killed Meredith it would just be mages fighting Templars as always. Destroying the Chantry forced the war that gave an opportunity for change.

Modifié par ShrinkingFish, 26 mars 2011 - 10:28 .

[ShrinkingFish]

PlumPaul82393 wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

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.

So you agree that it was a justified and necessary evil?

[Ingu]

0o-Constance-o0 wrote...
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.

Oooh, that is interesting. But I'm thinking that for Connor the reason it worked was because they were connected for a relatively short time. (A few months at most?) But for Anders it's been ten years at least. D= I don't know what level of... incorporation would have happened in that time...

And as for his self-control... I think towards the end it was a self-preservation tactic to actually follow Justice's demands. If he resisted he might have truly become a full-blown abomination (or whatever the spirit equivilant is)? (Not sure on the technicalities there...). He seemed more like a brain-washed soldier than a true believer... Or maybe it was just his desperation... I really don't know. It's part of what makes his character so interesting!

[0o-Constance-o0]

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.

If he killed the templars, nothing would have changed.

What he was trying to destroy was the IDEA of the circle, which doesn't come from the templars, it is an institution of the chantry. If he killed templars, who simply work for the chantry, nothing would have changed. He had to get rid of the source of the insitution, the governing body which needed to be held accountable (in his own eyes).

The chantry employs templars to keep the mages in check. To get rid of the templars completely, you get rid of the chantry. If you get rid of the templars first, the chantry will just hire more over time. The chantry is the one with mindset and the idea of mages being cursed and dangerous, the templars to follow. So why would it be justafiable to kill the ones just doing their job? In the end, the chantry was to blame (according to Anders).

Comparing it to an abusive home, while not a bad comparison, doesn't suit the context. You have to apply it to religious law, because in the end that is just what the chantry is, a religion, a church. They have the idea, the idea is law, the law is set, and then nothing goes against the law.

[Ingu]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

If he killed Meredith it would just be mages fighting Templars as always. Destroying the Chantry forced the war that gave an opportunity for change.

Nooot necessarily, but this is definitely how he saw things. Honestly without knowing more of the world-situation it's hard to judge. Damn Bioware for leaving us with so little to work with... we have no choice but to follow their pre-determined thought patterns.

[Lianaar]

Ingu wrote...
Destroying the chantry meant destroying compromise, it left the representatives of both extremist sides healthy and eager to tear each others' throats out, and THAT will start the war. Not to mention that the Chantry really isn't a third party, the templars operate 'under' them, not away from them. Their name reveals as much. It's more like the teachers of a boarding school abusing its permanent members as they like and the principal just shaking her finger saying I don't want to hear it. Removing the highest authority means that the two sides actually involved can actually act.

The Chantry's stance was understandbale. They said: I care little for mages or Templars, I am fed up with them. My duty is to the citizens of Kirkwall, because that is the vow I took. And the citizens' interest is peace. As in a war between mages and templars, the citizens will suffer for either the mages or the templars. The silent mass can not win. The peace serves the silent mass, the flock, the people. The Chantry did the most human thing possible: care for the general, normal, everyday people.

Anders sacrificed the peace of normal people for a war, that had nothing to do with them. Blood will flow, and the highest price paid will be the general population. By blowing up the Chantry, he didn't only kill the Grand Cleric and all who were in the chantry, but every single person, who died because there was a war instead of peace.

He was a tyrant of his own. He decided for everyone else, what is good for them. He didn't ask, he didn't want to learn. He simply went on not caring enough for the price others pay for his actions. He was far from fair to other people. We might not meet that mass of people, but since this is role playing, the pile of deads of common folks will be still there.

(edit: I hate spelling and typos, sorry for them)

Modifié par Lianaar, 26 mars 2011 - 10:35 .

[PlumPaul93]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

PlumPaul82393 wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

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.

So you agree that it was a justified and necessary evil?

no I just find it funny that it's ok to you even though all the unnecesary deaths happened, fact is anders should've let hawke deal with the templar problem instead of being stupid and taking things into his own hands.

[Lianaar]

0o-Constance-o0 wrote... If he killed the templars, nothing would have changed.

As I said, story wise it was the better choice, leaving us, the player to face a real moral dilemma.
Siding with the mages or accepting Anders' actions can stem from either understanding him, or agreeing with him, or just trying to save your sister or your self (since you know, right of annulment means you too), or trying to save Kirkwall from the Divine's armies, or just trying to make the best from the situation. There are many reasons to side with the mages (just like there are many reasons to side with the templars).

When the opposing options are equally appealing or dis-appealing, it is only personality that decides which you chose. Thus BioWare was forcing the player to actually roleplay. What more can I ask for? 

[0o-Constance-o0]

Lianaar wrote...

0o-Constance-o0 wrote... If he killed the templars, nothing would have changed.

As I said, story wise it was the better choice, leaving us, the player to face a real moral dilemma.
Siding with the mages or accepting Anders' actions can stem from either understanding him, or agreeing with him, or just trying to save your sister or your self (since you know, right of annulment means you too), or trying to save Kirkwall from the Divine's armies, or just trying to make the best from the situation. There are many reasons to side with the mages (just like there are many reasons to side with the templars).

When the opposing options are equally appealing or dis-appealing, it is only personality that decides which you chose. Thus BioWare was forcing the player to actually roleplay. What more can I ask for? 

I know, it really made everyone think about it. One of the many reasons I loved the ending, even if it did kick me in the proverbial balls a few times

[ShrinkingFish]

Lianaar wrote...

The Chantry's stance was understandbale. They said: I care little for mages or Templars, I am fed up with them. My duty is to the citizens of Kirkwall, because that is the vow I took. And the citizens' interest is peace. As in a way between mages and templars, the citizens will suffer for either the mages or the templars. The silent mass can not win. The peace serves the silent mass, the flock, the people. The Chantry did the most human thing possible: core for the general, normal, everyday people.

Anders sacrificed the peace of normal people for a war, that had nothing to do with them. Blood will flow, and most price paid will be the general population. By blowing up the Chantry, he didn't only kill the Grand Cleric and all who were in the chantry, but every single person, who died because there was a war instead of peace.

He was a tyrant of his own. He decided for everyone else, what is good for them. He didn't ask, he didn't want to learn. He simply went on not caring enough for the price others pay for his actions. He was far from fair to other people. We might not meet that mass of people, but since this is role playing, the pile of deads of common folks will be still there.

The Chantry did nothing more than ignore the problem.

And it isn't as if Anders wasn't fully concious of his actions either. He knew what he was doing. He knew what his actions would mean. He knew he was condemning a lot of innocent people to die. And most importantly, he knew that this was necessary and the only way to spark real change.

[ShrinkingFish]

PlumPaul82393 wrote...

no I just find it funny that it's ok to you even though all the unnecesary deaths happened, fact is anders should've let hawke deal with the templar problem instead of being stupid and taking things into his own hands.

Unfortunate?... absolutely... unnecessary?... I'm not convinced. And Hawke was powerless in that situation. That was made abundantly clear. Anders made the only real choice. And he was hardly stupid.

Realistically there is nothing Hawke could have done about the Templar problem. Nothing at all. He could have shouted at it a bit more... but that would have gotten us nowhere.

Anders did the one thing that everyone else was unwilling to do.

Were his actions wrong? Absolutely. Were they justified? Absolutely.

[Lianaar]

He knew what he was doing, and he thought it was necessary.
The first can be a fact, the other merely an opinion.

Many believe it was not necessary. And it is my opinion that the Grand Cleric was not unaware of the problem, but didn't take side aside from calming both parties with the deliberate intent of making life better for the others, that are not involved. Here comes the opinion part We can only guess what people thought. But you can not validly say, he "knew" it was necessary. It was not a fact. An opinion, a conviction, a belief, definitely. A fact, doubtfully. (Without saying it is true or not)

[ShrinkingFish]

Lianaar wrote...

0o-Constance-o0 wrote... If he killed the templars, nothing would have changed.

As I said, story wise it was the better choice, leaving us, the player to face a real moral dilemma.
Siding with the mages or accepting Anders' actions can stem from either understanding him, or agreeing with him, or just trying to save your sister or your self (since you know, right of annulment means you too), or trying to save Kirkwall from the Divine's armies, or just trying to make the best from the situation. There are many reasons to side with the mages (just like there are many reasons to side with the templars).

When the opposing options are equally appealing or dis-appealing, it is only personality that decides which you chose. Thus BioWare was forcing the player to actually roleplay. What more can I ask for? 

Oh, I know. It was brilliantly done. I loved every second of it. My god, it was great writing.

[Ingu]

Lianaar wrote...

Ingu wrote...
Destroying the chantry meant destroying compromise, it left the representatives of both extremist sides healthy and eager to tear each others' throats out, and THAT will start the war. Not to mention that the Chantry really isn't a third party, the templars operate 'under' them, not away from them. Their name reveals as much. It's more like the teachers of a boarding school abusing its permanent members as they like and the principal just shaking her finger saying I don't want to hear it. Removing the highest authority means that the two sides actually involved can actually act.

The Chantry's stance was understandbale. They said: I care little for mages or Templars, I am fed up with them. My duty is to the citizens of Kirkwall, because that is the vow I took. And the citizens' interest is peace. As in a war between mages and templars, the citizens will suffer for either the mages or the templars. The silent mass can not win. The peace serves the silent mass, the flock, the people. The Chantry did the most human thing possible: care for the general, normal, everyday people.

Anders sacrificed the peace of normal people for a war, that had nothing to do with them. Blood will flow, and the highest price paid will be the general population. By blowing up the Chantry, he didn't only kill the Grand Cleric and all who were in the chantry, but every single person, who died because there was a war instead of peace.

He was a tyrant of his own. He decided for everyone else, what is good for them. He didn't ask, he didn't want to learn. He simply went on not caring enough for the price others pay for his actions. He was far from fair to other people. We might not meet that mass of people, but since this is role playing, the pile of deads of common folks will be still there.

(edit: I hate spelling and typos, sorry for them)

Now THAT I cannot counter, it's definitely true, and sure as hell is terrible. As I said, this is the cost of his 'justice', which for many people is not valid or even important. It depends entirely on your stance and situation. If you were an apostate Hawke or you loved Bethany you'd likely support the mages, if you love Fenris and want to stand by his side in anything you'd support the Templars.

But if you didn't care about the plight of the mages or the cause of the Templars, then you just wish for it all to go away...

[ShrinkingFish]

Lianaar wrote...

He knew what he was doing, and he thought it was necessary.
The first can be a fact, the other merely an opinion.

Many believe it was not necessary. And it is my opinion that the Grand Cleric was not unaware of the problem, but didn't take side aside from calming both parties with the deliberate intent of making life better for the others, that are not involved. Here comes the opinion part We can only guess what people thought. But you can not validly say, he "knew" it was necessary. It was not a fact. An opinion, a conviction, a belief, definitely. A fact, doubtfully. (Without saying it is true or not)

It is, however, a fact that Anders knew it was necessary and knew it was justified. Whether or not his beliefs are true or not does not matter. After all, the concept of truth is just as transitory as the concept of justice.

[Lianaar]

Let's tweak that a bit, so I can agree with the above statement: 
Anders had no doubt in the necessaty of his actions to achieve the goals he believed serve humankind and mages the most.

[Ingu]

Lianaar wrote...

When the opposing options are equally appealing or dis-appealing, it is only personality that decides which you chose. Thus BioWare was forcing the player to actually roleplay. What more can I ask for? 

THIS.

and...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Were his actions wrong? Absolutely. Were they justified? Absolutely.

THIS.

The whole point of this all is that Anders hates what he did - he was wrong. But does not regret any of it - he was justified.

Well, that is one belief.

[ShrinkingFish]

Lianaar wrote...

Let's tweak that a bit, so I can agree with the above statement: 
Anders had no doubt in the necessaty of his actions to achieve the goals he believed serve humankind and mages the most.

Glad we agree.

[ShrinkingFish]

May I also say...

Thank goodness for characters like Anders...

Just think... without him, we'd have nothing to talk about!

[PlumPaul93]

Lianaar wrote...

Let's tweak that a bit, so I can agree with the above statement: 
Anders had no doubt in the necessaty of his actions to achieve the goals he believed serve humankind and mages the most.

I could agree to this also, but I won't agree that I think it's justified. All Anders did was be a coward instead of attacking the big boys he attacked priests. Although you could say he wasn't a coward because he did it, I however will not.

[Lianaar]

The game was full of characters that we can talk on. If the goal of the company was to create controversial, flawed characters, that are realistic and relatable, as well as controversial situations where the good and bad is a matter of perception only, they did good.

[ShrinkingFish]

PlumPaul82393 wrote...


I could agree to this also, but I won't agree that I think it's justified. All Anders did was be a coward instead of attacking the big boys he attacked priests. Although you could say he wasn't a coward because he did it, I however will not.

I take issue with this. Specifically your labeling Anders as a coward. After all, it isn't like there were a bunch of robed people standing around who were completely uninvolved and unrealted while Anders was standing in front of the armed scary Templars and said "I'm so angry at you I'm going to... uhh... kill those guys!"

The Chantry represented the institution which allowed the abuse of the Templars to take place. By blowing up the Chantry Anders opposed the institution itself, not just the abusers within their ranks. He made it clear that this fight was all or nothing. That either the mages or the Chantry were going to fall. That there would be no more abuse and no more compromise. That the petty squabbles between Mages and Templars were over and that the final confrontation to decide the matter once and for all was about to begin.

It wasn't the act of a coward. It was the act of a revolutionary.

Modifié par ShrinkingFish, 26 mars 2011 - 11:04 .

[Ingu]

Lianaar wrote...

The game was full of characters that we can talk on. If the goal of the company was to create controversial, flawed characters, that are realistic and relatable, as well as controversial situations where the good and bad is a matter of perception only, they did good.

True, I could complain about Merrill all day and eye-roll anyone who dislikes Isabela.  I love DA2 because it developed its characters so much more than Origins. You could see how they change and grow with you, they're more like real friends instead of tag-along party members, who had to be funny/interesting enough for you to actually care to know more...