66 réponses à ce sujet

[Lithuasil]

If, to stay in your questionable analogy, Switzerland was in control of the third reich at that time, but refused to stop them from invading poland... YES attacking them would've mad sense :|

[sheppard7]

Either step up to the person you have an issue with or not. Basically going after someone who isn't the problem and trying to stay out of the problem is the work of a coward. My Hawke should have had the option of saying right before killing him, "Your death now will mean nothing because I will be sure your name goes down in history as nothing but a lunatic and terrorist."

[westiex9]

Eollodwyn wrote...

What Anders did made me angry and sad, and I genuinely liked Elthina, but the more I think about it the more I realize there is no "right" answer.   Anders picked the only thing that truly had a chance of leading to freedom for mages.

Well i suppose we could say that Anders was making a choice he believed to be right, but that choice makes him my Hawkes enemy.

[Rifneno]

sheppard7 wrote...

Either step up to the person you have an issue with or not. Basically going after someone who isn't the problem and trying to stay out of the problem is the work of a coward. My Hawke should have had the option of saying right before killing him, "Your death now will mean nothing because I will be sure your name goes down in history as nothing but a lunatic and terrorist."

Your ability to evade the point is impressive.  The Chantry is not innocent, the templars are a part of the Chantry and the Chantry is not doing its responsibility in keeping the templars from becoming a worse problem than they're supposed to control.

Now I'm assuming this going to go to "but he shouldn't have done it when there were innocent people around."  The sentiment that you can have pure ethics and wage war is a misconception made by fiction writers.  War is ugly, brutal, and many innocent people die from either side in any war.  There's a good reason you see so many ex-military that have severe emotional disorders because of what they've seen and done in the field fighting for what they believe in.

[sheppard7]

Rifneno wrote...

sheppard7 wrote...

Either step up to the person you have an issue with or not. Basically going after someone who isn't the problem and trying to stay out of the problem is the work of a coward. My Hawke should have had the option of saying right before killing him, "Your death now will mean nothing because I will be sure your name goes down in history as nothing but a lunatic and terrorist."

Your ability to evade the point is impressive.  The Chantry is not innocent, the templars are a part of the Chantry and the Chantry is not doing its responsibility in keeping the templars from becoming a worse problem than they're supposed to control.

Now I'm assuming this going to go to "but he shouldn't have done it when there were innocent people around."  The sentiment that you can have pure ethics and wage war is a misconception made by fiction writers.  War is ugly, brutal, and many innocent people die from either side in any war.  There's a good reason you see so many ex-military that have severe emotional disorders because of what they've seen and done in the field fighting for what they believe in.

War is ugly but you go after a target and not just random targets. Even if innocents get caught in the crossfire.

And know many who fought in wars... related to a lot of them. Not even going to go down that road of what was wrong there. They had orders. Anders didn't.

If you think Anders actions is a great military victory, fine. I don't see it as nothing more than a lunatic, coward, terrorist (pick one but I say all of the above). Those responsible for the WTC use the same argument as to why that happened as you did there. It's all in the eye of the beholder. One person's hero is another's terrorist. Like those who did 9/11, Anders is a terrorist in my eyes. To you he's a hero I guess. We're not going to change on how we look at him.

[Eollodwyn]

I don't quite understand why people compare what happened at the Chantry to the World Trade Center.  The relationship between Muslims and the United States is not the same as the relationship between mages and the Chantry.  The Chantry hunts down mage children and locks them up for the rest of their lives.   This didn't happen because of religious fanaticism or to change Kirkwall's foreign policy; the mages are just tired of being slaves to the Templars and, by extension, the Chantry.

You don't have to like what Anders did, and he technically does fit the definition of a terrorist, but comparing him to Osama Bin Laden is oversimplifying. 

[sphinxess]

The chantry will not back down from its teachings - playing as a mage the chantry must fall <and thanks to Anders we now have nukes>

[GodWood]

Well that'd depend on my character.
My main warden was very much anti-mage whereas my Hawke was a mage anarchist.

[SgtElias]

I think it'd depend of the situation, to be honest.

I'm much more inclined to side with the mages, but I won't rule out the idea of siding with the templars; I suppose it's always possible.

Didn't happen in DA2, but it could happen eventually, depending on the circumstances.

[Windninja47]

Well in Dragon age Origins and in Dragon Age 2 I sides with Templars. Not because I am anti-Mage (my romances in the Games were Morrigan and Merrill, both Appstate Mages) but because I know that they can be possessed and go out of control. It's like me saying that I am okay with someone owning a sword but I'm not okay if that sword could at any moment start walking by itself and begin killing innocents. It also just so happens that I don't think the circles are as bad as everyone thinks, I was a warrior in both games and I didn't take my sister into the deep roads with me in DA2 so she got sent to the circle. The letter she sent to me basically said that the circle was pretty nice.

[Windninja47]

I did kill Anders though, mainly to keep Sebastian happy and well, let's face it. I've killed for less.

[Tainan7509]

I would still support mages because i don't like the idea about locking people in a place due to his or her natural ability.

[Tainan7509]

Awesomness wrote...

The order dictates.

And yet the guy who follow the order died in the first 10 mins of the game due to Darkspawn blood.

[Plaintiff]

I'd like to re-establish a new kind of order, peacefully if possible. But I won't settle for anything less than giving mages the same rights as every normal human in Thedas. If that's not gonna happen, then I have no problem blitzing the Chantry off the face of Thedas.

[javierdmr1982]

I supported mages because i don,t like the apartheid and the discrimination for being different.

[Anariel Theirin]

I've played through twice now. First time, I sided with the mages. Second time, with the templars. I felt that siding with the templars was far more satisfying and ended up feeling like the right thing to do in the end. It took me by surprise, as I played pro-mage both times through the bulk of the game.

I think I'll likely be siding with the templars from now on.

[The Baconer]

Well, since it's pretty much mages vs. everyone now, my 'main' DA3 protagonist will restore the natural order. The mundanes will submit to their superiors, as it should be.