1927 réponses à ce sujet

[stobie]

Really? That hasn't been established, or not? I thought it said she was the same in the Codex - something about her being overly sympathetic with sinners, and that explained how Leliana got her new position.

[tmp7704]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The current Divine and the Revered Mother (or whatever rank she had) certainly shares the same name. Can't say wether or not they are the same person.

Given the One Steve Limit it is highly likely.

edit: And if that's the case then both her and Leliana's background put large question mark over exactly how the previous Divine got her stroke...

Modifié par tmp7704, 04 avril 2011 - 01:42 .

[Bmeszaros]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

stobie wrote...

BY-TOR STORMDRAGON wrote...

It was nice to see Leliana again, but working for the Divine? That was odd...she kicked serious ass in Origins...

Isn't the current Divine the same woman from Orlais that saves Leliana in her DLC? Dorothea?  

The current Divine and the Revered Mother (or whatever rank she had) certainly shares the same name. Can't say wether or not they are the same person.

I think its fair to make the connection. The Divine's Left Hand would most likely be someone that was very trusted to act not only in Chantry's best interest, but in the current Divine's best interest as well. If I remember correctly from the Leilanas Song DLC, Dorothea had a similar background in Orlais, playing the "Grand Game" and all.

[Bmeszaros]

tmp7704 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

edit: And if that's the case then both her and Leliana's background put large question mark over exactly how the previous Divine got her stroke...

Yes. This.

[SIx_Foot_Imp]

Regarding anders actions: there has been a long debate regarding exactly how the mages are oppressed looking at every side of every argument but one must remember that anders and all fanatical terrorist do not care about any of this. they are fanatics by nature and therefore ignore the minutia of debate. They ignore reasoned arguments in favor of emotional zeal and this is why they always fail as leaders of rebellion. their actions are never justified because even if they actually are as oppressed and mistreated as the fanatic beleives, terrorism will always worsen the situation.

If you are looking for revolutionary leaders and Martyrs whose actrions were not only justified but actually helpfull to their cause, look at Gandhi , Martin Luthor king , and Jesus Christ. Jews and Romans , African Americans and Whites Indians and Brits : Templars and Mages.

Osama bin laden also believed that he was helping free an oppressed people but his actions have only worsened the relationship between Muslim and western nation. largely Peacefull freedom marches are what led to change in Egypt.

Terrorism is never justified because as cheesy and sentimentalist as it sounds evil only begets evil. Every place where violence was used to achieve freedom would have been better served by peacefuller rebellion.

"He started it" is never a good excuse.

[sphinxess]

SIx_Foot_Imp wrote...

Regarding anders actions: there has been a long debate regarding exactly how the mages are oppressed looking at every side of every argument but one must remember that anders and all fanatical terrorist do not care about any of this. they are fanatics by nature and therefore ignore the minutia of debate. They ignore reasoned arguments in favor of emotional zeal and this is why they always fail as leaders of rebellion. their actions are never justified because even if they actually are as oppressed and mistreated as the fanatic beleives, terrorism will always worsen the situation.

If you are looking for revolutionary leaders and Martyrs whose actrions were not only justified but actually helpfull to their cause, look at Gandhi , Martin Luthor king , and Jesus Christ. Jews and Romans , African Americans and Whites Indians and Brits : Templars and Mages.

Osama bin laden also believed that he was helping free an oppressed people but his actions have only worsened the relationship between Muslim and western nation. largely Peacefull freedom marches are what led to change in Egypt.

Terrorism is never justified because as cheesy and sentimentalist as it sounds evil only begets evil. Every place where violence was used to achieve freedom would have been better served by peacefuller rebellion.

"He started it" is never a good excuse.

Really? Do you think the people that signed the American declaration of independence were planning a peaceful rebellion?

[stobie]

SIx_Foot_Imp wrote...

Regarding anders actions: there has been a long debate regarding exactly how the mages are oppressed looking at every side of every argument but one must remember that anders and all fanatical terrorist do not care about any of this. they are fanatics by nature and therefore ignore the minutia of debate. They ignore reasoned arguments in favor of emotional zeal and this is why they always fail as leaders of rebellion. their actions are never justified because even if they actually are as oppressed and mistreated as the fanatic beleives, terrorism will always worsen the situation.

If you are looking for revolutionary leaders and Martyrs whose actrions were not only justified but actually helpfull to their cause, look at Gandhi , Martin Luthor king , and Jesus Christ. Jews and Romans , African Americans and Whites Indians and Brits : Templars and Mages.

Osama bin laden also believed that he was helping free an oppressed people but his actions have only worsened the relationship between Muslim and western nation. largely Peacefull freedom marches are what led to change in Egypt.

Terrorism is never justified because as cheesy and sentimentalist as it sounds evil only begets evil. Every place where violence was used to achieve freedom would have been better served by peacefuller rebellion.

"He started it" is never a good excuse.

I guess this is inevitable, but Anders is, as far as we know, acting alone. At most, he has a few mages in on his cause, but I doubt it.  Bin Ladin has been leading a massive force for a long time. I'm never entirely sure what his group wants - the world according to Bin Ladin's version of his religion, probably.  (and that always seems to mean *power in my hands, and not yours!*)   But never mind that - Anders wants to remove the yolk from the collective neck of every born mage - he thinks submission has failed, and that it has to be pushed.  He doesn't want power or to be a leader - he obviously expects to die, *even* if you're his lover.  So he does not compare accurately to any real life terrorist leader.

As far as terrorism, as a word, goes, it's pretty subjective.  If you want to use it, then you have to apply it to George Washington, too. He was certainly viewed that way by the British. 

I'd agree about the 'peacefuller rebellion,' even in our own history, though.  If only...  However, subjugating people based on an accident of birth is a terrorism of its own kind.  By this point in this story, mages and mage-friends *are* being terrorized, as is often pointed out.   Ok, I'm sick of that word.  Power is being abused - that's more to the point.  

In essence, we get one crazy party member. Crazier than the rest, but they all have their blind spots.  You either stick with him, as a friend or lover, or you don't.  You either think he's capable of future good, or you don't. You either believe in vengeance, against him, or you don't. 

[Hellosanta]

This kind of debate will never have the final answer. People set higher values on different things.
I don't believe Anders's action is anywhere justified, but I think it is inevitable considering the situation in Kirkwall. The Circle in Kirkwall will either be wiped out by Templar or be corrupted from the bottom to the top anyway.
Elthina has done absolutely nothing but saying a few sentences whenever Meredith and Orsino are arguing. If you have had every possible conversations with her, her position is very clear. She says that she doesn't have much power to stop them and she believes the Maker will do something about it if he wills.

[Camenae]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

stobie wrote...
Like Mortal Kombat? I remember silly things in that.  That's not exactly Medieval Fantasy realistic, true. 

And like Soul Calibur.

Knight....oh my god...I laughed.

[Conduit0]

Justified or not, Anders reasoning is rock solid, and I'll explain why. The problem is that the system is a vicious circle.(no pun intended, or was it?) Say what Anders did, didn't happen and Orsino managed to talk with Elthena. Now Elthena being the smart cookie that she is would realize that appeasing Orsino would be better than open rebellion so she scolds Meredith and makes a few minor concessions to placate Orsino. But heres where the problem comes in, there is nothing to ensure any concession made will last, the Templars are directly in control of the Circles and the only oversight for the Templars is the Chantry, which is ofcourse blatantly anti-mage. So its only a matter of time before things start getting bad again, and Orsino or some future First Enchanter is back on the Grand Cleric's doorstep demanding something be done about the over zealous Knight Commander. Worst of all, even with the cycle of appeasements, things still slowly get worse because the mages by that point are just happy things are better today than they were yesterday and not consider that its still worse than it was say 10 years ago.

Anders realized this and knew things would only continue to get worse for mages, not just in Kirkwall, but everywhere if the cycle wasn't broken. By blowing up the Chantry, the cycle was broken, no appeasements could be made, it came down to fight for freedom or die. Whether Anders will be remembered as a hero and liberator, or a monster and mass murderer, well that all depends on which side ultimately wins the war.

[London]

I disagree with Anders' actions of course. But, since we've killed probably 500 people in DA, what's 12 more? In Act 3 alone we must have killed 30 people who assumed we were supporting Meredith and no one even said "hold on just here to talk..."

[stobie]

Doesn't Varrick have a great line about that? In party banter with Anders, suggesting that he's upset about almost killing one girl when he's already killed hundreds, & that perhaps *this* is the issue? I loved that.

If I could have reasoned with Anders, I would have asked him to let me clear out the building first - then let him blow it up as a symbol. But there would be no vast change without something extreme. And history is always written by the winners, so I suppose it's never really fair or accurate.

[IanPolaris]

ddv.rsa wrote...

As for the Dalish, magic is much less prevalent among them than with humans. Merrill tells you that fewer and fewer mage children are born to them each generation. Of course there would be less abominations.

This is incorrect.  What Merrill tells you is that there are fewer and fewer magically sensitive Dalish born each generation but NOT that they are rarer than humans.  Indeed if you remember the stats and conversations in DAO, elves are far more magically in tune and far likelier to have talent than humans.  Indeed Tevinter values elven blood in their magisters and Tevinter is one of the few human nations where Elves can be Magisters if they are powerful enough.

Remember that ALL Elves once had the gift of magic at least according to the Dalish.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

TJPags wrote...
All fair points, and in general, I agree.  Here, however, I think we see in early Act 3 that Meredith is not exactly the biggest fan of Elthinna.  I can see her going right to the Divine with that.

I'll also add, given the number of blood mages we run into during the game - which only gets worse in Act 3 - was consideration of the Rite so "out there"?

Let me add this for your consideration then.  If you side openly with the Templars in Act 3 and do the first quest pro-templar style, Meridith (instead of the usual Orsino) will give you the Best Served Cold quest.  Meridith we find is paranoid about Orisino and clearly tells you that she wants to do an open Annulment even then and just needs proof of Orsino's involvement in a conspiracy against her to convince the Grand Cleric.

When you come back and report that Orisino was not involved, she refuses to believe you....saying that obviously Orsino was clever enough to hide his tracks.  Nothing can convince her that what actually happened IS what actually happened...that almost all the mages and even a large chunk of her own templars hate her guts.  We know from a metagaming PoV that Meridith is completly wrong btw....but it goes to show you that she probably indeed was trying to overrule the Grand Cleric......based on what turned out to be complete paranoia.

-Polaris

[ddv.rsa]

IanPolaris wrote...

Let me add this for your consideration then.  If you side openly with the Templars in Act 3 and do the first quest pro-templar style, Meridith (instead of the usual Orsino) will give you the Best Served Cold quest.  Meridith we find is paranoid about Orisino and clearly tells you that she wants to do an open Annulment even then and just needs proof of Orsino's involvement in a conspiracy against her to convince the Grand Cleric.

When you come back and report that Orisino was not involved, she refuses to believe you....saying that obviously Orsino was clever enough to hide his tracks.  Nothing can convince her that what actually happened IS what actually happened...that almost all the mages and even a large chunk of her own templars hate her guts.  We know from a metagaming PoV that Meridith is completly wrong btw....but it goes to show you that she probably indeed was trying to overrule the Grand Cleric......based on what turned out to be complete paranoia.

-Polaris

She clearly and openly tells you that she wants to perform an annulment, does she? Please show me.

As I recall it, Meredith never says anything about an annulment. She wants help proving to the Grand Cleric (not anyone above her) that there is a conspiracy against her. I am certain that the word "annulment" never crosses her lips. Some mages and templars have been slipping in and out of the tower unaccounted for, and Orsino has refused to cooperate with her own investigation. She believes he is either incompetent or involved, and finds both unacceptable. It should be noted that at this time, the Grand Cleric doesn't believe a conspiracy  of any kind is afoot. 

As it turns out Meredith was right and there was a conspiracy to oust her. Orsino was never implicated, but personally I think it entirely possible that he was involved. If he can hide blood magic and years of contact with maleficarum, he can hide his involvement in a conspiracy. I don't see where she's being paranoid here: the conspiracy was real. She was right!

Also, if you ask what happens should your investigation uncover nothing she replies "Then I'm wrong. I would never ask you to lie, Champion."

I know I'm going against the grain when I say this but I actually like Meredith. Perhaps that makes me horribly biased and unfit for templar / mage debates. At least in the context of Kirkwall.

[Camenae]

I didn't *like* Meredith, but I thought she was a well-done character. On a pro-Templar playthrough, she reveals quite a bit more information about herself to the player, like that heartbreaking bit about her sister, Amelia was it? Sounded like just as sweet a girl as Bethany, but turned into an abomination.

Do I agree with Meredith after that? Still no. Am I less baffled now how someone could turn out the way she did? Yes.

[DarkSpiral]

IanPolaris wrote...

ddv.rsa wrote...

At the very least, Ian, what do you make of Hawke's final lines? He seems to think the mages are a danger.

Given that bloodmage seems rife in Kirkwall and given his own mother was murdered by one, that seems a perfectly logical, emotional, if unjust reaction.  It doesn't provide any evidice that you (Hawke) think Anders had any help from the circle.  Orsino denies it and Meridith herself doesn't act like he did either.

It's all in your mind.  Anders acted alone (or used you as dupes).  The game lore is pretty brutally clear about this, really. Listen to what Sebastian says if you won't listen to me.  He sees right through the Charade and is appalled with both sides for totally ignoring the completely guilty party right in front of them!

-Polaris

Sebastian is a fairly poor choice to use as support, Ian.  I do not disagree with your assesment, owever, Sebastian's first words (a party banter) upon setting off to reach the Gallows after the Chantry's destruction are "Any one of these malificar could have been helping Anders."  Or soemthing very close to that.  It *is* a patry banter, so you will miss it any time he isn't an active party member once Anders is dead, or if anotherparty member's banter is triggered instead, but it does rather remove him as a support for your argument.  If you are in support of the Templars, he very clearly has no problem with the Rite being carried out once Anders is dead.

Of course, you can *also* convince him that Andraste would have sided with the mages in this situation, should you be in support of the Circle.  So really, seeing that with high enough Rivalry or Friendship, you can *always* convice yoru party memberts that you're right, none of them are really good choices to support any argument at all.

[Rifneno]

Conduit0 wrote...

Justified or not, Anders reasoning is rock solid, and I'll explain why. The problem is that the system is a vicious circle.(no pun intended, or was it?) Say what Anders did, didn't happen and Orsino managed to talk with Elthena. Now Elthena being the smart cookie that she is would realize that appeasing Orsino would be better than open rebellion so she scolds Meredith and makes a few minor concessions to placate Orsino. But heres where the problem comes in, there is nothing to ensure any concession made will last, the Templars are directly in control of the Circles and the only oversight for the Templars is the Chantry, which is ofcourse blatantly anti-mage. So its only a matter of time before things start getting bad again, and Orsino or some future First Enchanter is back on the Grand Cleric's doorstep demanding something be done about the over zealous Knight Commander. Worst of all, even with the cycle of appeasements, things still slowly get worse because the mages by that point are just happy things are better today than they were yesterday and not consider that its still worse than it was say 10 years ago.

Anders realized this and knew things would only continue to get worse for mages, not just in Kirkwall, but everywhere if the cycle wasn't broken. By blowing up the Chantry, the cycle was broken, no appeasements could be made, it came down to fight for freedom or die. Whether Anders will be remembered as a hero and liberator, or a monster and mass murderer, well that all depends on which side ultimately wins the war.

Excellent post, and excellent point.  Exactly why I flatly refuse to judge Anders for what he did.  It just plain had to be done IMO.  It is a shame about the people in that Chantry (Elthina aside, may she burn in hell) and I sympathize for them.  But countless civilians die in every war whether the war is a necessary one or not.  And this was, most certainly, necessary.

A comparison.  Hiroshima.  You remember Meredith's sob story about one abomination killing 70 people?  In the blink of an eye, a thousand times that were wiped from the face of the Earth at Hiroshima.  But anyone who claims that wasn't the right thing to do either doesn't have all the facts or is too deluded with fictional stories where the good guys never have to get innocent blood on their hands.  That's just the way the world works.  Life isn't fair.

[Camenae]

Umm...I personally don't think Hiroshima was justified. And this is when I have family members who have directly suffered at the hands of the invading Japanese army in China. It helped end the war, sure, so the result was arguably "good." But I, personally, don't think it was the right thing to do because it wasn't the only way and it wasn't even the best way.

[LobselVith8]

Foolsfolly wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Hawke, for another, can use the terms servitude and slavery to describe the Chantry controlled Circle.

Fair enough. And that means what, precisely, other than that Hawke-- who has never been part of the Circle-- has an opinion?

THANK YOU!!!

There's too many people on these boards and others around the net that just take what some characters say at face value. They don't ever try to filter it through the character's personal biases first.

Thank you for saying that.

People don't simply take what characters say at face value. It was also addressed that multiple codex entries address that mages were forced to be servants of the Chantry or forced into servitude, but apparently all of the codex entries are wrong. Saying that people who look through what multiple characters say and all the codex entries and make an informed opinion on something, only to be told all the characters and all the codex entries are wrong, and then dismissing it as saying we're basing it on one single character, is asinine.

[IanPolaris]

ddv.rsa wrote...

As it turns out Meredith was right and there was a conspiracy to oust her. Orsino was never implicated, but personally I think it entirely possible that he was involved. If he can hide blood magic and years of contact with maleficarum, he can hide his involvement in a conspiracy. I don't see where she's being paranoid here: the conspiracy was real. She was right!

You would be completely wrong then.  We know (if you don't take the hyper-pro templar side) when Orisino gives you the same quest, that he knows nothing about it.  He sends you on the same quest as a fact-finding mission because he's afraid that Meridith is going to hang something on him that he knows nothing about.

Orsino's fears are quite justified when you take both sides of the same quest together and get the complete meta-picture.  Yes there is a conspiracy against Meridith.  NO, Orsino had nothing to do with it....and her templars are NOT being controlled by bloodmagic to make them turn against her.  That's her own delusion and paranoia showing.  Many Templars are turning against Meridith because a growing number of Templars think (correctly it turns out) that she is a fruit-loop.

Also, if you ask what happens should your investigation uncover nothing she replies "Then I'm wrong. I would never ask you to lie, Champion."

Yeah sure, but then why bother to have me (her best ally in this case) investigate at all if she is unwilling to hear an honest post-action report?  It's like saying, "Who are you going to believe?  Me or your lying eyes."

I know I'm going against the grain when I say this but I actually like Meredith. Perhaps that makes me horribly biased and unfit for templar / mage debates. At least in the context of Kirkwall.

Frankly it does.  Meridith is designed to be a villian from the word "go" and a complete fruit-loop regardless of which side you take.

-Polaris

[Oneiropolos]

Frankly, what I find fascinating as a historian, and the charge that the Thedas historians will find Anders justified, is how LOADED The word 'justified' is! Did you ever look at the definition of the word "Vindicated"? It's a word we historians love to use. You see, we often use it to mean that we're clearing someone of crime or the ill spoken against them. Except Vindicated has a SECOND meaning (as most words do) which reads: Show or prove to be right, reasonable, or justified.

Look at the three words put together, and the great 'or' there. Any of those words applied could VINDICATE a person. This made me pause. Right? No. Between 'right' or 'wrong', I can't find Anders -right-. Reasonable? I can see his reasons, but I don't find them CORRECT reasons. If we want to go 'full of reasons' or 'containing a reason' then... maybe. But that's not what most people think of when they sigh in exasperation and go, "Be reasonable!" In that context, blowing up a chantry with people inside will never be REASONABLE. So. That leaves with the last word. The "Or justified". Here we have a problem. It doesn't matter if you agree with right or reasonable... if you agree Anders is justified, by definition, you have vindicated him of what he did. You have basically given dismissal to a crime Anders himself saw as NECESSARY for what he needed, but Anders does intend to pay the price of death for it. His writer herself stated it. Anders viewed it as both the correct thing to do and that it was justice for him to die for it.

So, I looked up the word justified. Now, the second definition really amused me on that one. "Declared or made righteous in the sight of God". Somehow, even switching "God" out and putting in "The Maker", I don't think Anders meets that definition of Justified. Something about killing holy men and women is generally frowned upon by deities, even as far back as Ancient Greek myths. So the only definition one could argue Anders is 'justified' under is "Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason". Even that's a bit iffie. There's already huge debate over whether his reasons were legitimate...I think he believed they were. But it can also be argued they were not legitimate in the end because he viewed his way as the only way, and there were alternatives that could have led to an outcome that didn't involve an act of terrorism.

Here's where things click though. Anders did what he did for JUSTIFIABLE reasons, which has a second definition of "Defensible". And I would say yes, the reasons why Anders did what Anders did are entirely defensible. I get them. I still knife him for it and think he was wrong. But even I could play devil's advocate and DEFEND his reasons.

If the title were "Can Ander's actions be defended?" The answer is a whole-hearted yes. Wrongly or rightly, they can be defended. Was he JUSTIFIED which means he could be later VINDICATED (also defined:Clear (someone) of blame or suspicion, along with the showing someone to have had right, reasonable, or justified actions) uh... no. He admitted he did it. Perhaps even the best question to ask is are his REASONS justifiable? And then it's truly something up to debate.

But was Anders justified? No. Will some Historians find him so? Well, some historians find clauses for every action in history to be justified and every person to be vindicated. I can't say anything, I'm a Ricardian. I think there's enough outside evidence that Richard III didn't kill his nephews, or at least that what indicates he did is from incredibly biased sources (men who worked for the King after him, or actually men he dismissed from their positions who suddenly AFTERWARDS declared he was doing all this...after he was dead). Historians work on accounts written by others in most cases...and maybe, you could argue, Varric isn't giving us the full story. Maybe because we're hearing the story from Varric, Varric's REALLY hiding the fact that actually Hawke blew up the chantry. Who knows. But we're as close to first hand as we can get.

Some historians will find Anders justified. And they'll write the scrolls that will cause other Historians to throw them against the wall in irritation. Not that... I would.. have ever done.. anything like that... >.> *mumbles something about her apartment-mates laughing when they heard thuds and shouting into her room, "You're trying to read the book from the idiot historian that you swear should have never been taught to read let alone write again, aren't you?"*

[kennyv217]

Was Anders Justified

Me: www.youtube.com/watch

[Darth Krytie]

Oneiropolos wrote...

Not that... I would.. have ever done.. anything like that... >.> *mumbles something about her apartment-mates laughing when they heard thuds and shouting into her room, "You're trying to read the book from the idiot historian that you swear should have never been taught to read let alone write again, aren't you?"*

Reading Josephus again?

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Hawke, for another, can use the terms servitude and slavery to describe the Chantry controlled Circle.

Fair enough. And that means what, precisely, other than that Hawke-- who has never been part of the Circle-- has an opinion?

THANK YOU!!!

There's too many people on these boards and others around the net that just take what some characters say at face value. They don't ever try to filter it through the character's personal biases first.

Thank you for saying that.

People don't simply take what characters say at face value. It was also addressed that multiple codex entries address that mages were forced to be servants of the Chantry or forced into servitude, but apparently all of the codex entries are wrong. Saying that people who look through what multiple characters say and all the codex entries and make an informed opinion on something, only to be told all the characters and all the codex entries are wrong, and then dismissing it as saying we're basing it on one single character, is asinine.

They are not wrong, they are not right either. They are simply opinions. What Gaider is trying to tell you is, that you thinking the codex is a medium for absolute truth, is wrong.