1927 réponses à ce sujet

[Camenae]

Do mages need freedom? and
Is Anders justified?

I think are two different questions. Related, certainly, but I don't think there's anything wrong with someone thinking mages do need freedom but Anders went about it the wrong way. Indeed from reading these threads I think many do feel that way.

One can certainly say yes to both questions, but to say Anders is justified BECAUSE mages need freedom, that is skipping quite a few steps in the reasoning process.

Modifié par Camenae, 02 avril 2011 - 08:34 .

[frylock23]

Anders was not justified. I see Anders as something approximating Thedas' John Brown. Yes, what John Brown did was one of the flash points of the Civil War. Yes, John Brown was on the anti-slavery side. However, history isn't kind to John Brown. What most often isn't taught like it should be is that while many in the north abhorred slavery, they were also thoroughly appalled at the methods John Brown used to try to end it.

I think the Circles are necessary. It only makes sense to consolidate and standardize mage training to lessen the incidence of ignorant mages becoming abominations. But that's all the Circles should be - schools of training.

I think that the templars are necessary. Having a police force of those trained specifically to deal with mages who've gone bad isn't a bad idea when a bad mage can be so destructive. I do think that allowing the templars to become jailors is a very bad idea. It leads to situations like Kirkwall. Perhaps a few mages should be trained as templars to work with non-mage templars in neutralizing bad mages.

Continue to view mages as a class in and of themselves. Make them recognize that they will never hold secular power by reason of their ability to weild magical power.

[Mahtisonni]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

No. Absolutely not. It was excessive, and without doubt led to more suffering to the mages, the templars, and all the people of Thedas, than it avoided. The problem was mostly with Meredith, and any justified action should have been directed at her, and the most radical of templars. Less aggressive means should have been explored for improving the lot of mages.

The only reason why I hesitated, for a moment, before killing Anders, was that he seemed to WANT to be killed, to become a martyr. If I had the choise, I would have handed him over to the templars instead, to be made tranquil. THAT would have been punishment fitting the crime, in the case of Anders.

>Implying that revolting against such discrimination can be called a crime.

I personally would have burned down that chantry myself if I could. Why? Because that **** was the only one Meredith was willing to listen and she didn't say a damn thing to her about putting harrowed mages through tranquility even though it was against their laws.

Instead she told Orsino to shut up and bear with it.

Actually, now that I think about it, maybe Anders' actions weren't justified. 
He had no right to steal that juicy kill from me, just like that Qunari did with mother Peatrice.

Modifié par Mahtisonni, 02 avril 2011 - 08:40 .

[Rifneno]

Mahtisonni wrote...

Actually, now that I think about it, maybe Anders' actions weren't justified. 
He had no right to steal that juicy kill from me, just like that Qunari did with mother Peatrice.

Well... he lets you have Meredith.  That's something at least.  But yeah, I would've enjoyed ending her.  "I'm the grand cleric, who would dare attack me?"  Arrogant skank.  I can't believe anyone feels sorry for her.

[PPR223]

With the Templar-Mage war, there will be alot more mages resorting to blood magic to give them a larger chance of survival. And it will be the most powerful of these blood mages that will rise to become their leaders. With this in state, and if the mages win the war, then there is no other alternative than the rise of the Tevinter Imperium, who would gladly support these Mages. Slavery will still be there, however it will revert back to the slavery of ordinary people.

Anders is just stupid, as it is blatanly obvious that Kirkwall would not stand to have Meredith as temporary Viscount for long. Kirkwalls army seemingly opposes her, and would rather the election of a new viscount as soon as possible, a person with alot of influence and respect. The Mages obviously oppose, and so do alot of Templars.

If Hawke became Viscount and still supported the Templars, he would still be against Meredith for tactical reasons. Why wouldn't you want someone who poses a threat to your position removed? Alot of people had compelling enough reasons to oppose Meredith. With her gone, so the laws against the Mages will be relaxed.

Actually Elthina explains that you overestimate her position, when you ask her a question  after the Orsino display in Hightown. This is easy to understand, as you have to remember that the Templars are specifically placed under Merediths command and not Elthina's. Whether she could talk them down or not is extremely questionable, as there have always been those who think outside their station.  Why else in history did those in lower postions bid to overthrow monarchy?

Modifié par PPR223, 02 avril 2011 - 09:00 .

[TJPags]

Camenae wrote...

Do mages need freedom? and
Is Anders justified?

I think are two different questions. Related, certainly, but I don't think there's anything wrong with someone thinking mages do need freedom but Anders went about it the wrong way. Indeed from reading these threads I think many do feel that way.

One can certainly say yes to both questions, but to say Anders is justified BECAUSE mages need freedom, that is skipping quite a few steps in the reasoning process.

Indeed.  And that's the flaw in the thinking.

Even if we all agree mages should have freedom, doesn't that include individual mages being allowed to WANT to be in the Circle?  Or does mage freedom mean none of them can be in a Circle?

See, that's the choice Anders made - for every mage - that there should be no Circle.

And then there was how he did it.  Blowing up the Chantry to eliminate the Grand Cleric.  He could have done without destroying the building, or killing everyone in it.  Assasinate her.  Hell, he has Hawke distract her so he can plant the bomb .  . .just kill her instead. 

But no - to force a confrontation, he felt the Grand Cleric needed to die, and felt killing everyone else in the building - and possibly around it - was a fine way to do that.

So, I say he was not justified in what he did.

And I also say that he did not have the right to choose for every mage.

[Halo Quea]

Rifneno wrote...

Mahtisonni wrote...

The rise of a new imperium can naturally be stopped by MAKING THE GODDAMN TEMPLAR TRAINING PUBLIC!
Honestly, if half of the population can turn your magic into a wet fart, then it doesn't seem like a very compelling idea to ****** them off.

Templars' abilities are exaggerated.  Hawke being able to mow down anyone is no big surprise, but you can see other mages holding their own too.  Orsino takes out quite a few templars when he still looks like Count Chocula and not Roseanne Barr.  It's just that mages can't totally roflstomp them like some peasant with a pitchfork.  That's why Kirkwall led to rebellions, they found out the templars aren't as invincible as they think.

I think mages will actually watch over their own fairly well.  Consider that they'll realize how delicate their freedom is and that a few bad apples can ruin it for everyone.  When word starts going around about a bad apple, you can bet other mages will barbeque him even if just so his crimes won't reflect on them.

I like this post even though I disagree with some of it.

The mages are going to have a tough time keeping order outside the domain of a uniform circle.  People like Grace are a perfect example of what happens during revolutions or even underground railroads.   They are so bent on vengence that it becomes impossible for them to see the big picture.  So there ARE going to be some really really bad to rotten apples coming out of this.

The problem with this of course is the revolution began with Anders and his extremely violent act against the Chantry.  Anders unfortunately becomes the first example, and as the first example he's going to be the one that many of the mages are likely to follow. 

This is why it's important to keep Anders alive.

Damn the loyalty of Fenris, Sebastian and anyone else who wants to leave.  This is bigger than them and despite what the idiotic narrative would have you believe, Anders is more important than Hawke.  Anders needs to live so he can see how bad it's going to get, that his act not only started a war, but could bring about a genocidal inquisition against mages and all families with magic in their blood lines.  

Anders also needs to be there when it all comes to an end, something our choir boy companion misses all to easily. Especially after all his preaching and prayers for forgiveness throughout the game.  He's a hypocrite and I would have loved to be able to point out to him how quickly he goes from saint to executioner whenever someone close to him is lost.   But alas, Hawke is a dummy only because s/he can't respond as such, and is never really allowed to explain to our companions any position h/she takes because of the silly friendship-rivarly system.

But I do agree that IF the mages want their struggle to mean something more than just revenge, then they will have to keep order amongst themselves.  If all they want is to practice blood magic and enage in acts of terror then it would have all been for nothing.  Anders needs to be around to see the conclusion,  for better or for worse.

[ddv.rsa]

On the other hand, lettings Anders go could also enable him to cause even more trouble.

[Halo Quea]

ddv.rsa wrote...

On the other hand, lettings Anders go could also enable him to cause even more trouble.

But it's HIS revolution, not Hawke's. 

[Darth Krytie]

I think Anders was justified if for no other reason that mages had absolutely no method of redress in the current system. There was no way for a mage to initiate peaceful reform. There was no way for mages to escape a system fraught with abuse. If they caused "too much trouble", they were imprisoned or lobotomized or killed.

There was no chance for a peaceful solution.

The frequent phrase I see tossed out is: killing innocents is never justified.

And I agree to a point. However, who determines who is innocent? The people who work at the Chantry could be seen as innocent or they could be seen as willful participants in an unjust and abusive system. If it's about the random people on the street hit by falling debris, in every war there's collateral damage. I mean, when Luke blows up the Death Star...sure, he's targeting an unjust system and a very large weapon, but there were innocent workers there, too. There were prisoners whose only crime, presumably, was to oppose the Empire. But, most people would agree that what Luke did was justified. (I know the Death Star was also a weapon who could kill on a grand scale. I'm using it as an example, so let's not get into the numbers game)

At that point, plenty of mages (some innocent, I'm sure) have been rendered collateral damage of the system.

I'm not advocating a system where a new force is in power and a new force is subjugated...I am, however, for a total overhaul of the system.

[Deztyn]

I'm going to go ahead and repost something I wrote in one of the other threads:

Deztyn wrote...

Anders is a half-mad abomination, whose narrow mindedness and lack of foresight is more likely to doom than help the people he claims to speak for. If any good comes from his actions it will only be because better people than he are able to make something of the disaster he creates.

Seriously, his 'plan' for mage freedom is essentially this:

1) Build magic bomb.

2) Blow up chantry

3) Die.

4) ???

5) Profit!

I can understand sympathy for his cause, but not the blind praise of his actions.

See the bolded? 

That's why Anders isn't justified.

Modifié par Deztyn, 02 avril 2011 - 09:39 .

[AshenEndymion]

Darth Krytie wrote...

I think Anders was justified if for no other reason that mages had absolutely no method of redress in the current system. There was no way for a mage to initiate peaceful reform. There was no way for mages to escape a system fraught with abuse. If they caused "too much trouble", they were imprisoned or lobotomized or killed.

There was no chance for a peaceful solution.

But there is a redress system. A mage makes his/her complaint to the First Enchanter. The First Enchanter informs the Knight Commander about the complaint to see if the situation can be resolved. The First Enchanter can also involve the Grand Cleric if s/he feels that the Knight Commander is not addressing the situation adequately.

That some people feel this isn't enough, or that it works, is one thing. But the system exists. The "peaceful solution" exists. Anders, however, refuses to operate in that manner from the beginning. Anders is unjustified because he resorts to the violent options with regards to the Templars from the beginning.

[TJPags]

Darth Krytie wrote...

I think Anders was justified if for no other reason that mages had absolutely no method of redress in the current system. There was no way for a mage to initiate peaceful reform. There was no way for mages to escape a system fraught with abuse. If they caused "too much trouble", they were imprisoned or lobotomized or killed.

 
That seems to be what Anders thought.  I think he was wrong.  And I think you are too.  Because what he needed to do, assuming that killing someone was necessary here, was kill the Grand Cleric.  That forces the issue right there in Kirkwall, because now there's no arbiter.  But he went beyond that.

Darth Krytie wrote...
There was no chance for a peaceful solution.

Actually, there was . . until Anders did what he did.  Elfinna could have been forced to make a decision - she did at the beginning of Act 3.  But because she didn't "go far enough" (likely in the opinion of Anders) it was decided she was not useful.  Hence, her death warrant was sealed.

Darth Krytie wrote...
The frequent phrase I see tossed out is: killing innocents is never justified.

I've said it often.  And while I'll say that sometimes it's unavoidable, it should always be a last resort - meaning, there is no other way to kill your target.  Which wasn't the case here/.

Darth Krytie wrote...
And I agree to a point. However, who determines who is innocent?

Apparently, Anders.

Darth Krytie wrote...
The people who work at the Chantry could be seen as innocent or they could be seen as willful participants in an unjust and abusive system.

So, a cook is a willful participant in an unjust and sbusive system?  Because he or she has a job?  Same with the cleaning person?  Or the worshippers?  Or some tourist?  Or children praying?

Darth Krytie wrote...
If it's about the random people on the street hit by falling debris, in every war there's collateral damage. I mean, when Luke blows up the Death Star...sure, he's targeting an unjust system and a very large weapon, but there were innocent workers there, too. There were prisoners whose only crime, presumably, was to oppose the Empire. But, most people would agree that what Luke did was justified. (I know the Death Star was also a weapon who could kill on a grand scale. I'm using it as an example, so let's not get into the numbers game)

Big difference.  The death star is full of soldiers, with only a few innocents.  The Chantry is the opposite - mainly people with no position beyond that of a worker or a person of faith, and few priests.  The people passing by on the street, or working in the courtyard, aren't even that involved.  And again, they likely outnumber the "important people" in the Chantry by a large amount.

Darth Krytie wrote...
At that point, plenty of mages (some innocent, I'm sure) have been rendered collateral damage of the system.

Probably true, I'll accept that it is.  Do two wrongs make a right?

Darth Krytie wrote...
I'm not advocating a system where a new force is in power and a new force is subjugated...I am, however, for a total overhaul of the system.

I'd be willing to overhaul it also.  But terrorism isn't a starting point.

[Kabraxal]

Darth Krytie wrote...

I think Anders was justified if for no other reason that mages had absolutely no method of redress in the current system. There was no way for a mage to initiate peaceful reform. There was no way for mages to escape a system fraught with abuse. If they caused "too much trouble", they were imprisoned or lobotomized or killed.

There was no chance for a peaceful solution.

The frequent phrase I see tossed out is: killing innocents is never justified.

And I agree to a point. However, who determines who is innocent? The people who work at the Chantry could be seen as innocent or they could be seen as willful participants in an unjust and abusive system. If it's about the random people on the street hit by falling debris, in every war there's collateral damage. I mean, when Luke blows up the Death Star...sure, he's targeting an unjust system and a very large weapon, but there were innocent workers there, too. There were prisoners whose only crime, presumably, was to oppose the Empire. But, most people would agree that what Luke did was justified. (I know the Death Star was also a weapon who could kill on a grand scale. I'm using it as an example, so let's not get into the numbers game)

At that point, plenty of mages (some innocent, I'm sure) have been rendered collateral damage of the system.

I'm not advocating a system where a new force is in power and a new force is subjugated...I am, however, for a total overhaul of the system.

Relativism is just an excuse to allow evil and stupidity to run rampant.  There is no way to say everyone in the building was evil and deserved death.  And there is damn good reason to expect death outside from the destruction of the blast.  Anders was willing to kill innocents.  Anders became a murdered and a terrorist.

The fact so many defend such action is disheartening.  Actually... it is sickening. 

Modifié par Kabraxal, 02 avril 2011 - 09:47 .

[Darth Krytie]

AshenEndemion wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...

I think Anders was justified if for no other reason that mages had absolutely no method of redress in the current system. There was no way for a mage to initiate peaceful reform. There was no way for mages to escape a system fraught with abuse. If they caused "too much trouble", they were imprisoned or lobotomized or killed.

There was no chance for a peaceful solution.

But there is a redress system. A mage makes his/her complaint to the First Enchanter. The First Enchanter informs the Knight Commander about the complaint to see if the situation can be resolved. The First Enchanter can also involve the Grand Cleric if s/he feels that the Knight Commander is not addressing the situation adequately.

That some people feel this isn't enough, or that it works, is one thing. But the system exists. The "peaceful solution" exists. Anders, however, refuses to operate in that manner from the beginning. Anders is unjustified because he resorts to the violent options with regards to the Templars from the beginning.

And we've seen throughout the game that the "Peaceful Solution" that currently exists DOES NOT FUNCTION. It only ends in Tranquil and dead mages.

So, when the Templars rape a mage, and the mage goes to the First Enchanter and the First Enchanter goes to the Knight Commander, who ignores him, and then to the Grand Cleric, who does not get involved at all, how is that a system of redress?

How is it unjustified if the system put in place to deal with things peacefully is a complete and total farce? 

[Deztyn]

Krytie,

If the people within the system aren't doing their jobs right, it's a failing of those people not a failing of the system.

[AshenEndymion]

Darth Krytie wrote...

AshenEndemion wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...

I think Anders was justified if for no other reason that mages had absolutely no method of redress in the current system. There was no way for a mage to initiate peaceful reform. There was no way for mages to escape a system fraught with abuse. If they caused "too much trouble", they were imprisoned or lobotomized or killed.

There was no chance for a peaceful solution.

But there is a redress system. A mage makes his/her complaint to the First Enchanter. The First Enchanter informs the Knight Commander about the complaint to see if the situation can be resolved. The First Enchanter can also involve the Grand Cleric if s/he feels that the Knight Commander is not addressing the situation adequately.

That some people feel this isn't enough, or that it works, is one thing. But the system exists. The "peaceful solution" exists. Anders, however, refuses to operate in that manner from the beginning. Anders is unjustified because he resorts to the violent options with regards to the Templars from the beginning.

And we've seen throughout the game that the "Peaceful Solution" that currently exists DOES NOT FUNCTION. It only ends in Tranquil and dead mages.

So, when the Templars rape a mage, and the mage goes to the First Enchanter and the First Enchanter goes to the Knight Commander, who ignores him, and then to the Grand Cleric, who does not get involved at all, how is that a system of redress?

How is it unjustified if the system put in place to deal with things peacefully is a complete and total farce? 

Ah, but this does not mean the Circle itself is an unjustified system, nor that it does not function.  It only applies to the Circle in Kirkwall.  The Circle in Ferelden worked out fairly well with the redress system, even if Anders disagrees.  But, then again, Anders is a whiny little ****.

The Circle situation in Kirkwall does not mean that the entire Chantry/Circle system is an farce.  Only that there are problems in Kirkwall.

[Darth Krytie]

[quote]TJPags wrote...

 
That seems to be what Anders thought.  I think he was wrong.  And I think you are too.  Because what he needed to do, assuming that killing someone was necessary here, was kill the Grand Cleric.  That forces the issue right there in Kirkwall, because now there's no arbiter.  But he went beyond that.
 [/quote]


Yes, he did go beyond it. I didn't say I think he did a good thing or that I think he was right. I said I think he was justified. Justified: to show a satisfactory reason or excuse for something done.

I understand his reasoning and every single war has collateral damage. Even if it is distasteful. The USA revolution against Britian certainly wasn't peaceful and people who were "innocent" and "didn't deserve to die" certrainly did.

Now right? Was his decision a correct one? Probably not. That's a different discussion. [/quote]



[quote]TJPags wrote...


So, a cook is a willful participant in an unjust and sbusive system?  Because he or she has a job?  Same with the cleaning person?  Or the worshippers?  Or some tourist?  Or children praying?

[/quote]

I never said they were. I said that they could be seen as willful participants. I never actually made the judgement call on who deserved death or life. I never would. It's called playing Devil's Advocate.


[quote]TJPags wrote...
Big difference.  The death star is full of soldiers, with only a few innocents.  The Chantry is the opposite - mainly people with no position beyond that of a worker or a person of faith, and few priests.  The people passing by on the street, or working in the courtyard, aren't even that involved.  And again, they likely outnumber the "important people" in the Chantry by a large amount.
[/quote]

Actually, that's not true. There are cantinas and parks and shopping malls and restaruants and stuff like that because they had such a large civilian presence there to work on it. It was the size of a very large city. There were more civilians than soldiers there, actually. The EU goes into it when people try to kill Luke for destroying their inncoent families.

But, yes, there's a lot of people who can get hurt in the crossfire. I never disagreed with that.

[quote]TJPags wrote...
Probably true, I'll accept that it is.  Do two wrongs make a right? [/quote]

Once again, I'm not arguing if he was right or moral. I never said I thought he did a good thing. Justification for a decision is a different beast all together.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

I'd be willing to overhaul it also.  But terrorism isn't a starting point.
[/quote]

This wasn't the starting point. This was the breaking point. There had been attempts at getting this to change that went absolutely no where. Almost every single large change in the system was brought about by war and activisim in which people died. Innocent people. And that's because no one in power is willing to give it up just because the other party asked nicely. It doesn't make it right or tasteful or good. It doesn't make it palatable. The lack of functioning redress is what gets people to act. Anders doesn't make this choice in year one or year three or year five. It's after seven years of trying to reach a compromise and the situation getting worse. In those years of trying to compromise, his fellow mages were the main vicitms of the oppression. So, he decides that there's no other recourse--he may be right or wrong--and then he makes this decision to do this horrific act and he does not make it lightly because he sees no other option after that last discussion  with the Cleric which cements the fact that she will not intervene. That is justification for his actions.

[Halo Quea]

Darth Krytie wrote...

AshenEndemion wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...

I think Anders was justified if for no other reason that mages had absolutely no method of redress in the current system. There was no way for a mage to initiate peaceful reform. There was no way for mages to escape a system fraught with abuse. If they caused "too much trouble", they were imprisoned or lobotomized or killed.

There was no chance for a peaceful solution.

But there is a redress system. A mage makes his/her complaint to the First Enchanter. The First Enchanter informs the Knight Commander about the complaint to see if the situation can be resolved. The First Enchanter can also involve the Grand Cleric if s/he feels that the Knight Commander is not addressing the situation adequately.

That some people feel this isn't enough, or that it works, is one thing. But the system exists. The "peaceful solution" exists. Anders, however, refuses to operate in that manner from the beginning. Anders is unjustified because he resorts to the violent options with regards to the Templars from the beginning.

And we've seen throughout the game that the "Peaceful Solution" that currently exists DOES NOT FUNCTION. It only ends in Tranquil and dead mages.

So, when the Templars rape a mage, and the mage goes to the First Enchanter and the First Enchanter goes to the Knight Commander, who ignores him, and then to the Grand Cleric, who does not get involved at all, how is that a system of redress?

How is it unjustified if the system put in place to deal with things peacefully is a complete and total farce? 

I kept waiting for just such a horror story to come of the Gallows involving Bethany, thankfully none ever developed  and I was relieved when the Knight Commander confirmed that Bethany was an exemplary Mage in the Circle.   But after her letter we have no communication with Bethany that would have given us a direct feed on how life in the Gallows really is.  

I believed what everyone was saying about the Templars but there were also a few times where Anders got it wrong about Meredith and Elthina.   In fact Anders got ALOT of things wrong. 

When I saw the Senachal visiting Anders' clinic in Darktown, I said, "Everyone knows WHO Anders is, they know WHAT he is, and they know exactly WHERE to find him."  In other words, even people high up in Kirkwall's structure are protecting him because he's recognized as a healer.  This makes what Ander's did to Kirkwall and the Chantry even more vicious.  Because he broke trust and faith with so many people, and he's ready to justify it all in a self-righteous manner.  Almost like Patrice.

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

The question/ problem I have about the ending is that if you side with the mages, the game seems to assume you are taking sides in the larger war. Anders certainly assumes that. Whereas I don't envision my Hawke being involved in a protracted Circle vs. templar war- she just wanted to restore order in Kirkwall.

"Restoring order" by siding against the current status quo in the rest of Thedas seems like a really poor - and ultimately short lived - way to go about it.

Siding with the mages is siding with the revolution, no question.

I sided with the mages because Meredith is batsh*t insane but her men are following her anyway.  Granted that everyone assumes Hawke is on the side of la revolucion, but that doesn't mean she actually is.

[AndreaDraco]

Another "justifying Anders" thread? How many are there?

Anyway, I'll reply with the short version of my opinion.

No, he can't be justified. Yes, it was (at least as far as I'm concerned) inevitable. Anders, to me, is a visionary and a revolutionary and - while my Mage Hawke agreed with him 100% on the issue of "Freedom for Mages" - perhaps he would have chosen another way. Still, as I said, it was unavoidable. The war had to start somewhere. And a war was needed. It is the only way to solve the conflict between mages and templars. Every revolution starts with blood, as cynical as it may sound.

And Grand Cleric Elthina wasn't an innocent. With her pusillanimous stance she was, de facto, given Meredith free rein. The Chantry is a player in this game and Anders chose wisely his target.

Anders or Vengeance, that is. Right now, we can't be sure if it was Anders' plan or if it was more Vengeance's doing. Either way, he did what he thought was right. And even if his means are questionable (and I say questionable, not outright condemnable*), his intent is a pure and just one.

* This stems from my personal views when it comes to freedom, indipendence and revolution, which I've discussed in length elsewhere. Suffice to say that, to me, there's a great deal fo difference between revolution and terrorism. I will never think of Anders as a terrorist. To me, he'll always be a revolutionary.

Modifié par AndreaDraco, 02 avril 2011 - 10:52 .

[LPPrince]

No.

[AlexXIV]

I don't know why people think Anders makes decisions for others. Far as I know every single mage can still decide for him or herself. Same with templars and the Chantry. Most mages were unhappy with the circles anyway. Anders just triggered something that would have happened anyway, somewhere sometime. It is just emanzipation. It is natural for any human being to not accept if other people decide their life. Any government that oppresses it's population will eventually have to deal with a rebellion. Even the Qun is defied by some Qunari. You can suppress freedom for a while, and people may even accept it as a temporary neccessity. But not forever.

[Vormaerin]

The choice of any mage like Bethany, Elle, and the others who just want to live and be accepted is taken away. The only choice now is fight or die. All the "mages are evil, dangerous things" views threaded throughout society is now proven right. They didn't attack templars. They blew up a cathedral. People all over Thedas are going to say "They murdered priestesses" not "Those templars sure were evil."

What do you think is going to happen in this war? The mages will somehow win? How are they going to do that? What armies are on their side? Anders did the ONE thing that guaranteed that nearly every hand in Thedas would be turned against mages.

[ddv.rsa]

Vormaerin wrote...


What do you think is going to happen in this war? The mages will somehow win? How are they going to do that? What armies are on their side? Anders did the ONE thing that guaranteed that nearly every hand in Thedas would be turned against mages.

It's just a hunch, but I suspect Hawke will determine the outcome of the war in DA3.