1927 réponses à ce sujet

[Lurockia]

I'm going to repost exactly what I said in my own thread in response to this.

Lurockia wrote...

I have just finished my second playthrough of Dragon Age II and this time, rather than siding with the Templers I decided to side with the Mages. Having done this, I can't for the life of me understand why so many people hate, if not downright loathe Anders for his actions.

Please restrain your arguements and judgements until I've explained.

They say it's because he's a madman, a terrorist, an insane murderer whose actions were unjustified. Is it really the case though? Justice for the Mages. Vengeance for the Mages. It really all depends on the point of view.

If the cause doesn't concern you, it's terribly difficult to relate or even support it because you don't understand the need for it or to bother with it. Everyone's life is different and we all have had different experiences. Some of us have suffered injustices that others will never face throughout an entire lifetime.

*****SPOILERS AHEAD******

I will admit that in my first playthrough of Dragon Age II I
sided with the Templars. I had spent a good deal of the game helping
mages that were in need because I felt that they were treated unfairly.
Once Mama Hawke was taken by that blood mage though I started to hate
them. I defended them and they've all resorted to Blood Magic, even the
First Enchanter. I guess you could say I wanted Vengeance? Ha.

Then I started a playthrough in which I supported Anders.

As much as I was Pro-Templar before, siding with Anders had opened my eyes
that not all mages were to blame. If you romanced Anders, he will come
to comfort Hawke after their mother's death, I had replayed the scene a
few times just to see the different dialogue options. The one that
really made everything click was this one:

"Maybe the Templars are right.. Do you really still think mages should be free?"

To which Anders replies with..

"..He was a madman.. That's what made him do this not magic.."

When I heard that, that's when I knew. He was right. He was completely and
utterly right. It wouldn't have made a difference whether he was a mage
or a normal man. A normal man would've been just as capable to have done
what that psychopath did. It doesn't take a mage to have someone kill
someone you love or to do the horrible experiments that had transpired.

Grotesque stories happen all the time on a daily basis in our own world and we
live in a world where magic is something you can only find in stories.
Yet things like Necrophilia, murder, and far worse still happen.

*****END OF SPOILERS*****

When you think about it, locking mages up in the Circle Towers is no more different than what happened during World War II. Jewish families were taken away from everything they knew and locked away in Concentration Camps to be dealt with. Many of which had no misdeeds to their name other than having been born Jewish, homosexual, or just people who simply disagreed with the regime.

Many downright despise Anders for his beliefs, but that's because they don't feel like it concerns them. When in reality it does, more than they know. Whether they like itor not, Hawke has magic in their bloodline. It will only take them having one more mage child born of them to reconsider whether or not it might've been for the better to have had the freedom Anders always talked about. Otherwise they'll just end up like Isolde and her son Conner from Dragon Age: Origins and what will be their options then? Be on the run? Give them up to the Circle and never see them again? That's no solution.

Every revolution in our own world history has started with someone doing something controversial.

The Rise of the Protestants against the Pope.
America's Independence against the British.
The Civil Rights Movement.
And many more.

Things that have changed people's lives for the better. What really struck a chord with me though is the last thing Anders says just before the Final Battle assuming you romanced him.

"Ten Years.. A hundred years from now. Someone like me will love someone like you, and there will be no one to tear them apart."

That meant a lot to me because I can relate. A hundred years ago, my parents wouldn't have been allowed to have been together. My father is white and my mother is asian. A biracial relationship? Unacceptable. Nowadays? No one minds. Everything he stands for has already happened and is continuing to happen. At one point, someone somewhere fought for the benefits we all enjoy today in our modern society. If they win. Anders will probably be remembered as a hero. He did something rather than do nothing and sometimes that's all that matters.

One day, that same quote will apply to same-sex lovers. For now, they're persecuted for being what they are by being revoked of their rights to marry who they want, but one day it won't always be the case. Why? Because someone somewhere is fighting for them.

The elimination of the Chantry in Kirkwall had to happen. It symbolized that things need to change. Very much like the plot for the movie V for Vendetta. Innocents will always die in times of warfare, it can't be helped. We just have to look into our own history to understand the message that Anders was trying to get across.

Well. That was certainly lengthy wasn't it? I just felt like I had to share my view on here. I wonder how many people actually read to the end. Haha.

And that my friends. Is my statement as to whether or not Anders' actions were justified.

Modifié par Lurockia, 27 octobre 2012 - 05:54 .

[BCL]

An interesting post, Lurockia.  I sided with the Mages, but ended up killing Anders anyway. After I finished (and saw what Meredith had become) I felt that I definitely should have let him live - and he was probably right.
 
I thought the primary trouble in Kirkwall was due to Meredith, and with her gone there would be less Bloodmage problems. I played as a Mage in Dragon Age 1, and actually thought that while there were some problems with the Circle, given decent Mage and Templar rulers the system can work well. Of course, a game with sensible leaders might not be much fun (at least for those of us who like combat games), but I guess I was hoping that in the end that I could kill Meredith 1 on 1, take over the city (or let Aveline run it), and with Cullen and I leading the Templers and Mages all would be grand!!!!! Needless to say I was not expecting Anders to cause such a ruckus. I told about my end-game in the Mages V. Templars thread by Gchappell, so I won't repeat it here, but at the choice scene I was certainly no longer thinking straight.  I suspect I killed Anders hoping that it might make Fenris side with me later when he saw I had killed the Mage who "started" the mess (of course I really can't remember if this is true, but it is a gut feeling I have). Fortunately Anders and Hawke were good friends, so I think in a "real-life" situation he would have not hated me (Hawke) too much for killing him (which the death cut scene seemed to imply).  I, however, would have spent the rest of my life regretting I did so. 

While I don't agree with what Anders did, I feel now that in this "game-universe" he actually did the right thing. There was a rising against Meredith brewing, but it is quite possible that the only thing which would have removed her is an outright Mage-Templar war - which Anders caused. Alas, it is possible that even if I killed her 1 on 1 the Nobles might not have voted me as leader. If Kirkwall was an isolated incident, then I doubt one crazy city would have turned the Tempers and Mages against each other everywhere. I am looking forward to seeing what Part 3 brings.

Modifié par BCL, 17 novembre 2012 - 07:54 .

[jcoultas]

Reposting here what I put on Lurockia's thread:

You make many good points, and I truly believe that Anders' cause was just. Sure, his methods were questionable, but I could see no other alternative to take care of things. The one area I disagree on is the subject of gay marriage. The problem with that is marriage has religious origins, and while 'civil marriage' was never meant to be the same thing as 'religious marriage', in the centuries since the United States was founded new laws have not differentiated between the two.

In order for a gay 'civil marriage' to protect the rights of churches, mosques, and synagogues and their followers, every marriage law that has ever been passed would have to be put under a microscope, and amended to differentiate between religious marriage and civil marriage.

It's not that Christians or Jews desire to impede the rights of others, mostly they wish to protect their own rights. As long as society is not willing to differentiate between civil and religious marriage, and as long as liberals keep trying to pass gay marriage laws without first repairing two centuries worth of negligently written marriage law reforms there will never be any chance of winning over majority of the populations approval.

The whole point of civil unions was a lazy mans work-around to avoid having to go back and reform so many laws. Anyway, any gay marriage law would have to differentiate between religious marriage and civil marriage. You might think that is enough, but what happens if it goes to the supreme court, and they have precedences that regard civil marriage and religious marriage as the same? They could rule that differentiating between the two is unconstitutional.

You could get lesbian and gay couples suing churches, mosques, or synagogues for not allowing the use of their chapels for a wedding, even though they are rejected for religious reasons. So before a gay marriage law can be considered, all that work must be done to protect the Constitutional rights of the religious from two centuries of negligently written laws, though they never imagined this sort of situation coming up.

Unintended consequences - If laws are corrected to differentiate between religious and civil marriages, then a strong case could be made for laws against polygamy to be unconstitutional as applied to religious marriage. So anyway, it's a bit for you to consider.

[Lurockia]

jcoultas wrote...

Reposting here what I put on Lurockia's thread:

Jcoultas, as much as our debate concerning the issue of same-sex rights has certainly had its points. I would personally prefer it not be carried over to this thread. As I stated in my thread that you've mentioned I was merely using the subject as an example to best relate the issues in the story to those that are presently occurring in our own world.

The topic at hand did ask whether or not Anders' actions were justified. I simply reposted what I had already stated elsewhere because I felt that in touched all the necessary points that I was trying to get across without having to find a way to paraphrase it. Nothing more. Having said that I continue to stand by what I have written on the issue and that issue being that I believe his actions were indeed justified.

Modifié par Lurockia, 28 octobre 2012 - 07:02 .

[Lurockia]

Edited:  Double Post. Sorry about that, ignore this one.

Modifié par Lurockia, 28 octobre 2012 - 08:52 .

[Lazy Jer]

Lurockia wrote...

Edited:  Double Post. Sorry about that, ignore this one.

Okay...I'll completely igore the above statement.

But to answer the re-post you posted.  I can't speak for anyone else, but I can speak for my self in saying that I do agree with Anders on some important points.  I do believe that it's wrong to tear a child away from his or her parents at the tender age of six and lock them in a tower and estentially forbid them from seeing their family ever again.  I also agree with him that the Circle system doesn't apply enough real check of the power the Templars hold.

I still killed him.  First of all because I agreed with Aveline that his cause didn't justify his actions.  Second of all due to how he was.  He was all for killing Ser Thrask, to perserve the Starkhaven runaways.  He put Ella in sever danger of dying because he couldn't control himself.  For all his relization that not all mages were Uldred, I just don't think that he realized that not all Templars were Meredith.  He had no respect for human life and so I felt that death was the not only proper punishment for the crime of murder, but that if it hadn't been Elthina now that it would be someone else somewhere down the line.

[throwmeaname]

As a sociology major, I love how BioWare makes so much references to Karl Marx. I love how I happen to see one of Anders' "Manifesto" lying around in Hawke's estate, referencing to the struggle between the oppressed and the oppressors, and how Anders happen to have a friend named "Karl". I love it!

I'm all up for revolutions, and the liberation of the oppressed, but what Anders did, to me, was unjustified.

Mages are powerful weapons that, if left unchecked, can destroy entire village within a matter of days. Just look at Connor! He's a little boy who put so much lives in danger because his powers were left unchecked. The ancient Tevinter Imperium practically went unchallenged and dominated entire Thedas because of the power they wield. On top of that, they created the Blight through the first Archdemon. These events suggests how much power and game changing the nature of magic really is, and I think people tend to forget that.

To me, the system that the Chantry created works. Yes, there will always be that one bad apple within the Mage and Templars, but what alternative do you have? The Tevinter Imperium? Would a systemic hyper-competition between your mage brothers be a better alternative, knowing that you must murder, dabble in blood-magic and corruption, in order to survive? Or perhaps submit to the Qun, put our Mages on a rope and leash and live as living weapon?

At least in the Circle, there a sense of bond: that you can start a different life knowing that you have brothers and sisters that are there for you. Even the Templars are subject to similar rules as the Mages. There are even cases where Templars hate their vows and would like to escape, just like the Mages they watch. In a sense, these Templars are just as imprisoned in the Circle like the Mages they oversee. The fact that the residents of the Circle, whether they be Sisters, Mage, Templar, have similar experiences, they can easily make a rapport with each other and live in harmony. And if everyone can make such connections, then yes, the Circle works.

To me, I think Anders sympathizers view imprisonment as the worst thing in the world. i mean I understand, that if you know a life out there that you've already experience, then imprisonment would be a scary thing. But is imprisonment really that bad? Perhaps. But it depends on who you ask. if you ask an apostate who had a wife and kid, then yeah. But if you ask a child of the age of 6 who do not remember their parents' face and know nothing of the outside world, is it really safe to judge that their life is horrible with only our own subjective experience to compare it to?

Point is the Chantry's means of containing the Mages, who are potential living weapons, is the best thing that we have as of right now, and Anders' destruction of the Kirkwall Chantry was unjustified.

edited.

Modifié par throwmeaname, 30 octobre 2012 - 01:12 .

[LobselVith8]

throwmeaname wrote...

To me, I think Anders sympathizers view imprisonment as the worst thing in the world. i mean I understand, that if you know a life out there that you've already experience, then imprisonment would be a scary thing. But is imprisonment really that bad? Perhaps. But it depends on who you ask. if you ask an apostate who had a wife and kid, then yeah. But if you ask a child of the age of 6 who do not remember their parents' face, is it really bad to say that their life is horrible knowing little of the outside world, with nothing to compare it to?

Actually, that's precisely what the mage protagonist can say: he can condemn the Circle of Ferelden as an "oppressive place", and he lived in the Circle since he was young. Jowan recalls being brought to the Circle at a young age as well, and how his parents thought he was a monster because he was a mage (which seems to be a result of what the Chantry preaches about mages, their "curse", and their vilification of all mages). Anders was brought to the Circle as a young boy, being put in chains as he was taken by the templars. I can understand why Anders condemns the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery.

throwmeaname wrote...

Point is the Chantry's means of containing the Mages, who are potential living weapons, is the best thing that we have as of right now and Anders' destruction of the Kirkwall Chantry was unjustified.

Considering mages across the continent rebelled against the Chantry controlled Circles, it seems that brutally subjugating mages under a tyrannical religious organization that forced them into servitude wasn't the best idea.

[throwmeaname]

I see.

I admit, out of all the origins, Mage and the Dalish were the ones I didn't play. But, based on my time at the Circle as an outsider, I sense a lot of cooperation between Mage and Templars. On top of that, a lot of stories from Wynne suggests that living in the Circle ain't too bad. The Templars that took her in were nice to her, and one of the Templar even put her on his shoulders. Though she had a rough time at the beginning, once she accept her life as a Circle Mage, life becomes relatively easier. The point is, if the Mages and Templars were better educated about each other, I think the Circle would work, similar to how Wynne lived her life.

edited.

Modifié par throwmeaname, 30 octobre 2012 - 01:31 .

[LobselVith8]

throwmeaname wrote...

I see. 

I admit, out of all the origins, Mage and the Dalish were the ones I didn't play. But, based on my time at the Circle as an outsider, I sense a lot of cooperation between Mage and Templars.

First Enchanter Irving says (in the Magi Origin): "And the Chantry and the templars are models of magnanimity? They would make us all tranquil if they could, and call it a kindness. They fancy themselves our guardians, sitting smugly on their righteousness."

throwmeaname wrote...

On top of that, a lot of stories from Wynne suggests that living in the Circle ain't too bad. The Templars that took her in were nice to her, and one of the Templar even put her on his shoulders. Though she had a rough time at the beginning, once she accept her life as a Circle Mage, life becomes relatively easier. But I suppose it's different on the otherside. The point is, if the Mages and Templars were better educated about each other, I think the Circle would work, similar to how Wynne lived her life.

If the mage protagonis says the Circle is an "oppressive place", Wynne never contests it, and she says The Warden can try to change the Circle of Ferelden being an oppressive place with time, if he returns to the Circle and becomes a leader; she stresses this is her dream. In the City of Amaranthine, she argues against breaking free from the Chantry because they would kill all the mages rather than see them free.

[throwmeaname]

Interesting point.

I won't contend with the Chantry killing "free" mages. But, since Knight-Commander Meridith (prior to acquiring the Idol) and Elthina both declined the Tranquil Solution, this kind of suggests that the Templars aren't as monstrous as they seem. There was even a faction of the Templar Order of Kirkwall who sympathize mages, and even help Mages free by destroying phylacteries. This support the idea of cooperation between the Mage and Templar is present, and that the rebellion is not possible without Templar sympathizer.

I guess where I'm getting at is, with Templars and Mages cooperating with each other, it's possible for the current Circle to work based on compassion. Meaning that, Anders do not need to blow up the Chantry for a revolution, rather actively advocating for equity between Templars and Mages.

Modifié par throwmeaname, 30 octobre 2012 - 02:08 .

[CrimsonZephyr]

Equity is impossible if the Templars have all the power (i.e. swords and sanction to use them as they see fit) and have no incentive to be compassionate or equitable in their arrangement. Why should the Templars give any mage even a whiff of equality or compassion when they can whip apprentices into submission, or Tranquilize them into subservience, or simply exterminate them if they get uppity? They have none. Moreover, training in a Circle seems secondary to imprisonment in the Circle. Witness the Harrowing, which, conceptually, the apprentices know nothing about despite it being the cornerstone of a good mage's career. Even if it were to be more equitable, it would still be a prison, and the mage's desires and needs would always be held secondary to that of a Templar, or any hypothetical grouping of "the people," brought forth whenever the Chantry needs a convenient excuse to oppress them. Yes, you could say that the Templars answer to the Chantry, but the Templars only answer to the Chantry because they agreed to it, not because they are institutionally one and the same. The Templars and the Seekers can easily just leave -- as they did -- proving that there were precisely zero checks on their power.

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 30 octobre 2012 - 03:05 .

[throwmeaname]

I never thought of that way and that's a good point. But I think that you're basing your argument on the assumption that all Templars are tyrrants that are not willing to compromise. 

According to Wynne she has lead a good life at the Circle, and Bethany claims that she's doing pretty well too. The Circle isnt a concentration camp where Mages are seen as dogs, Templars and Mages work with each other and earn mutual respect. With that said, although it's necessary, I can see Templars having a hardtime executing a Mage because of a failed Harrowing. What this suggest is that compassion from the Templars and cooperation from the mages help the system function, and it has worked ever since, though not always optimistically. Yes, I believe in containing Mages, but containing them in a way where Mages are housed, not imprisoned. Like I said before, Templars are bound to their duty similar to how the Mages are imprisoned. This form of shared similar experience may lead Templars to form a rapport with Mages, making cooperation within the Circle that much better.

With that said, there is a possibility of equity between the Templars and Mage. If not by compassion, but through mutual respect.

Modifié par throwmeaname, 30 octobre 2012 - 05:07 .

[CrimsonZephyr]

Compromise only occurs when one is forced to compromise. People, in general, don't aim for half-measures.

"According to Wynne she has lead a good life at the Circle, and Bethany claims that she's doing pretty well too."

Wynne is an old woman and spent much of her youth displeased with her lot in life. In older life, with some influence and some agency, she leads a better life. But for apprentices? Eh, you could say they lead more constrained and fearful lives. Even with Wynne's position of power, Greagoir was still prepared to cut her down for what Uldred did. She's still living with a proverbial blade at her back, and she acknowledges it.

Bethany has tremendous self-esteem issues, and so accepts the Circle because she martyrs herself on behalf of her family. She doesn't necessarily enjoy the Circle, but she is resigned to it because she doesn't believe she deserves any better. In short, she is exactly the kind of mage the Chantry wants: they have no wants or desires of their own and simply will not resist because they do not believe they deserve better. Also, one of her apprentices was nearly captured by Alrik and turned into his sex slave, so it's entirely possible she's not quite as cognizant of how horrible the Gallows are as she should be.

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 30 octobre 2012 - 11:19 .

[eye basher]

I think anders was just a patsy for the tevinter there is no way in hell he made that bomb on his own he had help and the tevinter were probably the one who taught him how to make it.

[vixvicco]

The Angry One wrote...

Terrorism is never justified.
Also, he took responsibility because he developed a martyr complex, he thinks he will be killed for it and that everybody will remember his name as the great mage liberator.. rather than another in a long line of self destructive abominations.

Which is why i spared him (and got the romance trophy without trying lol). I want him to live to see what he's done (goor or bad). One of the writers talked about that, forgot who though. I agreed with her. Death would have been too easy an escape for him. 

[Mercedes-Benz]

No.

[Sable Rhapsody]

vixvicco wrote...
Which is why i spared him (and got the romance trophy without trying lol). I want him to live to see what he's done (goor or bad). One of the writers talked about that, forgot who though. I agreed with her. Death would have been too easy an escape for him. 

Anders' own writer, Jen Hepler, said he wanted to die for what he'd done, and there's a kind of poetic justice in forcing him to live in the s***storm he helped create.  I couldn't agree more.

[StElmo]

^ yup I did the same thing, also merrill suggested it so I kinda had to.

[Ausstig]

Is murder ever justified?

Is starting a war that will, best case kill thousands of people, ever correct?

If Anders wanted to he could have forced change non-violently, mass sit ins, other Gandhi stuff, if the Temps were so unpopular, he was a healer in the undercity he could used that. But no either it was the demon in his head or just his magesupremcist views, he mentions in Awakening that he feels Tevinter is a GOOD alternative, he decides to kill people and start a war.

[CrimsonZephyr]

Ausstig wrote...

Is murder ever justified?

Is starting a war that will, best case kill thousands of people, ever correct?

If Anders wanted to he could have forced change non-violently, mass sit ins, other Gandhi stuff, if the Temps were so unpopular, he was a healer in the undercity he could used that. But no either it was the demon in his head or just his magesupremcist views, he mentions in Awakening that he feels Tevinter is a GOOD alternative, he decides to kill people and start a war.

Eh, Gandhism only works when the powers that be are forced to negotiate. The Templars can just mindrape mages into compliance, so they have no reason to take peaceful protests seriously.

[Hurbster]

No, what he did was terrorism and murder. I was justified in killing the SOB. And I did. And I would be upset if he is brought back for the sequel.

[Biotic_Warlock]

Templars killed many templars. Part justification.

Killing in revenge is not right so i'd say not justified.

However anders was possessed by a glowing blue harbinger-esque spirit...

[hahagirl727]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

vixvicco wrote...
Which is why i spared him (and got the romance trophy without trying lol). I want him to live to see what he's done (goor or bad). One of the writers talked about that, forgot who though. I agreed with her. Death would have been too easy an escape for him. 

Anders' own writer, Jen Hepler, said he wanted to die for what he'd done, and there's a kind of poetic justice in forcing him to live in the s***storm he helped create.  I couldn't agree more.

This. I sided with the mages and I kept him alive to see all the sh*t he started. He BETTER redeem himself in DA3 and help me in the war HE started. I wish there was just an option to yell at him, but it made me seemed like I forgave him, which I didn't. Ah well needed that romace trophy anways.

[RebelAgainstSin81]

The killing of innocents is never justified, ever. He was not justified, and proved himself a hypocrite by murdering those innocent of crimes he fought so hard against. It would've made slightly more sense, if he decided to bomb a Templar barracks...or Meredith's chambers. It was a terrible decision, but one I can at least say was influenced by the Spirit Justice.

I've read the majority of this thread and found some things very alarming. Very few people for either side of the arguments take into consideration that Anders, Meredith, and Orsino are not logical, sane individuals. Therefore, the decisions they made in Act 3 were the wrong ones regardless of why they did them. By the time Act 3 had taken place, Meredith is under the influence of the lyrium idol. Anders was being influenced even more by Justice. Orsino's involvement with blood mages and his use of it. These were the worst possible individuals to be in authority or making bold decisions that affected everyone.

What exactly was Ethina to do? Tell Meredith, lyrium idol possessed Meredith, to step down when Meredith had all the swords? Where has it been stated that she had this authority anyway? I was under the assumption they were equals, and Meredith wasn't a subordinate. As a peaceful non-violent woman, she choose the diplomatic route as her best course of action. Wishing death upon her for choosing what she thought was the best route to promote peace, yet praising Anders for what he thought was best is hypocritical, to say the least.

I don't understand how some of the people who posted in this thread thought Anders was justified in blowing up a Chantry, yet would condemn the Taliban for what they did on 9/11. Some of the same excuses can and have been made in both cases, and quite frankly, that's sickening.