1927 réponses à ce sujet

[lil yonce]

Hazegurl wrote...

Right, I find it hilarious that the same people who preach about mage oppression and the death of mages at the hands of Templars are the same people who then turn around and proclaim that its okay for certain mages to be the rulers over the life and death of other mages.

Its a lot of double talk. A lot of talking out both sides of their mouths. One master traded for another.

[MisterJB]

MR_PN wrote...
In war innocents die, whether it's wanted or not it happens. Anders knew this. He also has that naive ideal that every living person deserves freedom and that its worth war and death. And whether it turns out to be another imperium is irrelevant because he thinks it's worth trying(and so do I)

So, your belief is that the rise of the most brutal and opressive regime Thedas has ever witnessed; you know, the place where children are cut open for fireworks; is an acceptable risk for mage freedom.
Right, that is so not completely reckless, selfish, irresponsible and many other unflattering adjectives.

Modifié par MisterJB, 09 mai 2013 - 07:11 .

[RebelAgainstSin81]

What needs to be understood is war has never solved anything. Using physical methods to change mental or emotional convictions has never worked. One side may "win the war", yet the other side is still opposed to you and the conflict remains. Yes, you may achieve a desired result, temporarily. Yet your physical methods will always create more harm than good, and eventually the same people with their unchanged convictions will retaliate. Also, the actions he committed could've driven those sympathetic to the Mage's plight against them.

What if in DA3 all the Circles in Thedas have been put to death and only a few hundred mages are left alive? Was it worth it then? What if this results in another empire just as cruel as Tevinter, or worse? The ends should never justify the means, as LionAri stated. And you may end up with more than you bargained for, or a situation which was worst for the Mages than their prior one.

Furthermore, despite the obvious wrong decision to commit an act of terrorism against non-combatants. Why didn't Anders just go after the Templars directly? If you have the means and determination to blow up a Chantry of that size, it should've been no problem blowing up a Templar barracks, or even Meredith's office, since she was the root of his frustration at that time. That way maybe all the Mages didn't have to die immediately afterwards. Again, yet another reason why Anders was not only unjustified in his actions, but clearly the wrong person to be sparking any type of revolution whatsoever.

[NoForgiveness]

MisterJB wrote...

MR_PN wrote...
In war innocents die, whether it's wanted or not it happens. Anders knew this. He also has that naive ideal that every living person deserves freedom and that its worth war and death. And whether it turns out to be another imperium is irrelevant because he thinks it's worth trying(and so do I)

So, your belief is that the rise of the most brutal and opressive regime Thedas has ever witnessed; you know, the place where children are cut open for fireworks; is an acceptable risk for mage freedom.
Right, that is so not completely reckless, selfish, irresponsible and many other unflattering adjectives.

A brutal oppressive regime where people cut open children can exist without mages. People are good and bad.  Loghain was allowed to fuel the imperium with slaves, orlais can enslave an entire country, city elves can be raped after marrage.  mages are never even given the chance to prove they wont do these things. and most of the mages seen in the games wouldn't.

[twilekaoi]

RebelAgainstSin81 wrote...
Why didn't Anders just go after the Templars directly? If you have the means and determination to blow up a Chantry of that size, it should've been no problem blowing up a Templar barracks, or even Meredith's office, since she was the root of his frustration at that time. That way maybe all the Mages didn't have to die immediately afterwards. Again, yet another reason why Anders was not only unjustified in his actions, but clearly the wrong person to be sparking any type of revolution whatsoever.

Oh, no-- Anders knew what he was doing. That's what makes him even more sinister. As I said in an earlier post he went after Elthina for maximum influence.

I don't think theres any doubt in anyones mind that Anders did not anticipate Meredith to invoke the Right of Annulment. Elthina, as useless as she seemed, was in fact the only thing stopping
Meredith from invoking the Right of Annulment at all and the Divine from
treating everyone in Kirkwall as an enemy (see: Nightingale quest). Anders even sees Elthina as a "compromise"; a 'peace' (yes, to a certain extent, the stability between the Mages and Templars was technically 'peace').

With that "compromise"/"peace" gone, Meredith can do whatever she pleases. So, it's not a surprise that she invokes the Right, which is what Anders is expecting. If the Right doesn't kill them, the people of Kirkwall will. This is also verified vocally when Hawke confronts Anders about it, after Anders stops Meredith and Orsino from entering the Chantry I might add.

Hakwe: "You're a murderer! The Grand Cleric, the mages-- their blood is on your hands!"
Renegade Terrorist: "I know."
Meredith: "It doesn't matter. Even if I wished to, I could not stay my hand. The people will demand blood."

Modifié par twilekaoi, 09 mai 2013 - 08:32 .

[MisterJB]

MR_PN wrote...
A brutal oppressive regime where people cut open children can exist without mages. People are good and bad.  Loghain was allowed to fuel the imperium with slaves, orlais can enslave an entire country, city elves can be raped after marrage.  mages are never even given the chance to prove they wont do these things. and most of the mages seen in the games wouldn't.

You can't "prove" that you won't do evil. Every person in the word has the potential to harm others which is exactly why societies limit the freedoms of its citizens at birth; laws exist to limit the freedoms of people so we can coexist, not because we've shown tendency of being "evil", for lack of a better word, but because the potential that we might be will always exist.
Given the fact the mages present a greater threat to their fellow man, logic dictates their freedoms must be more restricted still to account for it.
You claimed that the risk of another Tevinter rising in the South is worth it so long as the mages are free. Would you say the same if the mages killed or enslaved all non-mages? "Oh well, at least the mages are free."

[twilekaoi]

MR_PN wrote...
 mages are never even given the chance to prove they wont do these things. 

Except they have.
Obviously not all mages are the same, but magisters are mages in power. That's all it takes.

The Tevinter Imperium was ruled by a dynasty of non-mage Kings at first. That is, until their mages decided to take over in power, and decided the use of magic by their terms, i.e.; magic that befits mages in monarch, as a result of their human instinct. What do you think that led to? Peace? Try slaves, oppression of their own citizens, sacrifice, conquering of other nations and oh I dunno The First Blight.

Do you honestly think that mages now, who have been suppressed all their lives and suddenly be granted freedom would not want power, or "justice" in fact? Like I said, not all mages are the same. But like most innocent mages, they will be influenced, forced, or killed by the other mages. The game itself shows this. Alain, Decimus, Circle Bethany and Grace are a good example; Alain is one of the most innocent mages to the very end, but not without influence and at the risk of his own life by Grace (whom was once innocent as well, untill influenced by Decimus)-- who would've also killed Bethany, an innocent mage.

I'm sure the innocent mages who want nothing to do with power or slaves fought against the magisters. Obviously history has shown they have lost. Blood magic is, of course, vastily superior to any other form of magic. Like I said, bad mages is all it takes.

Furthermore, have you read the codex entry on the History of the Circle? In Orlais, mages were free once-- the Circle didn't exist. Until they decided to rebel as a result of not holding political influence. Eventually they were hauled off to the first Circle, happily in fact. That destabilized the 'peace', and only made things worse for mages.

Let me repeat that again, "destabilized the peace". Sound familiar?

Modifié par twilekaoi, 09 mai 2013 - 08:53 .

[Hazegurl]

Youth4Ever wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

Right, I find it hilarious that the same people who preach about mage oppression and the death of mages at the hands of Templars are the same people who then turn around and proclaim that its okay for certain mages to be the rulers over the life and death of other mages.

Its a lot of double talk. A lot of talking out both sides of their mouths. One master traded for another.

Pretty much and if they don't want to be ruled by the monarchy they will have to fight them too which will bring nothing but more misery and death to both mages and nonmages. Then they can happily kill each other for more power when they start playing in politics as was pointed out in the post above this one. But hey, as long as mages get to have their own freedom to use blood magic to compete for power against other mages, everything is justified.

[Lazy Jer]

Anders used criminal action to cause terror among either the general public, a group of people or a specific person. That, as far as I know is the dictionary definition of "Terrorist." Though according to Wikipedia the definition of Terrorism is largely vague since the international community can't seem to agree on one definition.

He's definitely a mass-murderer since the definition of that is a lot clearer (i.e. someone who murders a mass of people). He's just as contemptible, in my opinion, as Meredith. In fact they're two sides of the same coin really (but that was covered in the "Anders is the Same as Meredith" kerfuffle on this page.).

Now a side note, how come everyone talks about mages vs. Templars? What about the other vital issues facing Thedas? Qunari vs. Chantry, the oppression of the Elven people, the oppression of the Casteless, the oppression of people named "Gamlen", Qunari vs. Chantry, Deja Vu, there are other topics!

Modifié par Lazy Jer, 09 mai 2013 - 10:42 .

[MissOuJ]

Lazy Jer wrote...

He's definitely a mass-murderer since the definition of that is a lot clearer (i.e. someone who murders a mass of people). He's just as contemptible, in my opinion, as Meredith. In fact they're two sides of the same coin really (but that was covered in the "Anders is the Same as Meredith" kerfuffle on this page.).

Yes, he is.

But so are your Hawke and Warden, as well as Merrill and Isabela (who, if we're being specific, probably got more civillians killed than Anders, since the whole Qunari invasion was pretty much her fault), and sweet Bethany, and even Chantry-boy Sebastian... you get my point.

Also, the problem with comparing Anders to Meredith is that unlike Anders, Meredith has huge amount of power and influence, as well as an army, in her command. Plus, she has the a-okay of the religious authority (as in, Elthina, the Grand Cleric) whom most of the people of Kirkwall look up to. And yes, she had Elthina's seal of approval, since Elthina was her superior, and Elthina had the power to relieve Meredith of her command (which she didn't do, even when it came obvious even Meredith's own Templars didn't believe in her authority anymore).

Anders, on the other hand, is just an apostate. He's a powerful apostate with pretty influential friends, but he certainly lacks Meredith's considerable power, her army, and her allies. My guess is, that if Anders had had the resources Meredith had, he probably would have instigated an all-out war against the Tempar order (whether that would've ended with a smaller bodycount than what really went down is anyone's guess).

But I also think that it's important to remember that if the Chantry explosion had been Anders' first option, DA2 would've been a lot shorter. It at least looks like he's tried the more peaceful solutions already: he has written the manifesto, he has tried to help the mages via the Mage Underground - it's even possible he has talked to the Grand Cleric (if I remember correctly, he has some dialogue with Elthina if you take him with you to the Chantry) about the problem. Yet no one listens to him, and nothing seems to be getting better - on the contrary, it seems to be getting worse - go back to listen to the ambient dialogue in the Gallows if you don't believe me. So it's not like Anders is complaining about nothing. And let's not forget Anders himself was kept in solitary confinement for a year - and there's one fool-proof way to scar a person for life.

But whether Anders was justified to do what he did... I'd say no. But at the same time it was the only thing he could do. It was the only thing there was left to do - and the way Meredith reacts to the whole thing all but confirms it. Because if Meredith had done the reasonable thing she would have only called for Anders' (and maybe Hawke's) execution. But instead she decided to use this act as an excuse to do what she had already wanted to do (in 3rd Act Karras mentions that Meredith has sent for Val Royeaux for the right to preform the Annulment before Anders levels the Chantry). Anders makes it very clear that he and he alone is responsible - he makes it clear that even Hawke, who possibly helped him, didn't know of his intentions, that he is the one to blame. He also doesn't fight, or run from judgement. And by doing so, he points out that even if Templars were the benign protectors they're supposed to be, they still hold mages' lives on their hands, and they are the judge, the jury and the executioner.

Think about the Right of Annulment: according to the lore, it has been used 17 times in a bit over 800 years (and that's excluding the possible Tower and Gallows Annulments). What that means is that roughly every 50 years Templars have killed every single mage in their charge, no matter their guilt or age. This is their right, and it is completely legal. And by destroying the Chantry and giving Meredith the excuse she wants Anders makes it clear to Orsino and the mages at the Gallows that since this is the case, their guilt or innocence doesn't matter, because the bottom line is that there is literally no-one who questions the Tempars or their decision. Remember his words: "We were already doomed. A quick death now or a slow one later. I'd rather die fighting"? The uncomfortable brilliance of Anders' plan is that he forced the Tempars to show the ugly truth of how the system really works, and that system truly is unjust to the mages. And fighting against that is justified, in my opinnion.

So no, I can't say I think what Anders did was justified. But I do think it was, in some way, necessary, and that the true tragedy of the whole thing was that it was necessary, and that there where circumstances that made it necessary in the first place.

//TL;DR: I have a lot of feeeels about this issue

Modifié par MissOuJ, 10 mai 2013 - 04:18 .

[twilekaoi]

MissOuJ wrote...

Lazy Jer wrote...

He's definitely a mass-murderer since the definition of that is a lot clearer (i.e. someone who murders a mass of people). He's just as contemptible, in my opinion, as Meredith. In fact they're two sides of the same coin really (but that was covered in the "Anders is the Same as Meredith" kerfuffle on this page.).

Yes, he is.

But so are your Hawke and Warden, as well as Merrill and Isabela (who, if we're being specific, probably got more civillians killed than Anders, since the whole Qunari invasion was pretty much her fault), and sweet Bethany, and even Chantryboy Sebastian... you get my point.

Also, the problem with comparing Anders to Meredith is that, unlike Anders, Meredith has huge amount of power and influence, as well as an army, in her command. Plus, she has the a-okay of the religious authority (as in, Elthina, the Grand Cleric) whom most of the people of Kirkwall look up to. And yes, she had Elthina's seal of approval, since Elthina was her superior, and Elthina had the power to relieve Meredith of her command (which she didn't do, even when it came obvious even Meredith's own Templars didn't believe in her authority anymore).

Anders, on the other hand, is just an apostate. He's a powerful apostate with pretty influential friends, but he certainly lacks Meredith's considerable power, her army, and her allies. My guess is, that if Anders had had the resources Meredith had, he probably would have instigated an all-out war against the Tempar order (whether that would've ended with a smaller bodycount than what really went down is anyone's guess).

But I also think that it's important to remember that if the Chantry explosion had been Anders' first option, DA2 would've been a lot shorter. It at least looks like he's tried the more peaceful solutions already: he has written the manifesto, he has tried to help the mages via the Mage Underground - it's even possible he has talked to the Grand Cleric (if I remember correctly, he has some dialogue with Elthina if you take him with you to the Chantry) about the problem. Yet no one listens to him, and nothing seems to be getting better - on the contrary, it seems to be getting worse - go back to listen to the ambient dialogue in the Gallows if you don't believe me. So it's not like Anders is complaining about nothing. And let's not forget Anders himself was kept in solitary confinement for a year - and there's one fool-proof way to scar a person for life.

But whether Anders was justified to do what he did... I'd say no. But at the same time it was the only thing he could do. It was the only thing there was left to do - and the way Meredith reacts to the whole thing all but confirms it. Because if Meredith had done the reasonable thing she would have only called for Anders' (and maybe Hawke's) execution. But instead she decided to use this act as an excuse to do what she had already wanted to do (in 3rd Act Karras mentions that Meredith has sent for Val Royeaux for the right to preform the Annulment before Anders levels the Chantry). Anders makes it very clear that he and he alone is responsible - he makes it clear that even Hawke, who possibly helped him, didn't know of his intentions, that he is the one to blame. He also doesn't fight, or run from judgement. And by doing so, he points out that even if Templars were the benign protectors they're supposed to be, they still hold mages' lives on their hands, and they are the judge, the jury and the executioner.

Think about the Right of Annulment: according to the lore, it has been used 17 times in a bit over 800 years (and that's excluding the possible Tower and Gallows Annulments). What that means is that roughly every 50 years Templars have killed every single mage in their charge, no matter their quilt or age. This is their right, and it is completely legal. And by destorying the Chantry and giving Meredith the excuse she wants Anders makes it clear to Orsino and the mages at the Gallows that since this is the case, their quilt doesn't matter, because the bottom line is that there is literary no-one who questions the Tempars or their decision. Remember his words: "We were already doomed. A quick death now or a slow one later. I'd rather die fighting"? The uncomfortable brilliance of Anders' plan is that he forced the Tempars to show the ugly truth of how the system really works, and that system truly is unjust to the mages. And fighting against that is justified, in my opinnion.

So no, I can't say I think what Anders did was justified. But I do think it was, in some way, necessary, and that the true tragedy of the whole thing was that it was necessary, and that there where circumstances that made it necessary in the first place.

//TL;DR: I have a lot of feeeels about this issue

A murderer is someone who commits unlawful, premeditated malice against another human being. That isn't to be confused with homicide; an act of killing another human being, like self defense or 'justs' combatants. It's the state of mind that distinguishes the two.

That said, no-- Isabela (during the games duration, and in the loosest term), Merril, (paragon) Hawke/Warden, Warden/Circle Bethany, are not murderers.

Isabela and Merril are a result of desire and poor judgement-- at no point in the game did either of them openly choose to kill innocents or even have a sense of political motivation.

The Arishok caused the Qunari invasion. He had a choice, as did Isabela. Nevermind the other, more direct factors of contribution; Sister Petrice, Javaris, Viscount, etc. The invasion is a collaborative result of various persons and groups. To place blame on Isabela alone is simply unfair, and a very 'black and white' way to look at things.

Sebastian can relate to Anders, in that, he believes in the ultimatum;
'an eye for an eye' revenge belief that Anders does. He was wrong to do
so as "Death is never Justice", and to label him chantryboy is simply
not accurate since Elthina didn't even approve of his actions. Doesn't
even take him back into the Chantry when he offered himself afterwards.
He and Anders are both childlike, impulsive idiots-- as evidence by the
fact that Sebastion will burn Kirkwall to the ground if you let Anders
go in Act 3-- who belong to factions that don't want anything to do with
them because of their extremities.

If you feel the need to compare Anders to any characters at all, it's Sister Petrice; willing to kill an innocents for their righteous cause of which the faction in 'representation' doesn't even want a part of.

Whether or not Anders sought a peaceful means (doubtful, since he was willing to kill Templars to begin with via his first quest) is irrelevant. What matters is what he did now, and what he has caused. Hitler was a good child until his mother died in 1908, does that make his actions more 'understandable'? No.

You claim his actions aren't justifed, but at the same time defend the notion. Isn't that a hypocritical statement? Even moreso if one condemns Anders actions as unjust, yet keeps him in the party to the end? If that's the case with you, that's a biased point of view, and you, like many Anders defenders, are not fit to assess the situation as you do not have a neutral standing.

I should also note that my canon non-religious, Circle-efficiency-questioning Hawke romanced Anders. So I can see where you're coming from. But no way in hell is she going to stand side by side with a terrorist and a "brilliant" plan and think it's best for the mages.
It is not best for the mages. Or anyone, besides the Imperium.

The only thing stopping Meredith from invoking the Right at numerous, various times was Elthina. Not to mention the Divine herself rejected the idea of the "Tranquil Solution". Mages have rights-- such as being made Tranquil after a Harrowing is illegal-- and that clearly isn't shown in Kirkwall. However, that should've been a Kirkwall matter, and not the embodiment of every Circle, whom are being punished because of Anders. To change a structure takes time, and an abrupt uprising solves nothing. Things could be worse for mages and future ones, if they even exist.

Modifié par twilekaoi, 10 mai 2013 - 05:28 .

[MissOuJ]

twilekaoi wrote...

A murderer is someone who commits unlawful, premeditated malice against another human being. That isn't to be confused with homicide; an act of killing another human being, like self defense. It's the state of mind that distinguishes the two.

That said, no-- Isabela (during the games duration), Merril, (paragon) Hawke/Warden, Warden/Circle Bethany, are not murderers.

Isabela and Merril are a result of desire and poor judgement-- at no
point in the game did either of them openly choose to kill innocents or
even have a sense of political motivation.

Warden always kills Howe - and most people kill Loghain, so I'd say Warden at least qualifies. As does Hawke if you kill Anders/DuPuis. But yes, the rest is true: they're not murderers... just killers!

Also I fail to see how "poor judgement" or lack of political motivation absolves Isabela or Merrill of the consequences of their actions. I'd actually say Isabela had perfectly good judgement: she acted out of self preservation instict, which is about as human as you can get. But still, what she did was wrong and it had horrendous consequences. Merrill on the other hand swore up and down that her actions would harm no one but her... and look how that turned out. So, I feel safe to say that their actions were wrong.

Likewise, from Anders' point of view, he performed an act of counter-terrorism: he thinks (and I can't honestly blame him) that the Templars, and by extention, the Chantry have oppressed and terrorized mages for hundreds of years, and for him (and probably Justice) this is just a counterstrike. Also, he's going after a highly recognized and powerful figure (whose innocense, I might add, is somewhat questionable).

twilekaoi wrote...

The Arishok caused the Qunari invasion. He had a choice, as did Isabela. Nevermind the other, more direct factors of contribution; Sister Petrice, Javaris, Viscount, etc. The invasion is a collaborative result of various persons and groups. To place blame on Isabela alone is simply unfair, and a very 'black and white' way to look at things.

Like, the same way it would be a very "black and white" way to look at things to place all the blame on Mage-Templar war on Anders? Since there's loads of stuff that contributed to the situation: the vacuum of power, Elthina's inaction, Meredith, the abuses of the Templars, the really problematic nature of the Circle...

Again, if Meredith hadn't done what she did, if Elthina had actually acted in stead of doing nothing (with the Qunari as well: you can go to talk to her about her seal being abused and she faffs about and talks in circles and then wrings her hands and does nothing - and using her authority without premission is quite a big offence, as I have understood), if Kirkwall Tempars weren't continuously breaking the rules (Tranquiling Harrowed mages)... Nothing was done about this. Anders doesn't act before he's watched this happening for 6+ years from the sidelines.

Also I'd like to say that I call Sebastian "Chantry-boy" rather ironically, since he really isn't so into its teaching when they don't suit his own agendas -- quite like Anders, actually, who is also happy to comply with the Chantry doctrine when he tells Merrill off in the 1st Act, I think.

twilekaoi wrote...

If you feel the need to compare Anders to any characters at all, it's Sister Petrice; willing to kill an innocents for their righteous cause of which the faction in 'representation' doesn't even want a part of.

It would be a good comparison if Petrice was killing people who were directly involved with the conflict, and was ready to take responsibility for her actions. Instead she tries to put the blame for Seamus' death on either the "Qunari sympathizers" (aka Hawke + ) or the Qunari directly (if you sided against the Qunari in "Offered and Lost"). Petrice never intended to take the blame -- Anders does. Petrice isn't ready to die for her actions -- she even sounds surprised when Elthina doesn't side with her and pat her on the back for a job well done.

Also, Petrice isn't acting against active oppression - Dumar even says that the Qunari haven't displayed any acts of aggression, something that can't be said about the Kirkwall Templars.

twilekaoi wrote...

Whether or not Anders sought a peaceful means (doubtful, since he was willing to kill Templars to begin with via his first quest) is irrelevant. What matters is what he did now, and what he has caused. Hitler was a good child until his mother died in 1908, does that make his actions more 'understandable'? No.

Are you comparing Anders to Hitler?! Because... just no.

And again, Anders was an active member of the Mage Underground before Meredith destroys it, and he writes the Manifesto even if you have full friendship with him (you can find copies fandomly lying around in your estate). True, he still kills Templars when you cross paths with them and they attack, but he doesn't force confrontation when it's not necessary (a good example is Act of Mercy; you don't get even rivalry points for letting Karras live). He talks to both Meredith and Elthina if given the chance. It's not like the Chantry explosion is the first and only thing he does to change things.

twilekaoi wrote...

You claim his actions aren't justifed, but at the same time defend the notion. Isn't that a hypocritical statement? Even moreso if one condemns Anders actions as unjust, yet keeps him in the party to the end? If that's the case with you, that's a biased point of view, and you, like many Anders defenders, are not fit to assess the situation as you do not have a neutral standing.

Let me rephrase then: in my opinion Anders' actions are necessary, and they have some justification, but they definitedly are not morally "good" or "right". I also think that Anders did the only thing he thought he could, and that in the end, he isn't a terrorist, but a freedom fighter for the mages (even thought I'm willing to guess not all mages agree with him). Because in the end, what I said (and what Anders said) still holds true: the Circle is an injustice. Two wrongs certainly don't make a right, but when all your options are bad, or when you are left with no options at all, what do you do?

twilekaoi wrote...

The only thing stopping Meredith from invoking the Right at numerous, various times was Elthina. Not to mention the Divine herself rejected the idea of the "Tranquil Solution". Mages have rights-- such as being made Tranquil after a Harrowing is illegal-- and that clearly isn't shown in Kirkwall. However, that should've been a Kirkwall matter, and not the embodiment of every Circle, whom are being punished because of Anders. To change a structure takes time, and an abrupt uprising solves nothing. Things could be worse for mages and future ones, if they even exist.

And again, what would have happenned after Meredith stopped listening to her? Or after she got the premission to Annul the circle from Val Royeaux? Or after Elthina stopped saying no? All possible outcomes if Anders hadn't done what he did.

It's true that the things are extremely bad in Kirkwall, and the whole thing was a bit of a perfect storm with lyrium idols and fade spirits and so on, but things are not so hot in Ferelden either: Templars kept constantly hounding Anders even thought he was Conscripted, and the Templars don't have power over Wardens. Also, if the Templars choose to punish every Circle because of what Anders (an apostate) did, it doesn't speak too highly of them, does it? It is again proof of the complete power the Templars have over the Mages, and that is the problem, and that's what Anders is fighting against. Remember what he says to Orsino: "The Circle has failed us".

As I said, what I consider the tragedy of the whole situation is that it was bound to happen, because the system was so broken. Mages do need special treatment and oversight and even laws because their abilities can become a liability, but the way the system works is in no way just, or even effective. And if the religious institution didn't demonise mages, if the Templars themselves saw mages as people (see Cullen's comment: "mages cannot be treated like people" and he even calls mages "weapons" -. and he is one of the more reasonable Templars) and if the mages were not isolated from their families and loved ones... then maybe the situation hadn't escalated.

Modifié par MissOuJ, 10 mai 2013 - 07:32 .

[Hazegurl]

Committing terrorist acts and killing innocent people is different than what Hawke and the Warden has done. Killing Loghain, Howe, and Anders is an execution. But yeah killing Dupuis would make Hawke a murderer, I only killed him once so I can't really recall how that whole thing went down. But I do remember Dupuis attacking Hawke Co. which would make killing him more along the lines of self defense.

As for Isabela and Merrill. You're right, Isabella was saving her own skin, I can't blame her but she did bring that book to Kirkwall. However, the Arishok wanted to eventually convert Kirkwall anyway and thus they chose to lash out and kill innocents and that had nothing at all to do with Isabella. She may have brought them there but those deaths had more to do with him not liking how Kirkwall was run. Merrill, well I blame her totally for messing with that mirror, she brought trouble to her clan. However, Those elves were itching to kill her and all it takes is Hawke defending her to make them lash out. The way I see it, I may not like what Merrill was doing but I'm not going to stand there and allow her to be killed by an angry mob. Hawke Co. were simply defending themselves.

Anders act was not counter terrorism. Counter terrorism is used to suppress acts of terror. Anders wanted the terror.

[MissOuJ]

Hazegurl wrote...

Committing terrorist acts and killing innocent people is different than what Hawke and the Warden has done. Killing Loghain, Howe, and Anders is an execution. But yeah killing Dupuis would make Hawke a murderer, I only killed him once so I can't really recall how that whole thing went down. But I do remember Dupuis attacking Hawke Co. which would make killing him more along the lines of self defense.

As for Isabela and Merrill. You're right, Isabella was saving her own skin, I can't blame her but she did bring that book to Kirkwall. However, the Arishok wanted to eventually convert Kirkwall anyway and thus they chose to lash out and kill innocents and that had nothing at all to do with Isabella. She may have brought them there but those deaths had more to do with him not liking how Kirkwall was run. Merrill, well I blame her totally for messing with that mirror, she brought trouble to her clan. However, Those elves were itching to kill her and all it takes is Hawke defending her to make them lash out. The way I see it, I may not like what Merrill was doing but I'm not going to stand there and allow her to be killed by an angry mob. Hawke Co. were simply defending themselves.

How execution =/= murder? Even if your murder is justified, it's still a murder. Also, you can save the clan by telling them you are going to take responsibility for Merrill. Sure, you're being condesending as ever, and making promises you most probably can't keep, but it's possible to save the clan. And if I remember correctly Hawke outright tells DuPuis that she doesn't believe him and is going to do something about it (for some weird reason) so DuPuis is in fact protecting himself from the weird bunch of people who broke into his place in the middle of the night... by using bloodmagic and demons, but still.

And the Arishok isn't responsible for proselytizing, is he? I remember him saying something about it being not his job to fix Kirkwall's messes. He seems to accept converts (most of whom join because humans are complete ***holes towards elves, since elven converts seem to be the most numerous) but I don't see any evidence that he's actively proselytizing, because that's priests' job (who are all women).

Hazegurl wrote...

Anders act was not counter terrorism. Counter terrorism is used to suppress acts of terror. Anders wanted the terror.

The only justification I can find for not calling what the Templars have done in Kirkwall "terrorism" is saying they believe they have a divine mandate - which is probably true. But from Anders' (and Justice's/Vengeance's) point of view the Tempars oppress and abuse, use deadly force unnecessarity and in general abuse their authority. I believe Anders believes this is... well, if not "terrorism" per say, then at least actions (which have gone on for hundreds of years) which justify what he does -- and I have to say, after what I saw in the Gallows, and what I saw in the Circle Tower, that I just am not capable of completely disagreeing with him. His actions are pretty horrible, but still necessary. When I first played through the Last Straw, I was horrified, and really angry with him. But the more I thought about it, the more clear it became to me that something had to be done. And I honestly can't come up with any other option for Anders to take. That he has to do it is absolutely horrible, but so is the whole situation in general, and not doing anything isn't an option anymore.

I know Meredith uses the exact same words ("What other options do we have?")... but she's kinda correct: a situation about 800+ years in the making has come to a head, and the kettle is boiling over rather spectacularly at this point. I wish Anders didn't have to do what he does, but... he kinda does.

He himself acknowledges his actions make him a murderer (Hawke can accuse him of murdering Elthina and "all those innocents", and Anders replies "I know") so I'd say even he wouldn't say what he did was "morally right".

So in the end, it's almost textbook example of "morally gray" in my opinnion. Calling Anders simply a terrorist is just way too black-and-white in my opinnion and it completely erases the problems that where happening in the Circles and the general human rights issue that people probably should have a right to some kind of freedom. But then again saying that what Anders did was "completely right" is again overlooking some very important issues.

Modifié par MissOuJ, 10 mai 2013 - 08:32 .

[Hazegurl]

MissOuJ wrote...

How execution =/= murder? Even if your murder is justified, it's still a murder.

If we go further into this it may turn into a debate about the death penalty etc and I won't go there. I will just say I disagree.

Also, you can save the clan by telling them you are going to take responsibility for Merrill.

But you won't know this without metagaming it. I didn't see anything to take responsibility for in my first play through so I ended up killing a bunch of people cause they attacked. I don't see how that makes Hawke or Merrill murderers.

And if I remember correctly Hawke outright tells DuPuis that she doesn't believe him and is going to do something about it (for some weird reason) so DuPuis is in fact protecting himself from the weird bunch of people who broke into his place in the middle of the night... by using bloodmagic and demons, but still.

He was holding a woman hostage, was a possible murder suspect, and using blood magic. If Hawke threatens to turn him in etc and he attacks, then that is self defense on Hawke's part. If Hawke tells him he's going to kill him for what he did then it would be self defense on Dupuis' part. 

And the Arishok isn't responsible for proselytizing, is he? I remember him saying something about it being not his job to fix Kirkwall's messes. He seems to accept converts (most of whom join because humans are complete ***holes towards elves, since elven converts seem to be the most numerous) but I don't see any evidence that he's actively proselytizing, because that's priests' job (who are all women).

The Arishok killed the Viscount, gathered everyone in one location and was killing anyone who did not convert to the Qun. Yeah he was proselytizing big time.

You're right, I don't completely disagree with Anders as well, and now that I think on it you could also be right about calling what the Templars/Chantry doing terrorism, but more along the lines of "religious violence" which is sort of the same. However, I am reluctant to fully call it that because violence does not exist in all Circles and it's certainly not mandatory.  Also, the Chantry has a very good reason for doing what they are doing that extends beyond religion. So it's a tough call for me because to call the chantry/templars terrorist for having some rotten members within is like claiming the entire law enforcement are terrorist because of some bad cops.

I was in another thread that was also about the whole Mage/Templar deal where I learned that mage leaders were actually free to meet up and discuss issues on how to better their situation yet chose not to do so. They instead just dressed up and partied. I can't help but think that mages like Anders should have turned his attention to them and ask them why they aren't doing their jobs, attacking and killing a Grand Cleric is only focusing on one side of the coin and actually it's the wrong side of that too. Why not just blow up Meredith and the Templars? I would actually consider that fair. But Anders wanted Meredith alive, I guess, he seemed to have wanted the terror brought down on mages.

You're right, writing Anders off as Terrorist is too black and white. I see him as more of a wannabe martyr more than anything and very self centered.

[MissOuJ]

Hazegurl wrote...

You're right, I don't completely disagree with Anders as well, and now that I think on it you could also be right about calling what the Templars/Chantry doing terrorism, but more along the lines of "religious violence" which is sort of the same. However, I am reluctant to fully call it that because violence does not exist in all Circles and it's certainly not mandatory.  Also, the Chantry has a very good reason for doing what they are doing that extends beyond religion. So it's a tough call for me because to call the chantry/templars terrorist for having some rotten members within is like claiming the entire law enforcement are terrorist because of some bad cops.

I don't know if a modern day allegory would be accurate, since... well, mages are mages and templars are templars, but for me it comes down to the fact that I agree with Anders in that the Circles are an injustice because they do rob mages of their freedom - all the other abuses are just extra. Even if the Circles worked as they should (as in not Tranquiling Harrowed mages, not raping etc) it would still be a violation of mages' rights because at the end they're still not free to marry or free to live with their families etc. If the abuses didn't happen I guess it would have been easier to have a peaceful revolution, but then again we're talking about Thedas here, so...

But that analogy does raise an interesting question - can "authorized violence" be called terrorism? And in general, "what is terrorism"? People have already had the "other person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist, and another person's justified act of violence is other person's terrorist attack" and I'm not going into that anymore, but... it all seems to be a matter of perspective, and I think the mages' perspective is going to be the one I'm going to give more consideration to, just because historically speaking, for a way too long they've not been given the benefit of the doubt.

Hazegurl wrote...

I was in another thread that was also about the whole Mage/Templar deal where I learned that mage leaders were actually free to meet up and discuss issues on how to better their situation yet chose not to do so. They instead just dressed up and partied. I can't help but think that mages like Anders should have turned his attention to them and ask them why they aren't doing their jobs, attacking and killing a Grand Cleric is only focusing on one side of the coin and actually it's the wrong side of that too. Why not just blow up Meredith and the Templars? I would actually consider that fair. But Anders wanted Meredith alive, I guess, he seemed to have wanted the terror brought down on mages.

The College of Magi is a thing, yes, but what I understood from Asunder was more about "internal Circle / fraternity politics" and less dress-up. Also, if I've understood correctly, nothing forces the Templars or the Chantry to heed anything the College says - as far as I'm aware, the College has no legal rights.

I think the reason Anders goes after the Chantry is twofold: 1) if he attacked the Gallows, both Templars and mages would be killed, and 2) because he really believes that the Chantry is the true power behind the Circles and mage oppression - and he's right: Tempars are Chantry's own army, and they answer directly to the Divine or her highest ranking servant in the area. This is why Elthina can boss both Orsino and Meredith in the opening cutscene of Act 3, and why Anders (and to some extent, I as well) holds her responsible: her inaction, her "compromise" is not in any way neutral. I don't know if she just wants to bury her head in the sand and hope for the best like she did with the Qunari (and we saw how well that turned out) or if she's just that incompetent in her job to police her Templars. It's also possible that she's just a devout woman who's afraid to make hard desicions, but her "Maker take the wheel" attitude is what made both the Templar abuses and Anders' actions possible (Anders even says that he killed her -- or, more accurately, "the chance of compromise" -- because there really, truly, isn't a compromise that would free the mages and please the Tempars, and certainly not Meredith.

Hazegurl wrote...

You're right, writing Anders off as Terrorist is too black and white. I see him as more of a wannabe martyr more than anything and very self centered.

I don't know if I'd call Anders self-centered, after all he does a lot of good, selfless things that even get him in danger (healing the sick for free in Darktown [before Varric came along Darktown gangs were apparently harrassing him]; and trying to free mages from the Gallows can't be all that risk-free either). The codex entries paint him more desperate than anything else: he's tried his best to help the mages only to see the situation worsen: the mage underground is destroyed, free mages start to turn to blood magic to survive etc. I really, truly do believe he becomes a desperate man in a desperate situation, which is why he does what he does.

Modifié par MissOuJ, 10 mai 2013 - 10:55 .

[Hazegurl]

MissOuJ wrote...

I don't know if a modern day allegory would be accurate, since... well, mages are mages and templars are templars, but for me it comes down to the fact that I agree with Anders in that the Circles are an injustice because they do rob mages of their freedom - all the other abuses are just extra. Even if the Circles worked as they should (as in not Tranquiling Harrowed mages, not raping etc) it would still be a violation of mages' rights because at the end they're still not free to marry or free to live with their families etc. If the abuses didn't happen I guess it would have been easier to have a peaceful revolution, but then again we're talking about Thedas here, so...

But that analogy does raise an interesting question - can "authorized violence" be called terrorism? And in general, "what is terrorism"? People have already had the "other person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist, and another person's justified act of violence is other person's terrorist attack" and I'm not going into that anymore, but... it all seems to be a matter of perspective, and I think the mages' perspective is going to be the one I'm going to give more consideration to, just because historically speaking, for a way too long they've not been given the benefit of the doubt.

I agree with Anders to a certain extent. I do believe mages should be free to live with their families, get married, and so on. But I do believe that there still needs to be laws and restrictions in place to limit the practice of magic, mages should still be easy to track down, and blood magic should still be outlawed and given harsh penalites, I also believe the circles should become a joint Mage/Templar runned school. Anders preach a lot about the lack of compromise but I have to wonder if the lack of compromise is the fault of the Mages or the Templars.

I do agree that in the end it is all perspective, cause imo the Templars are doing a thankless job of keeping both mages and non mages safe from idiot mages who are too eager to abuse their power, having some bad Templars among the bunch is the fault of the individual Templar and that person should be punished for their crimes not the entire order.

The College of Magi is a thing, yes, but what I understood from Asunder was more about "internal Circle / fraternity politics" and less dress-up. Also, if I've understood correctly, nothing forces the Templars or the Chantry to heed anything the College says - as far as I'm aware, the College has no legal rights.

The thing that gets me about the College of Magi from what i've been told is that the only time they do use the place for what it's meant for, it's to proclaim themselves independant from the Chantry.  Now if they can get together and decide a war is ideal then why spend years dressing up and dong nothing to improve the lot of suffering mages? I just have a hard time seeing them as victims. 

I think the reason Anders goes after the Chantry is twofold: 1) if he attacked the Gallows, both Templars and mages would be killed, and 2) because he really believes that the Chantry is the true power behind the Circles and mage oppression - and he's right: Tempars are Chantry's own army, and they answer directly to the Divine or her highest ranking servant in the area.

Anders condemns the mages to die anyway so it wouldn't matter whether they die by a templar sword or get blown to pieces. I see his choice to go after the Chantry as a more manipulative tatic. The Grand Cleric was loved by the people and Meredith. He wanted to make sure nothing could go back to the way it was, he wanted Meredith to call an RoA and he wanted mages to fight to the death for so called freedom. What Anders fail to see is that there is no such thing as freedom for mages unless they fight the Chantry/templars, and even the monarchs of their countries. They are doomed to die either during their wars or by the demons they or their comrades summon to fight.

I don't know if I'd call Anders self-centered, after all he does a lot of good, selfless things that even get him in danger (healing the sick for free in Darktown [before Varric came along Darktown gangs were apparently harrassing him]; and trying to free mages from the Gallows can't be all that risk-free either). The codex entries paint him more desperate than anything else: he's tried his best to help the mages only to see the situation worsen: the mage underground is destroyed, free mages start to turn to blood magic to survive etc. I really, truly do believe he becomes a desperate man in a desperate situation, which is why he does what he does.

Desperate or not, I find his actions completely stupid and ill thought out. i see him as a self important person who feels that he alone can save everyone and become a martyr to mages. that is self centered behavior. he may have healed some people, but I wonder just how sincere his actions was. imo, he just needed a base and protection of mundanes, he also has no problem using Hawke regardless if you have a relationship with him or not. He seems to not use Meredith's "kindness" in allowing him to come and go as he pleases (due to him being Hawke's "friend") to anything that could truly benefit mages.

In the end, I think he was driven more by that crazy overzealous demon/spirit inside of him more than anything else and since that demon is also willing to kill mages for his narrowminded "purpose"  it makes me seriously question "Anders" motivations in the whole thing. 

As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find Justice/Vengence hanging out inside the body of a "fresh" mage in DA3.

Modifié par Hazegurl, 11 mai 2013 - 07:23 .

[LobselVith8]

Hazegurl wrote...

No Anders wasn't justified. He was a moron who believed himself more important than he really is and like most mages he's just full of idealistic wishes that have have no bases in reality, and all he's doing in the end is helping mages choose another master who may not be as kind as the Chantry.

Anders wanted to free his people from slavery. Fiona thought her life in the Circle was worse than her life as an Orlesian sex slave, and sought to lead the Circles to freedom as Grand Enchanter. The mage protagonist can condemn the Circle of Ferelden as an "oppressive place", and even Wynne never contests this, saying that The Warden can change this if he returns there and assumes a position of leadership to change things with time. We have mages being raped, tortured, beaten, murdered, and made tranquil without cause. We have Anders talking about all the suicides that take place.

What the mages chose was freedom over servitude.

All the suicides Anders referenced makes me doubt your viewpoint.

Hazegurl wrote...

Right, I find it hilarious that the same people who preach about mage oppression and the death of mages at the hands of Templars are the same people who then turn around and proclaim that its okay for certain mages to be the rulers over the life and death of other mages. 

I'm pretty sure those people advocate freedom from an abusive institution where mages are subjugated by an anti-mage religious organization, which is condemned by some in-game authors and characters as slavery.

[MissOuJ]

Hazegurl wrote...

I agree with Anders to a certain extent. I do believe mages should be free to live with their families, get married, and so on. But I do believe that there still needs to be laws and restrictions in place to limit the practice of magic, mages should still be easy to track down, and blood magic should still be outlawed and given harsh penalites, I also believe the circles should become a joint Mage/Templar runned school. Anders preach a lot about the lack of compromise but I have to wonder if the lack of compromise is the fault of the Mages or the Templars.

I do agree that in the end it is all perspective, cause imo the Templars are doing a thankless job of keeping both mages and non mages safe from idiot mages who are too eager to abuse their power, having some bad Templars among the bunch is the fault of the individual Templar and that person should be punished for their crimes not the entire order.

Then we're in 100% agreement on how the Circles should work (and this is apparently how they used to work). I'd actually be very interested to know if the Circles were always this bad, or if the things got bad only after the Chantry started its massive propaganda campaign against the Imperial Chantry / mages in general. And indeed we see that not all Circles are the same: the Circle of Dairsmuid seemed like a nice place before it got Annulled -- which might be because the Chantry doesn't have such a strong foothold in Rivain (and I guess this is the point I go to report myself to the "You play too much Dragon Age when..." thead).

The job of the Templars is probably not all sunshine and roses, but at the same time we see constantly that they, unlike the mages, are not judged as a group for the actions of a few individuals - otherwise something would've been done about the Kirkwall Circle after Alrik's atrocitioes came to light. Plus, they are free to leave, if they want to -- the problem there is the Chantry and its lyrium monopoly (and the weird thing is, in DA:O, Alistair says that it's possible to learn the Templar tallents without using lyrium, although he also says that lyrium makes the tallents more powerful). The mages, on the other hand, are all judged and feared and even punished for something they might do, or what they might become. But again, the big problem with mages is that they don't even have to be dumb or power-hungry to cause huge damage...

Again it comes down to the Templars having superior institutional power. There's this really unnerving situation where the mages have right to live and exist "for the time being", and since the Templars have the right to revoke that if they please (mild spoilers: it's said in Asunder that in some Circles they made "pre-emptive" strikes against the mages, even though the mages in question didn't even know some of the other Circles had rebelled) mages keep living on "borrowed time", so to speak, and that's a system that is deeply oppressive and problematic, moreso than the Templar system.

Maybe the problem is not so much the Tempars and the Mages as it is the Chantry and the way it operates, since it seems like it screws up both the Templars and the Mages to some degree, although it's my personal opinnion the mages get the shortest end of that particular stick.

Hazegurl wrote...

The thing that gets me about the College of Magi from what i've been told is that the only time they do use the place for what it's meant for, it's to proclaim themselves independant from the Chantry.  Now if they can get together and decide a war is ideal then why spend years dressing up and dong nothing to improve the lot of suffering mages? I just have a hard time seeing them as victims. 

And before they declared their independence from the Chantry they 1) voted against it in the previous gathering and 2) the Chantry disbanned them and denied the mages the right to assembly without Templar presence. They didn't vote for independence until the things got bad -- I really suggest you read Asunder if you're interested to hear more about the last College meeting where everything went sideways, and the meeting after that when they made the decision to separate from the Chantry. Again, since they don't have any legal power or rights outside their own Mages (that I'm aware of) and since the College seems exist only as long as the Chantry allows it, I have to question how much it could have done even if Anders had questioned / allied with them.

Hazegurl wrote...

Anders condemns the mages to die anyway so it wouldn't matter whether they die by a templar sword or get blown to pieces. I see his choice to go after the Chantry as a more manipulative tatic. The Grand Cleric was loved by the people and Meredith. He wanted to make sure nothing could go back to the way it was, he wanted Meredith to call an RoA and he wanted mages to fight to the death for so called freedom. What Anders fail to see is that there is no such thing as freedom for mages unless they fight the Chantry/templars, and even the monarchs of their countries. They are doomed to die either during their wars or by the demons they or their comrades summon to fight.

Desperate or not, I find his actions completely stupid and ill thought out. i see him as a self important person who feels that he alone can save everyone and become a martyr to mages. that is self centered behavior. he may have healed some people, but I wonder just how sincere his actions was. imo, he just needed a base and protection of mundanes, he also has no problem using Hawke regardless if you have a relationship with him or not. He seems to not use Meredith's "kindness" in allowing him to come and go as he pleases (due to him being Hawke's "friend") to anything that could truly benefit mages.

In the end, I think he was driven more by that crazy overzealous demon/spirit inside of him more than anything else and since that demon is also willing to kill mages for his narrowminded "purpose"  it makes me seriously question "Anders" motivations in the whole thing. 

Damn right what Anders does is manipulative, but it is also tactical: even though Elthina doesn't weild a sword or a shiled with Templar insignia, she is the person the Templar order (and Meredith) answer to. She's Meredith's boss, and she is responsible for the things that happen in the Circle during her watch. She claims she's trying to stay neutral, but that's just not true. Even Cullen, of all people, notes that she has duty to the Chantry and thus, to the Templars, and that she is just being cruel by giving the Mages false hope.

But I have to disagree with you on Anders' plan being stupid or ill thought out, because in all honesty his plan is kind of horrifyingly brilliant: he only condems himself, and he makes this very, very clear. If the Templars were just, they would have recognized that and left the Circle alone, and there wouldn't have been a mage rebellion, since there would be nothing to rebel against. Sure, Anders would've probably become somewhat of a Guy Fawkes -like figure for some mages, but I doubt it would have sparked a rebellion.

In stead, the Templars react exacly how Anders expects them to react: they go "kill all the mages!" -- even though the Circle had nothing to do with any of it. And it's not just Meredith: most (all?) Templars go with it, as well as Cullen (who later shows he could've voiced his disagreement much earlier -- he just chose not to). The fact of the matter is that Anders never forced the Templars' hand: they chose the way the decided to react. The only thing Anders did was remove the illusion of peace and rock the status quo. I am not saying he didn't predict the way the Templars would react -- I'd say he even counted on it to start the revolution -- but the truth still is that the Templars chose to react the way they did, and that if they hadn't been as corrupted and oppressive as Anders claimed they would not have done what they did: they would not have invoked the Right or at the very least they wouldn't have followed Meredith's command after she invoked the Right.

So, for years and years Anders has kept saying that the Templars are corrupt, that Meredith is powerhungry and insane, that the Circles are not a sollution, and absolutely no one listens to him, no one does anything about it. So then he went and did this -- and the Templars proved his point for him! It's kinda chilling how everything went so horribly right from his point of view.

As to Anders' motivations... You're absolutely entitled to your own interpretation of his character, but the way I see it, with Justice riding shotgun (in Act 1 at least when he's still relatively uncorrupt) being "selfish" is out of the question for him: he even says to Isabela at some point that he used to be selfish, but that Justice made hin question that. Justice won't even let him get drunk anymore! As to only running the Darktown clinic for protection... then why doesn't he stop even in Act 3 if he's Hawke's romance interest? There's a whole scene when Hawke gives Anders the key to the cellars under the Amell estate (which Hawke him/herself used in Act 1) so that Anders has a quick escape from Darktown, should he ever need it. He also still hangs out in the clinic, even though he has Hawke's protection and lives with her/him. Why would he do it if he really ran the clinic only for selfish reasons?

I don't believe that the "terrorist / freedom fighter" is the end-all of Anders' character, which is why I love the character so much. The way I see it, he's a selfless, caring person who gets so possessed by an idea (quite litterally) that it recolours his whole world view and amplifies his own negative experiences and feelings to the point he just can't not do anything about it anymore. He's certainly not perfect, and many times I find myself wanting to slap him silly (particularly when he's talking to Merrill about blood magic / spirits and demons etc) but then again that's what I love about the DA2 companions: none of them all absolutely, 100% "good" -- even Aveline and Varric are more Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral, respectively.

Modifié par MissOuJ, 12 mai 2013 - 08:55 .

[DPSSOC]

MR_PN wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

MR_PN wrote...
In war innocents die, whether it's wanted or not it happens. Anders knew this. He also has that naive ideal that every living person deserves freedom and that its worth war and death. And whether it turns out to be another imperium is irrelevant because he thinks it's worth trying(and so do I)

So, your belief is that the rise of the most brutal and opressive regime Thedas has ever witnessed; you know, the place where children are cut open for fireworks; is an acceptable risk for mage freedom.
Right, that is so not completely reckless, selfish, irresponsible and many other unflattering adjectives.

A brutal oppressive regime where people cut open children can exist without mages. People are good and bad.  Loghain was allowed to fuel the imperium with slaves, orlais can enslave an entire country, city elves can be raped after marrage.  mages are never even given the chance to prove they wont do these things. and most of the mages seen in the games wouldn't.

Except you know they do, a lot.  In DA2 of all the mages we actually interact with only 5 (3 of which are in your party) give the impression that they wouldn't and of those 5 only 1 actually says they wouldn't.  Then in DA:O we have Uldred and his little band which given descriptions we receive as well as just the numbers we deal with was probably a couple dozen.  We come across 3 mages who are killed summoning a demon, we find the corpses of another group that was (if I'm not mistaken there were 2 or 3 involved), the one who begs for mercy, and Uldred himself.

I'm sorry which definition of most are we using?

LobselVith8 wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

No Anders wasn't justified. He was a moron who believed himself more important than he really is and like most mages he's just full of idealistic wishes that have have no bases in reality, and all he's doing in the end is helping mages choose another master who may not be as kind as the Chantry.

Anders wanted to free his people from slavery.

Debatable. Nothing I see in either of the games gives me the impression Anders actually cares about "his people." Anders goal, from Act 1 to 3 is to hurt the Templars, every one of his personal quests involves kicking down their door (figuratively speaking) and slaughtering as many of them as he can, and to hell with the consequences. He's got a chip on his shoulder, a well deserved understandable chip but a chip none the less, and he's out to bloody the people he holds responsible for everything wrong with his life.

Throughout the game he makes attempts to drag other mages into it by connecting with the Mage Underground, encouraging you to let clearly dangerous mages go, and distributing his Manifesto. None of it works, the Mage Underground is crushed, the rabid dogs he encourages you to let go are put down before accomplishing anything, and his Manifesto never gains any traction. So in Act 3 he decides he's tired of asking, he's going to drag every mage in Kirkwall into his fight whether they want to or not. They'll fight or they'll die.

[Ryzaki]

MissOuJ wrote...

How execution =/= murder? Even if your murder is justified, it's still a murder.

Murder's unlawful killing. Killing someone is the catch all phrase that doesn't have any requirements. Murder does.

If someone's legally execution someone...that's not murder.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 12 mai 2013 - 12:42 .

[LobselVith8]

DPSSOC wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Anders wanted to free his people from slavery.

Debatable. Nothing I see in either of the games gives me the impression Anders actually cares about "his people." Anders goal, from Act 1 to 3 is to hurt the Templars, every one of his personal quests involves kicking down their door (figuratively speaking) and slaughtering as many of them as he can, and to hell with the consequences. He's got a chip on his shoulder, a well deserved understandable chip but a chip none the less, and he's out to bloody the people he holds responsible for everything wrong with his life.

Throughout the game he makes attempts to drag other mages into it by connecting with the Mage Underground, encouraging you to let clearly dangerous mages go, and distributing his Manifesto. None of it works, the Mage Underground is crushed, the rabid dogs he encourages you to let go are put down before accomplishing anything, and his Manifesto never gains any traction. So in Act 3 he decides he's tired of asking, he's going to drag every mage in Kirkwall into his fight whether they want to or not. They'll fight or they'll die.

I don't see how Meredith crushing the mage underground invalidates their goal to be free, or Anders' desire to see the fate of Karl prevented for any other mage. Also, I don't see why you condemn all the Starkhaven mages for the actions of Decimus and Grace; one of them even invites you to help the mage underground if you protect them from the templars. We also don't know the response to his manifesto outside of Hawke's moiety crew. Given how the mages have been leaning towards independence since Wynne was in the City of Amaranthine, and eventually voted to break ties to the Andrastian Chantry, Anders wasn't the only one who wanted to have their freedom.

[Hazegurl]

LobselVith8 wrote...

What the mages chose was freedom over servitude.

All the suicides Anders referenced makes me doubt your viewpoint.

And what viewpoint would that be? That Anders is helping the mages replace one master with another? And if so then what does the suicides have to do with doubting that viewpoint?

I'm pretty sure those people advocate freedom from an abusive institution where mages are subjugated by an anti-mage religious organization, which is condemned by some in-game authors and characters as slavery.

What does that have to do with the fact that certain mages are becoming the rulers over the life and death of other mages? Mages who don't want to fight or die in a war have no choice but to subjugate themselves to the majority that do. That's not freedom for them.

[Hazegurl]

MissOuJ wrote...

Then we're in 100% agreement on how the Circles should work (and this is apparently how they used to work). I'd actually be very interested to know if the Circles were always this bad, or if the things got bad only after the Chantry started its massive propaganda campaign against the Imperial Chantry / mages in general. And indeed we see that not all Circles are the same: the Circle of Dairsmuid seemed like a nice place before it got Annulled -- which might be because the Chantry doesn't have such a strong foothold in Rivain (and I guess this is the point I go to report myself to the "You play too much Dragon Age when..." thead).

The job of the Templars is probably not all sunshine and roses, but at the same time we see constantly that they, unlike the mages, are not judged as a group for the actions of a few individuals - otherwise something would've been done about the Kirkwall Circle after Alrik's atrocitioes came to light. Plus, they are free to leave, if they want to -- the problem there is the Chantry and its lyrium monopoly (and the weird thing is, in DA:O, Alistair says that it's possible to learn the Templar tallents without using lyrium, although he also says that lyrium makes the tallents more powerful). The mages, on the other hand, are all judged and feared and even punished for something they might do, or what they might become. But again, the big problem with mages is that they don't even have to be dumb or power-hungry to cause huge damage...

Again it comes down to the Templars having superior institutional power. There's this really unnerving situation where the mages have right to live and exist "for the time being", and since the Templars have the right to revoke that if they please (mild spoilers: it's said in Asunder that in some Circles they made "pre-emptive" strikes against the mages, even though the mages in question didn't even know some of the other Circles had rebelled) mages keep living on "borrowed time", so to speak, and that's a system that is deeply oppressive and problematic, moreso than the Templar system.

Maybe the problem is not so much the Tempars and the Mages as it is the Chantry and the way it operates, since it seems like it screws up both the Templars and the Mages to some degree, although it's my personal opinnion the mages get the shortest end of that particular stick.

Don't worry, we should all report to the "You play too much DA thread." you do bring up a very interesting point of when the Circles got as bad as they are now. I wonder that as well. They've been around for so many years it's hard for me to believe that they all started out as terrible insitutions.  As for Templar talents sans the Lyrium. I think its possible but since blood magic is the strongest magic a mage can use (that we know of) and since so many mages turn to it as their "get out of jail free" card I can see why they need the Lyrium to boost their talents and skills.  i also feel that something should have been done about the Kirkwall Circle after Alrik's deeds. that should have been the time when the Grand Cleric stepped in and called Meredith to her office and/or conduct some sort of an inspection with incentive for Templars to behave themselves and do what they're jobs right. I will always believe that her neutral stance was one of the contibuting factors that lead to the downfall of the Kirkwall Circle.

And before they declared their independence from the Chantry they 1) voted against it in the previous gathering and 2) the Chantry disbanned them and denied the mages the right to assembly without Templar presence. They didn't vote for independence until the things got bad -- I really suggest you read Asunder if you're interested to hear more about the last College meeting where everything went sideways, and the meeting after that when they made the decision to separate from the Chantry. Again, since they don't have any legal power or rights outside their own Mages (that I'm aware of) and since the College seems exist only as long as the Chantry allows it, I have to question how much it could have done even if Anders had questioned / allied with them.

You're right, I need to read the book. I can't really debate much on this topic except for what I was told. I do hate reading video game books cause I would actually like to see it in game but I don't think that would happen anyway. I'll definitely need to get that book.

As for Anders, I see you love the character a lot, don't worry. If you trash talk Fenris I could write three pages on how justified he is. And you are right, he knew how Meredith would respond and she stupidly proved his point. However, I cannot condone his actions no matter what and in some ways I can't consider Meredith's beliefs completely shrouded in "madness" and "corruption" She was right about the Circle holding blood mages. There may be a question of whether or not they were there before or after she took over, but she wasn't lying. The grand Enchanter himself was one and knew a terrifying ritual that he most certainly was holding onto for a reason regardless of what he says. There were other enchanters there who were also blood mages. If Anders is right about predicting just what the Templars would do than Meredith is also right in her predictions about the mages hiding within the Circle. They sort of prove each other right. Both sides were simply corrupt to the point where peace probably couldn't have been achieved. I so wish I could have remained neutral at the end. 

He's certainly not perfect, and many times I find myself wanting to slap him silly (particularly when he's talking to Merrill about blood magic / spirits and demons etc) but then again that's what I love about the DA2 companions: none of them all absolutely, 100% "good" -- even Aveline and Varric are more Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral, respectively.

You're so right! I love these companions, even when I hate them! lol!! I may not like Anders but I always want to cheer for him when he's giving Merrill the lowdown on just what she could become if she keeps messing with demons. As as much as Merrill gets on my nerves I have to cheer for her when she tells Anders that there is no such thing as a good spirit. They each bring with them a lot of insight on the stories we encounter throughout the game and I love having such active companions. 

[Hazegurl]

DPSSOC wrote...
Debatable. Nothing I see in either of the games gives me the impression Anders actually cares about "his people." Anders goal, from Act 1 to 3 is to hurt the Templars, every one of his personal quests involves kicking down their door (figuratively speaking) and slaughtering as many of them as he can, and to hell with the consequences. He's got a chip on his shoulder, a well deserved understandable chip but a chip none the less, and he's out to bloody the people he holds responsible for everything wrong with his life.

Throughout the game he makes attempts to drag other mages into it by connecting with the Mage Underground, encouraging you to let clearly dangerous mages go, and distributing his Manifesto. None of it works, the Mage Underground is crushed, the rabid dogs he encourages you to let go are put down before accomplishing anything, and his Manifesto never gains any traction. So in Act 3 he decides he's tired of asking, he's going to drag every mage in Kirkwall into his fight whether they want to or not. They'll fight or they'll die.

Right, this is pretty much how I view Anders' actions. He/Vengence was even willing to kill another mage because in his rabid mind she *must* be on the Templar's side for daring to question his actions or fear him. That's not someone who truly cares for mages but for his own cause. In Anders' defense he himself felt terrible about killing or almost killing that mage but vengence's actions still need to be call into question. This is why I seriously have to put into question his/vengence's actions in Act 3 where vengence seems to have more solid control. Was it done to truly give mages their freedom or was it because he was tired of being ignored by everyone, had a cause, and was gonna make sure it gets realized come hell or high water.