297 réponses à ce sujet

[Yellopranda]

I've been reading these forums for a time now, and it suprises me to see
so many people defend, sympathize and even agree with what are obviously mass-murderers,
religious fanatics, dictators or terrorists. In particular, the characters i'm talking about are Meredith, the Arishok, Anders and to some degree Elthina

I think Bioware did what they could to make everything as morally grey as possible. As there was little moral ambiguity to be had, bioware had to rely on emotional factors instead, like making Anders your friend and/or companion. However when you start out with such extreme characters it's really hard to see any grey area at all. Though some people do, apparently.

I can't help, but think that these people are seduced, not but the value or logic of these characters' philosophies, but by their force of personality. Both Meredith and the Arishok are very impressive. Meredith talks eloquently with total conviction and absolute certainity, a proven way of influencing other people. Sadly, in the real world, how much conviction you have and how certain you are makes you no more or less right than anyone else.

The Arishok is very large and strong, talks with a deep voice and in a distinct, forceful manner. Surely this man must be worthy of respect! Alas, again, looking and sounding impressive doesn't mean that you are. As they say, judge a man by his deeds. I'm sure many militant  mass-murderers throughout history were also very impressive and charismatic.

Bioware does something different with Anders. They make him your companion, and everyone stands by his friends, right? Well, when your friend turns out to be a terrorist maybe it's time to reevaluate your friendship. If in real life a friend of mine would suddenly turn out to be a murderer i'm sure i would sympathize with him, a pure emotional instinct. Agreeing with his actions, however, would be another matter entirely. It wouldn't make you a terrorist, but certainly a terrorist supporter.

Elthina; what can possibly be wrong with her? She's such a wise and gentle soul, always kind and caring. seemingly standing above the chaos and destruction in her own little part of heaven, untouched by the world's corruption. An angel watching over us. Except she doesn't do that, does she? She doesn't watch over anyone, she simply observes. She's someone with the power and influence to, possibly, prevent all that follows, yet she does nothing. That suggests to me one of three things, either she likes the way events are transpiring, she doesn't care or she's spineless. We should judge by actions, but remember that inaction is also a choice. While not stopping the falling axe isn't as bad as actually holding it, it's still bad.

I've read several very strange things people have said in defense of these characters, one even going so far as to blame Isabela for being guilty of all the deaths the Arishok caused. A sort of: "She made me do it!" kind of argument that the serial killer in the Magister's Orders quest uses to defend himself. And that's the strange thing, that people don't see that the arguments they use to defend these characters are the same that's been used throughout history to justify the actions of mass murderers, terrorists and dictators. Notions like: the end justfies the means (remember, it's the means which define a terrorist, not the ends), the Greater Good and one of my favourites, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs (a saying some attribute to Robespierre who sent thousands of innocent people to the guilloutine during the Reign of Terror).

I invite people who sympathize with these people to examine their actions. Look past their words, their heartfelt emotions, their stern (or soft) demeanor, or goddamn amazing armor in one case and see what cruelty and terror they have wrought upon the world. They are not worthy of respect. They should be despised, and maybe pitied for having become such a sorry excuse for a human being (or abomintion, or qunari or what have you).

Lastly i'd like to add that writing this has made me realize, even more than before, what a great game DA2 is. Because it made me care enough to write this post.

[RavenB]

Elthina was an extremely powerful figure in the very organization in charge of locking up mages. Arguably even the strongest in Kirkwall. She had the opportunity many times to put support behind Orsino and the mages, but she would not. I don't see how people fail to see that she was just as involved in the situation as Meredith or Orsino.

Blowing up the Chantry was an act of war. Were there casualties who weren't of Chantry employ? I'm sure, but so is the way of war. When a military base is bombed, there are innocents there. Soldiers families, non-military employees. "Surgical strikes" in real life almost always lead to casualties and injuries unintended. That's just how it goes.

[Wulfram]

Yellopranda wrote...

Elthina; what can possibly be wrong with her? She's such a wise and gentle soul, always kind and caring. seemingly standing above the chaos and destruction in her own little part of heaven, untouched by the world's corruption. An angel watching over us. Except she doesn't do that, does she? She doesn't watch over anyone, she simply observes. She's someone with the power and influence to, possibly, prevent all that follows, yet she does nothing. That suggests to me one of three things, either she likes the way events are transpiring, she doesn't care or she's spineless. We should judge by actions, but remember that inaction is also a choice. While not stopping the falling axe isn't as bad as actually holding it, it's still bad.

Or she's taking sensible action behind the scenes working for compromise rather than pointlessly provoking a war by backing Meredith into a corner.

[Morroian]

Yellopranda wrote...

I can't help, but think that these people are seduced, not but the value or logic of these characters' philosophies, but by their force of personality. 

I agree, the same thing happened in DAO with you know who. I guess its some sort of testament to the writing.

[TobiTobsen]

RavenB wrote...

Blowing up the Chantry was an act of war. Were there casualties who weren't of Chantry employ? I'm sure, but so is the way of war. When a military base is bombed, there are innocents there. Soldiers families, non-military employees. "Surgical strikes" in real life almost always lead to casualties and injuries unintended. That's just how it goes.

What war are you talking of? I mean, besides the war that obviously is going on in Anders head and that he wants to share it with all the other people on Thedas BECAUSE THERE CAN BE NO COMPROMISE!

[Morroian]

Wulfram wrote...

Or she's taking sensible action behind the scenes working for compromise rather than pointlessly provoking a war by backing Meredith into a corner.

She doesn't seem to be doing anything like that though and her dialogue almost explicitly states that shes not trying to broker a compromise between them.

[AlexXIV]

Because murder is this thing that is bad if it happens to you but not so bad if it happens to someone else.

[Wulfram]

Morroian wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Or she's taking sensible action behind the scenes working for compromise rather than pointlessly provoking a war by backing Meredith into a corner.

She doesn't seem to be doing anything like that though and her dialogue almost explicitly states that shes not trying to broker a compromise between them.

I got the strong impression she was in frequent contact with both sides

[Yellopranda]

RavenB wrote...

Blowing up the Chantry was an act of war. Were there casualties who weren't of Chantry employ? I'm sure, but so is the way of war. When a military base is bombed, there are innocents there. Soldiers families, non-military employees. "Surgical strikes" in real life almost always lead to casualties and injuries unintended. That's just how it goes.

An act of war? Where were the soldiers Anders attacked? Were was the army he was fighting? The chantry was a civilian target, not a military one. Very few modern democracies would condone deliberately attacking a civilian target. Not specifically targeting civilians is an important principle, because civilians are largely defenseless and when armies don't follow this principle it inevitably leads to a huge cost in human life, like in russia or china in WW2.

Sorry, trying not to sound too harsh here, but i've got to say that your definition of war is something i've only heard from extreme religious groups, at least in modern times.

[RavenB]

TobiTobsen wrote...

RavenB wrote...

Blowing up the Chantry was an act of war. Were there casualties who weren't of Chantry employ? I'm sure, but so is the way of war. When a military base is bombed, there are innocents there. Soldiers families, non-military employees. "Surgical strikes" in real life almost always lead to casualties and injuries unintended. That's just how it goes.

What war are you talking of? I mean, besides the war that obviously is going on in Anders head and that he wants to share it with all the other people on Thedas BECAUSE THERE CAN BE NO COMPROMISE!

It could easily be said to be the first major strike in the mage's revolutionary war. Saying that Anders was completely alone in wanting that to occur is silly. Clearly there were other groups who wanted to pull away from Chantry control. Wynne mentions them in Awakening and several people (like Leliana) mention the growing support in II. Do absolutely all mages want that? One can assume not. That doesn't make it an Anders-specific desire.

[RavenB]

Yellopranda wrote...

RavenB wrote...

Blowing up the Chantry was an act of war. Were there casualties who weren't of Chantry employ? I'm sure, but so is the way of war. When a military base is bombed, there are innocents there. Soldiers families, non-military employees. "Surgical strikes" in real life almost always lead to casualties and injuries unintended. That's just how it goes.

An act of war? Where were the soldiers Anders attacked? Were was the army he was fighting? The chantry was a civilian target, not a military one. Very few modern democracies would condone deliberately attacking a civilian target. Not specifically targeting civilians is an important principle, because civilians are largely defenseless and when armies don't follow this principle it inevitably leads to a huge cost in human life, like in russia or china in WW2.

Sorry, trying not to sound too harsh here, but i've got to say that your definition of war is something i've only heard from extreme religious groups, at least in modern times.

The Chantry is hardly a "civilian" group when it's their Grand Clerics who command the templars, their army. Elthina was not a civilian, she was directly connected to the templar army and there were templars inside the Chantry. A church as far as we know them in real life may be completely civilian institutions. The Chantry, however, is not.

[Yellopranda]

RavenB wrote...

Yellopranda wrote...

RavenB wrote...

Blowing up the Chantry was an act of war. Were there casualties who weren't of Chantry employ? I'm sure, but so is the way of war. When a military base is bombed, there are innocents there. Soldiers families, non-military employees. "Surgical strikes" in real life almost always lead to casualties and injuries unintended. That's just how it goes.

An act of war? Where were the soldiers Anders attacked? Were was the army he was fighting? The chantry was a civilian target, not a military one. Very few modern democracies would condone deliberately attacking a civilian target. Not specifically targeting civilians is an important principle, because civilians are largely defenseless and when armies don't follow this principle it inevitably leads to a huge cost in human life, like in russia or china in WW2.

Sorry, trying not to sound too harsh here, but i've got to say that your definition of war is something i've only heard from extreme religious groups, at least in modern times.

The Chantry is hardly a "civilian" group when it's their Grand Clerics who command the templars, their army. Elthina was not a civilian, she was directly connected to the templar army and there were templars inside the Chantry. A church as far as we know them in real life may be completely civilian institutions. The Chantry, however, is not.

The chantry commands the templars, it's true, like the American president commands the U. S. army. You've touched on another important principle of modern warfare. Civilian control of the army. If the president counted as military then the white house would be an acceptable target if the United States were in a state of war.

[Adanu]

Yellopranda wrote...

RavenB wrote...

Yellopranda wrote...

RavenB wrote...

Blowing up the Chantry was an act of war. Were there casualties who weren't of Chantry employ? I'm sure, but so is the way of war. When a military base is bombed, there are innocents there. Soldiers families, non-military employees. "Surgical strikes" in real life almost always lead to casualties and injuries unintended. That's just how it goes.

An act of war? Where were the soldiers Anders attacked? Were was the army he was fighting? The chantry was a civilian target, not a military one. Very few modern democracies would condone deliberately attacking a civilian target. Not specifically targeting civilians is an important principle, because civilians are largely defenseless and when armies don't follow this principle it inevitably leads to a huge cost in human life, like in russia or china in WW2.

Sorry, trying not to sound too harsh here, but i've got to say that your definition of war is something i've only heard from extreme religious groups, at least in modern times.

The Chantry is hardly a "civilian" group when it's their Grand Clerics who command the templars, their army. Elthina was not a civilian, she was directly connected to the templar army and there were templars inside the Chantry. A church as far as we know them in real life may be completely civilian institutions. The Chantry, however, is not.

The chantry commands the templars, it's true, like the American president commands the U. S. army. You've touched on another important principle of modern warfare. Civilian control of the army. If the president counted as military then the white house would be an acceptable target if the United States were in a state of war.

Target the leaders, and you get less organization. Next theory.

[RavenB]

Yellopranda wrote...

RavenB wrote...

Yellopranda wrote...

RavenB wrote...

Blowing up the Chantry was an act of war. Were there casualties who weren't of Chantry employ? I'm sure, but so is the way of war. When a military base is bombed, there are innocents there. Soldiers families, non-military employees. "Surgical strikes" in real life almost always lead to casualties and injuries unintended. That's just how it goes.

An act of war? Where were the soldiers Anders attacked? Were was the army he was fighting? The chantry was a civilian target, not a military one. Very few modern democracies would condone deliberately attacking a civilian target. Not specifically targeting civilians is an important principle, because civilians are largely defenseless and when armies don't follow this principle it inevitably leads to a huge cost in human life, like in russia or china in WW2.

Sorry, trying not to sound too harsh here, but i've got to say that your definition of war is something i've only heard from extreme religious groups, at least in modern times.

The Chantry is hardly a "civilian" group when it's their Grand Clerics who command the templars, their army. Elthina was not a civilian, she was directly connected to the templar army and there were templars inside the Chantry. A church as far as we know them in real life may be completely civilian institutions. The Chantry, however, is not.

The chantry commands the templars, it's true, like the American president commands the U. S. army. You've touched on another important principle of modern warfare. Civilian control of the army. If the president counted as military then the white house would be an acceptable target if the United States were in a state of war.

To me, that's not a morally unacceptable act. Those commanding the military force are even more to blame than those following orders, in my opinion.

[AlexXIV]

Adanu wrote...
Target the leaders, and you get less organization. Next theory.

Also, political leaders are NOT civilians.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 10 avril 2011 - 12:06 .

[Yellopranda]

RavenB wrote...

Yellopranda wrote...

RavenB wrote...

Yellopranda wrote...

RavenB wrote...

Blowing up the Chantry was an act of war. Were there casualties who weren't of Chantry employ? I'm sure, but so is the way of war. When a military base is bombed, there are innocents there. Soldiers families, non-military employees. "Surgical strikes" in real life almost always lead to casualties and injuries unintended. That's just how it goes.

An act of war? Where were the soldiers Anders attacked? Were was the army he was fighting? The chantry was a civilian target, not a military one. Very few modern democracies would condone deliberately attacking a civilian target. Not specifically targeting civilians is an important principle, because civilians are largely defenseless and when armies don't follow this principle it inevitably leads to a huge cost in human life, like in russia or china in WW2.

Sorry, trying not to sound too harsh here, but i've got to say that your definition of war is something i've only heard from extreme religious groups, at least in modern times.

The Chantry is hardly a "civilian" group when it's their Grand Clerics who command the templars, their army. Elthina was not a civilian, she was directly connected to the templar army and there were templars inside the Chantry. A church as far as we know them in real life may be completely civilian institutions. The Chantry, however, is not.

The chantry commands the templars, it's true, like the American president commands the U. S. army. You've touched on another important principle of modern warfare. Civilian control of the army. If the president counted as military then the white house would be an acceptable target if the United States were in a state of war.

To me, that's not a morally unacceptable act. Those commanding the military force are even more to blame than those following orders, in my opinion.

Let me get this straight. To you, bombing the White House would be morally acceptable?

[TobiTobsen]

RavenB wrote...

TobiTobsen wrote...

RavenB wrote...

Blowing up the Chantry was an act of war. Were there casualties who weren't of Chantry employ? I'm sure, but so is the way of war. When a military base is bombed, there are innocents there. Soldiers families, non-military employees. "Surgical strikes" in real life almost always lead to casualties and injuries unintended. That's just how it goes.

What war are you talking of? I mean, besides the war that obviously is going on in Anders head and that he wants to share it with all the other people on Thedas BECAUSE THERE CAN BE NO COMPROMISE!

It could easily be said to be the first major strike in the mage's revolutionary war. Saying that Anders was completely alone in wanting that to occur is silly. Clearly there were other groups who wanted to pull away from Chantry control. Wynne mentions them in Awakening and several people (like Leliana) mention the growing support in II. Do absolutely all mages want that? One can assume not. That doesn't make it an Anders-specific desire.

If you ask me revolutionary wars normally don't start with the bombing of a building full of non-combatants. Anders himself doesn't call it the start of the war, just the last straw to break the camel's back so that there is no other option than the following war. And that's what I find so disgusting.
Yes there are forces that want to split from the chantry, but in that moment he is choosing "fight or die" for every single mages in Thedas. He decides that alone. There is no revolutionary committee or something like that, just Anders forcing his will on everbody in Thedas.

Modifié par TobiTobsen, 10 avril 2011 - 12:14 .

[Oneiropolos]

Morroian wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Or she's taking sensible action behind the scenes working for compromise rather than pointlessly provoking a war by backing Meredith into a corner.

She doesn't seem to be doing anything like that though and her dialogue almost explicitly states that shes not trying to broker a compromise between them.

She does admit she considers things in the Maker's hands for most of the game. But when it came to Meredith and Orsino, she actually explicitly states the OPPOSITE of what you say. She says she is talking to both sides and trying to find a compromise and having trouble for obvious reasons. It's why she's so crucial for Anders to get rid of. It's why Meredith panics to prevent Orsino from moving up the steps to the Chantry with "You will not disturb her Grace!" It's why Orsino believes that going to the Grand Cleric is a good idea in the first place. Meredith doesn't want to be told to go back to her rooms like a good little girl again, and Orsino clearly does actually trust the Grand Cleric to care. Now, you can judge Elthina on her EFFECTIVENESS, which was admittedly low. But she clearly was speaking with both. 

At one point in the game, you can basically accuse her of needing to do more. I mean after the speech Orsino gives against Meredith, I think. And she gives you this sad smile and says you're overestimating her actual powers. Elthina wasn't effective enough at what she was doing to manage to bring about an actual peace... and what she probably should have done was wrote the Divine and go "We need a new Knight Commander. Now." but she grew up in Kirkwall and I think that gave her a blindness to the true actual insanity of the situation. It doesn't excuse her, it's just an observation. I certainly don't think she deserved to die for it as some people cheer over her death. Elthina's major downfall was in not doing enough... which is something... if we're honest....probably 95% of the people on the boards are guilty of. There are probably many things each of us can do to help someone else's life better each day. A charity we could donate to instead of choosing to go see a movie, or go out to eat or buy one more game. I'm just as guilty of it. Or are people going to pretend like they -don't- know about world disasters when they happen to their fellow man? That they don't know anything about what is happening in lesser priveledged countries..or even your own city? I don't know. Maybe people get a glee out of seeing Elthina die because they get to see a subconcious part of them that isn't doing 'enough' pay for it with her. But I don't want to die because I splurged today on some books that have no value except entertainment when I could have donated that money to the red cross. 

The point is. Anders has been confirmed by two writers now, including his own, as wanting to die. The Arishok challenges you to the death in what he views as honorable combat. Meredith is the one who decides she's going to kill you and then tries to kill everyone who says she's insane. Elthina? Dies not even because of her actual failing, that she didn't do enough. She dies, by Ander's justification of that he NEEDS TO REMOVE COMPROMISE. He's actually worried she'll do something that will keep the peace still! So she has to die! The fact this is applauded is one of those things that make me just shake my head. You can dislike the chantry. But talking gleefully about how you hate it so much you'd help Anders kill everyone inside who had no chance to ever defend themselves and those who die by debris who had nothing to do with the Chantry? Bleh. I'm glad I just can't understand that stance. 

[RavenB]

Yellopranda wrote...

RavenB wrote...

Yellopranda wrote...

RavenB wrote...

Yellopranda wrote...

RavenB wrote...

Blowing up the Chantry was an act of war. Were there casualties who weren't of Chantry employ? I'm sure, but so is the way of war. When a military base is bombed, there are innocents there. Soldiers families, non-military employees. "Surgical strikes" in real life almost always lead to casualties and injuries unintended. That's just how it goes.

An act of war? Where were the soldiers Anders attacked? Were was the army he was fighting? The chantry was a civilian target, not a military one. Very few modern democracies would condone deliberately attacking a civilian target. Not specifically targeting civilians is an important principle, because civilians are largely defenseless and when armies don't follow this principle it inevitably leads to a huge cost in human life, like in russia or china in WW2.

Sorry, trying not to sound too harsh here, but i've got to say that your definition of war is something i've only heard from extreme religious groups, at least in modern times.

The Chantry is hardly a "civilian" group when it's their Grand Clerics who command the templars, their army. Elthina was not a civilian, she was directly connected to the templar army and there were templars inside the Chantry. A church as far as we know them in real life may be completely civilian institutions. The Chantry, however, is not.

The chantry commands the templars, it's true, like the American president commands the U. S. army. You've touched on another important principle of modern warfare. Civilian control of the army. If the president counted as military then the white house would be an acceptable target if the United States were in a state of war.

To me, that's not a morally unacceptable act. Those commanding the military force are even more to blame than those following orders, in my opinion.

Let me get this straight. To you, bombing the White House would be morally acceptable?

Well, that's sort of a loaded question, isn't it? The White House isn't responsible for locking up and abusing my minority group in basically every way imaginable. But if they were, then sure.

[astreqwerty]

elthina didnt have the power to cancel the incomming war..it whould happen no matter what and in any case why elthina should have picked sides?anders orsino and the rest of the mages wanted us to think that the circle was a terrible place..i dont remember mages in ferelden having that problem(and im refering to wyne who spent all of her life in the circle).Also bare in mind that mages are very dangerous and and a constitution such as the circe was necesary to keep them monitored. yet the templars of kirkwal were brutal and meredith was a despot in disguise..so what was right and what was wrong?elthina surely didnt have that answer
as far as anders is concerned i think that part of the story was terrible..blowing up the chantry served no cause other than a cheap plotwist of no reason..the war between the mages and templars would ensue had anders destroyed the chantry and had he not.That said i wanted to kill him so badly after that but i would be left with no healer so there you have it

[AlexXIV]

Yellopranda wrote...
Let me get this straight. To you, bombing the White House would be morally acceptable?

It'd be a legitimate target in a war. It's not like the US army didn't attack Saddam's palace, huh?

[RavenB]

TobiTobsen wrote...

RavenB wrote...

TobiTobsen wrote...

RavenB wrote...

Blowing up the Chantry was an act of war. Were there casualties who weren't of Chantry employ? I'm sure, but so is the way of war. When a military base is bombed, there are innocents there. Soldiers families, non-military employees. "Surgical strikes" in real life almost always lead to casualties and injuries unintended. That's just how it goes.

What war are you talking of? I mean, besides the war that obviously is going on in Anders head and that he wants to share it with all the other people on Thedas BECAUSE THERE CAN BE NO COMPROMISE!

It could easily be said to be the first major strike in the mage's revolutionary war. Saying that Anders was completely alone in wanting that to occur is silly. Clearly there were other groups who wanted to pull away from Chantry control. Wynne mentions them in Awakening and several people (like Leliana) mention the growing support in II. Do absolutely all mages want that? One can assume not. That doesn't make it an Anders-specific desire.

If you ask me revolutionary wars normally don't start with the bombing of a building full of non-combatants. Anders himself doesn't call it the start of the war, just the last straw to break the camel's back so that there is no other option than the following war. And that's what I find so disgusting.
Yes there are forces that want to split from the chantry, but in that moment he is choosing "fight or die" for every single mages in Thedas. He decides that alone. There is no revolutionary committee or something like that, just Anders forcing his will on everbody in Thedas.

What an act like this will be seen as is largely up to history. I don't think we'll know at least until Hawke's story is finished through DLC, or maybe not even until DA 3. I think from the epilogue it sounded like the mages en mass wanted someone to open this door for them, but that's just assumption based on little information. Neither of us has really gotten enough information yet to make more than wild speculation on what mages want as a majority.

[Darth Krytie]

Oneiropolos wrote...

 She dies, by Ander's justification of that he NEEDS TO REMOVE COMPROMISE. He's actually worried she'll do something that will keep the peace still! So she has to die! The fact this is applauded is one of those things that make me just shake my head. You can dislike the chantry. But talking gleefully about how you hate it so much you'd help Anders kill everyone inside who had no chance to ever defend themselves and those who die by debris who had nothing to do with the Chantry? Bleh. I'm glad I just can't understand that stance. 

I don't applaud the death of anyone, really. However, I think Anders' decision was founded in that Any Compromise would be comprised of something fundamentally against his cause: mages remaining "prisoners". So, any "peace" would include accepting some measure of what he's fighting againt and then, in time, lead right back to where they are when he decided on his...course.

I think some of the support comes from a larger view...the Chantry has gone on how many exalted marches/holy wars? Killed how many innocents in their religious zeal? And now, even tangentally, support a system fraught with abuses...so, it's not that specific Chantry people are generally cheering to see destroyed. And it's not dismissing the lives lost who had nothing to do with anything. It's the destruction of a symbol of oppression.

[Adanu]

Oneiropolos wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Or she's taking sensible action behind the scenes working for compromise rather than pointlessly provoking a war by backing Meredith into a corner.

She doesn't seem to be doing anything like that though and her dialogue almost explicitly states that shes not trying to broker a compromise between them.

She does admit she considers things in the Maker's hands for most of the game. But when it came to Meredith and Orsino, she actually explicitly states the OPPOSITE of what you say. She says she is talking to both sides and trying to find a compromise and having trouble for obvious reasons. It's why she's so crucial for Anders to get rid of. It's why Meredith panics to prevent Orsino from moving up the steps to the Chantry with "You will not disturb her Grace!" It's why Orsino believes that going to the Grand Cleric is a good idea in the first place. Meredith doesn't want to be told to go back to her rooms like a good little girl again, and Orsino clearly does actually trust the Grand Cleric to care. Now, you can judge Elthina on her EFFECTIVENESS, which was admittedly low. But she clearly was speaking with both. 

At one point in the game, you can basically accuse her of needing to do more. I mean after the speech Orsino gives against Meredith, I think. And she gives you this sad smile and says you're overestimating her actual powers. Elthina wasn't effective enough at what she was doing to manage to bring about an actual peace... and what she probably should have done was wrote the Divine and go "We need a new Knight Commander. Now." but she grew up in Kirkwall and I think that gave her a blindness to the true actual insanity of the situation. It doesn't excuse her, it's just an observation. I certainly don't think she deserved to die for it as some people cheer over her death. Elthina's major downfall was in not doing enough... which is something... if we're honest....probably 95% of the people on the boards are guilty of. There are probably many things each of us can do to help someone else's life better each day. A charity we could donate to instead of choosing to go see a movie, or go out to eat or buy one more game. I'm just as guilty of it. Or are people going to pretend like they -don't- know about world disasters when they happen to their fellow man? That they don't know anything about what is happening in lesser priveledged countries..or even your own city? I don't know. Maybe people get a glee out of seeing Elthina die because they get to see a subconcious part of them that isn't doing 'enough' pay for it with her. But I don't want to die because I splurged today on some books that have no value except entertainment when I could have donated that money to the red cross. 

The point is. Anders has been confirmed by two writers now, including his own, as wanting to die. The Arishok challenges you to the death in what he views as honorable combat. Meredith is the one who decides she's going to kill you and then tries to kill everyone who says she's insane. Elthina? Dies not even because of her actual failing, that she didn't do enough. She dies, by Ander's justification of that he NEEDS TO REMOVE COMPROMISE. He's actually worried she'll do something that will keep the peace still! So she has to die! The fact this is applauded is one of those things that make me just shake my head. You can dislike the chantry. But talking gleefully about how you hate it so much you'd help Anders kill everyone inside who had no chance to ever defend themselves and those who die by debris who had nothing to do with the Chantry? Bleh. I'm glad I just can't understand that stance. 

War doesn't care if you are innocent or guilty. This is the fight that sparks a war that needs to happen for thedas to progress.

[Oneiropolos]

Playing Devil's Advocate:

Yes. If you were an enemy country, attacking the White House is acceptable. It was, in fact, done in the War of 1812. Burned, actually. However, the nation was in fact aware they were in a war.On both sides. That's the catch.

Anders might have been acting for all mages, but he didn't precisely actually give them a heads up and the 'enemy' was unaware the strike was coming. An action done by ONE MAN is not a formal declaration of war. It was a terrorist attack...and even Anders recognized it as something that was NOT justice. That's why he believed he should die as well for the innocents he just killed.