414 réponses à ce sujet

[Jenova65]

Sabariel wrote...

I told Elthina more than once to get her arse out of the Chantry. She chose to stay. She also chose not to empty the Chantry. My sympathy? Limited. Will I execute Anders every playthrough? Nope.

She wasn't alone in there........... what of the others? They were still innocent not their fault she didn't warn them...
It all comes down to this - If you think long and hard enough you can justify anything even (especially....?) murder.....
Or as Elthina herself said ''Death is never justice'' < something like that..

[Jenova65]

The Angry One wrote...

Sabariel wrote...

Since I told her to leave the Chantry... twice, you would think she'd take the hint that perhaps the Chantry was not safe anymore. Unsurprisingly, she chooses inaction.

She decided that her duties were more important than a possibility that she may come to harm.
Hindsight and meta-gaming are powerful tools, but Elthina has neither.

Some things need to be said twice  

[doloreg]

Well, i let him live.
He wants to die, so justice can be served.
Letting him live forces him to see what he's done, it's kind of a poetic justice.

[Plaintiff]

Jenova65 wrote...

Sabariel wrote...

I told Elthina more than once to get her arse out of the Chantry. She chose to stay. She also chose not to empty the Chantry. My sympathy? Limited. Will I execute Anders every playthrough? Nope.

She wasn't alone in there........... what of the others? They were still innocent not their fault she didn't warn them...
It all comes down to this - If you think long and hard enough you can justify anything even (especially....?) murder.....
Or as Elthina herself said ''Death is never justice'' < something like that..

Haha, "death is never jsutice". She should try that line inTexas.

[OldMan91]

Personally, I think he deserved a trial, to face the families of the people he killed and see the monster he became. Killing him in a sense is easy, because he escapes the stigma of a murderer. Not to say that I don't think he should have died in the end... I just think executing him in that way made it easy.

I would agree with giving Anders a trial, if the same were to be done to every Templar and Chantry leader involved in oppressing, turning tranquil and hunting mages, in and outside the circle. They too should look at the face of the mage's loved ones and see the monsters they became.

[Ox_Mox]

Anders no longer exists. By the end of Act III it's very clear that Anders has little control over his own actions any more and that what sanity he has left is eroding day by day. He is a dangerous abomination willing to mass murder innocents in the name of vengeance and needs to be executed to prevent further danger to civilians.

[In Exile]

OldMan91 wrote...
I would agree with giving Anders a trial, if the same were to be done to every Templar and Chantry leader involved in oppressing, turning tranquil and hunting mages, in and outside the circle. They too should look at the face of the mage's loved ones and see the monsters they became.

Absolutely. To that extent, I think the fact that the Chantry runs the templars as such a closed order is what removes accountability.

[Beerfish]

Tranquil for sure, he should be set out in the middle of high town to sell 50 copper piece mini magic low end runes. He's a crazy zealot, possessed by a spirit and his act is soley out of vengeance because he know he can't really make things better for mages. His real goal is a 100% selfish act that he portrays as being some great martyrdom that had to be done but in reality he sets back the plight of the mages years. Orsino declares this pretty well just after the explosion.

[OldMan91]

In Exile wrote...

OldMan91 wrote...
I would agree with giving Anders a trial, if the same were to be done to every Templar and Chantry leader involved in oppressing, turning tranquil and hunting mages, in and outside the circle. They too should look at the face of the mage's loved ones and see the monsters they became.

Absolutely. To that extent, I think the fact that the Chantry runs the templars as such a closed order is what removes accountability.

It does remove accountability, despite the Seekers supposedly being the organization which keeps the Templars in check. The very fact that the chantry even has a private military organization under their thumb is problematic. This is especially so when there is no real separation of church and state, such as in Orlais or Kirkwall for that matter. Furthermore according to the ending the Templars have rebelled too. Now we have a paramilitary organization doing as it pleases with even less accountability. Many of these problems could be avoided if organizations such as the Templars belong to national governments and these governments were secular to begin with.

[plumededragop]

I let him live, but I sent him away. I even refused his help at the final battle when I sided with the mages.

My Hawke now sees him as a murderer and refused to have him by his side. While he understood Anders wanting to help the mages (he's kind of pro-mage himself), he was against most of his ways and hated the fact that he had Vengeance inside him controlling him.

He was in Full Rivalry and, after all, the end was bugged for this way, as Anders recognized the big mistake he had made by blowing up the Chantry:
HAWKE: You knew this was wrong! You told me you're going to stop it!
ANDERS : I tried! Justice…! Vengeance… He was too strong for me… Justice once told me the demons are just spirits perverted by their desires! I've made my friend a demon… and he did this. Kill me now before there nothing left of me. […] But I prove I cannot. If I couldn't control Vengeance now, I never will. I NEED to die.

You can hear it here.

Now, Anders has made this mistake, but Hawke let him live. For he had to live with what he has done. That was his punishment for him.

[BlueMew]

Dave of Canada wrote...

BlueMew wrote...

Still, if you do want him punished, why *not* kill him? Wanting him to suffer just sounds hmmm. Not even Vengeance went that far -- at least he just blows stuff up :/

Because he's going to be a hero to the mages, championed as a martyr who died for mage freedom in a war that will cause thousands of deaths (that he caused)?

And that's going to be fixed by making him suffer? Now, call me an ignorant on the subject of martyrdom, but sick punishments haven't stopped people from being made saints as far as I know. 

Nope, I vastly prefer letting him go, but if that's not possible, any form of torture doesn't sit well with me. It just seems... wrong.

[Crossroads_Wanderer]

The Morrigan wrote...

Crossroads_Wanderer wrote...

I agree that Anders is directly responsible for the deaths that ensue of his actions, where Isabela is only indirectly responsible, but I think the difference is in the innocence of those killed. I think those who die as a result of Isabela's actions are mostly innocents, while those who die of Anders's actions are mostly not. I'm not ruling out the possibility of their being a handful of orphans in the Chantry when it exploded, and those deaths would be on his hands, but it seems to me that he took every precaution to minimize the deaths from his actions, while still making the statement he needs to make. Anders didn't just explode the Chantry; he waited 'til nightfall, when it wouldn't be very busy and he sucked the debris into some sort of wormhole so it wouldn't fly about and kill innocent bystanders. It seemed to me that he carefully planned things to stick it to the Chantry without hurting many, if any, others.

And what about the fact that he started a war? And intended to start a war that would rage across Thedas?

Whether you agree this revolution was necessary or not, Anders deliberately started a war in which many people, innocent or not, will die.

Again, the difference is in whether it is just. In the war Isabela started, the Qunari are marginally in the right. They are completely overreacting and targeting the wrong people, but they are the wronged party. They're mostly wrong for targeting people not responsible for the theft, but they do have the right to regain their property and they seem to believe that this is how to do so. Isabela is completely in the wrong because she was the aggressor and it was unjust for her to steal the book.

Anders starts a just war. Granted, in keeping with Just War Theory, he should have made a public declaration before he started blowing things up, but he was starting a revolution, meaning that he didn't really have the proper authority or public channels to do so. In any case, his intent is still to free mages and he makes a move to do so. He is on the side of the war that is in the right. It is almost inevitable that there will be some civilian casualties in a war, yet there are wars that can be considered justified. So long as the mages don't go around killing civilians out of hand, the civilian deaths that occur are sad, but necessary for the greater good.

[jmbrosendo]

Personally, I would make him bury the dead, then rebuild the Chantry. In his off time, He would be writing letters of condolences to all the mages, chantry and innocent bystanders killed by his act.

Failing that, just throw him to an angry mob.

[sevalaricgirl]

If people like Anders didn't act, the French people and Americans would have never been liberated and would have been subjected to rulers who don't have a problem killing innocents as the chantry has proven.  Who's going to kill the exalted Justines for the exalted marches.  Those who are so willing to kill Anders must then kill the leaders of the chantry for all the exalted marches.  Innocents were killed.

Modifié par sevalaricgirl, 18 avril 2011 - 05:56 .

[sevalaricgirl]

Frig, double post

Modifié par sevalaricgirl, 18 avril 2011 - 05:54 .

[Sbri]

Ok, realizing that I might be about to start a flame war here, but I feel the need to ask. To everyone who says that blowing up the Chantry was justified, what was your response to the bombings in London and Dheli? Were these somehow justified? Was blowing up a bus of innocent people acceptable? They were participants in an oppressive society (from the bomber's perspective). Or did you condemn the attacks? Does it change with the fact that the Chantry is just a bunch of pixels?

[highcastle]

I voted "other." I let Anders live, but not because I think what he did was right or necessary. I agree with his cause, but take issue with his methods. That being said, my canon Hawke romanced him and couldn't quite bring himself to kill Anders. He ended up kicking him from the party, but took his back when he reappeared at the Gallows because he couldn't put himself through that twice. The way my Hawke sees it, Anders is his family. And he's lost too much of his family now to condemn Anders to that fate (or, selfishly, himself to losing another person he loves).

I also think there's some justice in making Anders live to see the full weight of the consequences of his actions. He can't just start a war and wash his hands of it. If he lives, he can work to set right what he did wrong. My Hawke's not one to just walk away from this. He's going to fight to make sure his fellow mages aren't wholly slaughtered.

[javierdmr1982]

Anders always live in my playthroughs. This is a revolution.

[Rifneno]

Jenova65 wrote...

She wasn't alone in there........... what of the others? They were still innocent not their fault she didn't warn them...
It all comes down to this - If you think long and hard enough you can justify anything even (especially....?) murder.....
Or as Elthina herself said ''Death is never justice'' < something like that..

And that makes it true?  I'm not saying innocents weren't killed, but how much more innocent suffering will there be if the status quo is continued rather than the oppressed fighting for their freedom?  The Chantry has been at it for a thousand years, the notion that that they could be peacefully convinced to change their methods is simply naive.  Tyrants do not relinquish their power willingly, and throughout history good men have had to make hard and regrettable decisions to fight tyranny.

Plaintiff wrote...

Haha, "death is never jsutice". She should try that line inTexas.

10/10.  I applaud you, sir.

Beerfish wrote...

Tranquil for sure, he should be set out in the middle of high town to sell 50 copper piece mini magic low end runes. He's a crazy zealot, possessed by a spirit and his act is soley out of vengeance because he know he can't really make things better for mages. His real goal is a 100% selfish act that he portrays as being some great martyrdom that had to be done but in reality he sets back the plight of the mages years. Orsino declares this pretty well just after the explosion.

By that logic, the Tevinter slaves never should've rose up in Kirkwall all those centuries ago.  But I do find it very facepalm that you'd use Orsino of all people as a backup reason.  I mean really, the blood mage necromancer who worked with a crazed serial killer stitching his victim's body parts together to rebuild his dead wife?  You couldn't find someone talking to trees in lyrium withdrawl?

Regardless, it's highly unlikely he sets the plight of the mages back at all.  This issue is how pretty much priority #1 for Thedas, and we know for a fact that there will be more extreme heroics by someone because it's a video game where we control such a hero.  We've also seen that the developers acknowledge most players sympathize with the mages.  The logical conclusion is that how this rebellion ends up will be reasonably within our hands in the end.  So he did not doom his fellow mages as so many people condemning him like to say.

sevalaricgirl wrote...

If people like Anders didn't act, the French people and Americans would have never been liberated and would have been subjected to rulers who don't have a problem killing innocents as the chantry has proven.  Who's going to kill the exalted Justines for the exalted marches.  Those who are so willing to kill Anders must then kill the leaders of the chantry for all the exalted marches.  Innocents were killed.

An excellent point.  We Americans celebrate the courageous fight our ancestors put up for our freedom.  And while I mean no disrespect to the great men and women who fought that war, what we were fighting for was far less than these mages.  These mages are fighting for their right not to be imprisoned, to have a family, to be given a chance at a decent life and not condemned for an accident of birth...  We fought to be free of high taxes.

Sbri wrote...

Ok, realizing that I might be about to start a flame war here, but I feel the need to ask. To everyone who says that blowing up the Chantry was justified, what was your response to the bombings in London and Dheli? Were these somehow justified? Was blowing up a bus of innocent people acceptable? They were participants in an oppressive society (from the bomber's perspective). Or did you condemn the attacks? Does it change with the fact that the Chantry is just a bunch of pixels?

I'm not familiar with the details of either of those attacks, but I sincerely doubt they were against a governing organization that was in charge of a military responsible for a thousand years of abusive oppression against a minority.  I want to point out, on my first playthrough I knifed Anders without even considering letting him live.  I do understand where many of you are coming from.  It was only after long thought and analysis of the situation that I realized he was not simply an abomination killing innocent people for no good reason.

[Sabariel]

Jenova65 wrote...

Sabariel wrote...

I told Elthina more than once to get her arse out of the Chantry. She chose to stay. She also chose not to empty the Chantry. My sympathy? Limited. Will I execute Anders every playthrough? Nope.

She wasn't alone in there........... what of the others? They were still innocent not their fault she didn't warn them...
It all comes down to this - If you think long and hard enough you can justify anything even (especially....?) murder.....
Or as Elthina herself said ''Death is never justice'' < something like that..

What of them? I told Elthina multiple times the Chantry wasn't safe. She chose not to empty the Chantry. She had a hand in their deaths just as much as Anders did. Hawke does as well. Everyone was guilty to some degree in my playthrough.

And if death is never justice.... then wouldn't killing Anders not be justice?

Jenova65 wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Sabariel wrote...

Since
I told her to leave the Chantry... twice, you would think she'd take
the hint that perhaps the Chantry was not safe anymore. Unsurprisingly,
she chooses inaction.

She decided that her duties were more important than a possibility that she may come to harm.
Hindsight and meta-gaming are powerful tools, but Elthina has neither.

Some things need to be said twice [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png[/smilie] 

Indeed:

Even if she was at peace with harm coming to her she should have at least emptied out the Chantry. Hawke tells her "Chantry: not good place to stay". No hindsight  is needed there.

I don't know about you, but I knew Anders was planning something not-so-nice for the Chantry long before he went boom. By extension, my Hawke knows this because he saw everything I saw. He/I did not help Anders in his Act III quests because of this. I repeatedly tried to warn Elthina because of this. She repeatedly ignored me because... that's what she does.

Modifié par Sabariel, 18 avril 2011 - 08:22 .

[Crossroads_Wanderer]

Sbri wrote...

Ok, realizing that I might be about to start a flame war here, but I feel the need to ask. To everyone who says that blowing up the Chantry was justified, what was your response to the bombings in London and Dheli? Were these somehow justified? Was blowing up a bus of innocent people acceptable? They were participants in an oppressive society (from the bomber's perspective). Or did you condemn the attacks? Does it change with the fact that the Chantry is just a bunch of pixels?

I'm not British, but, if you're refering to the IRA bombings, I've done some research into that and it seems to me that the majority of people in Northern Ireland want to remain part of Britain. Britain also seems to be willing to let Northern Ireland become independent if the majority of people there want it, but they don't. Britain isn't opressing the people of Northern Ireland, whereas the Chantry is definitely opressing the mages.

[Sbri]

I'm not refering to the IRA bombings, but to the attacks in 7/7/05. If you look at an excerpt on the wiki page of the events http://en.wikipedia....London_bombings , it includes some very familiar sounding statements. The rationalization is, "Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my...brothers and sisters." So who here thinks that the bombing of the underground was a justified act?
As to the issues surrounding the IRA, I am sorry that I must disagree that there were no instances of oppression. Peaceful protesters being shot generally counts (Check for articles on Bloody Sunday). Does that justify planting bombs in London? I would say that it does not. Attacking a barracks, or transport, aka a MILITARY target is one thing. To kill a random person in the street in order to instill fear in order to cause support for a government to fail is terrorism.

[Rifneno]

Sbri wrote...

I would say that it does not. Attacking a barracks, or transport, aka a MILITARY target is one thing. To kill a random person in the street in order to instill fear in order to cause support for a government to fail is terrorism.

If you're suggesting this has anything to do with the Anders situation, you cannot expect the governing agency of the military committing the offenses as "random people on the street."  That is simply absurd.  And if you're not suggesting it has anything to do with it, what's it doing in this thread?

[The Morrigan]

Crossroads_Wanderer wrote...
Again, the difference is in whether it is just. In the war Isabela started, the Qunari are marginally in the right. They are completely overreacting and targeting the wrong people, but they are the wronged party. They're mostly wrong for targeting people not responsible for the theft, but they do have the right to regain their property and they seem to believe that this is how to do so. Isabela is completely in the wrong because she was the aggressor and it was unjust for her to steal the book.

Anders starts a just war. Granted, in keeping with Just War Theory, he should have made a public declaration before he started blowing things up, but he was starting a revolution, meaning that he didn't really have the proper authority or public channels to do so. In any case, his intent is still to free mages and he makes a move to do so. He is on the side of the war that is in the right. It is almost inevitable that there will be some civilian casualties in a war, yet there are wars that can be considered justified. So long as the mages don't go around killing civilians out of hand, the civilian deaths that occur are sad, but necessary for the greater good.

It's irrelevant wether he had good intentions or whether the war itself will eventually result in good. Anders murdered people and, in so doing, deliberately started a war. He didn't spark a war that others were vying for, or aid a side that was already pushing for it, he forced people into war. The war may be for a good cause. The war may cause great things to happen. But Anders is a war-mongering murderer, plain and simple. He alone decided there was no way peaceful way for the Templars/Chantry and the Mages to come to terms, that there was no chance for reform, so he chose the violent path.

Anyone read V for Vendetta? It's a similar concept as this. The character V in that is a monster, but you can also hail him as a hero. He accepts that what he does is terrible, that he deserves no pity, because what he has done is terrible, even though he believes it is necessary.

[Rifneno]

The Morrigan wrote...

It's irrelevant wether he had good intentions or whether the war itself will eventually result in good. Anders murdered people and, in so doing, deliberately started a war. He didn't spark a war that others were vying for, or aid a side that was already pushing for it, he forced people into war. The war may be for a good cause. The war may cause great things to happen. But Anders is a war-mongering murderer, plain and simple. He alone decided there was no way peaceful way for the Templars/Chantry and the Mages to come to terms, that there was no chance for reform, so he chose the violent path.

No.  You cannot simply wave off all circumstance and focus only on what puts him in a negative light.  That's stupid.