414 réponses à ce sujet

[Benchmark]

I find it very frustrating when people use the American Revolutionary war or the French Revolutionary war as an excuse for Anders. Neither of the groups that started those revolutions supported the deaths of civilian or religious persons.

The Boston Tea Party was little more than a prank where no one died (edited: I rethought this and think it may be unlikely noone at all was hurt). It is the closest example of attacking non military targets I can remember from the American Revolution. Even aggression against British sympathizers was frowned upon and seen as a crime against our own country. It did happen, but it wasn't something that was praised or seen as "ok".

In both actual historical revolutions, the revolutionaries were the common people. Not some extremely small subgroup that decided killing anyone but their own group was ok. Neither of the two stated revolutions started with a heinous violent act by the revolutionaries. They started with a debate that gained consensus from a majority of the populations.

Please quit trying to incorrectly use them as parallels.

On topic, I voted to kill Ander's. Good luck with his Martyrdom when he dies anonymously to my murderknife. Body left and forgotten. My first play I even sided with the mages after doing it, but only because the game was shoehorning me so much I was afraid I would be forced to kill my sister and innocent mages indiscriminately. Knowing now that you save your sister and are allowed to show mercy to mages that surrender, I will change my choice.

Modifié par Benchmark, 18 avril 2011 - 09:40 .

[kromify]

Rifneno wrote...

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.

He did not actually force meredith to take things too far... Kirkwall was always on the brink, he simply pushed it over the edge by killing the one person preventing the war at that time. And who was also semi-responsible for the suffering going on by not intervening when she had the power to do so. Chantry > templars > mages.

I've always felt sorry for Anders because he is a genuinely good person beneath all the VENGEANCE!!!! malarky. He's lived in poverty for years in a sewer tending to the needy and desperate gratis. All those years before he lost to Justice he was a shining example of what a free mage can be

But I'm biased. I always waltz off into the pinky, debris filled sunset with our scruffy healer. 

[OldMan91]

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

Indeed. To judge an action, you must look at both the circumstances surrounding the action, the means to the action and the results thereof. In matters of jurisprudence or even public policy, circumstances and intentions do matter and must be taken into account.

Modifié par OldMan91, 18 avril 2011 - 09:48 .

[marshalleck]

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?

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."

At any rate, this is a fallacious comparison because the Chantry was the target and the Chantry are not innocents just riding a bus to work. They are complicit in the work of the Templars. Anders' target was true.

Modifié par marshalleck, 18 avril 2011 - 10:02 .

[Rifneno]

Benchmark wrote...

I find it very frustrating when people use the American Revolutionary war or the French Revolutionary war as an excuse for Anders. Neither of the groups that started those revolutions supported the deaths of civilian or religious persons.

The Boston Tea Party was little more than a prank where no one died (edited: I rethought this and think it may be unlikely noone at all was hurt). It is the closest example of attacking non military targets I can remember from the American Revolution. Even aggression against British sympathizers was frowned upon and seen as a crime against our own country. It did happen, but it wasn't something that was praised or seen as "ok".

In both actual historical revolutions, the revolutionaries were the common people. Not some extremely small subgroup that decided killing anyone but their own group was ok. Neither of the two stated revolutions started with a heinous violent act by the revolutionaries. They started with a debate that gained consensus from a majority of the populations.

Please quit trying to incorrectly use them as parallels.

It is an incorrect parallel, because they were fighting over some financial matter not basic human rights.

The Boston Tea Party was a prank?  This is where there is some parallel.  And I quote, "In Britain, even those politicians considered friends of the colonies were appalled and this act united all parties there against the colonies. The Prime Minister Lord North said, "Whatever may be the consequence, we must risk something; if we do not, all is over".[63] The British government felt this action could not remain unpunished, and responded by closing the port of Boston and putting in place other laws known as the "Coercive Acts"."

Gee, sounds eerily familiar to the "Anders only made things worse!" viewpoints I keep seeing.  Not to devalue human life, but you're kidding yourself if you think doing significant financial damage is meaningless.  The incredible toll 9/11 took on our economy was due to the destruction of the Twin Towers, not necessarily the deaths of the people in them.

An extremely small minority that decided killing anyone else was okay?  Half speculation, and half just plain a lie.  We have no data on how rare mages are.  1 in 25?  1 in 5,000?  We don't even have a ballpark.  As for deciding killing anyone else was ok, no one did.  Even Anders, the lone perpetrator, clearly did not think it was "okay."

[kromify]

looking at other posts i have to wonder if making him tranquil would work. it's totes shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted; he's already possessed people!!! maybe justice would revert without any anger to fuel him. and probably become the dominant personality. hmm

[Avilia]

To me this is the one of few decisions in DA2 that's actually grey.  If you believe the end justifies the means, that the Chantry is wrong, that mages should be free, then you support what he did?  Perhaps, perhaps, not.

Anders says 'I removed the chance of compromise'.  His goal, as far as I see it, wasn't killing the Grand Cleric and destroying the Chantry, per se, but simply removing any chance that a peace could be negotiated.  He wanted to cause chaos and he did.

Someone very clever in another thread pointed out the similarities between Anders and Patrice and as I type the last paragraph highlighted that for me.  Patrice's goal wasn't to kill you but to cause a reaction from your death.  A fine point perhaps, but a crucial difference in motivation.

I view Anders' act in the same way.  He doesn't really want to kill all those people in the Chantry (and surrounding areas), he wants to cause a reaction from their deaths.

I'm not sure if that makes his action better or worse tbh.

Hope that ramble makes some kind of sense.   To answer the question - I've always killed him up until now.  Why?  He just blew up the bloody Chantry that's why.   Without metagaming - allowing him to live is tacit support.  Anyone not present might take it as such.   Perhaps with time Hawke might be convinced that Anders acted in the only way he could, but right at that moment, when she makes the decision?  The city has already started burning and the choice needs to be made now.  Not in a week.  Now.

As an aside - the fact that Hawke even gets to make that decision is a big failing of the story.  Seriously, how many Templars are standing about watching him go all glowy?  A lot, that's how many.  And they leave it to Hawke?  I don't think so.  Meredith should have just removed his head and then said "a friend of yours Hawke?"  But eh, I can see why they left it to the player (from a gameplay perspective)  but it really makes no sense to me.

Modifié par Avilia, 18 avril 2011 - 09:58 .

[Scnew]

I spared Anders, mostly out of nostalgia towards the Anders that existed in Awakening. Kind of wish I hadn't now, though. The Grand Cleric was just about the only person in Kirkwall who didn't deserve to be blown up.

[silver-crescent]

She did though.

Well not blown up necessarily, but she seriously needed to be fired at least. She was absolutely useless.

[Benchmark]

Rifneno wrote...

An extremely small minority that decided killing anyone else was okay?  Half speculation, and half just plain a lie.  We have no data on how rare mages are.  1 in 25?  1 in 5,000?  We don't even have a ballpark.  As for deciding killing anyone else was ok, no one did.  Even Anders, the lone perpetrator, clearly did not think it was "okay."

Are you trying to make a claim that mages are somehow a larger portion of the population? It certainly is speculation. But based upon all the the ingame evidence, it is a good speculation that mages are very very rare. When every mage in an entire country can be housed in a tower the size of a 4 story hotel (Fereldan Cirlce), it seems clear that the population is low. If the idea of 4% mages makes killing a building full of civilians more correct than .000002% mages... Well I would love to hear a dev give some actual statistical information even if I don't agree with that. If you can get one to comment, please do.

And Ander's regretted the deaths he caused, but he did think his decision was "ok". If not, he would never have chosen to do it, or he would have given them time to evacuate the Chantry. Revolutionary commanders that abused civilians were seen as "mad dogs" and reviled by the actual leadership and organizers. No recognized leader would have massacred a townhall of fellow colonists.

[silver-crescent]

There are a lot of mages not living in Circles though. And the Circle of Ferelden was hardly a 4 foot hotel.

But regardless, even they're only 1% of the population, they still don't deserve to be treated the way they are (pre Chantry explosion)

Modifié par silver-crescent, 18 avril 2011 - 10:23 .

[Benchmark]

silver-crescent wrote...

She did though.

Well not blown up necessarily, but she seriously needed to be fired at least. She was absolutely useless.

She wasn't useless. She was overly patient and had way too much faith in humanity. She believed Orsino would grow a moral compass and Meredith would learn some compassion. She probably had known both of them for a long time and truly wanted to believe in them both. Maybe she remembered happier times and really wanted to return to it.

She doesn't deserve to die just because she isn't as jaded and cynical as the rest of us. Lay blame where it is deserved. Meredith for being blinded by her past and incompetent. Orsino for being weak and incompetent. Ander's for being rawr Vengeance.... and add incompetent  for not resisting Vengeance (just so we have incompetence in every sentence).

I find it strange that Orsino claims never to have done Blood magic but I found a few blood magic items in his secret hidey chest while I was fighting through the Gallows. Varric is nosey...

[silver-crescent]

She was useless. She didn't accomplish a single thing in those 7/8 years. Being a good person and trusting/believing in people =/= doing your job. Hell, even when the whole city was in chaos, with Orsino and Meredith fighting right in front of the Chantry, she didn't move a finger.

She didn't deserve to *die* but she direly needed to be replaced, and I dunno how the Chantry works, but unfortunately I don't think that'd be possible unless she did die.

[Benchmark]

silver-crescent wrote...

There are a lot of mages not living in Circles though. And the Circle of Ferelden was hardly a 4 foot hotel.

But regardless, even they're only 1% of the population, they still don't deserve to be treated the way they are (pre Chantry explosion)

Four story. And I could swear that I only fought my way up four stories to the top of it. And I would hold that mages outside the circle are far rarer than mages inside the circle. Any faithful Andrastian (all of the population....) would report them to the Chantry. Even family members were probably willingly taken to the circle. DA2 example - Feynriel.

That treatment isn't due to their population numbers, and every Circle is not Kirkwall. Circles in general exists because of the  threat to the other XX% of the population mages pose if they aren't monitored by someone capable of controlling them.

[Benchmark]

silver-crescent wrote...

She was useless. She didn't accomplish a single thing in those 7/8 years. Being a good person and trusting/believing in people =/= doing your job. Hell, even when the whole city was in chaos, with Orsino and Meredith fighting right in front of the Chantry, she didn't move a finger.

She didn't deserve to *die* but she direly needed to be replaced, and I dunno how the Chantry works, but unfortunately I don't think that'd be possible unless she did die.

Making security and logistic decisions about the Circle was not her job. Overseeing the Chantry work was her main job. Being an arbiter between the First Enchanter and the Knight Commander was her job. Being the deciding vote on stalemates and being the final sign off on a RoA, was her job. She did all of those things. She had refused the RoA, she had refused the Tranq tranq tranq em all idea. She was obviously someone Orsino felt would keep her head and stop Meredith from being unreasonable. He constantly references her as a check against Meredith and bows to her common sense.

Her death scared Orsino sh**less because he realized he just lost his biggest ally.

[Rifneno]

Benchmark wrote...

Are you trying to make a claim that mages are somehow a larger portion of the population? It certainly is speculation. But based upon all the the ingame evidence, it is a good speculation that mages are very very rare. When every mage in an entire country can be housed in a tower the size of a 4 story hotel (Fereldan Cirlce), it seems clear that the population is low. If the idea of 4% mages makes killing a building full of civilians more correct than .000002% mages... Well I would love to hear a dev give some actual statistical information even if I don't agree with that. If you can get one to comment, please do.

And Ander's regretted the deaths he caused, but he did think his decision was "ok". If not, he would never have chosen to do it, or he would have given them time to evacuate the Chantry. Revolutionary commanders that abused civilians were seen as "mad dogs" and reviled by the actual leadership and organizers. No recognized leader would have massacred a townhall of fellow colonists.

1.  Are you trying to claim that a low estimate of 4 out of 100 constitutes a majority?
2.  Right, and the 3 floors of the Citadel that Shepard can explore clearly reflects the size of the station.
3.  Mages are civilians.  Do not try to cloud things by acting as if a 12 year old that was born with the ability to light candles is somehow not as innocent as any other commoner.
4.  Look up the phrase "necessary evil," would you?  Carpal tunnel is setting in.

[silver-crescent]

Benchmark wrote...

Four story. And I could swear that I only fought my way up four stories to the top of it. And I would hold that mages outside the circle are far rarer than mages inside the circle. Any faithful Andrastian (all of the population....) would report them to the Chantry. Even family members were probably willingly taken to the circle. DA2 example - Feynriel.

That treatment isn't due to their population numbers, and every Circle is not Kirkwall. Circles in general exists because of the  threat to the other XX% of the population mages pose if they aren't monitored by someone capable of controlling them.

Yes, I meant 4 story, not 4 foot. But what I meant was, the Circle tower is really huge, when you look at it from the outside. Just because you can only access 4 levels, it doesn't mean there aren't more.



And the Gallows is a LOT larger than the Ferelden tower.

And as for the way mages are treated in different Circles, it's not like we know. Supposedly the Ferelden one was the most peaceful of the bunch, and Kirkwall's the worst. Starkhaven's seemed to be a lot like Kirkwall's as well.

And well, as for mages being trained/monitored, there are obviously other ways to do that rather than keeping them locked away their whole lives.

[silver-crescent]

Benchmark wrote...

Making security and logistic decisions about the Circle was not her job. Overseeing the Chantry work was her main job. Being an arbiter between the First Enchanter and the Knight Commander was her job. Being the deciding vote on stalemates and being the final sign off on a RoA, was her job. She did all of those things. She had refused the RoA, she had refused the Tranq tranq tranq em all idea. She was obviously someone Orsino felt would keep her head and stop Meredith from being unreasonable. He constantly references her as a check against Meredith and bows to her common sense.

Her death scared Orsino sh**less because he realized he just lost his biggest ally.

She was the most important person in Kirkwall. She should have kicked Meredith out of throne and put a real Viscount there for starters.

She treated Orsino and Meredith like 2 bickering children who just needed to be calmed down basically. Obviously that didn't accomplish anything. Politics =/= playground squabbles and the leaders of the 2 most importants factions in Kirkwall obviously shouldn't be treated as children.

[Maren03]

I let him live. What was done was done. Killing Anders wasn't going to make the problems go away, wasn't going to bring back Ethina or the other uninvolved parties who weren't guilty in the Chantry. If fact killing him (knowing he had connections with other Freedom Fighter mages/mage sympathizers) could've, easily just made things worse and resulted in more killings and murders of innocents. If that had happened,if  he'd died a martyr and it escalated the problem at the expense of other people, how would that make me any better than him? Knowingly perpetuating a problem just to enact vengence on someone else felt like hypocricy. No, instead of letting him die a martyr and making things worse I essentially told him I was going to make "him finish what he started" by protecting the mages. He got them into this problem, he admitted he had regrets for doing what he did, and that the people he killed should be avenged through his death. But I decided, if he learned to live with that guilt and have more compassion for people he could be a lot more effective and useful in helping lead everyone else out of this mess and towards peace than if I just knifed him and ended it at that..

Killing him also felt hypocritical on multiple levels. Was what he did an act of terrorism? Yes it was, no point in sugar-coating that. But so were what the many templars doing when they abused their powers against the mages. So were the nobles who allowed and perpetuated the poverty of many people for their own beneifit (especially Fereldans who were often given menial if not risky jobs that could kill them), so were the slavers, the many of the people of Kirkwall and members of the Chantry who conspired or murdered Ferelands and Qunari out of nationalism and self-entitlement. So were the people who condoned and supported what they were doing, and so were the Qunari when they retaliated and attacked innocent people, murdering the Viscount and nobles who didn't agree with their religion, The Qun.

My point? There were many people in Kirkwall who weren't innocent and made the place what it was, even Elthina's at fault because she knowingly let the problem escalate when both sides needed her help and guidance. It wasn't just Anders. That doesn't mean it justifies what he or any of them did, but I find it rather hypocritical to demand only his blood, or for templars such as Meredith to do so when so many individuals, terrorized, murdered, and had crimes to atone for just as he did. Kirkwall was on the brink of madness. What would seeking retribution from every one of those individuals including him in the form of death achieve other than more problems and bloodbaths? I may have sided with the mages, killed the templars and abominations, but it wasn't out of vengance so much as it was in self-defense and offering protection to innocent people.

So I guess that means I voted "other"..?

Modifié par Maren03, 18 avril 2011 - 11:23 .

[Jenova65]

Plaintiff wrote...

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.

Might be just me, but I strongly suspect she has never heard of Texas....................  
And since in the UK we haven't had a death sentence for over 40 years that might be colouring my views.... 
In the game I kill him, IRL I wouldn't... I try to game within what feels right for me but also in keeping with the the way things work in the game universe.

[Maren03]

disregard post. Typo.

Modifié par Maren03, 18 avril 2011 - 11:20 .

[Jenova65]

Rifneno wrote...

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.

The end justifies the means? I don't think the victims and their families caught up in ANY terrorist bombing would agree with that, or is that acceptable collatoral damage? There is never a good reason for killing innocent people to make any point no matter how important.


Like Ghandi, you mean..............................? 

And no, Elthina saying it doesn't make it true, the fact that it makes sense however is another matter. And the concept of tryanny is rather dependent upon the story teller, surely? 
If DA II was narrated by Anders it would be an entirely different view than if the exact same tale were told by Sebastian. I've said it before but it bears repeating - A *freedom fighter* who kills innocent people is still just a murderer.. 
This is just my opinion, I don't aim to change yours and you won't change mine but this ^ how I see it through my eyes 

Modifié par Jenova65, 18 avril 2011 - 11:35 .

[Benchmark]

Rifneno wrote...

1.  Are you trying to claim that a low estimate of 4 out of 100 constitutes a majority?
2.  Right, and the 3 floors of the Citadel that Shepard can explore clearly reflects the size of the station.
3.  Mages are civilians.  Do not try to cloud things by acting as if a 12 year old that was born with the ability to light candles is somehow not as innocent as any other commoner.
4.  Look up the phrase "necessary evil," would you?  Carpal tunnel is setting in.

1. I dont understand this at all.
2. Shep isn't supposed to clear everything demonic from the citadel top to bottom. The warden is. I agree that it could be merely a representation of something larger. But everything in the game is that so we would never be able to establish scale anyway.
3,4. Combine these two points. You blow up old women and orphans, I lock up 12 year olds with built in maglites.

[TJPags]

KIll him.

Act of terrorism, he dies.

Not much more for me to say on it.

[EmperorSahlertz]

OldMan91 wrote...

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

Indeed. To judge an action, you must look at both the circumstances surrounding the action, the means to the action and the results thereof. In matters of jurisprudence or even public policy, circumstances and intentions do matter and must be taken into account.

If you murder a murderer, what you did is still murder. You will be judged accordingly.