122 réponses à ce sujet

[HippeusOmega]

Been doing a mage and decided to side with the demon and Anders freaks out over it. I mean its ok that he blows up the chantry and incites a civil war but its not ok for me to side with one demon? Which probably won't even be remembered after Anders tore up the viel after destroying the Chantry. Anyone else feel like Anders is a hypocrite?

[KnightofPhoenix]

More like very confused.

[Ryzaki]

Panznerr wrote...

Been doing a mage and decided to side with the demon and Anders freaks out over it. I mean its ok that he blows up the chantry and incites a civil war but its not ok for me to side with one demon? Which probably won't even be remembered after Anders tore up the viel after destroying the Chantry. Anyone else feel like Anders is a hypocrite?

Took you until act 2 to realize that? 

[HippeusOmega]

I beaten the game already as a Warrior. But yeah Anders is a hypocrite and a traitor. Least i had more respect for Loghain. I mean how do u not walk away with another +6 attributes or skills? Not to mention Justice is just as bad as a demon bonded to Anders.

[Maria Caliban]

I can't believe I'm defending Anders...

Justice being against you giving Fandreyl to Torpor and Anders/Justice blowing up the Chantry isn't an example of him being a hypocrite, or even inconsistent in his beliefs.

[LobselVith8]

Panznerr wrote...

I beaten the game already as a Warrior. But yeah Anders is a hypocrite and a traitor. Least i had more respect for Loghain. I mean how do u not walk away with another +6 attributes or skills? Not to mention Justice is just as bad as a demon bonded to Anders.

Regardless of Anders' destruction of the Chantry, you're condemning an innocent teenager who looks up to you to become an abomination for personal gain. Are you surprised Anders is upset? He killed Grand Cleric Elthina as a means to end the stalemate between mages and templars because he ultimately wanted to see his people emancipated, and he was willing to die for his actions. Plenty of people have taken either side in whether he was right or wrong, but equating the desire to see his people free and committing a potentially evil act to see it happen with sacrificing a teenager to a demon for a reward are two entirely different things.

[Nyreen]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

More like very confused.

[Ryzaki]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I can't believe I'm defending Anders...

Justice being against you giving Fandreyl to Torpor and Anders/Justice blowing up the Chantry isn't an example of him being a hypocrite, or even inconsistent in his beliefs.

You would sacrifice an innocent for your own ambition!

Isn't hypocritical with what he does latter...how exactly? He sacrificed an innocent to start a war. To free the mages was his goal. It being more noble doesn't stop the fact that he sacrificed an innocent for his ambition. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 23 avril 2011 - 06:32 .

[LobselVith8]

Ryzaki wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I can't believe I'm defending Anders...

Justice being against you giving Fandreyl to Torpor and Anders/Justice blowing up the Chantry isn't an example of him being a hypocrite, or even inconsistent in his beliefs.

You would sacrifice an innocent for your own ambition!

Isn't hypocritical with what he does latter...how exactly? 

Because gaining a reward for sacrificing a teenager to a demon =/= eliminating the chance for compromise to force a war that could lead to the freedom of mages across Thedas. I'm not addressing whether what Anders did is right or wrong, but it's not comparable to selling someone's soul for a few rewards.

[Ryzaki]

Again it's still sacrificing an innocent for ambiton. No matter how "noble" that ambition was. For all Justice knew Hawke was going to use the power the demon gave him to help people. That doesn't stop Justice from trying to rip Hawke's head off.  

Justice didn't know what Hawke was going to do with the power. He didn't care to know. All he saw was Hawke doing something he didn't agree with and he flew off the handle. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 23 avril 2011 - 06:37 .

[Maria Caliban]

Ryzaki wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I can't believe I'm defending Anders...

Justice being against you giving Fandreyl to Torpor and Anders/Justice blowing up the Chantry isn't an example of him being a hypocrite, or even inconsistent in his beliefs.

You would sacrifice an innocent for your own ambition!

Isn't hypocritical with what he does latter...how exactly?

Anders doesn't view the Grand Cleric as innocent but rather complicit. Anders doesn't destroy the Chantry for personal ambition but to help free mages.

Anders doesn't say 'killing a person for any reason is bad,' he says killing a specific type of person for a specific reason is bad.

[LobselVith8]

Ryzaki wrote...

Again it's still sacrificing an innocent for ambiton. No matter how "noble" that ambition was. For all Justice knew Hawke was going to use the power the demon gave him to help people. That doesn't stop Justice from trying to rip Hawke's head off.  

One is killing Grand Cleric Elthina, and another is destroying Feynriel's soul by handing him over to a demon that will result in becoming an abomination. You're endangering people for personal gain by helping a demon become an abomination.

[Ryzaki]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I can't believe I'm defending Anders...

Justice being against you giving Fandreyl to Torpor and Anders/Justice blowing up the Chantry isn't an example of him being a hypocrite, or even inconsistent in his beliefs.

You would sacrifice an innocent for your own ambition!

Isn't hypocritical with what he does latter...how exactly?

Anders doesn't view the Grand Cleric as innocent but rather complicit. Anders doesn't destroy the Chantry for personal ambition but to help free mages.

Anders doesn't say 'killing a person for any reason is bad,' he says killing a specific type of person for a specific reason is bad.

There are far more people than just the grand cleric in the Chantry. 

Hawke may have dealt with the demon to gain enough power/influence over people to help others. 

And considering he doesn't know Hawke's reasoning (he doesn't even bother to ask, he simply rants that you can't deal with a demon) he has no leg to stand on when he attacks Hawke. He doesn't know Hawke's acting on personal ambition he just assumes he is. That whole scene was pointing out to me how demonic Justice himself was. He has the same thing Torpor wants (a host that he is using for his own ends) but refuses to admit it to himself. 

And I see that helping free mages as personal ambition. When did Justice ask all the mages if they wanted to be free? I certainly don't remember it. 

And where does Anders say the last bit? I missed it. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 23 avril 2011 - 06:49 .

[DeaHamlet]

There are people who take the offer? Wowza.
What with the console and endless money and Black Emporium I never felt those extra points were ever needed.
It's even more hilarious if a pro-templar takes the offer... wowza talk about Hawke hypocrisy.

[DeaHamlet]

And just because one doesn't see the consequences in game yet, it's not like the keeper didn't warn what can happen if a Dreamer becomes possessed.
Sounded to me like Archdemon level badassness... for a few meeker attributes. I don't see how Hawke is planning on helping anyone with such stupid decisions.

[Ryzaki]

Edit: An nevermind. Not worth getting in a debate about

Modifié par Ryzaki, 23 avril 2011 - 06:49 .

[Maria Caliban]

Ryzaki wrote...

There are far more people than just the grand cleric in the Chantry. 

It's night. The chantry is closed. The only people there are members of the Chantry.

Hawke may have dealt with the demon to gain enough power/influence over people to help others.

That doesn't matter. Fendryal is an innocent. The action only benefits Hawke directly. Even if Hawke plans to benefit others, there's no induction that this is only possible through dealing with a demon.

I think that this is a case where definitions matter.

I don't think it's right to eat people. A vegetarian might say that I'm a hypocrite because cows, chicken, and pigs are people, but I eat meat.

Most people would say it's wrong to murder people in general but okay to kill certain people or under certain circumstances. Very few people view soldiers as government backed mass murderers, nor is killing a soldier considered the moral equivalent of killing a non-combatant.

I don't agree with Anders' actions, but it's clear to me that by the end, he taken a very hardline stance. In his mind, the people in the Chantry aren't completely innocent. Even then, he does consider what he did wrong.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 23 avril 2011 - 06:53 .

[Ryzaki]

Maria Caliban wrote...
It's night. The chantry is closed. The only people there are members of the Chantry.

And in his mind all chantry people templars are otherwise are guilty? Even if they've never personally dealt with a mage all their life? The sisters that fed the orphans deserved to die for daring not to get involved? 

That doesn't matter. Fendryal is an innocent. The action only benefits Hawke directly. Even if Hawke plans to benefit others, there's no induction that this is only possible through dealing with a demon. 

I think that this is a case where definitions matter.

I don't think it's right to eat people. A vegetarian might say that I'm a hypocrite because cows, chicken, and pigs are people, but I eat meat.

I really can't see it that way. There were innocents in that Chantry no matter how much Justice says otherwise. Blowing up the Chantry does not benefit all the mages (heck it's arguable it benefits *any*) and indeed will case several innocent mages to die. Mage freedom was something some mages wanted but Justice took that decision out of their hands. I'm not seeing that as anything other than Justice's personal ambition. He sacrificed the Chantry and all the people in it so his goal of mage freedom could begin to be realized. 

Edit: That said this is really off topic. I can see why the OP sees that as hypocritical. I find it hypocritical. There are much better examples of Anders' hypocrisy than this however. (Like approving of selling Fenris into slavery). And I'm gonna bow out before this becomes a nother chantry thread.  

Sorry about that OP. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 23 avril 2011 - 07:06 .

[LobselVith8]

Ryzaki wrote...

And in his mind all chantry people templars are otherwise are guilty? Even if they've never personally dealt with a mage all their life? The sisters that fed the orphans deserved to die for daring not to get involved? 

In Anders' POV, the mages are slaves of the Chantry. Grand Cleric Elthina is doing nothing with all her authority to change the plight of the mages. Anders wants to force a confrontation that he believes will lead to the best chance for his people to emancipate themselves from Chantry and templar control. It's a different goal than selling out the soul of an innocent teenager for personal profit and endangering countless people with a Dreamer abomination.

Ryzaki wrote...

I really can't see it that way. There were innocents in that Chantry no matter how much Justice says otherwise. Blowing up the Chantry does not benefit all the mages (heck it's arguable it benefits *any*) and indeed will case several innocent mages to die. Mage freedom was something some mages wanted but Justice took that decision out of their hands. I'm not seeing that as anything other than Justice's personal ambition. He sacrificed the Chantry and all the people in it so his goal of mage freedom could begin to be realized. 

Why has this suddenly become an issue about the mages and what happens as a result of Anders actions? The problem is you're conflating the issue of whether Anders is right or wrong and his act of killing everyone in the Kirkwall Chantry with destroying the soul of Feynriel because the demon offers personal rewards. There's no real comparison between the two.

[Maria Caliban]

Ryzaki wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
It's night. The chantry is closed. The only people there are members of the Chantry.

And in his mind all chantry people templars are otherwise are guilty?

Yes.

That doesn't matter. Fendryal is an innocent. The action only benefits Hawke directly. Even if Hawke plans to benefit others, there's no induction that this is only possible through dealing with a demon. 

I think that this is a case where definitions matter.

I don't think it's right to eat people. A vegetarian might say that I'm a hypocrite because cows, chicken, and pigs are people, but I eat meat.

I really can't see it that way. There were innocents in that Chantry no matter how much Justice says otherwise.

Right. But the discussion is whether Anders is hypocritical, not whether he's wrong.

If I say it's wrong to murder people but Christians aren't people so killing them is fine, I'm not being inconsistent or a hypocrite. I'm being immoral.

[Ryzaki]

I see your point Maria.

Does that mean Justice whole demon spiel isn't hypocritical because while *he's* a demon he doesn't see himself as such?

[Maria Caliban]

Ryzaki wrote...

I see your point Maria.

Does that mean Justice whole demon spiel isn't hypocritical because while *he's* a demon he doesn't see himself as such?

I hadn't thought of that, but yes. I think Justice is being hypocritical there.

[rma2110]

Justice is the hypocrite, not Anders. Wasn't it Justice and not Anders in the Fade? Justice doesn't see those killed in the Chatry as innocent. Apparently killing those he deems guilty in the name of ambition is perfectly acceptable.

Modifié par rma2110, 23 avril 2011 - 07:54 .