66 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

So, in another thread I realized how similar Anders' actions were to V's actions in V for Vendetta.


Blowing up the Chantry was a symbol. Anders showed the people how corrupt both the Chantry and the Circle are in their current state.

• "Symbols are given power by people. Alone, a symbol is meaningless, but with enough people, blowing up a building can change the world.''

He's hoping for change. He wants the world to see the true plight of mages, not some indoctrinated version that the mass populus swallows up because it comes from the very organization that rules the mages.

"Their faith would have you swallow a great deal for small comfort" - Avernus

• V was a man taken by his own government against his will and locked up in a cruel place run by agents of this government (see any similarities?). Anders is a man who was taken by the dominant religion (which has a very influential part in politics) against his will and locked up in a Tower run by agents of this religion (Templars)
  
• V was experimented on by these very agents. After the lab he was locked up in was blown up, he escaped and vowed to seek vengeance against the very people who did this to him and every other person they did it to, then and in the future. Anders escaped from his prison, and at first just wanted to survive. After meeting with Justice, he began to think that he should do something for all mages. They were being persecuted for who they were. So too were the denizens of Sutler's regime.
  
• First, V started off small. Blowing up the Old Bailey and planting a bomb in the television station (which I assume he expected would be defused). Later, he killed some of the primary people involved in the experiments out of , well what do you know, vengeance. Yet these acts are considered justified by us because this is done in a world where justice no longer exists even as an idea. Vengeance was the only thing left. And as I continue to say on here, vengeance and justice are two sides of the same coin. The only difference being that one side is a darker shade. So too did Anders start off small. First the healing of refugees, then mage resistance, Ser Alrik, etc. 
  
• Finally, it ends with the killing of the people who are the very source of the problem. Sutler and Creedy. Well, Creedy killed Sutler, but still. Afterwards, Parliament was destroyed. Anders' situation isn't too different. The Chantry is Parliament. Blowing it up was meant more as a symbol then an attack on the people of Kirkwall. With enough people recognizing that the Chantry isn't as innocent as they claim to be, this symbol can change the world. The Chantry may do good things yes, but do they do these good things to be good? Or do they do it to use it to cover up all the evils they have done?

hmmm.... I'm trying to phrase this well but it's 5 a.m and my mind is tired. I'll edit it to be better phrased and completed tomorrow. Discuss, and I'll respond when I wake up.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 24 avril 2011 - 09:17 .

[LobselVith8]

I can see some comparisons between Anders and the Alan Moore character. Both of them commit acts that result in the deaths of people who are tied to an organization both characters oppose. V and Anders are both tormented and fighting an organization that they know can lead to their deaths. Both of their actions lead to dramatic changes for their societies.

What I remember most from the graphic novel is Valerie's letter:

"I shall die here. Every last inch of me shall perish. Except one.

An inch. It's small and it's fragile and it's the only thing in the world worth having. We must never lose it, or sell it, or give it away. We must never let them take it from us."

I wonder if Anders considered something similar when he was speaking to Justice in the Fade.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 24 avril 2011 - 09:29 .

[thermalware]

you comparing him to Guy Fawkes?

[KJandrew]

Except that V. has a badass mask, voiced by Hugo Weaving and can do crazy things with knives, which in my mind makes him at least 5 times better.
Though about the whole starting off small thing. I wouldn't really compare blowing up the old bailey to healing some refugees

[Rifneno]

thermalware wrote...

you comparing him to Guy Fawkes?

I don't know the book/movie/game in question.  Is Guy Hawkes the only one with the balls to do what's necessary against an evil empire?  If so, then I am.

For those that see the occasional good that the Chantry does, I present you with cracked.com's 5 Inspiring Acts of Kindness by Terrifying Crime Syndicates.  It ends with a massive Columbine druglord and probably one of the biggest copkillers of all time building everything from houses to churches for the poor.  Aww.  Isn't that sweet?  I'm pretty sure he needed to be shot though.

[Sarcastic Tasha]

The situation is very similar but for some reason I found V a more likeable character than Anders. V was mysterious while Anders was whiny (and he was cruel to Merrill). I think "terrorist" characters can be sympathetic, like Major Kira on DS9, but for some reason Anders doesn't work for me.

[thermalware]

Rifneno wrote...

thermalware wrote...

you comparing him to Guy Fawkes?

I don't know the book/movie/game in question.  Is Guy Hawkes the only one with the balls to do what's necessary against an evil empire?  If so, then I am.

For those that see the occasional good that the Chantry does, I present you with cracked.com's 5 Inspiring Acts of Kindness by Terrifying Crime Syndicates.  It ends with a massive Columbine druglord and probably one of the biggest copkillers of all time building everything from houses to churches for the poor.  Aww.  Isn't that sweet?  I'm pretty sure he needed to be shot though.

Guy Fawkes - the historical character planned to blow up the english house of parliment in an effort to replace the king
V for Vendentta - based on the Guy Fawkes character does the same for more "noble" reasons
Anders - well we all know what happened

All 3 had one thing in common, indiscriminately kill hundreds of people to justify one cause or another. I don't understand the fascination with Anders to be honest with you, people like MLK and Ghandi were able to lead changes against injustices without resorting to the tactics of their oppressors, while in the other camp we have people like Timothy Macveigh, 911 bombers, and other indiscriminate suicide bombers.

[Rifneno]

thermalware wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

thermalware wrote...

you comparing him to Guy Fawkes?

I don't know the book/movie/game in question.  Is Guy Hawkes the only one with the balls to do what's necessary against an evil empire?  If so, then I am.

For those that see the occasional good that the Chantry does, I present you with cracked.com's 5 Inspiring Acts of Kindness by Terrifying Crime Syndicates.  It ends with a massive Columbine druglord and probably one of the biggest copkillers of all time building everything from houses to churches for the poor.  Aww.  Isn't that sweet?  I'm pretty sure he needed to be shot though.

Guy Fawkes - the historical character planned to blow up the english house of parliment in an effort to replace the king
V for Vendentta - based on the Guy Fawkes character does the same for more "noble" reasons
Anders - well we all know what happened

All 3 had one thing in common, indiscriminately kill hundreds of people to justify one cause or another. I don't understand the fascination with Anders to be honest with you, people like MLK and Ghandi were able to lead changes against injustices without resorting to the tactics of their oppressors, while in the other camp we have people like Timothy Macveigh, 911 bombers, and other indiscriminate suicide bombers.

The "why didn't he do it like MLK?" bit again?  Is it a quarter after already?  Hmm.  First, MLK sped up a process, he didn't start it.  It was started with the civil war.  Lots of people died there.  Second, an apostate in Kirkwall isn't exactly given the freedom to stand up and talk about his dream and inspire people.  The moment he made a spectacle of himself like that, he'd be locked up in the Gallows.  At which point they'd likely tranquil him since they seem to do that against mages who speak out against them.  So yeah, really bad comparison.  I mean just awful.  Do you know how many wars have been fought so you have the freedom to ignorantly imply that tyrants can always be overthrown with a good speech?

[thermalware]

I don't see any value in discussing what Anders did, it's done. Only thing that matters is whether you agree with indiscriminate killing of people.

[highcastle]

I'm assuming you've just seen the film of V for Vendetta and not read the novel because you're addressing one of the antagonists as Sutler instead of Susan (his name in the source material). If so, you should really pick up the graphic novel. It's amazing, and I think I see more similarities with Anders/Chantry in that than I do in the film. While I enjoyed the adaptation more than many fans, the director went out of his way to demonize the antagonists. Turning Susan into Sutler made for a direct comparison to Hitler. Using John Hurt's face on a giant TV screen was a shout out to 1984. In the novel, Susan is not nearly so evil. He seems to care about his employees (wishing Finch "Happy Christmas" and such) and is motivated primarily by a desire to care for and control the populace. He does so using extreme, fascist means.

The graphic novel is full of ambiguously gray situations. Susan is not a strictly good guy. He's in love with his computer monitoring system, Fate. V, though, is not a hero. He kills people (he did not, as you suggest, assume the bomb was going to be defused; he believes the loss of life is justified in this case). He tortures Evey in order to mold her into someone like him. He blows up buildings, incites chaos, etc. He is the embodiment of free will and anarchy, while Susan represents order and fate. Both men take extremist stances, and while neither is completely demonic, they are also not entirely sympathetic.

The reason why I point this out is that DA2 is also a game of moral ambiguity. You can dislike the templars, Meredith, and the Chantry, but they are still not absolutely evil. Elthina and the Chantry still helped refugees and the impoverished. Meredith seemed to genuinely want to protect Kirkwall citizens from the dangers of mages. Her desires were twisted by an outside source. And not every templar we meet is a zealot intent on abusing mages (Cullen and Thrask, for instance).

Likewise, Anders cannot be painted in a solely good light. Like V, he believes it's necessary for people to die for his cause. Like V, he is willing to be one of them. I think a case could also be made for Anders setting up a successor just like V. He tries to take Hawke with him on his quests. He tries to make Hawke understand what mages face. He never outright tortures Hawke in the same way V did Evey, but he does manipulate and deceive the Champion. Whether or not he succeeds is up to the player. Did you sympathize with him? Did you take the side of the mages? If so, then the mages use Hawke's name as a rallying cry, so it would seem he did.

I also think something should be made of the free will versus fate connection. In V for Vendetta, Susan and fascism were directly linked to the notion of predestination through their computer, Fate. In DA2, I think you can draw those parallels to the templars. They believe all mages have the inherent danger of becoming abominations. While true, they seem to view this risk as an eventual certainty. Anders, on the other hand, is a proponent of freedom and free will. He constantly laments how some mages choose to turn to blood magic, "choose" being the operative word here. He's all for escaping the templars jurisdiction and control. You can easily read the struggle between the two as a metaphor for fate versus free will. Do we have control over our destinies, or is everything we do meant to happen?

I think it's an important question to ask since Flemeth brings up the notion of destiny. Personally, I think it's a scary concept. And if nothing we do is in our control anyway, then what's the point of doing anything or trying to change anything? It's also an interesting concept to bring up in a video game where there are limited amounts of choices, but where the endings are still already written. It's almost a medium that can't fully embrace free will because things have to be scripted to some degree.

Don't mind my crazy ramblings. I'm a Lit/Criminology dual major. V for Vendetta falls into the realm of both interests. I'm also a fan of postmodernism, so I tend to read too much into everything.

[Rifneno]

thermalware wrote...

I don't see any value in discussing what Anders did, it's done. Only thing that matters is whether you agree with indiscriminate killing of people.

Depends on the definition of "indiscriminate."  Do I think the handful of innocents in the Chantry (and I do not count Elthina or any templar among them) dying is worth it if it finally leads the end of a 1,000 year reign of oppression?  Yes, I'd consider it a necessary evil.  That's not to say I don't care whether they live, just the acceptance that real war is ugly and innocent people will always die in a war to overthrow an unjust government.  But that doesn't mean tyrants should be given free reign to do as they please.

[highcastle]

thermalware wrote...

I don't see any value in discussing what Anders did, it's done. Only thing that matters is whether you agree with indiscriminate killing of people.

No, that's not the only thing that matters. This is a work of fiction, so you can interpret Anders' actions varying ways. You can read it as a struggle between fate and free will (as I mentioned in my long ass post above). You can interpret Anders as a metaphor for mental illness, and then decide if the way his problem was handled is a commentary on the way we treat the mentally ill now. Blowing up the Chantry might thus be a metaphor for destroying a system that doesn't work. I'm not saying I agree with these interpretations, but I think there's evidence for anyone to right an essay on them in support of them.

The great thing with fiction is that it isn't real. A tree is not always just a tree. Even if the author intended it to be so, someone can read a deeper meaning into it. That's art. And despite what certain pundits say, video games are art as much as film or literature. That means we don't have to take things at face value. Yes, Anders blew up a building and killed people. That is the surface meaning of the story and it's not entirely invalid. But it's not the only symbolic meaning to his action. Yes, it is also likely a metaphor for the times we live in. Is terrorism ever justified? When does a terrorist become a freedom fighter? When are we comfortable with the loss of life? Should we ever be comfortable with it? But this to is also a fairly shallow interpretation. You can go deeper.

Now, you may ask why we do this. The answer is usually to learn something about the human condition. Why do we analyze books and write papers and essays and critical articles on them? Because we're looking for meaning in life in meaning in art. Art makes a statement on life. We analyze it to better understand our own lives.

Again, don't mind me. I'm just the Lit major desperately trying to justify her degree.

[thermalware]

Rifneno wrote...

thermalware wrote...

I don't see any value in discussing what Anders did, it's done. Only thing that matters is whether you agree with indiscriminate killing of people.

Depends on the definition of "indiscriminate."  Do I think the handful of innocents in the Chantry (and I do not count Elthina or any templar among them) dying is worth it if it finally leads the end of a 1,000 year reign of oppression?  Yes, I'd consider it a necessary evil.  That's not to say I don't care whether they live, just the acceptance that real war is ugly and innocent people will always die in a war to overthrow an unjust government.  But that doesn't mean tyrants should be given free reign to do as they please.

Unless your position is that usage of blood magic (essentially sacrificing people for magic) should be left unchecked, then the mages need to be controlled. There's no other way around that fact. So the issue was the heavy handed tactics meridith was using against the mages.

It wasn't an impossible problem to solve, through diplomacy Meridith could have been forced to back down giving mages the freedoms they deserved without letting them ran loose.

[Rifneno]

thermalware wrote...

Unless your position is that usage of blood magic (essentially sacrificing people for magic) should be left unchecked, then the mages need to be controlled. There's no other way around that fact. So the issue was the heavy handed tactics meridith was using against the mages.

It wasn't an impossible problem to solve, through diplomacy Meridith could have been forced to back down giving mages the freedoms they deserved without letting them ran loose.

They need to be policed, not "controlled."  And Meredith's tactics were extreme even for the Chantry, but the Chantry's methods as a whole have been a failure.  It's like there's no internal affairs system keeping the templars in check if the knight commander is bad.  But either way, most of the crimes we see mages commit or abominations created were due to mages who just wanted to live free as any other random joe.  Even Uldred's revolt was just about freedom, not domination.  The Chantry doesn't let them even have a family.  They can't marry, they can't have kids (they'll just be immediately stolen by the templars), it's even "discouraged" (no one ever elaborates on that) for mages to even love one another in the Circle after the Chantry has stolen them from their birth family at childhood.  These are the most basic and important rights that even the lowest peasants have.  The Chantry's entire system goes too far.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Guy Fawkes failed though. Plus he wasn't a whiny ass like Anders.

[Untarr]

The great thing with fiction is that it isn't real. A tree is not always
just a tree. Even if the author intended it to be so, someone can read a
deeper meaning into it.

 

It's been years, and I can't remember what book that is from.  I know it was set during WWII at a New England university/college and one of the main events had to do with this tree the students would jump off of.  If you could, as an aside, let me know what that is, I would be greatful! (or if you were just making it up as an example, don't worry)

Back on topic:

I think what bothers me as the narrative is that we know, kind of far in advance, that V is going to blow up parliament.  Almost from the first lines (or setence if you are referring to the graphic novel) if you are into foreshadowing and such.  So, when it does happen, the suspense has built to a point where there is a literary release of tension by its destruction.  In essence, that is the climax and the pacing to that point in both the book/movie is really good.

In DA2, what we have is almost a contrived build up.  Anders really doesn't seem capable of destruction on that scale.  We have one indication in Act 2 (the girl he girls or almost kills), but going from killing one person to wiping out the chantry seems like such a huge leap of logic/faith/aggressiveness that it caught me REALLY off guard, and not in a good way.  Its almost as if "oh yeah, I'm supposed to be REALLY ANGRY NOW !" *blows up building*.  There is no climax to the occaision, it just happens and then we have to deal with it.

I think if the story did a better job (more personal quests with him involving increasingly escalated acts of violence) of setting it up, I would be more able to believe the character is capable of such an atrocity.  As it is written right now, it goes far beyond my suspension of disbelief, especially if you consider his character in Awakenings.

[thesuperdarkone]

thermalware wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

thermalware wrote...

I don't see any value in discussing what Anders did, it's done. Only thing that matters is whether you agree with indiscriminate killing of people.

Depends on the definition of "indiscriminate."  Do I think the handful of innocents in the Chantry (and I do not count Elthina or any templar among them) dying is worth it if it finally leads the end of a 1,000 year reign of oppression?  Yes, I'd consider it a necessary evil.  That's not to say I don't care whether they live, just the acceptance that real war is ugly and innocent people will always die in a war to overthrow an unjust government.  But that doesn't mean tyrants should be given free reign to do as they please.

Unless your position is that usage of blood magic (essentially sacrificing people for magic) should be left unchecked, then the mages need to be controlled. There's no other way around that fact. So the issue was the heavy handed tactics meridith was using against the mages.

It wasn't an impossible problem to solve, through diplomacy Meridith could have been forced to back down giving mages the freedoms they deserved without letting them ran loose.

 

Considering Meredith sent for a Right of Annulment BEFORE anyone went crazy and the fact that she's supposedly insane from the sword, I find that a little hard to believe that she'd trust mages, especially since her entire family was killed by her apostate sister.

[Plaintiff]

Man, if Anders had rigged the Chantry to explode in time with an orchestral score, that would be awesome.

[Snowship]

Elton John is dead wrote...

Guy Fawkes failed though. Plus he wasn't a whiny ass like Anders.

Plus he wasn't attacking a imperial regime, he was the last act of the catholic minority against the Church of England which was started by the Pope against Queen Elizabeth.

So yes he was a Whiny ass, why he's held up as some anti-establishment figure when he was just another religious nutter baffles me.

[infinite bias]

In the movie, the regime is depictedas umabiguously fascist/evil/despotic etcetera and deserves to be toppled. The same cannot be said of the Templars, whether you agree with their views or not. I think it's fairly obvious that Bioware intended for both sides of the Mage-Templar conflict to have valid arguments and neither wholly "good".

Better comparisons can be drawn be drawn between Anders and certain real life terrorist acts/organizations which makes him a far more interesting character. As a terrorist the player knows and interacts with for years we can see he is not the "psychotic monster" that the media would portray his real life counterparts to be, but at the same time his actions are no less reprehensible simply because he has legitimate grievances with the status quo. Anders represents a very real and relevant modern day question (how terrorists are made) in a coating of high fantasy to make it easier for the average player to swallow.

Personally I feel that he could have been a even more nuanced character if he made the transformation from the witty, selfish Awakenings Anders to the mage martyr of Act 3 through simple character development instead of the handwave "I merged with a spirit of Justice -watch as my sense of humour gets replaced with single-minded fanaticism and glowing eyes mwahahaha".

[highcastle]

infinite bias wrote...

Personally I feel that he could have been a even more nuanced character if he made the transformation from the witty, selfish Awakenings Anders to the mage martyr of Act 3 through simple character development instead of the handwave "I merged with a spirit of Justice -watch as my sense of humour gets replaced with single-minded fanaticism and glowing eyes mwahahaha".

There was character development.

In Act 1, Anders is very similar to his Awakening self. There are differences, of course, but the wit and humor is there. Listen to his banters. He tells jokes withe Varric, he slyly wonders if Carver's big sword means he's compensating for something, he goads Aveline about her sex life, etc. Yes, the concern for mages is present already, but it's not the sole aspect of his personality.

In Act 2, he still retains some of this. He indulges Varric in coming up with humorous revenge fantasies against Bartrand. He's rather sweet and romantic in Aveline's side quest. The softer side of Anders is there. The turning point for him is likely his personal quest, Dissent. There he either murders or almost murders the very person he was trying to protect. He's shaken by this, and how he reacts is largely dependent on his relationship with Hawke. I just about always pursue a romance with him, so there's a bit more development to his character on that path. He speaks about losing control, about fearing what he's capable of. He recognizes himself as paranoid and wonders if anything he's experienced has been real. I think this is part of the reason he clings to Hawke. Hawke brought him back to reality. Hawke is the one person Anders can trust because of this.

All the same, the experience leaves him broken. By the time Act 3 rolls around, Varric tries to start the same revenge conversation they had in Act 2, but with Meredith as the focus instead of Bartrand. Anders won't hear it. He accuses almost everyone of spying on him and following him. Whereas he joked with Sebastian about his faith and armor in Act 2, here he's convinced Choir Boy is plotting against him. (That one's not actually unfounded, as Sebastian has another conversation with Fenris where he discusses turning Anders in. There are definitely legitimate sources to Anders' paranoia.) 

Those who rivalmance Anders also see Justice taking control in Act 3, and Anders admitting he has holes in his memory. More disturbing, Anders isn't even aware when Justice takes over. There's a clear progression of the way his control slips. You can even hear it in the voice acting. He just sounds more tired and desperate in the later stages of the game.

Oh, and to the poster who asked about the tree thing, I just made it up off the top of my head. Or I thought I did, anyway. It could easily have been some subconscious influence. Either way, I'm not sure of the book you're talking about. Sorry!

[infinite bias]

highcastle wrote...

infinite bias wrote...

Personally I feel that he could have been a even more nuanced character if he made the transformation from the witty, selfish Awakenings Anders to the mage martyr of Act 3 through simple character development instead of the handwave "I merged with a spirit of Justice -watch as my sense of humour gets replaced with single-minded fanaticism and glowing eyes mwahahaha".

There was character development.

In Act 1, Anders is very similar to his Awakening self. There are differences, of course, but the wit and humor is there. Listen to his banters. He tells jokes withe Varric, he slyly wonders if Carver's big sword means he's compensating for something, he goads Aveline about her sex life, etc. Yes, the concern for mages is present already, but it's not the sole aspect of his personality.

In Act 2, he still retains some of this. He indulges Varric in coming up with humorous revenge fantasies against Bartrand. He's rather sweet and romantic in Aveline's side quest. The softer side of Anders is there. The turning point for him is likely his personal quest, Dissent. There he either murders or almost murders the very person he was trying to protect. He's shaken by this, and how he reacts is largely dependent on his relationship with Hawke. I just about always pursue a romance with him, so there's a bit more development to his character on that path. He speaks about losing control, about fearing what he's capable of. He recognizes himself as paranoid and wonders if anything he's experienced has been real. I think this is part of the reason he clings to Hawke. Hawke brought him back to reality. Hawke is the one person Anders can trust because of this.

All the same, the experience leaves him broken. By the time Act 3 rolls around, Varric tries to start the same revenge conversation they had in Act 2, but with Meredith as the focus instead of Bartrand. Anders won't hear it. He accuses almost everyone of spying on him and following him. Whereas he joked with Sebastian about his faith and armor in Act 2, here he's convinced Choir Boy is plotting against him. (That one's not actually unfounded, as Sebastian has another conversation with Fenris where he discusses turning Anders in. There are definitely legitimate sources to Anders' paranoia.) 

Those who rivalmance Anders also see Justice taking control in Act 3, and Anders admitting he has holes in his memory. More disturbing, Anders isn't even aware when Justice takes over. There's a clear progression of the way his control slips. You can even hear it in the voice acting. He just sounds more tired and desperate in the later stages of the game.

Oh, and to the poster who asked about the tree thing, I just made it up off the top of my head. Or I thought I did, anyway. It could easily have been some subconscious influence. Either way, I'm not sure of the book you're talking about. Sorry!

You have some valid points about Ander's character development that I overlooked, but I think they actually fit into my argument. If Anders is capable of becoming radicalized simply by witnessing the oppression of mages in Kirkwall under Meredith's rule then why is Justice needed at all?

Justice detracts and cheapens from the impact of Ander's actions. Instead of the tragedy of the man who has become so desperate and so committed to an abstract idea of freedom that he is willing to resort to terrorism to achieve his goals, we have instead a person simply  suffering from a mental illness (which is what Justice is a metaphor for IMO) who is driven to mass murder by the voices in his head. 

To me the former is a far more appealing narrative than the latter and the presence of Justice will always put doubt to that interpretation, because really, by Act 3, who knows whether its Anders or Justice calling the shots?

[DanteCousland]

Gah the ignorance hurts. V was based on Guy Fawkes along with the whole plot to blow up parliament. I'm not saying you didn't know that I'm just saying why didn't you use the historical example which actually has more similiarities, I mean Vs mask is made to be based on Guy Fawkes face in itself.

[TEWR]

@DanteCousland No I knew that V was based on Guy Fawkes who was one of the conspirators for the destruction of Parliament, but I was able to use V as a better example because 1) I don't know that much about Guy Fawkes 2) V is easier to identify for some people because of the media productions, and 3) V's acts and persona had more in common with Anders I thought, besides what acts they took.


Also, I'd like to point out that we can justify V for pursuing vengeance against Sutler and company for what they did to him, and he changed the world he lived in for the better. Why can't we do the same for Anders (if his actions do change the world for the better)?

@highcastle: I am addressing the movie version. Sadly I never got a chance to read the graphic novel. Know what sucks? It was apparently in my high school's library all of my four years there.

But anyway, continue discussing people! The Qun demands that you do! 

another edit: I'd like to point out that I have no qualms with the Templars. They are needed. It's how the Chantry goes about recruiting them that I draw issue with. They focus more on whether each recruit has a fervent and, often enough with some people, fanatic belief in the Maker. This is their primary concern. Their secondary concern is that each recruit have a flawless moral center.

Faith should not override morality. Faith should not even be used as a way of recruiting people. The Templars should be a military order under the command of sovereign leaders, not a religious belief that condemns people who believe otherwise.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 24 avril 2011 - 03:16 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

The major difference is that V for Vendetta did not try to "liberate" mages. He tried to free all of Britain from an oppresive government.
V did something for the majority.
Anders ****ed over the majority in favor of a dangerous minority.

There is a world of adifference between the two characters. The only simily being that they blew up a building.