1207 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

AndreaDraco wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

He was clearly becoming a demon or was very close to being one.

See Justice's angry reaction, most likely reflecting fear and confusion, when ironically Anders asks him if he can become a demon.

I don't think he was becoming a demon. I only think that, being bound in a body, he found himself experiencing other emotions than pure, relentless justice, thanks to the memories of Kristoff. In a word, he was becoming more human.

Melodramatic. Demons also want to experience what it means to be human. They want to see the world through mortal eyes. That's what Justice ends up wanting, but resisting.

[LobselVith8]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
I addressed Hawke and the companions who side with the Champion because it addresses that Anders can have allies. And one can argue that semantics are important.

But Ryzaki didnt' say "Couldn't Brown have allies?". She said "Didn't he have allies?".
So your sentence (that Hawke and crew are those allies) doesn't follow and required you to be more specific. Specifically, say that Anders can have allies.

But considering that Anders can have allies, it doesn't make sense to ask "Didn't he have allies?" when it infers that the former Grey Warden has no allies, which isn't the case since Anders can have allies for a pro-mage Hawke who supports Anders.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Maybe the Rivanni witches would understand what's become of Anders, if Brother Genitivi is correct about the seers merging with spirits.

So once again Hawke is going to be inactive as he is trying to babysit a nitwit. And what Genetivi said does ot imply that those who merge with spirits know how to "unmerge".

I never said the Rivanni seers or witches would know how to reverse the process, merely that they may possess knowledge about what's become of Anders now that he's merged with the Spirit of Justice.

[LobselVith8]

Ryzaki wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
I only stated Anders can have allies, not that he always has allies. There's enough opinion provided in this thread alone to show that people in both camps have their own views on Anders and what he did, and there are Hawkes who are an ally to Anders.

 

Again my original issue was the comparison to Brown who always had allies. He and Anders aren't the same on that front. 

And I'm aware that Hawkes can ally with Anders. (Just like Anders can choose to ally with Hawke). My issue is that unlike Brown this is not a set definite and can't really be said he (Brown) would've acted without allies like Anders choose to do so. 

You didn't state the distinction between Brown always having allies in contrast to Anders, you specifically made the comment about Brown having allies, which can be the case for Anders.

I never said you didn't know that Hawke can ally with Anders, but I find it important to address this point. Whether one agrees or disagrees with what he did, Anders can have an ally in Hawke, and by extension the companions who will side with the Champion of Kirkwall.

Ryzaki wrote...

Wait...so its okay to call the RoA genocide according to present day definitions but not to call Anders actions terrorism on the same definitions?  

Not everyone views Anders' actions the same way. One could argue that the slaves of Saint Dominique who rose up against the French who enslaved them, the Cuban rebels who fought against the tyranny of the despot Batista, and the American revolutionaries who fought for their independence from England were also terrorists. Anders attacked an institution that legalizes a practice against mages that he condemns as slavery (and it's an opinion that no one actually contradicts within the actual storyline in Kirkwall), and it's an institution that endorses legal genocide against men, women, and children for nearly a millennia (not to mention the practice of giving a lotobotomy to individuals and having these emotionless husks working for the Chantry to garner them profit with their menial labor and crafting magical items, which others have argued is a form of slavery in and of itself). Basically, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[LobselVith8]

Ryzaki wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...
No, I'm not saying that at all. There are definitions of both words that fit the situation. Most people who use either word are more concenred with its connotations than the vocabulary lesson, but they certainly both apply by various modern legalities.

What I was trying to say is that labeling it "terrorism" and thus always evil, unforgiveable and unjustified isn't any better than saying there is never an objectively moral reason to commit genocide. Genocide, for example, would probably be excused by most in an immediate "us or them" scenario.

Ah I agree with you then. Anything can really be justified in the right circumstances.

I agree. The darkspawn, for instance, are a threat that needs to be dealt with. It's the reason I see the pragmatic choices to spare the Anvil and advise Avernus to continue his research regarding the taint as ones I would choose - the darkspawn need to be stopped, no matter the cost. They are a malevolent race that threatens all the humans, dwarves, elves, and other races of Thedas.

[Addai]

Silfren wrote...
Yes, it does matter.  Justice was not a demon luring Anders into possession because he wanted to experience life through a mortal's eyes.  He agreed with Anders' view of the oppression of mages and wanted to help Anders achieve justice for his people.  Anders agreed to this, for that reason and also to help Justice have a means of surviving in the mortal world without having to haunt a corpse.  Neither one of them had any idea what would happen.  Whether that is a sign of their naivete or just plain shortsighted stupidity is beside the point.  Both had good intentions, and since Justice was not a demon, it didn't occur to them that the same rules would apply as concern a demon trying to possess a mage.  Justice no more believed he would be warped into a demon than Anders did.  

Any possessed mage can tell a tale of how it seemed reasonable at the time.  Mouse in the mage origin Harrowing is asking for help to right an injustice, and even though he was lying about himself, he was right about the injustice of the Harrowing itself.  "Help me and I'll help you, together we'll be more powerful than we are apart" is no different than, say, the offer you get from Connor's demon or from Torpor.  Mage 101, and if Anders can't see that then he's an idiot and a danger to himself and others.  He should have asked Hawke to pull the plug before he got really out of control.

Between him and Merrill... sheesh.  If Hawke needed any more reason to side with the templars, those two provide it.

[WillPF363]

The only part of that situation that made me happy was that I got to kill Anders. I thought he was a good character, in that I came to genuinely despise him, and I'm sick of characters I hate in video games escaping their comeuppance- anybody play Fable 2 or 3? I'm still furious that they won't let you kill Reaver.

[LobselVith8]

Addai67 wrote...

Any possessed mage can tell a tale of how it seemed reasonable at the time.  Mouse in the mage origin Harrowing is asking for help to right an injustice, and even though he was lying about himself, he was right about the injustice of the Harrowing itself.  "Help me and I'll help you, together we'll be more powerful than we are apart" is no different than, say, the offer you get from Connor's demon or from Torpor. 

Mouse pretended that he was trapped and asked for help getting a body. Connor's demon manipulated him because he was ignorant of what she actually was, which is why he calls her "a bad lady" until The Warden addresses that she's actually a demon. And Torpor makes it clear he'll possess Feynriel.

Addai67 wrote...

Mage 101, and if Anders can't see that then he's an idiot and a danger to himself and others.  He should have asked Hawke to pull the plug before he got really out of control.

So far, the mages succeeded in emancipating themselves from the Chantry and the Order of Templars. The mages could win against the templars. If that's the case, history may remember Anders kindly.

Addai67 wrote...

Between him and Merrill... sheesh.  If Hawke needed any more reason to side with the templars, those two provide it.

Are you still attacking Merrill because she does things you personally disagree with?

I don't see how Anders and Merrill provide a reason to support the genocide of hundreds of men, women, and children who aren't responsible for what Anders specifically did. Should we wipe out all the templars because of Alrik and Kerras?

[Addai]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I don't see how Anders and Merrill provide a reason to support the genocide of hundreds of men, women, and children who aren't responsible for what Anders specifically did. Should we wipe out all the templars because of Alrik and Kerras?

By showing that you don't need to be an evil mage to pose a threat to large numbers of people, just idealistic and naive.

[CitizenThom]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

CitizenThom wrote...

Elthina was one of my favorite characters in the game, Anders killed the wrong person if he was trying to advance the cause of the mages. Anders should've consulted Hawke for a few political and military pointers, because Anders has a diminutive IQ in both regards.

Man, have you missed the point or have you missed the point? 

Anders isn't being rational anymore. He's not strategizing politically. Those are things that humans do. Anders isn't human anymore, not purely. He lacks some of our toolset. He lacks the ability to look at something awful that is happening in the world and say "that's not my problem." Justice has stripped away this fundamental human quality, especially when it comes to the topic of mages.

Oh he starts out with some of this, sure. But it's the gradual chipping away of the "not my problem" field that seems like insanity to us, because humans literally cannot survive without it. If every time you saw injustice on the TV, every time you passed a homeless person on the street, every time you saw someone who looks overworked waiting for the bus with their head in their hands... if you couldn't think "that's not my problem" and walk on, you'd go crazy in a matter of days. There's too much horror in this world, too much pain, and if we care about all of it, we'll go mad. That's why Anders went mad. He wasn't stupid, he had just lost the part of his brain that allows one to say "there's nothing I can do about that right now." He lost the part that lets your eyes pass right over a problem, feel a moment of sadness, and then go home, eat dinner, sleep at night.

At the end, there is no best case scenario. There is no strategy. There is only action and inaction. There is only allowing injustice to stand vs. doing the best thing you can think of at that particular moment. There's only doing something or doing nothing. For a spirit, that's all there is. And for the man who is along for the ride, there are no filters, no walls, no little lies to dull the pain of all the bad things in the world. All of that pain breaks over him, crashing like a wave. It is not something I would wish upon my worst enemy. It's not a thing that leaves you human, capable of making little deals with yourself, contenting yourself with false hopes. It is something that makes you act.

Anders was stupid. If he couldn't stand the world, he could destroy it (from an experiential point of view anyways) by destroying himselves. If he thought there was too much wrong with the world, and his action can only contribute to it, then his action makes him as wrong as the world he's trying to be self righteous about.

The only excuse that can be made for Anders, is that he'd possessed himself with an extra-worldly entity, and discovered first hand what an abomination really means. Just like the Tevinters did not belong in the Golden City, The Entity named Justice did not belong in Thedas. The Tevinters were an Abomination in the Golden City, and Anders/Justice/Pride is an Abomination in Thedas.

[CitizenThom]

Silfren wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...


Few people sympathize with terrorists now. But prior to 1795, there wasn't even a word for terrorist. It wasn't a concept, because, for the concept to represent the same idea it represents today, it must exist in a world where there are other ways for the common man to change governments and world institutions.

This is precisely why I don't have a problem with what Anders did.  Yes, he possibly killed innocent people and I'm not exactly all sunshine and roses over that prospect.  But he DID NOT HAVE OTHER VIABLE OPTIONS.

Anders could have fought Meredith. Like Hawke did. There really is only one way to deal with the problem...and that is to deal with the problem. Kill every sadistic or zealot templar, kill every blood mage. Start over with the scraps that remain. Anders did nothing about the problem, but instead indulged in some selfish raging. Did nothing about the problem, and removed people from the equation who were doing something about the problem.

[Beerfish]

I guess we will see if Anders 'did the right thing' in the next game and no matter what we will all fall along the same sides we are now. Pro mages will list 20 reasons why he did 100% the right thing and non mage supporters will show 20 reasons why he didn't do the right thing.

My feeling is this on the subject, ignoring the pro or anti mage sentiment for a moment. It was't his place to make such a huge descision on behalf of the thousands and thousands of people that will be affected by his move. His actions did not come from a rational human being of this world.

[Ryzaki]

LobselVith8 wrote...
You didn't state the distinction between Brown always having allies in contrast to Anders, you specifically made the comment about Brown having allies, which can be the case for Anders. 

I never said you didn't know that Hawke can ally with Anders, but I find it important to address this point. Whether one agrees or disagrees with what he did, Anders can have an ally in Hawke, and by extension the companions who will side with the Champion of Kirkwall.

 

But can also *not* be the case. Brown having allies is a definite. Anders have allies is a possibility. THat's why I brought it up. Brown *always* had alllies.His actions may not have occured f he didn't have allies. Anders on the other hand *did* do what he did regardless of his ally status.  

And he *can not*. 

Not everyone views Anders' actions the same way. One could argue that the slaves of Saint Dominique who rose up against the French who enslaved them, the Cuban rebels who fought against the tyranny of the despot Batista, and the American revolutionaries who fought for their independence from England were also terrorists. Anders attacked an institution that legalizes a practice against mages that he condemns as slavery (and it's an opinion that no one actually contradicts within the actual storyline in Kirkwall), and it's an institution that endorses legal genocide against men, women, and children for nearly a millennia (not to mention the practice of giving a lotobotomy to individuals and having these emotionless husks working for the Chantry to garner them profit with their menial labor and crafting magical items, which others have argued is a form of slavery in and of itself). Basically, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

 

So yeah basically its okay to say Anders isn't a terrorist yet the RoA is a genocide. Got it. I'll be sure to do the opposite. Since I view the events differently. 

[Ryzaki]

WillPF363 wrote...

The only part of that situation that made me happy was that I got to kill Anders. I thought he was a good character, in that I came to genuinely despise him, and I'm sick of characters I hate in video games escaping their comeuppance- anybody play Fable 2 or 3? I'm still furious that they won't let you kill Reaver.

m
Biggest Karma Houdini EVER. 

And yes I hate it as much as you do. 

[CulturalGeekGirl]

It's not about pro mage versus pro templar, not really. Even my "The Chantry and the Templars are useful and the best system, but are in need of serious reform" templar-supporting-Hawkes think the Chantry going up was good.

It's about change versus the status quo. I think that the status is definitely not... quo.

The question is, are flashpoints ever good? Are grand gestures by a single person or small group of people ever a valid option? Was the Civil War a net positive or a net negative, historically? I'm not equating Anders with Lincoln here, but I am equating his actions with the attack on Fort Sumter, or one of the similar inciting incidents of the civil war. I think the Chantry Boom was just the first damn thing to come along that properly started a war that had been brewing for as long as mages have been talking about emancipation.

The resulting war is going to be AWFUL, yes. A lot of people are going to die, yes. That's what happened in the civil war too, and there were slaves who fought on the side of the south, just as there will be mages who side with the Templars. But the Templars have been... well they've been doing the political equivalent of threatening secession for years: denying the edict of the King of Ferelden, defying the right of Conscription, all the way back to destroying the Dales.

At the end of this war we will either have a seperate bunch of Chantry-dominated states (complete with an underground railroad to help mages escape to more liberal countries), or we will have a reformed Chantry, or we will have a new, decidedly less Theocratic government. All of these possible results are net wins, in my book.

The advantage that mages have is that they are both a necessary commodity and not strictly a race or ethnic group - they cannot simply all be killed, because new babies from lines with recessive magic will come, and because there are always the Dalish and the Rivaini, and people like Morrigan and Flemeth. If the Templars simply kill all the mages, then all the states where the Templars rule will be much weaker, strategically, than their neighbors with mage resources.

The Quinari's greatest (and possibly only) weakness is their fear of mages, and their restriction of their powers. I do not think there is any way to make things worse for mages, in general, than they were pre-war without limiting their strategic effectiveness. They were essentially slaves already, and dehumanizing them further would limit their power, in the same way that the Quinari have limited their mages' power.

Basically, we were at a point where things were so messed up that I believe any significant change would more likey be for the better than for the worse. And the Chantry Boom was a way of spurring change. If you think the status quo was fine because "you had yours" I can see how you would percieve a massive cultural shift in any direction as a bad thing.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I certainly believe that change was necessary and that the Chantry has become a defunct institution that can no longer maintain the system adequately and has become an obstacle to progress (all bureaucracies eventually become like this. Too concerned with self-preservation above all else).

But I reject Anders' methods solely based on pragmatism and efficiency. I believe more efficient methods were available with more realistic objectives.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I certainly believe that change was necessary and that the Chantry has become a defunct institution that can no longer maintain the system adequately and has become an obstacle to progress (all bureaucracies eventually become like this. Too concerned with self-preservation above all else).

But I reject Anders' methods solely based on pragmatism and efficiency. I believe more efficient methods were available with more realistic objectives.

I'm asking this honestly: what do you think they were, and did Anders himself have access to any of them?

I'll admit there were a few I'd considered, especially if I had a substantial fortune and some contacts in the Antivan Crows (a little strategic political assassination to make it look like Templars were murdering Grand Clerics... that kind of thing.) 

I will agree that Anders had weakened his strategic position by removing the "wait and see" tool from his box o' options. I'm just curious as to what you would have done, were you turning the wheels... and also what you think Anders could have done differently, given his particular resources and circumstances.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 03 juin 2011 - 06:12 .

[The Baconer]

Giggles_Manically wrote...
Freedom is a nice IDEAL, its not so nice in reality.
Nor does it really exist in any real pure form.

...So, you're cool with Tevinter?

[KnightofPhoenix]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
I will agree that Anders had weakened his strategic position by removing the "wait and see" tool from his box o' options. I'm just curious as to what you would have done, were you turning the wheels... and also what you think Anders could have done differently, given his particular resources and circumstances.

First to get this out of the way. Considering Anders mental condition, he should have done nothing or at the very best, join a group that can moderate his actions (and control him).

Now what could have been done. Meredith's incompetence pretty much meant that almost everyone despised her. From the populace, to the nobility, to Aveline's guards, to mages and even Templar elements. I strongly believe that an opposition coalition could have been established to oust Meredith.

Now I assume you will say "But Meredith is not the system, you are only removing her". To an extent, that's true and that falls under more realistic objectives. But imagine for a sec. A popular uprising, that comprises people from all walks of life including mages and Templars, removes the Chantry's most powerful KC in its most sensitive and militarized Circle (which the Chantry at least implicitly approved of), to establish a legitimate government that would act as a moderator in mage / Templar relations without abruptely removign the system.

That is the most powerful blow anyone can deal to the Chantry. Because it's a signal that states and their people will not longer accept their sovereignity being taken away from them by the Chantry, and that it is their responsability to moderate Templar / mage relations in order to prevent outbreaks of violence (moderation could include mages referring to the judiciary or having trials supervised by the state as an imaprtial arbitrator).

In addition, the Chantry bases part of its legitimacy on the premise that mages and the rest of the population can never collaborate and that in fact the Chantry is protecting mages from people. This would also send a strong signal that mages can acquire allies and can participate in popular movements, fighting side by side with average joes and nobles. The basis to legitimately segregate mages from the rest of society would be weakened by such an unprecedented event.

Such an unprecendented event could be used as the foundation for gradual reform in the short term, as the ripple effects spread accross the region (keep in mind Kirkwall geo-strategic and commercial importance). The Chantry will either be prudent and not over-react, which might show weakness and might encourage other states to do similar reforms. Or the Chantry might over-react and march on Kirkwall, which imo would be it shooting itself in the foot and show that the Chantry is the illegitimate aggressor against an Andrastrian sovereign state. In both cases, change will come gradually, as the Chantry is declining gradually.

Like I've said before. Magic cannot stand as an isolated agenda on its own. Very few are going to care. Indeed, it's going to alienate pretty much everyone if you have people like Anders constantly viewing the conflict in terms of "us" vs "them". It has to be part of a larger movement and trend. What I see happening is a rise of nations with the gradual decline of Orlais (Nevarra and to a lesser extent Ferelden are the heralds of such a shift). If the mage condition is to improve, it has to affiliate itself with the new rising order. That of states that would most likely seek to reduce Chantry power and impose their sovereginity within their territories, as they have vested interest in using mages as valuable resources.

Anders in his condition (mental) could not have done this and he should have done nothing.
A sane mage in his position could have worked to achieve such a goal. Popular discontent started from Act 1 and was on the rise in Act 2. This is something that could have been used. Also, that mage could have probably found an ally within the nobility who can spread the word, I am pretty sure at least some nobles were not happy with the situation since before Act 1.

Of course I am not saying it's easy and blowing up buildings is certainly much easier. It would require a lot of work, organization, planning, network building, connections and above all, patience and waiting for the opportune moment. Hawke would have been better placed to do all this, but of course he does nothing.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 juin 2011 - 06:55 .

[LobselVith8]

Addai67 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
I don't see how Anders and Merrill provide a reason to support the genocide of hundreds of men, women, and children who aren't responsible for what Anders specifically did. Should we wipe out all the templars because of Alrik and Kerras?

By showing that you don't need to be an evil mage to pose a threat to large numbers of people, just idealistic and naive.

Anders isn't idealistic, he's been worn down the past several years over what's happened, and Merrill isn't naive, particularly when she addresses how there's no good spirits, dealing with any spirits should be done with care, she can identify the type of spirit inhabiting the Profane Abomination, she can tell whether a person is possessed or not, and she uses magic and blood magic proficiently for several years.

Ryzaki wrote...

But can also *not* be the case. Brown having allies is a definite. Anders have allies is a possibility. THat's why I brought it up. Brown *always* had alllies.His actions may not have occured f he didn't have allies. Anders on the other hand *did* do what he did regardless of his ally status.  

I thought when Brown was originally brought up in this discussion, that it had to do with the fact that Brown had wanted to bring about social change; in contrast, Anders was trying to bring about change as well. Although it's not certain that Anders will have allies, he can have allies.

Ryzaki wrote...

And he *can not*. 

True, but the point is he can.

Ryzaki wrote...

So yeah basically its okay to say Anders isn't a terrorist yet the RoA is a genocide. Got it. I'll be sure to do the opposite. Since I view the events differently. 

I addressed that there's a dichotomy between being a terrorist and being a freedom fighter. I'm not sure how Anders is supposed to feel about the institution that ripped the humanity from Karl, has raped, tortured, and murdered his people, and conducts what he views in his opinion as slavery against men, women, and children across the nation in the name of religion. Anders attacked an institution of terror that terrorized his people for almost a millennia.

[Plaintiff]

CitizenThom wrote...

Silfren wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...


Few people sympathize with terrorists now. But prior to 1795, there wasn't even a word for terrorist. It wasn't a concept, because, for the concept to represent the same idea it represents today, it must exist in a world where there are other ways for the common man to change governments and world institutions.

This is precisely why I don't have a problem with what Anders did.  Yes, he possibly killed innocent people and I'm not exactly all sunshine and roses over that prospect.  But he DID NOT HAVE OTHER VIABLE OPTIONS.

Anders could have fought Meredith. Like Hawke did. There really is only one way to deal with the problem...and that is to deal with the problem. Kill every sadistic or zealot templar, kill every blood mage. Start over with the scraps that remain. Anders did nothing about the problem, but instead indulged in some selfish raging. Did nothing about the problem, and removed people from the equation who were doing something about the problem.

Doing what about the problem, exactly? Elthina does nothing more than maintain the status quo, which is exactly what Anders is trying to change. Whether you like her or not, there's no real way around the fact that for him to get what he wants, she has to go.

[Ryzaki]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I thought when Brown was originally brought up in this discussion, that it had to do with the fact that Brown had wanted to bring about social change; in contrast, Anders was trying to bring about change as well. Although it's not certain that Anders will have allies, he can have allies.

That's my whole issue with the analogy. It's not a definite that Anders has allies. Its a definite that Brown does. 

Brown always does his actions with Allies. Anders doesn't always have allies when he committs his actions. Comparing him to Brown to me is shakey (unless you specifically mean Anders with allies). Especially when we don't know what Brown would've done without allies. 

True, but the point is he can.

And the point is that Brown *always* has allies while Anders doesn't. Unless of course you're limiting the analogy to just Anders with Hawke's support. 

I addressed that there's a dichotomy between being a terrorist and being a freedom fighter. I'm not sure how Anders is supposed to feel about the institution that ripped the humanity from Karl, has raped, tortured, and murdered his people, and conducts what he views in his opinion as slavery against men, women, and children across the nation in the name of religion. Anders attacked an institution of terror that terrorized his people for almost a millennia.

 

One can be both. Anders can still be a terrorist and be justified. Terorrism =/= unjustifiable. He forced his people to fight for their lives by turning a maniac on them to start his movement. I wonder how those mages are supposed to feel about the man who was banking on them fighting a bunch of templars (that they have little to no defenses against) to the death so he could prove a point. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juin 2011 - 06:51 .

[LobselVith8]

Ryzaki wrote...

That's my whole issue with the analogy. It's not a definite that Anders has allies. Its a definite that Brown does. 

Brown always does his actions with Allies. Anders doesn't always have allies when he committs his actions. Comparing him to Brown to me is shakey (unless you specifically mean Anders with allies). Especially when we don't know what Brown would've done without allies. 

The issue is that Brown was brought up originally not because of his allies, but because he wanted to change society.

Ryzaki wrote...

And the point is that Brown *always* has allies while Anders doesn't. Unless of course you're limiting the analogy to just Anders with Hawke's support. 

But that wasn't why Brown was originally referenced. The comparison wasn't meant to be 100% identical.

Ryzaki wrote...

One can be both. Anders can still be a terrorist and be justified.

Some people can see a freedom fighter where others see a terrorist, which was my point in addressing there's a dichotomy in the view of such things. Some think Anders was right, and others think he was wrong. Some can see the Chantry as a benevolent institution, while others (like Anders) can see it as an organization that is mired in the slavery of mages, which is an opinion he professes for several years.

Ryzaki wrote...

Terorrism =/= unjustifiable. He forced his people to fight for their lives by turning a maniac on them to start his movement. I wonder how those mages are supposed to feel about the man who was banking on them fighting a bunch of templars (that they have little to no defenses against) to the death so he could prove a point. 

There's no certainty to how he's viewed, perhaps it's only the Resolutionists who approve of what Anders did (in terms of the mages who rose up against the Chantry and the templars, rather than the protagonist). After all, it's not Anders who the mages can rally around in their revolution, it's Hawke.

[Ryzaki]

LobselVith8 wrote...The issue is that Brown was brought up originally not because of his allies, but because he wanted to change society.

Yet we don't know if Brown still would've done what he did *without* allies. Plenty mages other than Anders wanted to change things as well. 

But that wasn't why Brown was originally referenced. The comparison wasn't meant to be 100% identical.

So what the comparison was simply supposed to be someone who was willing to go to extreme measures? Again that to me i iffy because we don't know if Brown still would've done it without allies. 

Some people can see a freedom fighter where others see a terrorist, which was my point in addressing there's a dichotomy in the view of such things. Some think Anders was right, and others think he was wrong. Some can see the Chantry as a benevolent institution, while others (like Anders) can see it as an organization that is mired in the slavery of mages, which is an opinion he professes for several years.

So basically it's fine for me to call him a terrorist and that the RoA isn't genocide? Because that is simply my view.  

There's no certainty to how he's viewed, perhaps it's only the Resolutionists who approve of what Anders did (in terms of the mages who rose up against the Chantry and the templars, rather than the protagonist). After all, it's not Anders who the mages can rally around in their revolution, it's Hawke.

 

Which makes me think he's viewed rather badly if they'd rather cry out Hawke (a reminder of their oppresion) rather than Anders if he's their "freedom fighter." 

[LobselVith8]

Ryzaki wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The issue is that Brown was brought up originally not because of his allies, but because he wanted to change society.

Yet we don't know if Brown still would've done what he did *without* allies. Plenty mages other than Anders wanted to change things as well. 

Plenty of mages didn't have access to Dworkin and Sandal, and I still see people on this forum who agree with what Anders did because they find the status quo of the Andrastian Chantry more monstrous and horrific than anything that Anders did.

Ryzaki wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
But that wasn't why Brown was originally referenced. The comparison wasn't meant to be 100% identical.

So what the comparison was simply supposed to be someone who was willing to go to extreme measures? Again that to me i iffy because we don't know if Brown still would've done it without allies. 

What comparison? Besides their willingness to change the status quo, you mean?

Ryzaki wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Some people can see a freedom fighter where others see a terrorist, which was my point in addressing there's a dichotomy in the view of such things. Some think Anders was right, and others think he was wrong. Some can see the Chantry as a benevolent institution, while others (like Anders) can see it as an organization that is mired in the slavery of mages, which is an opinion he professes for several years.

So basically it's fine for me to call him a terrorist and that the RoA isn't genocide? Because that is simply my view.

As long as you know you're ignoring the definition of genocide when you state that.  

Ryzaki wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
There's no certainty to how he's viewed, perhaps it's only the Resolutionists who approve of what Anders did (in terms of the mages who rose up against the Chantry and the templars, rather than the protagonist). After all, it's not Anders who the mages can rally around in their revolution, it's Hawke.

 

Which makes me think he's viewed rather badly if they'd rather cry out Hawke (a reminder of their oppresion) rather than Anders if he's their "freedom fighter." 

If Hawke sided with the mages and not with a genodical lunatic who wanted to murder hundreds of men, women, and children for something they had nothing to do with, the mages see Hawke as a hero.