for so long, with so many different (and intelligent) people that, at
some point, I ended up putting most of my arguments into a single
document that I now like to call: "My manifesto of Anders"
It keeps changing and evolving as new debates arises... So, for those of you Anders fans (and/or non fans) that are patient
enough to try to read it, I was wondering if there are some topics that I
forgot and that you think it should cover... Something important that
I'm utterly missing... Etc.
I also have to say congratulation to the writers' team at Bioware for creating a character that I feel so passionately about. I don't think I would ever have had the patience to do that for anyone else! Lol!
So anyway, here goes...
Part 1, The Chantrys (white and black) in Thedas:
While playing
DAO and DA2, my perception of the Chantrys (both of them) has always
been that they are a dangerous organization controlling people through
fear, trying to give the population a false sense of safety and control
in order to remain in power and justify their activities.
In
most of Thedas, if you refuse to submit to the teachings and rules of
the Chantry, you are branded an apostate... If you help apostates, you
can be executed. Even Grand Cleric Elthina admitted that killing
innocent lives has never stopped the Chantry from going on Exalted
Marches to defend "the Faith" (when she asks you to go speak with Sister
Nightingale).
In Tevinter, the Magisters rule the Imperium
THROUGH the Black Chantry. It's also the Chantry in Tevinter that gives
the Magisters their social and political powers, not the other way
around! They have their own interpretation of the Chant of Light
(especially the line: "Magic exists to serve mankind, not to rule over
him"), and use that to justify their own activities.
Once again,
the Magisters have the "Maker given right" to rule the Imperium as they
see fit, because their actions are sanctioned by the Maker, and the
general population that believe in what their own Chantry is teaching
them. The people in Tevinter follow the teachings of Andraste, just like
anywhere else. They are simply at odds with how the Divine interprets
those teachings, and refuse to accept her authority.
Even Orana,
though she is a slave, didn't realize there was anything wrong with her
predicament. You tend to accept the world in the way that it is
presented to you. Believe that what you have been taught is the natural
order of things. Sometimes, people take a step back to observe the
situation in its ensemble, and realize that there's something wrong.
Fenris eventually did in Tevinter… Anders also did in Thedas.
Children
that are beaten and mistreated sometimes still see their parents as
being inherently good, and doing what is best for them. They see them as
protectors, even as they fear what they can do.
And when they
realize that their parents aren't the "gods" they were always lead to
believe them to be… That their rights and needs have been baffled, and
that they didn't deserve (nor were responsible for) any of this… The
main emotion that usually arises is anger. And I think both Fenris and
Anders have that in spades!
Whether it's the "Black Divine", or
the Divine from Orlais, both have equally abusive practices. The
Tevinter Imperium is not a good example of "what mages would do if they
were free"... It's a good example of "how, once again, religious
teachings can be twisted to serve the powerful, and justify their
actions".
Whether the mages are locked up in towers while the
"good folks" are allowed to control them; or the Magisters are at the
head of the Chantry and controlling the "good folks", ultimately, the
situation is the same... One group is enslaving another.
The
Chantrys, both of them, must lose their hold on the world if Thedas is
ever to fairly and effectively regulate the use of magic, and find a way
for mages and "non-magical citizens" to coexist peacefully.
Unfortunately, I don't believe that either Chantrys are willing to
relinquish their hold on the world without a fight.
Part 2, The Circle of Magi:
The
Circle of Magi was created on the assumption that mages' powers are, by
nature, abusive (a vision widely spread by the Chantry).
It's a
bit like that whole situation in the X-men movies. People fear those
that are different, and naturally see them as potential threats. The
Chantry feeds on that fear and uses it as a mean of control for both the
general public, and the mages. The "security" they offer allows them to
remain in power.
But it's a false sense of security. I don't
believe that the mages would be any more dangerous if they were allowed
to live within the general population, with laws protecting both sides.
For
example, when their powers manifest, young mages could be immediately
assigned as apprentices to a master that would teach them how to use and
control their powers.
Circles of Magi could be converted as a teaching institution, instead of prisons.
Laws could be put in place to regulate the use of magic, and people could be assigned to enforce them.
Most
mages will turn to blood magic as an act of despair. Remove the source
of despair, and you prevent losing so many mages to the dark side of
their powers.
If you allow them to live normal lives among
people... To love, have dreams and projects to fulfill, live with their
families, etc. Would they need any more reason to revolt?
Some
will always do. Just like some non-magical people will turn to crime.
But do we have the right to punish the innocent because of what he
*might* become? It makes no sense to me.
Freedom for the mages
does not mean them being allowed to do whatever they want with their
powers! And this isn't what Anders is advocating for either.
Freedom
for the mages is basically allowing them to share the same rights as
any other individuals. People who don't have magic must also abide by
certain laws. It should be no different for them. After all, if it isn't
right to kill a person using a spear, or control them through
extortion, it shouldn't be any more right to do so through the use of
magic.
I see no reasons why mages should be prevented to come
and go as they please. Making apprenticeship mandatory for all mages
(and keeping records) is one thing. But locking them up and taking their
families/lives/minds/dreams away from them is another entirely.
Also,
the definition of what an apostate or maleficar is seems very
subjective, and is too open to interpretation. Especially when the
people in charge of "policing" said apostates or maleficars are
motivated by religious fervor and beliefs!
As for people arguing
that the Circles also protect mages from the general population; if
there were some severe laws against committing hate crimes against
mages, they would be protected from the population just as well.
Segregation
doesn't seem like a viable solution at all. Keeping people locked away
from each other while allowing the fear/hate to spread is definitely
wrong.
Having mages become terrified of what "normal folks"
could do to them… While "normal folks" are petrified of those wielding
magic is not helping create a better world.
You just end up having
two groups that are completely unable to come to any understanding, and
that will stop caring about what they do to each other.
Blood
magic is fast, easy, and available. From my understanding, there is no
real need to learn the skill, only be willing to make deals with demons.
Perhaps if mages were taught to CARE about the world outside of
the tower, and felt some sense of connection, belonging to it, they
wouldn't be so quick to give in to temptation to protect themselves. I
remember Anders mentioning that the most common way for mages to die is
by their own hand.
If they stop caring about their own existence,
then why should they care about people that show them no sign of mercy?
Who sit idly in their homes while they are being made Tranquil, and
allowed to suffer?
Not all mages are good people either. Some
hunger for power, just like any regular person could hunger for power.
Some can be cruel, and vile. They aren't ALL innocents… But should
innocents be allowed to suffer because of the few? I don't see it.
As
for the risk of having abominations running free on the streets, and
mages automatically seizing power and wanting to control/destroy the
world if they weren't controlled by Templars and Circles, that
assumption seems a bit ludicrous.
To quote a user named
MathiasAmon on the Dragon Age wiki: "The idea that all mages, freed from
their fetters, would attempt to take over the world, is also
ridiculous. Mages are individuals, not a hive-mind. Where one may want
to make the mundanes cower in terror and worship him while he shoots
lightning out of his fingers, another may want to use his gifts to
better the lives of his fellow man. A third might feel a moral
obligation to use his powers to protect people from mages like the
first."
And, look at that, the Tevinter Imperium has no
"abominations running amuck on the streets" problem. How strange… They
have Magisters competing with each others for power and social status,
and policies that allow slavery to exist on their lands, but the
Imperium hasn't been overtaken by demons. How can it be? It goes against
everything that the white Chantry would like you to believe, doesn't
it?
It makes me sick that one could condone treating sentient
beings like "regulating a dangerous substance" instead of what they are,
PEOPLE.
People who have dreams, emotions, needs, families,
friends... Who love... People that have the possibility to make right or
wrong choices just like anyone else. People who should share the same
rights as the rest of their society.
Mages are stripped of all
rights, including the right of expression (those who oppose the Chantry
too strongly are made Tranquil), and their lives are stolen from them.
I
can't lose sight of that, and start seeing them as "weapons" without
feeling like I'd have to sacrifice my own humanity in the process.
Part 3, The impact of Anders/Justice action:
Anders
has never been seeking power for himself, nor trying to enslave anyone.
He's only trying to inspire people to stand up to the Chantry, and not
cower in fear. He's not an out of control abomination going around
killing thousands, and thousands of people. He blew up one Chantry (that
was already starting a slow genocide through their Templars) to ignite a
(much needed) revolution that will probably save thousands of lives in
the long run.
The Chantry began a war long ago when they created
the Circles, and went on Exalted Marches (slaughtering thousands of
innocent people refusing to submit to them) in order to protect "the
Faith". They are a conquering military force, not a peaceful institution
promoting free-will, and voluntary adhesion to their beliefs.
"Peace"
was, unfortunately, never an option. At least, not in Kirkwall (there
would have been hope in Ferelden, I think… Especially if Alistair was
elected king, and more so if the Warden happened to be a mage, and the
Circle was granted its independence). For negotiations to occur, both
parties have to be willing to negotiate (i.e. feel that there is
something for them to gain by negotiating).
Thus, since the
Chantry already holds absolute power in Kirkwall, and have the "Maker
given right" to silence anyone opposing them, I wonder just how much
"negotiating" they would have been willing to consider.
The
problem in Kirkwall is that there is no room for diplomacy, or
democracy. People are living under a totalitarian society where there is
simply no higher power to appeal to (since the Viscount is dead, and
Meredith won't let anyone who doesn't serve her interests replace him),
and the people in the city are taken hostage (helping apostates being a
hanging offense).
A friend once wrote: "If any government ever
violates your inalienable individual rights to that degree, and leaves
no way to change it through "democracy", then it is morally right and
just to resort to violence to oppose it. It's on the government's head
for forcing you into a situation where that was the only way to regain
your freedom again."
And sadly, that's pretty much the way I
feel about Kirkwall. People opposing what Meredith is doing have no real
leverage. They can talk all they want, she's not willing to listen, and
besides Elthina (who refuses to act), no one has the "power" to make
her listen!
"Peaceful resistance" implies that you have to find a
"non-violent way" to put the oppressors in a situation where they are
forced to negotiate in order to protect their own interests. The target
of such non-violent resistance movement can be economical, political,
etc. But you ALWAYS need some form of leverage.
What Anders did
brought the Chantry on the brink of collapse, and made them lose control
not only over their Circles, but their Templars as well (one of their
main military orders, and perhaps the most influential one)!!!
They
are now losing power, they know it, and thus are sending Seekers to
track down the only person (the Champion) that they believe have the
influence required to help them avoid to lose everything!
The Chantry is forced to listen now if they want to protect their interests.
Since
the end of the game, I have been racking my brain trying to find a
single "non-violent mean" that Anders could have taken in order to
destabilize the Chantry's hold on the world hard enough so that they
would have been given no other choice than to capitulate.
Convince
the dwarves to stop providing lyrium to the Chantry for their Templars
until it would be willing to renegotiate the terms under which mages are
living? Dwarves are merchants, they don't have mages among them, and
most of them certainly don't care what's happening with humans and elves
topside. So no, that wouldn't work…
What else? It's all good
and well to say that "Anders could have resorted to non-violent
means". But how? Please tell me how. Perhaps if the Champion had
decided to get more involved, but I'll get back on that later.
While
Anders' solution was both shocking and horrifying, the very moment the
Chantry exploded, in my mind, Anders ceased to be just "Anders", but
became a symbol of every single person the Chantry has ever wronged…
Every single life they ever took away, or destroyed… Every single family
they tore apart… Every single freedom they have trampled with impunity…
Even going as far as claiming that they were righteous in doing so!
There's a scene at the end of the movie "V for Vendetta" where Evey's character is asked "who" V was… And she answers:
"He was my father, and my mother; my brother, my friend; he was you, and me; he was all of us…"
Anders embodies the countless Chantry's victims that, until then, had had no voices.
But
Anders is still a man… Despite being possessed by Justice, he still has
a conscience… And therefore he will probably keep paying all of his
life for what he did, as I don't believe that Anders could ever kill
anyone without being haunted by their memory. That is the "punishment"
from which there is no escape, the sacrifice he has made.
Still, that doesn't mean that I fully agree with the MEANS he took to achieve said revolution.
My
approach to the problem would have been to LEAVE KIRKWALL (in the very
beginning of Act III) and use my influence as Champion to gather allies
all across Thedas to try to "peacefully" oppose the Chantry, and force
them to step down. By keeping Anders actively working towards the
liberation of mages, instead of simply patting him on the back saying
"there there, I understand" while atrocities keep being committed
against his people all around him, I have this theory that it might have
helped him keep Justice in check. Lol!
But no, I have to run
around the city aimlessly, while my spirit-possessed lover slowly looses
it and begins showing tell-tale signs of suicidal intent! Arrrg!
However,
given the limitations of the gameplay, and the very little support I
was able to provide Anders, I thought that him going after the ROOT of
the problem (the Chantry's control over the population) instead of
attacking the symptom (Meredith, the Templars, and/or the Circle) was
the smartest thing one could have done in an effort to bring some long
lasting change to the world.
As for why Anders attacked the
Chantry building as a whole, instead of directly targeting its higher
representative (Elthina)… I believe that it all comes down to Meredith.
Somewhere
at the beginning of Act III, Meredith sends a demand for the Right of
Annulment from Val Royaux, since the Grand Cleric is refusing to take a
stance. So it has been made clear by then that by the beginning of Act
III, Meredith seems to believe that the Circle of Kirkwall is beyond
saving, and that the only way to keep the general population safe from
mages is by annulling it.
Therefore, the only person in Kirkwall
that can prevent Meredith from declaring the Right of Annulment on the
Circle is the Divine herself, her direct representative (the Grand
Cleric), or another member of the Chantry that would temporarily take up
the mantle of Grand Cleric should Elthina be assassinated (until the
Divine officially appoints a new Grand Cleric).
If Meredith went
against the wishes of the Divine, Grand Cleric, or one of her
subordinates; she would be seen as moving against the Chantry itself…
To
give birth to his rebellion, Anders needed the mages to be pushed into a
"fight, flee, or die" situation. As long as "some semblance of peace"
or collaboration between mages and Templars was kept, most mages would
be too scared to fight back if the Templars were promising them their
lives and "safety" in exchange for their submission. The message from
the Templars has always been SUBMIT AND LIVE.
So, as long as the
choice existed for mages to "do whatever Templars want from us and they
won't kill us or make us tranquil", nothing was ever going to
change. But, if the choice suddenly becomes: fight, run, or SUBMIT AND
DIE, then mages have no choice but to rebel, or be killed.
Faced
with certain death, the mages that were too afraid to oppose the
Chantry's authority before (or simply felt comfortable living in the
Circles, and/or had faith in the Chantry's teachings, etc.) are now
forced to take action.
Therefore, by removing the Grand Cleric
AND the Chantry from the equation; and plunging Kirkwall into a state of
emergency; Anders has allowed Meredith to feel justified in deciding
that she has to act quickly to restore order without needing approval
from the Divine herself, and declare the Right of Annulment on the
Circle as an emergency measure.
By doing so, all the mages in
Kirkwall have no other choice than to rebel against the Templars and the
Chantry if they do not wish to be exterminated. Therefore, allowing
Anders' plan to overthrow the Chantry to slowly take effect.
As
the other Circles get word of what happened in Kirkwall, they fear
retribution from their own Templars (or perhaps finally realize that
fighting back is a real option), and decide to break free from the
Chantry as well!
If Anders had attacked Meredith and the Templars
directly, Elthina, the "ever reasonable one", would have stepped up,
encouraged First Enchanter Orsino to keep the mages in the Kirkwall
Circle calm until a new Knight-Commander has been reassigned, and new
Templars troops arrive.
Meanwhile, she would have refused to
grant the surviving Templars the Right of Annulment on the Circle,
arguing that it was but the work of one profoundly disturbed apostate.
Result?
Status quo. The Circles still exist throughout Thedas. Templars still
have the mission to watch over the mages. The Chantry still remains in
power and are free to spread their teachings (that mages are dangerous;
can't be allowed to live with the rest of the population, have children
of their own, or stay with their parents as kids, etc.). The mages still
have no rights (other than to submit to Chantry authority and live
among themselves in gilded cages, allowed to come out of them only with
authorization from the Chantry's appointed representatives, a.k.a. the
Knight-Commanders and First Enchanters)…
Likewise, if Meredith
had calmly reacted and gone "Quick, send word to the Divine that the
Grand Cleric has been slain by an apostate, and the Chantry building
destroyed. Ask her to send us someone to take on her duties until a new
Grand Cleric has been officially appointed, and additional Templar
troops arrive to replace those that were lost. Meanwhile, I would like
to ask for the help of the City Guards in order to make a threat
assessment, and investigate whether Anders was working alone, or
not. If he had accomplices, rest assured that they shall be brought to
justice. First Enchanter Orsino, I trust that you will do your best to
make sure that every mage in the Circle stays calm and is willing to
collaborate with us. You have my word, as Knight-Commander, that we
will not blame the Circle for the action of a single troubled man. I
suggest that the surviving sisters and brothers of the Chantry be housed
at the Viscount's keep until we find new housing arrangements for them
until a new Chantry has been built..."
Well, let's simply say
that Anders' plans would have utterly failed, and I'm pretty convinced
he would never have attempted something as extreme as blowing up the
Chantry in the first place if he'd thought that the Knight-Commander
would take such a practical, diplomatic approach.
Ironically,
Meredith was Anders' greatest ally in making sure that the mages
rebellion against the Templars and the Chantry would occur. She was the
key to the rebellion, and Anders played her like a fiddle.
They both provided to each other exactly what the other wanted.
Meredith: A chance to rid Kirkwall of the mages menace.
Anders: A mages rebellion against the Templars and the Chantry.
Still,
in the end, Anders (alive or dead) is the only one that truly got his
wish... So, I still see Meredith as being the one who really ended up
being played.
Part 4, About letting Anders live, or becoming his executioner:
Fenris
told me that he had slaughtered a whole clan of people that had saved
his life, and protected him from his former master… And I didn't kill
him for his crimes. Sten killed an entire family of farmers because he
had misplaced his sword, and we still became friends… Zevran was an
assassin (he even admitted that sometimes, innocent people get in the
way), and I've even dated him! Leliana's past as a bard also covers a
lot of killing!
I don't believe in the death penalty, and
killing Anders made no sense to me (especially within that context).
This would be pure vengeance.
My rationale for letting him live
and siding with him had more to do with the fact that since he started
this, he might as well face the consequences, good and bad, or his
actions; and be given a chance to learn and evolve through these
experiences.
He expected and even wanted to die, and I denied
him the easy way out. Not as a punishment, but because he should take
responsibility for his actions. Also, I can't strike him down and deny
him a shot at redemption… Especially not after having been so forgiving
to anyone else! Despite everything, I still believe in Anders, and in
what he stands for. He has so much potential, and is probably one of the
most gentle and compassionate characters of the Dragon Age Universe.
I'm
more worried about him losing himself to Justice though… Especially
after having watched him all but give up on himself. The way he keeps
blaming himself for what happened to Justice, and says that besides the
cause of the mages, there's nothing left of him, broke my heart.
So
yes, I actually *have* considered killing Anders for a minute there,
but only to free them both (thus, not using death as a "penalty", but as
an act of mercy). What stopped me completely are the dialogue options
("You have to pay for what you've done"), and the stabbing in the back
sequence.
There is no "I love you, and I understand… As much as I
don't want to lose you, I am willing to let you and Justice be free, if
you believe there is really no other way for you to learn to live with
each other, and that is what you would ask of me…" option, or something
similar.
Sebastian's reaction was also a factor in this… The
Chantry and the Templars started the war… Anders retaliated by igniting a
revolution… The cycle of violence and retribution has to stop
somewhere. So I'm sorry Sebastian, but I'm not going to give in, and
kill Anders out of anger just to give you satisfaction. Killing him is
not justice, and Vengeance has done enough damage as it is.
I'm a
bit disappointed to see so many players claim that "Anders has to die
for what he did!", and go on and on about how he has "betrayed their
trust", and therefore, he has to pay!
It almost seems like the
morally reprehensible choices that our companions make are easier to
accept when they are happening completely outside of our control, or
"authority"… Or then again, have happened in the past (implying that the
character has changed, evolved, seen the errors of his ways and
redeemed himself since then).
It's as if we have gotten so used
to being able to directly influence our companions in any given
situation that when one does something that completely goes against our
own goals/actions/intents, we are completely shocked! Lol! And angry!
Had
the destruction of the Chantry happened 2 years prior to meeting
Anders, and he'd casually told us about it in conversation, I bet most
of us would have gone "Don't blame yourself Anders… I understand how
hard it must be for you to resist Justice… You didn't really have a
choice to ignore the situation back then, things got pretty out of hand…
Don't worry, we'll figure this out together…"
So, as far as I'm
concerned, not only will Anders live… But my Hawke will spend the rest
of his days helping him deal with his guilt, fight his revolution
(hopefully, through more diplomatic means than making every Chantry go
"boom"! Lol!), adapt to "life with a spirit within", and being crazy in
love (or BFF, whenever he isn't romanced! Lol!) with his apostate!
Retour en haut
I was angry because I was like...spending all my years in Kirkwall talking about mages rights pretty much every time I could and he still decides to not share his mind with me. But kill him? No. Then I would have to kill Sten, Fenris, Zevran and Isabela for their actions 
