181 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

Oh no you don't decide that vengeance is preferable to mercy if you side with the templars. Hawke doesn't even have to be thinking of vengeance than anything other than a greater mercy (letting the mages die and saving as much as he can then letting the exalted march occur.) What each invidiual Hawke thinks about that decision is up to him/her.  

Modifié par Ryzaki, 30 juin 2011 - 05:11 .

[LobselVith8]

Fidget6 wrote...

I kind of got the impression the party never really trusted Anders that much, especially with Varric's dialogue confronting you about it if you romanced him. I think they always kind of felt like he was a ticking timebomb waiting to go off, so they probably kept their distance from him.

Varric confronted my apostate Hawke about Merrill, and so does Isabela (although there's no active quest to tell you so - although she threatened to cut off Hawke's b***s if he hurt Merrill while Varric thought a relationship with her would be trouble).

Mr.House wrote...

Chiramu wrote...

I didn't kill him; Hawke's killed more people throughout the game then the people who were in the Chantry that night.

If Hawke kills him, that Hawke is a very big hypocrite, same with Sebastian (who wanted to murder to murderers of his family and condemns Anders.)

Hawke and Seb never killed inocent people, well my Hawke did not. Anders blew up a chantry filled with templars, grand cleric, priest and inocent people. Those deaths deserve justice, justice is Anders romancing a murder knife.

Anders wanted to free his people from an institution that he sees as slavery. As for the Kirkwall Chantry, it was after dark, and there is only the Grand Cleric, templars, and about four clergy members inside. If you speak to the Dalish at Sundermount in Act III, you learn that the Chantry clergy have been threatening the Dalish to convert from their "heathen" ways. Even the character of Sebastian remarks that he sees so many people waiting to see the Light when he's taken to the Dalish camp. Anders thought it was better for his people to be freed from subjugation than to face another thousand years of a dictatorship that preaches that mages are cursed.

[SurelyForth]

FJVP wrote...


Does it really matter? It always ends the same way anyway, siding with the mages only allows you to save a few more of them. And I don't care about them, just as Anders doesn't care about them either.

Ostensibly, you save more than a few...and you have the added benefit of not being responsible for the deaths of any of them. Hawke is complicit in this, too. It's not like you just send Anders in and have him off every single mage one by one.

And Anders does care about them, but they were already doomed (considering there's a Right of Annulment in the process of being called and Meredith is searching for any excuse to justify one). In my opinion, he was trying to prove that Meredith was searching for a reason to Annul. Instead of waiting for her to find her own, or to fabricate one, he decided to do something he knew  would result in her demanding Annulment but that would also be unambiguously not the fault of any Circle mage. By doing this, he could (theoretically) use her reaction as proof of a fanaticism encouraged amongst templars by the Chantry.

[FJVP]

SurelyForth wrote...

FJVP wrote...


Does it really matter? It always ends the same way anyway, siding with the mages only allows you to save a few more of them. And I don't care about them, just as Anders doesn't care about them either.

Ostensibly, you save more than a few...and you have the added benefit of not being responsible for the deaths of any of them. Hawke is complicit in this, too. It's not like you just send Anders in and have him off every single mage one by one.

And Anders does care about them, but they were already doomed (considering there's a Right of Annulment in the process of being called and Meredith is searching for any excuse to justify one). In my opinion, he was trying to prove that Meredith was searching for a reason to Annul. Instead of waiting for her to find her own, or to fabricate one, he decided to do something he knew  would result in her demanding Annulment but that would also be unambiguously not the fault of any Circle mage. By doing this, he could (theoretically) use her reaction as proof of a fanaticism encouraged amongst templars by the Chantry.

I don't care about them because I know that no matter what I try to do the game will always end with a Mage-Templar war brewing up, whether I manage to save one or thousands of mages, whether I'm responsible for their deaths is meaningless to me. Had the game changed drastically depending on who you side with then I would have given it more thought, but as it is now it's just another choice that in the end doesn't make a difference.

And Anders doesn't care about them. If you ask him after the chantry explodes he clearly states that he is willing to sacrifice their lifes in order to overthrow the Templar order and the Chantry.

[Mr.House]

LobselVith8 wrote...


Anders wanted to free his people from an institution that he sees as slavery. As for the Kirkwall Chantry, it was after dark, and there is only the Grand Cleric, templars, and about four clergy members inside. If you speak to the Dalish at Sundermount in Act III, you learn that the Chantry clergy have been threatening the Dalish to convert from their "heathen" ways. Even the character of Sebastian remarks that he sees so many people waiting to see the Light when he's taken to the Dalish camp. Anders thought it was better for his people to be freed from subjugation than to face another thousand years of a dictatorship that preaches that mages are cursed.

That's what you see in the main hall, you don't see anywhere else in a building that is big. That's also not counting the kids who live in the Chantry as intinates and such. Anders killed inocents, no matter how justify he might feel, the people he killed deserve justice. Any mage who also dies can be blamed at his feet for putting something into motion that not every mage wanted.

[LobselVith8]

Mr.House wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...


Anders wanted to free his people from an institution that he sees as slavery. As for the Kirkwall Chantry, it was after dark, and there is only the Grand Cleric, templars, and about four clergy members inside. If you speak to the Dalish at Sundermount in Act III, you learn that the Chantry clergy have been threatening the Dalish to convert from their "heathen" ways. Even the character of Sebastian remarks that he sees so many people waiting to see the Light when he's taken to the Dalish camp. Anders thought it was better for his people to be freed from subjugation than to face another thousand years of a dictatorship that preaches that mages are cursed.

That's what you see in the main hall, you don't see anywhere else in a building that is big. That's also not counting the kids who live in the Chantry as intinates and such. Anders killed inocents, no matter how justify he might feel, the people he killed deserve justice. Any mage who also dies can be blamed at his feet for putting something into motion that not every mage wanted.

The only orphaned children I saw as Hawke were the ones living in Darktown, talking about how the Chantry never came down there. The only people we know Anders killed are the templars and the members of the Chantry we saw in that scene; there's no evidence any civilian was inside that building after dark, when Hawke has been there time and again, when people have taken advantage of it being closed to spring a trap (Tranquility and Fools Rush In). If Meredith wanted to punish or execute Anders for the death of Grand Cleric Elthina and the members of the clergy and the Order, it would be an entirely different matter, but she handwaves Anders' existance and orders the execution of an entire population of people. Any mages who die can be blamed at the Knight-Commander, who ordered an act of genocide against a population of hundreds of men, women, and children who aren't responsible for Anders' actions and were innocent of Anders' actions. No one forced Meredith to invoke the Right of Annulment.

[TEWR]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...


Anders wanted to free his people from an institution that he sees as slavery. As for the Kirkwall Chantry, it was after dark, and there is only the Grand Cleric, templars, and about four clergy members inside. If you speak to the Dalish at Sundermount in Act III, you learn that the Chantry clergy have been threatening the Dalish to convert from their "heathen" ways. Even the character of Sebastian remarks that he sees so many people waiting to see the Light when he's taken to the Dalish camp. Anders thought it was better for his people to be freed from subjugation than to face another thousand years of a dictatorship that preaches that mages are cursed.

That's what you see in the main hall, you don't see anywhere else in a building that is big. That's also not counting the kids who live in the Chantry as intinates and such. Anders killed inocents, no matter how justify he might feel, the people he killed deserve justice. Any mage who also dies can be blamed at his feet for putting something into motion that not every mage wanted.

The only orphaned children I saw as Hawke were the ones living in Darktown, talking about how the Chantry never came down there. The only people we know Anders killed are the templars and the members of the Chantry we saw in that scene; there's no evidence any civilian was inside that building after dark, when Hawke has been there time and again, when people have taken advantage of it being closed to spring a trap (Tranquility and Fools Rush In). If Meredith wanted to punish or execute Anders for the death of Grand Cleric Elthina and the members of the clergy and the Order, it would be an entirely different matter, but she handwaves Anders' existance and orders the execution of an entire population of people. Any mages who die can be blamed at the Knight-Commander, who ordered an act of genocide against a population of hundreds of men, women, and children who aren't responsible for Anders' actions and were innocent of Anders' actions. No one forced Meredith to invoke the Right of Annulment.

Also the Templars, who are an extension of the Chantry's influence since they are the militant arm of the Chantry, refused to aid Evelina's children. Evelina didn't care if she had to spend her life in another Circle as she only wanted her children to be taken care of. Did the Templars care? Nope, they just branded her apostate and locked her away.

[Ryzaki]

...Yeah she went to the TEMPLARS. Of course they didn't give a crap.

She didn't go to the Chantry.

[TEWR]

The Templars are supposed to represent the Chantry, the supposed institution that helps orphans. They say that they help the populus in many ways and keep them safe, yet they didn't help Evelina.

[Rifneno]

Ryzaki wrote...

Killing people who are swarming you to kill you (I.E. self defense) isn't remotely the same thing as blowing up a church with innocent people.

That doesn't make Hawke a hypocrite. Not in the least.

And neither is Sebastian. Seb ordered a hit on a group of thugs that kiled his family, not the bravest thing but him getting angry at Anders for blowing up the Chantry isn't hypocritical.

1. This is one of the major problems. People think of the Chantry as that sweet little church down the street. WRONG. That church doesn't have a military that it uses to subjugate a minority even at the direct opposal of the ruling monarch. You want a modern organization to compare the Chantry to? Try the taliban.
2. Sebastian is going to Starkhaven to gather an army so he can attack Kirkwall. He wants to murder the entire city, which he justifies as saying "clearly the Maker has turned his gaze from Kirkwall," right after he condemns Anders. Hypocrite is an understatement.

FJVP wrote...

Does it really matter? It always ends the same way anyway, siding with the mages only allows you to save a few more of them. And I don't care about them, just as Anders doesn't care about them either.

Funny, that's how I feel about all the "innocents" in the Chantry. Actually, that's not true. I do care about Elthina's death; it was horrible that she got to die quick and painlessly.

FJVP wrote...

And Anders doesn't care about them. If you ask him after the chantry explodes he clearly states that he is willing to sacrifice their lifes in order to overthrow the Templar order and the Chantry.

What a wonderful world it must be where one can fight and expect to win a war without casualties.

Mr.House wrote...

That's what you see in the main hall, you don't see anywhere else in a building that is big. That's also not counting the kids who live in the Chantry as intinates and such. Anders killed inocents, no matter how justify he might feel, the people he killed deserve justice. Any mage who also dies can be blamed at his feet for putting something into motion that not every mage wanted.

As soon as I stop seeing people proclaim Elthina Bathory didn't know about what the templars were doing because we don't see Hawke specifically tell her, I'll accept Anders killing innocents despite us not specifically seeing it. Until then, the only people in the Chantry was Elthina and a bunch of drug addict templars.

[Sajuro]

jackpericles wrote...

Fidget6 wrote...

I think they always kind of felt like he was a ticking timebomb waiting to go off, so they probably kept their distance from him.

Anders was a Walking Bomb!  Sorry.  Couldn't resist.    

I would say Virulent Walking Bomb, he infected everyone else with the crazy when he blew.

[Dean_the_Young]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Surely, every thread where Anders is unfairly attacked is a defense of Anders thread.

Anders: he's not perfect, but he's also not all bad. Shades of grey, people!

How about "bad enough"?

[Sajuro]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The Templars are supposed to represent the Chantry, the supposed institution that helps orphans. They say that they help the populus in many ways and keep them safe, yet they didn't help Evelina.

Because she is an apostate and apostates are bad and Templars don't help bad people and apostates are bad people because being an apostate is a bad bad thing. [/joke]

[Melca36]

Plaintiff wrote...

I find Anders to be very likeable, so I've never killed him.

I've only killed him once. My characters only run off with him....because they don't believe the Chantry propaganda about Mages.

Theres more to the Chantry than meets the eye and it will be interesting to see that in DA:3

[Melca36]

You know the moment I stopped taking the Chantry seriously in this game is when I saw that random sister NPC wandering around Lowtown asking for donations from the poor.

That showed me how out of touch the Chantry was.

[macrocarl]

2 of my Hawkes let him live. 1 brought him along for redemption, 1 had him leave town. But I do have a Hawke that killed him once. I was playing a vengeful, pro-religion hypocrite mage. It was by far my weirdest play through! But in a couple of ways it made sense. I was thinking along the same lines as CulturalGeekGirl.

[Ryzaki]

@Riferno: Okay then Seb's a hypocrite. That said Seb might've been talking out his ass. Saying you'd do something =/= doing it. 

That doesn't make Hawke one in the least.

And there were innocent chantry sisters in that church. Yes it was a church. Military symbol or not. There were innocents in there as surely as there were innocents in the circle.  Thinking that there's not innocents on both sides is a childish attitude. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 30 juin 2011 - 08:59 .

[Fidget6]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Fidget6 wrote...

I kind of got the impression the party never really trusted Anders that much, especially with Varric's dialogue confronting you about it if you romanced him. I think they always kind of felt like he was a ticking timebomb waiting to go off, so they probably kept their distance from him.

Varric confronted my apostate Hawke about Merrill, and so does Isabela (although there's no active quest to tell you so - although she threatened to cut off Hawke's b***s if he hurt Merrill while Varric thought a relationship with her would be trouble).

Haha, Isabela always makes cutesy somments about who you romance and apparently Varric always objects. Maybe he's trying to subtly clue you in that he doesn't want any competition? 

[LobselVith8]

Fidget6 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Fidget6 wrote...

I kind of got the impression the party never really trusted Anders that much, especially with Varric's dialogue confronting you about it if you romanced him. I think they always kind of felt like he was a ticking timebomb waiting to go off, so they probably kept their distance from him.

Varric confronted my apostate Hawke about Merrill, and so does Isabela (although there's no active quest to tell you so - although she threatened to cut off Hawke's b***s if he hurt Merrill while Varric thought a relationship with her would be trouble).

Haha, Isabela always makes cutesy somments about who you romance and apparently Varric always objects. Maybe he's trying to subtly clue you in that he doesn't want any competition?  

But what would Biance think?

[Ryzaki]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The Templars are supposed to represent the Chantry, the supposed institution that helps orphans. They say that they help the populus in many ways and keep them safe, yet they didn't help Evelina.

 

That's like saying if a dangerous inviidual turned himself over to the special forces (and they worked with some grouphomes) it's surprising that they ignored the children he was talking about and arrested him post haste. 

[TEWR]

no it isn't. For one thing, special forces are in the employ of government agencies. If a dangerous criminal turned himself over, wasn't married, and he had kids; the government would step in to take care of those kids in some fashion. That's how the system works (at least in America).

For another, special forces are just fighters. Templars are fighters, peacekeepers, protectors of the people, and representatives of the Chantry in all regards (or so they claim). It goes far beyond just having a connection to an orphanage or foster home system.

[Ryzaki]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

no it isn't. For one thing, special forces are in the employ of government agencies. If a dangerous criminal turned himself over, wasn't married, and he had kids; the government would step in to take care of those kids in some fashion. That's how the system works (at least in America).

For another, special forces are just fighters. Templars are fighters, peacekeepers, protectors of the people, and representatives of the Chantry in all regards (or so they claim). It goes far beyond just having a connection to an orphanage or foster home system.

You forget the part whereI mentioned the work for a group home. I put a clause in the analogy. 

When do the templars claim to represent the Chantry in all regards? 

I've heard nothing about peacekeepers. The Chantry is the peacekeepers I've heard not the templars. (might've heard it wrong though). They are an army and claim to be protecting people by keeping mages away. Other than that they're not supposed to get involved with civilians unless it involves mages. That's the reason Meredith is getting so much flak. They are not a police force. If they were they'd be no need for the city guard. Now if the SF aren't complete douchebags the might drop a note to some social workers but it's not their job to deal with it. 

They are more aligned to special forces. The gov't is supposed to take care of the people that does not mean its the SF job to take care of orphans. Another branch of the gov't takes care of that. Just like another part of the chantry (probably the one dealing with the affirmed and what not) take care of orphans that are given to them. If the templars weren't douchebags (and they probably were) they might've told one of the chantry people that there were kids who needed their help, but it was out of the templars jurisitiction.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 30 juin 2011 - 10:28 .

[Wulfram]

SurelyForth wrote...

And Anders does care about them, but they were already doomed

Sorry, no.  He destroys the chantry so that there "can be no turning back".  He "removed the chance of compromise because there is no compromise", because for him "There can be no peace"

He blew up the Chantry because he was afraid Elthina might stop the Circle's destruction - might find a compromise which would allow the system he detests to continue functioning - and because he considers living under the Chantry's control worse than death, and holds Orsino in contempt for thinking otherwise.

[TEWR]

Ser Otto is a peacekeeper as he conversed with the elves in the Alienage, hoping to find out more about what happened. Ser Bryant is a peacekeeper, protecting Lothering's villagers from the Blight and bandits.


And yes, I saw you mentioned they work for a group home. That's why I said it goes far beyond having a connection to orphanages or a foster home system. Group homes also apply there.


The Templars were required to report on Evelina's children to the Chantry or help them out in some way.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 30 juin 2011 - 10:30 .

[Ryzaki]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Ser Otto is a peacekeeper as he conversed with the elves in the Alienage, hoping to find out more about what happened. Ser Bryant is a peacekeeper, protecting Lothering's villagers from the Blight and bandits.


And yes, I saw you mentioned they work for a group home. That's why I said it goes far beyond having a connection to orphanages or a foster home system. Group homes also apply there.

Ser Otto was on his own. I'm pretty sure he was also not their on Chantrybusiness. 

Ser Bryant is a good man. Not to mention everything he was doing was also protecting the Chantry. They protected everyone who went to them. 

And I placed in a gov't comparison. I never see any templars dealing with orphans. The work under the word of a mother and protect who they're told to protect. (Not to mention both Bryant and the dude in Redcliffe are under extenous circumstances. I have little doubt if toldto abandon the people that is exactly what they would do. They are soldiers first and foremost and soldiers as well protect civilians when they're told too. (or when they can get away with it if they're the type).