260 réponses à ce sujet

[Gervaise]

I tried to avoid giving away too much in the title because of posters who are new to the game but I am looking to get an answer to something that has been bugging me for some time now - people who are seemingly okay with justifying terrorism to further a cause - and so I thought I would throw out the question that Sebastian puts to Hawke "If it had been me in the Chantry would you even be asking if you should kill him", but instead substitute Anders for Sebastian, just in case people's mortality had actually been shaped by their feelings for Anders.

So in this hypothetical version of the story Anders has a genuine change of heart as a result of Hawke's influence (as he claims to do but actually doesn't).  He realises the bomb is not justice and goes to the Chantry to remove it/warn Elthina but his "friends" in the resoluntionists realise what he is going to do and set it off with him in the building.   Anders is killed along with the other people in the Chantry.    Meredith still calls the RoA, the war still happens as the resolutionist's intended.     Do you still think the bomb is justifiable?   If you are presented with the resolutionist that planted the bomb, would you still spare them?   (Obviously people who killed Anders need not answer this question)

[Porenferser]

No, it hadn't, Person X would have still been killed.
But it wouldn't have bothered me that much, because it wouldn't have been a character I liked in the previous game.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Trust me...If it had been some renegade Andrastian who bombed the Circle, most if not all of the terrorist condoners on this board would be screaming from the top of their lungs in outrage...

[Nimrodell]

No, I still would not kill them, 'cause I can have an opinion, but I'm no judge or executioner... handing them over to law would be my choice, just as with Anders (unfortunately, game didn't give me that option - but I would not kill in cold blood, nor would I play executioner either - just don't have guts for such act - nor do I perceive such act as justified in such scenario).

[Porenferser]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Trust me...If it had been some renegade Andrastian who bombed the Circle, most if not all of the terrorist condoners on this board would be screaming from the top of their lungs in outrage...

I approve.
'tis always the same story (Evil Chantry, Innocent Mages<_<).

[Gervaise]

Just in case you may have missed the point the resolutionist's agenda is this as found in the codex you receive after meeting Sister Nightingale: "They engaged in acts of terror and sabotage against the Chantry throughout Thedas, and many are connected to Kirkwall's mage underground. They have declared that unless mages are freed to rule themselves, they will show every person in Thedas how little protection the Circle of Magi actually offers."
Now what part of these sentiments are consistent with an innocent mage? What part of mind controlling people into attacking Hawke and companions is the act of an innocent mage?
The Chantry gives help to widows, orphans and refugees - the reason they didn't do more in Kirkwall is that they were likely overwhelmed with numbers. So any attack against the Chantry anywhere in Thedas is likely to result in the deaths of innocent victims. Not everyone who is kidnapped or mind controlled is a bad person - look at Keran. Not every mage wanted to live outside the Circle - yet the mage underground was prepared to "encourage" them to do so - that is not respecting the rights of the individual either. Not even all the mages I tried to save in the Gallows were innocent, since clearly the use of blood magic to mind control, summon demons and undead was rife. Yet some mages were innocent of any misuse of magic and thankfully they were the ones that got away. However, that owes nothing to the actions of Anders and the Resolutionists, who had nothing but contempt for them, but to the bravery of a certain Hawke and companions who were prepared to risk everything, life, liberty, status, so that innocent people did not die for a crime they did not commit. (That is the reason my Hawke did it anyway).
I was rather hoping that people weren't so blind as to just see evil Chantry/Templars, Innocent Mages. Okay, let's turn it around the other way. Rogue Templars in another part of Thedas hear of the events of Kirkwall and blow up the Circle with mages in it as an act of retribution against the evil resolutionists within. So now you condemn them just because it is Templars doing the blowing up? And when the local populace, urged on by a mage sympathetic ruler and relatives of those within the Circle, attack the local Chantry and demand the death of everyone within, the majority of whom are lay people, do you actually say that you would do nothing to help defend them from the mob, just because they aren't mages?

[Nimrodell]

Gervaise wrote...

Just in case you may have missed the point the resolutionist's agenda is this as found in the codex you receive after meeting Sister Nightingale: "They engaged in acts of terror and sabotage against the Chantry throughout Thedas, and many are connected to Kirkwall's mage underground. They have declared that unless mages are freed to rule themselves, they will show every person in Thedas how little protection the Circle of Magi actually offers."
Now what part of these sentiments are consistent with an innocent mage? What part of mind controlling people into attacking Hawke and companions is the act of an innocent mage?
The Chantry gives help to widows, orphans and refugees - the reason they didn't do more in Kirkwall is that they were likely overwhelmed with numbers. So any attack against the Chantry anywhere in Thedas is likely to result in the deaths of innocent victims. Not everyone who is kidnapped or mind controlled is a bad person - look at Keran. Not every mage wanted to live outside the Circle - yet the mage underground was prepared to "encourage" them to do so - that is not respecting the rights of the individual either. Not even all the mages I tried to save in the Gallows were innocent, since clearly the use of blood magic to mind control, summon demons and undead was rife. Yet some mages were innocent of any misuse of magic and thankfully they were the ones that got away. However, that owes nothing to the actions of Anders and the Resolutionists, who had nothing but contempt for them, but to the bravery of a certain Hawke and companions who were prepared to risk everything, life, liberty, status, so that innocent people did not die for a crime they did not commit. (That is the reason my Hawke did it anyway).
I was rather hoping that people weren't so blind as to just see evil Chantry/Templars, Innocent Mages. Okay, let's turn it around the other way. Rogue Templars in another part of Thedas hear of the events of Kirkwall and blow up the Circle with mages in it as an act of retribution against the evil resolutionists within. So now you condemn them just because it is Templars doing the blowing up? And when the local populace, urged on by a mage sympathetic ruler and relatives of those within the Circle, attack the local Chantry and demand the death of everyone within, the majority of whom are lay people, do you actually say that you would do nothing to help defend them from the mob, just because they aren't mages?

Of course I would - and to joke a bit - only sith deals in absolutes.

[Xilizhra]

Porenferser wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Trust me...If it had been some renegade Andrastian who bombed the Circle, most if not all of the terrorist condoners on this board would be screaming from the top of their lungs in outrage...

I approve.
'tis always the same story (Evil Chantry, Innocent Mages<_<).

Only one of them's committing genocide.

Also, my feelings don't change. I didn't bomb anyone, but I'll fight in the world that the bomb made.

I was rather hoping that people weren't so blind as to just see evil Chantry/Templars, Innocent Mages. Okay, let's turn it around the other way. Rogue Templars in another part of Thedas hear of the events of Kirkwall and blow up the Circle with mages in it as an act of retribution against the evil resolutionists within. So now you condemn them just because it is Templars doing the blowing up? And when the local populace, urged on by a mage sympathetic ruler and relatives of those within the Circle, attack the local Chantry and demand the death of everyone within, the majority of whom are lay people, do you actually say that you would do nothing to help defend them from the mob, just because they aren't mages?

I'd see that as some kind of demon-induced hallucination because it would never happen in ten thousand years. Also, yes, to some people, intentions matter at least a little bit.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 28 septembre 2011 - 01:19 .

[Gervaise]

I'm not asking if you'd fight for mage freedom or not. There are many ways in which you can fight for freedom - not all of which result in the shedding of blood, innocent or otherwise. In our own world a lot of bombs have been made, often by those who claim to be fighting injustice, throwing off the rule of cruel oppressors, etc. The aim is invariably to inspire terror and frighten people into giving them what they want, as well as to punish those they perceive as responsible for their situation. Clearly some people condone those actions and assist them with money, shelter or other ways. What I am really trying to get at is whether their decision about Anders and reaction to the bomb was influenced by his relationship to them. You could still go ahead and defend the mages regardless. But do you still think that the bomb was justifiable and the only way forward? Would you still spare the perpertrator if he wasn't your friend/lover?

[Xilizhra]

Gervaise wrote...

I'm not asking if you'd fight for mage freedom or not. There are many ways in which you can fight for freedom - not all of which result in the shedding of blood, innocent or otherwise. In our own world a lot of bombs have been made, often by those who claim to be fighting injustice, throwing off the rule of cruel oppressors, etc. The aim is invariably to inspire terror and frighten people into giving them what they want, as well as to punish those they perceive as responsible for their situation. Clearly some people condone those actions and assist them with money, shelter or other ways. What I am really trying to get at is whether their decision about Anders and reaction to the bomb was influenced by his relationship to them. You could still go ahead and defend the mages regardless. But do you still think that the bomb was justifiable and the only way forward? Would you still spare the perpertrator if he wasn't your friend/lover?

I would have spared Tarohne, assuming she'd let me revise her plan somewhat. Unfortunately, she was too crazed to listen to anyone, so I had to kill her. But in the end, I believe that Anders will be an asset to the revolution, and Sebastian less of one.

[jlb524]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Trust me...If it had been some renegade Andrastian who bombed the Circle, most if not all of the terrorist condoners on this board would be screaming from the top of their lungs in outrage...

I'm sure it would depend on their motives.

[Gervaise]

Oh lordy, I am such an innocent. There was me thinking that no one would actually be in favour of Tahrone's agenda - how far did you need to revise it for it to be acceptable to you?!
One of the chilling aspects of Vengence is that if you read Anders little back story (out of the game), he also talks about the death's of his enemies being his fuel in a way that sounds a lot like the effects of blood sacrifices giving power. Now I'm not a big fan of the Chantry as I believe that the organisation as a whole does not live up to the ideals of the Chant of Light, though individuals within it do. However, if mage freedom means returning the a Thedas wide condoning of the use of mind enslavement and blood sacrifice in the name of "research", then you can forget it. Tahrone was the sort of mage who gave mage freedom a bad name. Ditto Anders - particularly if I accept the short story as part of actual history because he was never honest with me about anything. Whilst I didn't really want to be remembered as a revolutionary but as a defender of innocents, I suppose I can derive some consolation from the fact that it is Hawke's name that is being remembered by mages as an inspiration, not Anders, so that at least is something I can be thankful for.
However, to get back to my original questions.....................

[esper]

It depends on the resolutionist motive. If it were the same as Anders: To start war against the chantry. I would still spare them. The Chantry is as evil as the Tevinter Imperium was and the circle system is so wrong in so many levels that it needs to go. And the chantry will never let go of the mages via. a peacefull method so a war is the only way to go. For the record I am outraged that we can't spare Idunna (we have hand her over to the templars or kill her, neither option fits my Hawke). I

If you are talking about my Hawkes opinion to your hypotectical example all, but one case they would never even convince Anders that he was wrong. The one Hawke I had who did rival him would properly kill the the resolutionist out of spite since they in your example had just blew up her lover. But she was a self serving **** who never thought about anyone, but herself. My spirit healer who was against violence would not have killed them because it would just be more dead.

[Gervaise]

I think the resolutionist's are already at war with the Chantry according to the codex, Ander's bomb is just part of a pattern but a significant one as apparently all Thedas is watching events in Kirkwall to see what transpires. I think that is why he presses ahead when he does - events seem to have stalled somewhat into a stalemate, particularly after the death of Thrask has removed the chance of revolution from within Templar ranks. However, there are other ways he could have been the martyr and make a big statement. The resolutionists are all about terror and sabotage - we surely have to believe the codex on this. Anders promised at least one of my Hawkes that he would avoid killing innocents if at all possible - planting a bomb in the Chantry was not consistent with this - he said he would think again about what he intended - he obviously didn't spend very long - he would try and make himself worthy of mage freedom - which is where he and my Hawke obviously got crossed wires because the bomb wasn't what I had in mind. In my hypothetical example, Anders has listened to Hawke's alternative ideas for advancing mage freedom and acknowledge they are better than his own but his former allies obviously didn't agree. Now I was always left in a quandry over Anders because if I spared him and kept him with me, he thought I was supporting him personally - which includes condoning his actions but if I rejected him, I let an unstable abomination run free who might pop up on a future occasion and inadvertently sabotage my efforts once again, plus kill more innocents in the name of freedom. So much as I hated doing it, it seemed my only choice was to kill him, so I could get on with the important business of saving mages without looking over my shoulder worrying what he might be doing. For me bombing a non military target in the name of freedom is wrong no matter who does it - it just seemed that others do not feel the same but a lot of this was wrapped up in their emotional response to Anders, so I wanted clarification really.

[schalafi]

I think that Anders was much more controlled by Justice/Vengeance that anyone realized. At the end, if you didn't kill him, he thanks you for his life, and says he'd try not to mess it up again.

Have you condemned Isabella for the loss of life of innocents because of stealing the relic? I would imagine more people died in that war with the Quenari, than did in the Chantry explosion. Did we get a chance to kill her? I sure didn't in my game!

This game doesn't really have any npcs, or important characters, that aren't terribly conflicted in some way, I can't think of any of them that are what I would call "normal". I guess that's what makes this game so confusing. Which characters are even relevant to the plot? Even Hawke doesn't get a choice at the end.

[Porenferser]

I handed over Isabela to the Qunari for her selfish stupidity, just like I killed Anders for his partial fault.
Don't forget, it was HIS anger that turned the good-willing spirit we all know from Awakening into this monster.

[schalafi]

Porenferser wrote...

I handed over Isabela to the Qunari for her selfish stupidity, just like I killed Anders for his partial fault.
Don't forget, it was HIS anger that turned the good-willing spirit we all know from Awakening into this monster.

But it was also his generosity to a friend that made him offer his body to Justice. He didn't know that his anger toward the Chantry would change him into Vengeance.  Also, I didn't get the opportunity to hand Isabella over to the Qunari, she just disappeared with the relic and I never saw her again.

[Melca36]

I could care less about the Chantry. Its a corrupt institution and hopefully in Dragon 3, the secrets and truths they have hidden will be exposed and hopefully people will question their faith.

I roleplayed my mage as being emotionally and mentally done. She would not care who blew it up.
She lived her whole life on the run and then when settling down, she had to hide who she is.

The biggest mistake of this game is they did not show enough normal mages who were not interested in Blood Magic. Even David Gaider admitted this mistake.

People were brainwashed into believing all mages will snap instead of seeing that not everything is black and white.

[syllogi]

No matter who planted it, or set it off, the Chantry bombing is never justifiable in my mind.

There were about eight billion better ways to go about seeking freedom for mages. Even all the crazy blood mages in Kirkwall would have balked at this plan.

[naledgeborn]

Even as a mage sympathizer I still have trouble not killing Anders. Only reason he gets to run is because in my game he saved Carver from the taint. A life for a life. Even then when he's back at the Circle all happy like that Hawke sided with the mages I tell him to go to hell.

[Porenferser]

schalafi wrote...

Porenferser wrote...

I handed over Isabela to the Qunari for her selfish stupidity, just like I killed Anders for his partial fault.
Don't forget, it was HIS anger that turned the good-willing spirit we all know from Awakening into this monster.

But it was also his generosity to a friend that made him offer his body to Justice. He didn't know that his anger toward the Chantry would change him into Vengeance.  Also, I didn't get the opportunity to hand Isabella over to the Qunari, she just disappeared with the relic and I never saw her again.

Isabela: You've got to have enough friendship/rivalry, or a romance, then she'll show up and you can hand her over.

Anders: Replace generosity with stupidity. He himself wondered if Justice may become a demon and he suspected him to have bad needs, that sleep deep inside him.
To fuse with him after that, I can call this nothing but irresponsible.
So he deserves to die for me.

Modifié par Porenferser, 28 septembre 2011 - 06:56 .

[Xilizhra]

[quote]Oh lordy, I am such an innocent. There was me thinking that no one would actually be in favour of Tahrone's agenda - how far did you need to revise it for it to be acceptable to you?![/quote]
Possess templars who'd had time to start doing bad things, not raw recruits. Especially ones like Wilmod and Keran whom we probably could have recruited the normal way, and whom Thrask eventually did.

[quote]However, if mage freedom means returning the a Thedas wide condoning of the use of mind enslavement and blood sacrifice in the name of "research", then you can forget it.[/quote[
I highly doubt it.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I think most people who condone Anders' terrorism do so because they hate the Chantry not because they like Anders.

[Cobra's_back]

The Chantry bombing was never justifiable in my mind. Even if the whole system was corrupt the bombing wasn’t the answer. There is nothing in the story that has yet proven the Chantry to be currupt. If they choose to show this in DA3, I would not change my mind.

The story gets real sloppy here in Act3. The bombing was mindless. There were so many other ways to get your freedom. History is loaded with details explaining the abolishment of The Feudal Systems. They could have used something similar but not exact to Bastille Day. This organization just acted like a terror cell.
I executed the person who bombs the chantry and I would have executed anyone else who did it.