2008 réponses à ce sujet

[Urzon]

GavrielKay wrote...

It would hardly be the first time someone got so angry that they lashed out at an innocent before getting themselves under control.  It isn't a good thing, but on its own, it is insufficient to damn Anders.

 
Manslaughter is still manslaughter, and if it happened in the real world it would be enough to put the person in prison. So yes, it would be sufficient enough to damn Anders.

[Lazy Jer]

Something important to note.  There is no justice in attacking Ella.  She saw an illuminated angry Anders with a growly otherworldly voice and thought he was a demon.  Whether Anders, Justice or both are involved in his potential attack on her the fact is that the concept of Justice doesn't exist in the decision unless it's severly twisted and corrupt.

One could almost use the same argument that has been used against Grand Cleric Elthina against Anders at that point.  Anders knew that he either ended or endangered Ella's life and knew he lacked control over his demons (so to speak).  He could have stepped in and said "I'm too dangerous to be in a well populated city like Kirkwall." and took off, but he didn't.  His lack of action means he put innocent people at risk.

[Koire]

It is a bit ironic that you are arguing over whether one should damn Anders for Ella given that he damns himself after that with a sincere enthusiasm

Imho the question is not "was he stable when he tried to kill an innocent girl" - obviously not, but rather "was he stable when he blew up the Chantry, and who made the decision - A or J/V". I've explained how I understand it on the previous page: friendship - yes, Anders/Justice (merge); rivalry - no, Vengeance (split)

Modifié par Koire, 07 mars 2012 - 04:26 .

[GavrielKay]

DPSSOC wrote...
Let's take a step back for a moment and distance ourselves from the specific characters.  What would be your opinion if you heard about a man who was so enraged by witnessing two people attempting to mug a young woman in an alley that he intervened and killed them.  Then when the woman, legitimately frightened, pleaded with him not to hurt her too he became so angry that she'd associate him with her attackers that he killed her too.  Or, if you'd prefer to look at it this way, was riding high on adrenaline from the first two kills that when the woman reached out to thank him he lashed out and killed her.

Would you not consider this man to be at least unbalanced?  What if it could be shown that, while this is the first time an innocent was harmed, he had a history of this kind of behaviour?  Would you not agree, well meaning or not, that his man is dangerous?  Cause I know I'd be calling for a straight jacket and some therapy.

It isn't that I think it's a "good thing" obviously.  But, that incident is out of character for Anders (at least at that point) and so I think the preferred path would be to try to help him control himself, rather than hate him.  It is similar to Fenris wanting to kill his sister - a flash of anger and betrayal that in a calmer situation woud probably just fade away.

[Koire]

GavrielKay wrote...
It isn't that I think it's a "good thing" obviously. But, that incident is out of character for Anders (at least at that point) and so I think the preferred path would be to try to help him control himself, rather than hate him. It is similar to Fenris wanting to kill his sister - a flash of anger and betrayal that in a calmer situation woud probably just fade away.

It is not out of character, he is a character that changes throughout the games. At least it makes perfect sense to me at that point. And it is not out of character for Fenris either.

//Is this a sort of sport on BSN - to tell that everything you don't like about a character is OOC? Because I hear it a lot and about almost every single character in the game, and I've been reading these forums for less than a month 

Modifié par Koire, 07 mars 2012 - 04:49 .

[Cody]

DPSSOC wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

General User wrote...
Ella was an innocent victim.  Anders should have been able to recognize that and act accordingly.  He wasn't.  If it was the Justice spirit that wasn't able to recognize Ella for who and what she really was, than the girl was right; Justice is a demon and Anders is an abomination.

It would hardly be the first time someone got so angry that they lashed out at an innocent before getting themselves under control.  It isn't a good thing, but on its own, it is insufficient to damn Anders.

Let's take a step back for a moment and distance ourselves from the specific characters.  What would be your opinion if you heard about a man who was so enraged by witnessing two people attempting to mug a young woman in an alley that he intervened and killed them.  Then when the woman, legitimately frightened, pleaded with him not to hurt her too he became so angry that she'd associate him with her attackers that he killed her too.  Or, if you'd prefer to look at it this way, was riding high on adrenaline from the first two kills that when the woman reached out to thank him he lashed out and killed her.

Would you not consider this man to be at least unbalanced?  What if it could be shown that, while this is the first time an innocent was harmed, he had a history of this kind of behaviour?  Would you not agree, well meaning or not, that his man is dangerous?  Cause I know I'd be calling for a straight jacket and some therapy.

It wasn't Anders ffs. You can hear the Justice voice, see the aura, the eyes, and the change in personality. Anders later laments over the fact that he lost control over Justice again. He explains to Merril that whenever we see what we see during the incident with Ella that he is no longer in control of his body. More of a prisoner of hs own body watching unable to do a damn thing as Justice takes over.

Justice is corrupt. As a concept of justice it was swift, merciless and really only sees Black and White. This Justice is also corrupt due to the binding of him and Anders. If Ella dies or not we see the grief on Anders. And the shock. He did not try to kill her. Justice did.

[Koire]

CodyMelch, it was Vengeance, yes, but Vengeance is a part of Anders being his emotions he tries to deny existence + the spirit that lets them out. So it is also Anders, although not his primary personality. At least this is how I perceive it. 

[Cody]

Koire wrote...

CodyMelch, it was Vengeance, yes, but Vengeance is a part of Anders being his emotions he tries to deny existence + the spirit that lets them out. So it is also Anders, although not his primary personality. At least this is how I perceive it. 

Basically your saying that, ever since they became one they are now more or less Ander but with multiple personality disorder, right?

[Koire]

More or less so. This is how I see it, your mileage may vary, of course)

[DarkAmaranth1966]

But, in the end, Anders goes along with Vengeance - it's both, not just him losing control, it's Anders agreeing to do as Vengeance wants. That makes Anders equally responsible. I can excuse the loss of control incidents earlier in the game, but lying to Hawke and using Hawke to enable him to destroy the chantry is unforgivable.

Even if is romance Anders on a pt, I execute him after that. Now what I want is a way to stop the attempted annulment of the circle - the circle didn't do anything wrong- Anders did and, with him dead, all of that should never happen.

[Wulfram]

Anders himself claims that it's not possible to say where one ends and one begins, IIRC. I'm not sure I buy that totally, but there's clearly some crossover.

edit:  My Hawke's tend to kill him, because that's what you do for friends who have become abominations.  And after the Chantry, it's hard to not consider him an abomination.

Plus, if they're going to be stuck fighting for the mages, they don't want the cause tainted with his crime.  Not more than is necessary.

Modifié par Wulfram, 07 mars 2012 - 05:11 .

[Koire]

DarkAmaranth1966 wrote...

But, in the end, Anders goes along with Vengeance - it's both, not just him losing control, it's Anders agreeing to do as Vengeance wants. That makes Anders equally responsible. I can excuse the loss of control incidents earlier in the game, but lying to Hawke and using Hawke to enable him to destroy the chantry is unforgivable.

Even if is romance Anders on a pt, I execute him after that. Now what I want is a way to stop the attempted annulment of the circle - the circle didn't do anything wrong- Anders did and, with him dead, all of that should never happen.

On friendship yes, they merge and Anders ultimately makes the decision. On rivalry no, he loses control and Vengeance is the one to run the show.
But it is ~ the opposite for me, I would kill him on rivalry out of mercy, but I let him live on friendship because I see his decision as a lesser evil in a situation when where are no better alternatives.

PS I actually think Anders+Justice ~~ this.

Modifié par Koire, 07 mars 2012 - 05:14 .

[TEWR]

I'll address the issue of Anders+Justice merging when I've gotten some rest, but I do want to say this:

After Anders' fiasco with the Chantry, I find it somewhat absurd that Justice/Vengeance doesn't take over a Rivalried Anders that wants to side with the Templars. Justice was about fighting for the mages to give them freedom, and he's going to just let Anders help kill all of the mages, preventing them from achieving freedom?

Anders states he's lost himself to Justice/Vengeance and it's known that Justice comes out in those moments where Anders begins to try and do something that wouldn't help the mages (see his comment to Hawke of "You are an agent of sloth!" and whatnot). So from a story standpoint, Anders shouldn't have been able to side with the Templars.

Sure it's nice for the players and all, but it is an inconsistency with the story.

[Wulfram]

Killing all the mages was part of the plan. Anders is serving Justice's intent either way.

[Koire]

Well, he says that he'll help as long as he "can hold the grip on the monster inside him" (or smth like that, I don't remember exactly), but he feels he can't control Vengeance for a long period of time. He also hints heavily at committing suicide in the end out of fear that he'll lose control once more. I found it quite believable.

By the way, they say that if you romance him and make him side with the templars, he is not mentioned in the Epilogue ("all left but LI" part). But I can't confirm it since I've never tried it.

Modifié par Koire, 07 mars 2012 - 06:08 .

[Koire]

DarkAmaranth1966 wrote...
Now what I want is a way to stop the attempted annulment of the circle - the circle didn't do anything wrong- Anders did and, with him dead, all of that should never happen.

If only that were possible. Sadly, I think it isn't.

I see the overall situation in Act 3 ~ in this way:
By the beginning of the Act Meredith has asked Elthina to invoke ROA, Elthina refused. Since Meredith had no better options, she decided to go over Elthina's head and sent for the permission to the Divine in Val Royaux instead (Karras says it in the very beginning of the Act, before you even get Faith or Justice quests in your quest log). Evidently, high-ranking and most trusted templars knew about it, because if you click on Cullen (also in the very beginning of the Act, the line is replaced by another one later), he says "I fear Sir Alric's plan may seem a mercy compared to what is to come," also only once just as Karras.
Orsino then tries to convince the nobles that Meredith is using fear to control the city (Act opening scene), then Elthina arrives and tells "good people" of Kirkwall to go home, because while she is doing her best so as not to allow the situation to deteriorate, she is hardly the one who would oppose the Orlesian Chantry's desire to get some worldly power (and I find the story of Perrin Threnhold very curious, btw). As far as Elthina is concerned, I think she is an illustration of this trope, not because she is inherently evil (she is not), but rather because she had no real power to do anything against Meredith, just like the Divine had little power against Lambert in Asunder.
Since both Elthina and Meredith petition to the Divine, she sends Leliana to the city to find out what's really going on and to warn Elthina. Note how Elthina says "the Divine has heard my protests already" (re ROA?) and that "drastic measures (ROA?) won't be required". Note also how Elthina says later that she talked to both Orsino and Meredith and Orsino "is not unreasonable" (her not mentioning the knight-commander is quite eloquent).
Then Thrask and Co happen to come into view, and if you side with Meredith she says she needs hard evidence of Orsino's involvement because Orsino persuaded Elthina that Meredith is "being unreasonable" (hm..), and Meredith desperately needs to convince Elthina... of something she would not disclose. If you side with Orsino, he states directly: "I pray not, or Meredith will have what she needs to justify the Right of Annulment" (btw this is your second chance to get the Codex entry re ROA if you did not acquire it from Karras). Unfortunately for Meredith, Orsino is not involved, and she doesn't get the evidence she needs (and all conspirators are either dead or captured (Alain and.. I don't remember, may be a few more)).
So, what options are left for Meredith? To search the tower, top to bottom. Because Orsino is harboring blood mages and she intends to find proof - this is the evidence she needs to demand ROA. Let us imagine that no one (Hawke, Anders) does anything. I doubt Elthina would be able to interfere forever, and Meredith as the knight-commander must have the right to search the mages quarters. My best guess: she would find the evidence (at least, Orsino's books, and we know that there were more blood mages - we saw them during the final quest sequence..) and invoke ROA on the solid ground of the Circle being corrupt. Even if Hawke would interfere at this point, (s)he would have no popular support - hey, they are maleficarum, just like in the Ferelden Circle tower (and everything that happened in Kinloch Hold started with politics: Uldred wanted to support Loghain who promised more freedom for the Circle, but Wynne revealed Loghain's treachery). 
Now let us assume that Hawke or Anders kills Meredith before she does anything. I find this scenario higly unrealistic, because game designers at least tried to demonstrate that she has some unique powers and Hawke can't just single-handedly take her down in a dark alley. I would also like to remind that there is no such thing as "templar barracks", because Kirkwall templars reside in the Gallows (just like templars in Asunder occupy the topmost levels of the White spire while mages themselves live on its lower floors), therefore you can't kill her in an explosion like a helpless cleric without killing both templars and mages with her. But let us suppose that our heroes managed to kill the knight-commander of the templars. I bet Lambert would come for tea. And try to find any links between Hawke/Anders and the Circle (like he tried to find links between Jeannot and the Libertarians). Again, my best guess - it would end in ROA.
What actually happened: the Grand Cleric and all revered mothers died in the explosion, as a result Meredith had both the authority and the excuse she needed so long. But this was indeed the excuse, ROA was not properly justified. Suddenly we have one crazy mage who is hated by everyone, and a bunch of innocent Circle mages pleading for salvation instead of a bunch of cursed blood mages to be crushed. And I think it was clever. Then in Asunder mages are asking themselves "why are we being treated like criminals?" 

Simply put, I don't think there was any chance in the end of Act 3 to avoid ROA, the question was only under what circumstances it would be invoked.

But we are still left with the guy on the box.
I really don't know what I would do with him on the rivalry path if I decided to side with the mages. If you side with the templars, he dies anyway, by Hawke's or by his own hand. Probably, I would kill him, because he becomes too unstable.
On the friendship path, however, I let him live. I agree that killing him is justice, because even if I think his actions are a necessary evil, they are still evil. But I offer him mercy. Because my twisted and weird moral principles advise me that a person who comes and says: "I've done a terrible thing and I know it, and I won't try to defend myself if you, my best friend (or even lover), kill me for that" - deserves to live. I won't argue if you don't share that opinion, though - I don't think there is a universal answer in this situation.

Sorry if that was TL;DR 

Modifié par Koire, 07 mars 2012 - 08:58 .

[DPSSOC]

GavrielKay wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
Let's take a step back for a moment and distance ourselves from the specific characters.  What would be your opinion if you heard about a man who was so enraged by witnessing two people attempting to mug a young woman in an alley that he intervened and killed them.  Then when the woman, legitimately frightened, pleaded with him not to hurt her too he became so angry that she'd associate him with her attackers that he killed her too.  Or, if you'd prefer to look at it this way, was riding high on adrenaline from the first two kills that when the woman reached out to thank him he lashed out and killed her.

Would you not consider this man to be at least unbalanced?  What if it could be shown that, while this is the first time an innocent was harmed, he had a history of this kind of behaviour?  Would you not agree, well meaning or not, that his man is dangerous?  Cause I know I'd be calling for a straight jacket and some therapy.

It isn't that I think it's a "good thing" obviously.  But, that incident is out of character for Anders (at least at that point) and so I think the preferred path would be to try to help him control himself, rather than hate him.  It is similar to Fenris wanting to kill his sister - a flash of anger and betrayal that in a calmer situation woud probably just fade away.

You miss my point, apologies if I was unclear.  This isn't the first time Anders loses control to Justice/Vengeance, we have no indication, help or no, that it will be the last.  J/V is getting progressively more dangerous and we see with Ella that his standards for who qualifies as the enemy are slipping.  All Ella did was call him a demon and he was ready to kill her.  What happens the next time J/V comes out and someone disagrees with him, what happens when other members of the mage rebellion think he's going too far.  That's what General User was talking about (I think) when he mentioned Anders eventually turning on those he's fighting for, because more and more J/V is going to start viewing anyone who does not agree with him 100% as the enemy.

Don't forget Anders himself will tell you that he's having more and more trouble keeping J/V locked away.  His outbursts are becoming more frequent and it's taking less to provoke him.  What happens on the day when Anders can't keep him locked up anymore?  When he becomes the prisoner.

CodyMelch wrote...
It wasn't Anders ffs. You can hear the Justice voice, see the aura, the eyes, and the change in personality. Anders later laments over the fact that he lost control over Justice again. He explains to Merril that whenever we see what we see during the incident with Ella that he is no longer in control of his body. More of a prisoner of hs own body watching unable to do a damn thing as Justice takes over.

And he explains to us that you can't separate the two. Justice makes Anders dangerous, fine, Anders is still dangerous.

[TEWR]

Killing all the mages was part of the plan. Anders is serving Justice's intent either way.

I don't think that was part of the plan at all. The plan was to make them fight for their freedom instead of bowing down to the Chantry.

Killing them doesn't really help them achieve their freedom in the grand state of the world, as in the end it'll just be another Annulment whose reasons were forgotten, covered up, or just blamed on one bad Knight-Commander with pointless reassurances given to the rest of the mages out there.

And had Asunder not happened, it would've been forgotten eventually. The only reason it's remembered is because of Asunder.

And he explains to us that you can't separate the two. Justice makes Anders dangerous, fine, Anders is still dangerous.

He also says a few times that they're not fused together and related stuff on the Friendship path IIRC (obvious paraphrasing). I wouldn't take what Anders says on this issue as the 100% hallowed truth. He doesn't really know what's the case here.

And honestly, why would he? It's not like many other people can say they've been an Abomination that hasn't lost their minds.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 08 mars 2012 - 12:43 .

[Sons of Horus]

Wulfram wrote...

Killing all the mages was part of the plan. Anders is serving Justice's intent either way.

Wow I totally heard the Jokers voice (TDK) when I read your post .

Modifié par Sons of Horus, 08 mars 2012 - 01:16 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Killing all the mages was part of the plan. Anders is serving Justice's intent either way.

I don't think that was part of the plan at all. The plan was to make them fight for their freedom instead of bowing down to the Chantry.

Killing them doesn't really help them achieve their freedom in the grand state of the world, as in the end it'll just be another Annulment whose reasons were forgotten, covered up, or just blamed on one bad Knight-Commander with pointless reassurances given to the rest of the mages out there.

And had Asunder not happened, it would've been forgotten eventually. The only reason it's remembered is because of Asunder.

Making the mages fight for their freedom was the plan, but fighitng alongside them was never part of the plan. Anders' plan was to face his execution afterwards, and atone for the crime he had just committed. Siding with the Templars is simply Justice(/Vengeance) seeing that as a reasonable alternative to atone for his crime.

[Koire]

DPSSOC wrote...

You miss my point, apologies if I was unclear.  This isn't the first time Anders loses control to Justice/Vengeance, we have no indication, help or no, that it will be the last.  J/V is getting progressively more dangerous and we see with Ella that his standards for who qualifies as the enemy are slipping.  All Ella did was call him a demon and he was ready to kill her.  What happens the next time J/V comes out and someone disagrees with him, what happens when other members of the mage rebellion think he's going too far.  That's what General User was talking about (I think) when he mentioned Anders eventually turning on those he's fighting for, because more and more J/V is going to start viewing anyone who does not agree with him 100% as the enemy.

Don't forget Anders himself will tell you that he's having more and more trouble keeping J/V locked away.  His outbursts are becoming more frequent and it's taking less to provoke him.  What happens on the day when Anders can't keep him locked up anymore?  When he becomes the prisoner.

As far as I understand, you see this character's development as an inevitable downward spiral. I think both GavrielKay and me (Gavriel, correct me if I'm wrong) view the Dissent quest as a "point of realisation", with two diverging paths afterwards - up (friendship) and down (rivalry). This is why we make different assumptions in the end.
The thing is, Anders says that he's having more and more trouble before Dissent, he doesn't say it after this quest on the friendship path. He doesn't directly state the contrary either.
We have his last Codex entry, but "losing this struggle" in both versions is followed by "mage freedom", not by "Justice taking over", so it is unclear if it means merging or splitting, it could be either.

And he explains to us that you can't separate the two. Justice makes Anders dangerous, fine, Anders is still dangerous.

I wouldn't believe everything he says, he may not know himself, or may simply be mistaken. I do believe what he says when he sits on the crate though: he thinks he is going to die and these are his last words. Well, he could still be lying, but I think he is perfectly honest in this moment.

Modifié par Koire, 08 mars 2012 - 09:48 .

[GavrielKay]

Koire wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
Don't forget Anders himself will tell you that he's having more and more trouble keeping J/V locked away.  His outbursts are becoming more frequent and it's taking less to provoke him.  What happens on the day when Anders can't keep him locked up anymore?  When he becomes the prisoner.

As far as I understand, you see this character's development as an inevitable downward spiral. I think both GavrielKay and me (Gavriel, correct me if I'm wrong) view the Dissent quest as a "point of realisation", with two diverging paths afterwards - up (friendship) and down (rivalry). This is why we make different assumptions in the end.
The thing is, Anders says that he's having more and more trouble before Dissent, he doesn't say it after this quest on the friendship path. He doesn't directly state the contrary either.
We have his last Codex entry, but "losing this struggle" in both versions is followed by "mage freedom", not by "Justice taking over", so it is unclear if it means merging or splitting, it could be either.

And he explains to us that you can't separate the two. Justice makes Anders dangerous, fine, Anders is still dangerous.

I wouldn't believe everything he says, he may not know himself, or may simply be mistaken. I do believe what he says when he sits on the crate though: he thinks he is going to die and these are his last words. Well, he could still be lying, but I think he is perfectly honest in this moment.

I think the bit with Ella is actually the low point for Anders if you're on the friendship path.  I don't recall him truly losing control after that, until the bit in legacy where Corypheus gets to him.

Bombing the Chantry is a calculated move motivated by what I think is a very noble goal of freeing the mages from 900 years of Chantry tyranny.  I do not believe there can be a peaceful beginning to that revolution.  Perhaps an outbreak of war will convince the Chantry to sit at the negotiating table, but they aren't going to do it just because the mages ask nicely.

If the beginning of the end of 900 years of oppression requires blowing up a Chantry, then it is morally acceptible to me to do it.  Justice can be harsh, but that doesn't make it wrong.

I think some people cling to the hope that 900 years of oppression could have been reversed by an afternoon chat over tea and biscuits.

[Wulfram]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


I don't think that was part of the plan at all. The plan was to make them fight for their freedom instead of bowing down to the Chantry.

Killing them doesn't really help them achieve their freedom in the grand state of the world, as in the end it'll just be another Annulment whose reasons were forgotten, covered up, or just blamed on one bad Knight-Commander with pointless reassurances given to the rest of the mages out there.

And had Asunder not happened, it would've been forgotten eventually. The only reason it's remembered is because of Asunder.

Blowing up the Chantry achieves nothing if it doesn't lead to the deaths of the mages.  There's no rallying cry for mages there.

Justice isn't fighting for the mages.  He's fighting for an end to injustice, which isn't the same thing.  He doesn't care about the mages as people, only as a cause.

My own belief is that Justice may in fact have desired the deaths of the mages.  To him, refusing to fight for your freedom makes you complicit in your oppression.  And, as we can see from Ella, Justice now doesn't seem to comprehend any fit punishment for a crime except death.

[Koire]

Wulfram wrote...
Blowing up the Chantry achieves nothing if it doesn't lead to the deaths of the mages.  There's no rallying cry for mages there.
Justice isn't fighting for the mages.  He's fighting for an end to injustice, which isn't the same thing.  He doesn't care about the mages as people, only as a cause.
My own belief is that Justice may in fact have desired the deaths of the mages.  To him, refusing to fight for your freedom makes you complicit in your oppression.  And, as we can see from Ella, Justice now doesn't seem to comprehend any fit punishment for a crime except death.

Death of mages would follow regardless of Anders/Justice/Vengeance actions, because Meredith would invoke ROA anyway. I explained above why. The only difference is that Meredith is using a poor excuse (actions of an unrelated apostate) instead of a good reason (i.e. blood magic), this is perceived as injustice by the mages and motivates them to fight.

Modifié par Koire, 08 mars 2012 - 05:19 .

[GavrielKay]

Koire wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
Blowing up the Chantry achieves nothing if it doesn't lead to the deaths of the mages.  There's no rallying cry for mages there.
Justice isn't fighting for the mages.  He's fighting for an end to injustice, which isn't the same thing.  He doesn't care about the mages as people, only as a cause.
My own belief is that Justice may in fact have desired the deaths of the mages.  To him, refusing to fight for your freedom makes you complicit in your oppression.  And, as we can see from Ella, Justice now doesn't seem to comprehend any fit punishment for a crime except death.

Death of mages would follow regardless of Anders/Justice/Vengeance actions, because Meredith would invoke ROA anyway. I explained above why. The only difference is that Meredith is using a poor excuse (actions of an unrelated apostate) instead of a good reason (i.e. blood magic), this is perceived as injustice by the mages and motivates them to fight.

Exactly. 

The problem highlighted by the events in Kirkwall is that a circle is at the mercy of the Chantry and Templar system.  Should various elements of that system fail (Meredith being bonkers, Elthina being incompetent) then the circle mages can be attacked and wiped out regardless of any actions on their part.  The idea was to break most mages out of their mindset that even if they don't really like the circle, if they just play along, at least they'll be safe. 

The truth is that when mages are so totally under the power of the Chantry and Templars they can never really be safe.  Anders wanted the mages (and everyone else) to see the situation for what it is - oppression of a minority by an overzealous majority bent on maintaining or worsening the status quo.