111 réponses à ce sujet

[Renmiri1]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

"A systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion." That's the Webster definition, and I think Anders qualifies.

1 act =/ = systematic

7 years healing / helping people = systematic


The guy had a demon in his head. He lost the battle to his inner demons at the end of Act 3. IMHO it is condemnable but so is to be a professional assassin (Zevran, Leliana) or a serial killer (Veranna). We are just more used to excuse "assassins" and "hitman" because we think they are "cool".

And they are. It is only a game. 

Modifié par Renmiri1, 06 septembre 2012 - 07:03 .

[EricHVela]

"It is only a game." That seems rather dismissive of the entire discussion. I would wonder about the reason for participating in the first place.

Whatever else Anders/Vengeance might be, they are out-right murderers. They killed someone (including collateral murders) simply because that person didn't do what they wanted that person to do. Their collateral damage goes far beyond a single act. Their action began a systemic reaction of death and terror.

Modifié par ReggarBlane, 06 septembre 2012 - 07:50 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Here's one of the various definitions Webster gives for "systematic" 2: presented or formulated as a coherent body of ideas or principles <systematic thought>

And before anyone argues Anders doesn't have that (I was about to, before I looked up the definition of coherent)
1a : logically or aesthetically ordered or integrated : consistent <coherent style> <a coherent argument>

So even if Anders was freaking nuts thanks to circumstances no longer under his control, the fact that he planned out what was going to happen after the actual explosion (and that he did so by accurately reading Meredith) means that he was coherent, therefore his actions were systematic, therefore he was a terrorist.

Which is, as Renmiri1 correctly points out, a lot cooler in a video game than in real life.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 07 septembre 2012 - 08:48 .

[terdferguson123]

OP, you only have the choice of controlling what Hawke does. If Anders secretly chooses to go behind your back and commit terrorism, it's not a "lack of choices that matter" because it was never your choice to begin with.\\

This was my favorite moment in the game. It's one of the first times in a choice driven game where I felt like one of my companions actually had a mind of his own.

Modifié par terdferguson123, 06 septembre 2012 - 10:51 .

[Plaintiff]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

"A systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion." That's the Webster definition, and I think Anders qualifies.

Who is Anders trying to terrify? Who is he coercing? He's not made any demands of anyone.

The Chantry is not a civilian organisation. Just because people pray in it does not make it equivalent to a modern church. It is a political power with international authority, and a source of bigotry and oppression. Elthina and her clergy are not civilians. There may be civilians inside the building at the time, but that is not enough to qualify the attack as terrorism, because they are not Anders' intended target.

Anders does not coerce. He does not make demands, and he does not threaten further attacks if his demands are not met. He simply allows events to take their course.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 07 septembre 2012 - 12:19 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Plaintiff wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

"A systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion." That's the Webster definition, and I think Anders qualifies.

Who is Anders trying to terrify? Who is he coercing? He's not made any demands of anyone.

The Chantry is not a civilian organisation. Just because people pray in it does not make it equivalent to a modern church. It is a political power with international authority, and a source of bigotry and oppression. Elthina and her clergy are not civilians. There may be civilians inside the building at the time, but that is not enough to qualify the attack as terrorism, because they are not Anders' intended target.

Anders does not coerce. He does not make demands, and he does not threaten further attacks if his demands are not met. He simply allows events to take their course.

Who is he trying to terrify by blowing up a building? The chantry and Templars, of course: he wanted to scare them into starting a genocide. (Meridith did so in a rage, I think everyone else was supposed to do so in a blind panic. Especially if Meridith's annulment was stopped.) And were I in their shoes, it may well have worked.

Who is he trying to coerce? ... Actually, I don't think the definition I gave requires that. Nor does it require that civilians be the target. Though I still think the clergy qualify as civilians: just because they control soldiers (for a loose definition of "control" in Meredith's case) doesn't mean they are soldiers.

As for the chantry being equivalent to a modern church? I don't think anyone's trying to argue that. Modern churches don't have armies, that got phased out sometime after Reaissance. However, they are political powers, and they do shape people's minds across national boundaries.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 07 septembre 2012 - 01:40 .

[Renmiri1]

Saying Anders' act is systematic because it influences the future is not correct.

Anders arguably didn't even start the mage / templar war, that happened in Asunder with Rhys.

Did he back Meredith into a corner ? Yes. Is he to blame for her calling the Right of Annulment ? No. She had already asked for it since the start of Act 3.

People who commit genocide are responsible for their actions. Anders is responsible for killing clerics and Elthina. Yiu can do the same argument you did and say he was pressed into doing it by Meredith's zealotry. And you would be part right but even Anders himself didn't use Meredith as a shield to not pay for his acts. He was fully planing to give his life to bring some justice to the innocent he killed.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Saying Anders' act is systematic because it influences the future is not correct.

It wouldn't be, no. Except that that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that it's systematic because he came up with a plan to do X and have it cause Y, trusting to Meridith to make the next move and the survivors get to watch it all get shot to hell.

Anders arguably didn't even start the mage / templar war, that happened in Asunder with Rhys.

Bearing in mind that I haven't read that one, I think the idea is that the Templars tried to clamp down harder on the mages in response to Anders? And the mages responded by advocating to break away from the Chantry? Which they eventually did, due to a combination of the stricter control and the Lord High Seeker being nuts?

Did he back Meredith into a corner ? Yes. Is he to blame for her calling the Right of Annulment ? No. She had already asked for it since the start of Act 3.

People who commit genocide are responsible for their actions. Anders is responsible for killing clerics and Elthina. Yiu can do the same argument you did and say he was pressed into doing it by Meredith's zealotry. And you would be part right but even Anders himself didn't use Meredith as a shield to not pay for his acts. He was fully planing to give his life to bring some justice to the innocent he killed.

Again, I'm not 100% sure you got my argument. First, the argument I'm refuting: that this isn't terrorism. I looked it up, found the definition, it was the systematic use of terror. The counterargument was that this act wasn't systematic, so I looked that up too. One of the definitions of systematic was "as part of a coherent plan." I looked up coherent, and found that one possible definition was "logically ordered."

My argument that Anders qualifies as a terrorist under all of this was that Anders had figured out the Meridith would call for Annulment if he did this, so he did it. His plan then called for either the non-Kirkwall mages to rebel on seeing this unjustified annulment, or even if they didn't the Templars would be scared enough that they would  put the mages in an even worse situation from which they would have to rebel. Thus, his logically ordered plan to start World War one several centuries early by the use of terror.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 07 septembre 2012 - 03:29 .

[Renmiri1]

The trouble with going dictionary hopping is that you can pretty much make any word have any meaning this way. As far as I understand "systematic use of terror" has nothing to do with "logically ordered use of terror" so the rest of your word meanings do not apply.

Systematic in the context of "systematic use" implies the repeated use of terror as a weapon, hence my first post to you that 1 time use NOT EQUAL systematic use. Sure Anders had a plan and his plan was made using some logic but that is not what "systematic use" is about.

As for Asunder, it shows Wynne prevented the mages from separating from the Chantry, using her prestige and all her contacts / friends. The Templars did dissolve the council of mages but the war does not start until 2 years later when the High Seeker and some mages force things.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

So, what you're saying is that if it only happens once, it's not terrorism? That... seems pretty weak. Suppose Anders had blown up the Chantry, and instead of all this, it had terrorized the remaining priests and templars such that they'd freed the Circles. Would that then not have been terrorism?

I think it makes about as much sense to consider terrorism as "terrorizing people with some sort of plan in mind, especially to get them to do something" as it does to consider it "terrorising people repeatedly, especially to get them to do something."

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 07 septembre 2012 - 04:57 .

[Plaintiff]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
Who is he trying to terrify by blowing up a building? The chantry and Templars, of course: he wanted to scare them into starting a genocide. (Meridith did so in a rage, I think everyone else was supposed to do so in a blind panic. Especially if Meridith's annulment was stopped.) And were I in their shoes, it may well have worked.

That's not really how terrorism works. The idea behind terrorism as a concept is that violent acts against the public will force the authority to acquiesce to certain demands.

By a loose definition such as the one you provided, almost any act of violence counts as terrorism, regardless of context.

Who is he trying to coerce? ... Actually, I don't think the definition I gave requires that. Nor does it require that civilians be the target. Though I still think the clergy qualify as civilians: just because they control soldiers (for a loose definition of "control" in Meredith's case) doesn't mean they are soldiers.

Your definition may not require coercion, but it specifically mentions it, and coercion is a major factor in most terrorist attacks. A simple dictionary definition isn't really adequate. Every country has its own definitions of what constitutes as terrorism under the law.

Terrorists do not just blow **** up for no reason. They have specific demands that they want met, and they think they can cow the authority into obeying by attacking the general public.

This never works because the general public always demands retaliation, rather than acquiesance.

As for the chantry being equivalent to a modern church? I don't think anyone's trying to argue that. Modern churches don't have armies, that got phased out sometime after Reaissance. However, they are political powers, and they do shape people's minds across national boundaries.

Right, but plenty of people associate "Chantry" with "Church", which is where we get ridiculous arguments like "Anders murdered innocent priestesses and orphans!" etc, etc.

So I was just making sure that we were both on the same page.

Since 2001, the United States government and media have thoroughly abused the word "terrorism" to the point where it's lost all meaning. Any act of violence against America and her allies is deemed "terrorism", but drone strikes and other acts of violence committed against civilian populations in the Middle East are excused as legitimate acts of war. But are not these attacks meant to terrify and coerce a surrender? Are they not, then, by your definition, terrorism?

"Terrorism" is a word that does not belong in this debate because it is an emotionally loaded term that creates an automatic bias, and is completely dismissive of historical context and surrounding circumstances. It negates any possibility of an intellectually honest discussion.

[Renmiri1]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

So, what you're saying is that if it only happens once, it's not terrorism? That... seems pretty weak. Suppose Anders had blown up the Chantry, and instead of all this, it had terrorized the remaining priests and templars such that they'd freed the Circles. Would that then not have been terrorism?

I think it makes about as much sense to consider terrorism as "terrorizing people with some sort of plan in mind, especially to get them to do something" as it does to consider it "terrorising people repeatedly, especially to get them to do something."

It could be called a "terrorist act" but Anders is not a terrorist just for doing it once during his 7 year struggle to free Kirkwall mages.

Murdering someone doesn't make you an assassin. Assassins  kill repeatedly, as a "profession" of sorts.  Terrorists use terrorist acts repeatedly, it is their main tool to provoke change.

See the difference ?

[sylvanaerie]

Because he's batsh*t insane and backed up to a wall with no way out he can see. Because he has a demon riding in his body and at this point, he's just riding shotgun. Because it's in the script. Because no matter how much we want to stop/change things not everything can be changed, and not everyone can be reasoned with in RL. I wouldn't want an option to change this even if it was available. It wouldn't be in keeping with Anders' personality if passing him a kitten (read: Gift) 'fixed' all his issues, or sitting him down and talking about it. He's suffered for 7 years (and before that) with templar abuse, that's not going to change in one convo (and be believable). Especially not on a rivalry path where Hawke has been consistantly telling him he's an abomination and was wrong to merge with Justice (even if you do support the mages).

Anders reaction is an unreasonable response to unreasonable people. Peace and compromise really isn't an option, something is going to break sooner or later, this way he removed any chance/hope of compromise (which just leads down to more concessions given to templars, not mages) and forces Hawke's hand.

Yes, just because I hate the character and hate what he does (mostly because of all the future generations of mages without training that he just screwed over) doesn't mean I don't understand WHY he did it. Even my most pro-mage character can't allow him to walk away from this, and if there were a dialogue confronting what he's done, I may consider letting him live, but your only options are "Sure, join up and lets go kill templars together" *skips happily off into a life on the run as revolutionaries* or *murderknife the abomination*. My complaint has to do with this portion feeling rushed, not exploring all options. I'd have to headcanon that my Hawke later beats the living sh*t out of him for what he did if I left him alive.

[Renmiri1]

sylvanaerie wrote...

My complaint has to do with this portion feeling rushed, not exploring all options.
.

 

No disagreement here. He changes abrubptly from having a clinic to heal people to killing people. And your dialog  options after you find out what he did are not good. It gets a bit better if you confront him when he asks you to talk to Elthina, he pretty much tells you what he is about to do. But on a friendship path there is no way to try to stop it. On rivalry you can get Anders to agree to stop it but then Justice takes over 

sylvanaerie wrote...

  I'd have to headcanon that my Hawke later beats the living sh*t out of him for what he did if I left him alive.

 
Tehehe.. that is  exactly what I headcanon: beating the living sh*t out of him as soon as we are out of danger. I let him live im most of my playthroughs. Killing him makes my Hawke hurt too much 

sylvanaerie wrote...

 hate what he does (mostly because of all the future generations of mages without training that he just screwed over)  

  

Is interesting that you say future mages will have no place to learn. One of my headcannons, and a fanfic I'm writing, is that Anders finds out that Hawke is pregnant with a mage child and that is why he goes batsh*t.. His kid will NOT grow up locked in a circle, no matter how many templars he has to kill to ensure it 

PS: He never wanted to make future mages clueless.. Just the opposite, he wants future mages to be able to stay with their family.

Modifié par Renmiri1, 07 septembre 2012 - 04:56 .

[sylvanaerie]

Renmiri1 wrote...

sylvanaerie wrote...

My complaint has to do with this portion feeling rushed, not exploring all options.
.

 

No disagreement here. He changes abrubptly from having a clinic to heal people to killing people. And your dialog  options after you find out what he did are not good. It gets a bit better if you confront him when he asks you to talk to Elthina, he pretty much tells you what he is about to do. But on a friendship path there is no way to try to stop it. On rivalry you can get Anders to agree to stop it but then Justice takes over 

sylvanaerie wrote...

  I'd have to headcanon that my Hawke later beats the living sh*t out of him for what he did if I left him alive.

 
Tehehe.. that is  exactly what I headcanon: beating the living sh*t out of him as soon as we are out of danger. I let him live im most of my playthroughs. Killing him makes my Hawke hurt too much 

sylvanaerie wrote...

 hate what he does (mostly because of all the future generations of mages without training that he just screwed over)  

  

Is interesting that you say future mages will have no place to learn. One of my headcannons, and a fanfic I'm writing, is that Anders finds out that Hawke is pregnant with a mage child and that is why he goes batsh*t.. His kid will NOT grow up locked in a circle, no matter how many templars he has to kill to ensure it 

PS: He never wanted to make future mages clueless.. Just the opposite, he wants future mages to be able to stay with their family.

Unfortunately this is why I don't think Anders has thought through what is going to happen after.  He's so dead set on freeing those mages now, that he doesn't think about all the future generations who won't have a Circle (or an older mage mentor) to go to for training (Case in point being Meredith's sister, a mage hidden from templars who became an abomination and killed her whole family, or Connor who became possessed because his idiot mother contacted Loghain (of all people) to arrange a tutor so her son could 'hide' his magic).  That's a lot of dead mage kids who either got possessed, got lynched by frightened townsfolk/family members or got offed by templars, who don't even have a circle to bring them to now.  While you have him teaching his offspring in your FF, Anders won't be around after another 2 decades at most considering by the end of DA2, he's already a decade into his Grey Warden hood and will be going to his Calling in about 20 years.  Maybe if he thought of how an alternate could be found for mages to train instead of the templar run circles, but there isn't time in his life time to achieve that goal.  Maybe in a couple hundred years there might.  Maybe even if the qunari invade, and mages go on the offensive, turn the war to the Thedas' inhabitants favor, but even blights haven't had much affect on public opinion in this regard.  It's been 1000 years and no one wants another Tevinter, and while the rich can afford to send their children to Tevinter to learn, the common folks can't.

Anders himself even said to Bethany that she was lucky to have a Circle trained father to teach her.  Just how, if there are no circles did he plan on all those future generations learning to handle the power to set people on fire with a thought or even control their actions, or learn to combat demons in their sleep?  Answer, he didn't.  He isn't thinking that far ahead, he's only reacting to that 'back against the wall' feeling at that particular moment.  And this is consistent with his characterization, to act without thinking everything through.  (I'd hate to think he did think it through and put those mage children in the category of 'acceptable loss').

Obviously, there are the wilder women, like Morrigan, but again, she had the benefit of a mage mother to teach her.  This is an exception, not common occurance.

[Renmiri1]

Oh Anders definitely doesn't think things through. Witness his merge with Justice.

But I don't believe things would be so bad, you seem to think all old mages will die, which I do not agree. And Anders wants to end the Templar / Chantry control of the mages, not the "Circle". On DA Asunder we see there are places where mages can gather and talk / debate / study without a templar nearby. If the mages win the war, those places would be common place.

Modifié par Renmiri1, 07 septembre 2012 - 06:32 .

[eye basher]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Crimson Moon wrote...
You need to side with the templar while on the rivalry path for that to happen though. He's totally unrepented if you're pro-mage or on the friend-path on templar's side. The war itself doesn't started by Hawke though. It was started based on the events of Asunder, I believe.

Nope

There is a dialogue with Isabella where he says the people he killed deserve justice. If you spare him he tells you he wasn't expecting to be spared. He tells you he is glad it is you if you romanced him and decide to kill him. And he gives away his possessions to Varric, like suicidal people do. 

I wouldn't say "unrepentant". He knows what he did is wrong and is willing to pay with his own life for it. But he does it anyway. He clearly regrets hurting innocent people but he justifies it to himself as necessary and considers his own life "payment" enough for it. 

My Hawke will give him a lot of s**t for what he did, but she joins his fight. Your Hawke ? You decide 


As for the Asunder stuff, the war started in Kirkwall but it only "got going" all over Thedas two years later.

Anders: There is justice in the world.
Isabela: Is there? You want to free the mages. Let's say you do, but to get there, you kill a bunch of innocent people.
Isabela: What about them? Don't they then deserve justice?
Anders: Yes.
Isabela: And then what? Where does it end?

Repenting my ass Anders just wanted the easy way out and have someone else namely hawke deal with the mess he made thats why i kill him.Anders didn't free mages he just gave fanatics a reason to kill all mages good or bad with no mercy you don't poke beehives with a stick.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Plaintiff wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
Who is he trying to terrify by blowing up a building? The chantry and Templars, of course: he wanted to scare them into starting a genocide. (Meridith did so in a rage, I think everyone else was supposed to do so in a blind panic. Especially if Meridith's annulment was stopped.) And were I in their shoes, it may well have worked.

That's not really how terrorism works. The idea behind terrorism as a concept is that violent acts against the public will force the authority to acquiesce to certain demands.

By a loose definition such as the one you provided, almost any act of violence counts as terrorism, regardless of context.

Anything sufficiently scary, sure. And certainly anything targeting civilians. But most of the scary stuff, and anything targeting civilians, should count anyway.

But I don't think that pulling a knife on a guard (or a cop, if we're talking real life), for instance, would count. Attacking somebody better armed and armored than you doesn't really scare people much, especially when they sign up to put themselves in harm's way. And then there's the systematic part: there's some confusion as to whether that means repeated or planned out, but either way that would narrow the field a bit.

Who is he trying to coerce? ... Actually, I don't think the definition I gave requires that. Nor does it require that civilians be the target. Though I still think the clergy qualify as civilians: just because they control soldiers (for a loose definition of "control" in Meredith's case) doesn't mean they are soldiers.

Your definition may not require coercion, but it specifically mentions it, and coercion is a major factor in most terrorist attacks. A simple dictionary definition isn't really adequate. Every country has its own definitions of what constitutes as terrorism under the law.

Terrorists do not just blow **** up for no reason. They have specific demands that they want met, and they think they can cow the authority into obeying by attacking the general public.

This never works because the general public always demands retaliation, rather than acquiesance.

Anders had a reason. He wanted to manipulate a violent woman into using violence against innocents. (I would look up whether that counts as coercion, but I think I already know what that word means in this context, so I'll skip that.) At any rate, I think this point is a matter of my definition not flying with you, so let's just drop further discussion here in favor of the stuff covered above. (Or am I getting lost?)

As for the chantry being equivalent to a modern church? I don't think anyone's trying to argue that. Modern churches don't have armies, that got phased out sometime after Reaissance. However, they are political powers, and they do shape people's minds across national boundaries.

Right, but plenty of people associate "Chantry" with "Church", which is where we get ridiculous arguments like "Anders murdered innocent priestesses and orphans!" etc, etc.

So I was just making sure that we were both on the same page.

Well, the Chantry does do some work for the poor. The Chantry in Orzammar, for instance, works on behalf of the casteless.  You can even send Zerlinda to them, if you open it before ending the quest some other way. (Funny how they're the least discriminatory faction in that city, isn't it?) So there may have been charity-dependents in the Chantry when it blew, and I figure orphans are good candidates.

Since 2001, the United States government and media have thoroughly abused the word "terrorism" to the point where it's lost all meaning. Any act of violence against America and her allies is deemed "terrorism", but drone strikes and other acts of violence committed against civilian populations in the Middle East are excused as legitimate acts of war. But are not these attacks meant to terrify and coerce a surrender? Are they not, then, by your definition, terrorism?

I think discussing real life politics in any detail gets threads closed, so how about I say "technically yes" and then neither of us mentions it again?

"Terrorism" is a word that does not belong in this debate because it is an emotionally loaded term that creates an automatic bias, and is completely dismissive of historical context and surrounding circumstances. It negates any possibility of an intellectually honest discussion.

It doesn't seem to be stopping us.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 07 septembre 2012 - 08:14 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

So, what you're saying is that if it only happens once, it's not terrorism? That... seems pretty weak. Suppose Anders had blown up the Chantry, and instead of all this, it had terrorized the remaining priests and templars such that they'd freed the Circles. Would that then not have been terrorism?

I think it makes about as much sense to consider terrorism as "terrorizing people with some sort of plan in mind, especially to get them to do something" as it does to consider it "terrorising people repeatedly, especially to get them to do something."

It could be called a "terrorist act" but Anders is not a terrorist just for doing it once during his 7 year struggle to free Kirkwall mages.

Murdering someone doesn't make you an assassin. Assassins  kill repeatedly, as a "profession" of sorts.  Terrorists use terrorist acts repeatedly, it is their main tool to provoke change.

See the difference ?

I doubt you'll appreciate me doing this again, but I looked up the Webster definition, and it says nothing about assassins doing so repeatedly or for money. What it does say is "a person who commits murder, especially for political reasons."

And I still don't think I'm comfortable with disqualifying someone as a terrorist because they commit one act of terror, get what they want, and then stop. Someone who only kills once is still a murderer.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 07 septembre 2012 - 08:32 .

[Renmiri1]

Meh, I should have used Hitman then. My point still stands: every killer is a murderere but not necessarily a "hitman" i.e. a person who murders routinely. No "systematic use" of murder...

There is nothing telling us that Anders stopped at the Chantry bombing. Who knows, if you let him live maybe Anders does go into terrorism. But at the moment we see him on Act 3 he isn't a terrorist YET, let alone on acts 1 and 2. He is definitely not a terrorist BEFORE he plants the bomb.

eye basher wrote...

Repenting my ass Anders just wanted the easy way out and have someone else namely hawke deal with the mess he made thats why i kill him.Anders didn't free mages he just gave fanatics a reason to kill all mages good or bad with no mercy you don't poke beehives with a stick.

Meredith didn't need Anders for a reason. She had already sent - and obtained - the Right of Annulment. 

What Anders did allowed some Kirkwall mages to survive to tell the true story. A lot of other Circles weren't that lucky. All mages were put to death and the Templars got to tell their own version of the reason for it.

Modifié par Renmiri1, 07 septembre 2012 - 10:11 .

[Ryzaki]

Yeah he did it because he saw that as the only way to get what he wanted to happen. It wasn't nice and in my games he dies for it but hey it was his choice *shrugs*.

A sad end to a sad man.

[sylvanaerie]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Meh, I should have used Hitman then. My point still stands: every killer is a murderere but not necessarily a "hitman" i.e. a person who murders routinely. No "systematic use" of murder...

There is nothing telling us that Anders stopped at the Chantry bombing. Who knows, if you let him live maybe Anders does go into terrorism. But at the moment we see him on Act 3 he isn't a terrorist YET, let alone on acts 1 and 2. He is definitely not a terrorist BEFORE he plants the bomb.

eye basher wrote...

Repenting my ass Anders just wanted the easy way out and have someone else namely hawke deal with the mess he made thats why i kill him.Anders didn't free mages he just gave fanatics a reason to kill all mages good or bad with no mercy you don't poke beehives with a stick.

Meredith didn't need Anders for a reason. She had already sent - and obtained - the Right of Annulment. 

What Anders did allowed some Kirkwall mages to survive to tell the true story. A lot of other Circles weren't that lucky. All mages were put to death and the Templars got to tell their own version of the reason for it.

Did this happen in Asunder?  I don't remember reading or seeing this in DA2?  I got the impression playing the game she did it on a spur of the moment thing when she sees her out (no more Grand Cleric, and the Chantry in rubble).  And I haven't read Asunder.

Modifié par sylvanaerie, 08 septembre 2012 - 01:10 .

[Silfren]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Meredith didn't need Anders for a reason. She had already sent - and obtained - the Right of Annulment. 

Meredith had NOT obtained permission for the Right.  She had requested it from Elthina, who rejected her request.  I think she had sent to the Divine for it afterward, (can't recall precisely), but her request was NEVER granted.  When Elthina was killed, Meredith seized the opportunity to go ahead with Annulment without seeking authorization for it, presumably on the grounds that she could claim an emergency situation to defend her failure to wait for official sanction. 

[Karlone123]

To break the stalemate between Mages and Templars, believing to have it all out rather then continue to live under scrutiny. If Mages were going to die anyway, better to do it with a staff in your hand than begging a Templar for mercy.

[Renmiri1]

sylvanaerie wrote...

Did this happen in Asunder?  I don't remember reading or seeing this in DA2?  I got the impression playing the game she did it on a spur of the moment thing when she sees her out (no more Grand Cleric, and the Chantry in rubble).  And I haven't read Asunder.

No, it happens in game. Talk to Ser Karras on Act 3, right after Act 3 starts. He stays in front of the stairs in the Gallows. He will tell you that they have the Right of Annulment. And that "robes will get what they deserve"