21 réponses à ce sujet

[Lurockia]

I have just finished my second playthrough of Dragon Age II and this time, rather than siding with the Templers I decided to side with the Mages. Having done this, I can't for the life of me understand why so many people hate, if not downright loathe Anders for his actions.

Please restrain your arguements and judgements until I've explained.

They say it's because he's a madman, a terrorist, an insane murderer whose actions were unjustified. Is it really the case though? Justice for the Mages. Vengeance for the Mages. It really all depends on the point of view.

If the cause doesn't concern you, it's terribly difficult to relate or even support it because you don't understand the need for it or to bother with it. Everyone's life is different and we all have had different experiences. Some of us have suffered injustices that others will never face throughout an entire lifetime.

*****SPOILERS AHEAD******

I will admit that in my first playthrough of Dragon Age II I
sided with the Templars. I had spent a good deal of the game helping
mages that were in need because I felt that they were treated unfairly.
Once Mama Hawke was taken by that blood mage though I started to hate
them. I defended them and they've all resorted to Blood Magic, even the
First Enchanter. I guess you could say I wanted Vengeance? Ha.

Then I started a playthrough in which I supported Anders.

As much as I was Pro-Templar before, siding with Anders had opened my eyes
that not all mages were to blame. If you romanced Anders, he will come
to comfort Hawke after their mother's death, I had replayed the scene a
few times just to see the different dialogue options. The one that
really made everything click was this one:

"Maybe the Templars are right.. Do you really still think mages should be free?"

To which Anders replies with..

"..He was a madman.. That's what made him do this not magic.."

When I heard that, that's when I knew. He was right. He was completely and
utterly right. It wouldn't have made a difference whether he was a mage
or a normal man. A normal man would've been just as capable to have done
what that psychopath did. It doesn't take a mage to have someone kill
someone you love or to do the horrible experiments that had transpired.

Grotesque stories happen all the time on a daily basis in our own world and we
live in a world where magic is something you can only find in stories.
Yet things like Necrophilia, murder, and far worse still happen.

*****END OF SPOILERS*****

When you think about it, locking mages up in the Circle Towers is no more different than what happened during World War II. Jewish families were taken away from everything they knew and locked away in Concentration Camps to be dealt with. Many of which had no misdeeds to their name other than having been born Jewish, homosexual, or just people who simply disagreed with the regime.

Many downright despise Anders for his beliefs, but that's because they don't feel like it concerns them. When in reality it does, more than they know. Whether they like itor not, Hawke has magic in their bloodline. It will only take them having one more mage child born of them to reconsider whether or not it might've been for the better to have had the freedom Anders always talked about. Otherwise they'll just end up like Isolde and her son Conner from Dragon Age: Origins and what will be their options then? Be on the run? Give them up to the Circle and never see them again? That's no solution.

Every revolution in our own world history has started with someone doing something controversial.

The Rise of the Protestants against the Pope.
America's Independence against the British.
The Civil Rights Movement.
And many more.

Things that have changed people's lives for the better. What really struck a chord with me though is the last thing Anders says just before the Final Battle assuming you romanced him.

"Ten Years.. A hundred years from now. Someone like me will love someone like you, and there will be no one to tear them apart."

That meant a lot to me because I can relate. A hundred years ago, my parents wouldn't have been allowed to have been together. My father is white and my mother is asian. A biracial relationship? Unacceptable. Nowadays? No one minds. Everything he stands for has already happened and is continuing to happen. At one point, someone somewhere fought for the benefits we all enjoy today in our modern society. If they win. Anders will probably be remembered as a hero. He did something rather than do nothing and sometimes that's all that matters.

One day, that same quote will apply to same-sex lovers. For now, they're persecuted for being what they are by being revoked of their rights to marry who they want, but one day it won't always be the case. Why? Because someone somewhere is fighting for them.

The elimination of the Chantry in Kirkwall had to happen. It symbolized that things need to change. Very much like the plot for the movie V for Vendetta. Innocents will always die in times of warfare, it can't be helped. We just have to look into our own history to understand the message that Anders was trying to get across.

Well. That was certainly lengthy wasn't it? I just felt like I had to share my view on here. I wonder how many people actually read to the end. Haha. 

Modifié par Lurockia, 27 octobre 2012 - 08:07 .

[jcoultas]

You make many good points, and I truly believe that Anders' cause was just.  Sure, his methods were questionable, but I could see no other alternative to take care of things.  The one area I disagree on is the subject of gay marriage.  The problem with that is marriage has religious origins, and while 'civil marriage' was never meant to be the same thing as 'religious marriage', in the centuries since the United States was founded new laws have not differentiated between the two.

In order for a gay 'civil marriage' to protect the rights of churches, mosques, and synagogues and their followers, every marriage law that has ever been passed would have to be put under a microscope, and amended to differentiate between religious marriage and civil marriage.

It's not that Christians or Jews desire to impede the rights of others, mostly they wish to protect their own rights.  As long as society is not willing to differentiate between civil and religious marriage, and as long as liberals keep trying to pass gay marriage laws without first repairing two centuries worth of negligently written marriage law reforms there will never be any chance of winning over majority of the populations approval.

The whole point of civil unions was a lazy mans work-around to avoid having to go back and reform so many laws.  Anyway, any gay marriage law would have to differentiate between religious marriage and civil marriage.   You might think that is enough, but what happens if it goes to the supreme court, and they have precedences that regard civil marriage and religious marriage as the same?  They could rule that differentiating between the two is unconstitutional.

You could get lesbian and gay couples suing churches, mosques, or synagogues for not allowing the use of their chapels for a wedding, even though they are rejected for religious reasons.  So before a gay marriage law can be considered, all that work must be done to protect the Constitutional rights of the religious from two centuries of negligently written laws, though they never imagined this sort of situation coming up.

Unintended consequences - If laws are corrected to differentiate between religious and civil marriages, then a strong case could be made for laws against polygamy to be unconstitutional as applied to religious marriage.  So anyway, it's a bit for you to consider.

Modifié par jcoultas, 28 octobre 2012 - 01:14 .

[Lurockia]

Well.. While I honestly didn't quite intend to turn this discussion into a full blown debate concerning same-sex marriage rights.. I will oblige while still remaining on topic.

The reason I mentioned it in my argument at all was to convey my point in the best way that I was able to by involving real life issues that are currently happening in our own lifetime that are comparable to the events in the game. I perfectly understand that marriage is mostly about religious concerns but that's not entirely the point.

However, marriage is a right that should be permitted to anyone regardless of their gender or ethnic group. It's an act that isn't necessary but symbolizes the eternal union between two lovers. A promise that they will never be apart. Obviously the sincerity of this ritual is abused everyday by those who choose to divorce rather than honor their vows.

The point is, no one has the right to tell you what you should do, who you should be doing it with, and how you should be doing it. Not be revoked of their rights just because at some point in time, someone decided how things ought to be run. The subject at hand is seen as a sacrilege in the eyes of the religious establishment due to laws that date back to a period of when it was necessary to have children to renew the blood of the community. Therefore, same-sex relationships couldn't be permitted else there would be no reproduction and without reproduction the community will eventually die especially since travel wasn't as facilitated as it is in our day.

Now things are far more efficient that the way things were, we can adopt to renew the blood and the right to marry is no more than a rite for romantic purposes because it's no longer seen as sinful for two people to live together without first having been unified. Not as much as the old days anyway.

It therefore shouldn't make a difference anymore especially in our modern society. Forbidding someone from being allowed to marry due to the fact that their genders are similar is no better than forbidding a Black woman and a Caucasian man from marrying simply because one wishes to preserve the purity of one's ethnic group.

Things cannot remain as they are and it's unrealistic to think that they should remain that way. Anders believed that change had to happen and made his stand. With luck, his plan will succeed so that there can finally be real peace on the issue.

I hope that this answer is satisfactory to your reply.

Modifié par Lurockia, 28 octobre 2012 - 03:50 .

[jcoultas]

I respect your opinion, but I'd just point out that you ignored the fact that there is 200 years of laws that have failed to differentiate between religious and civil marriage. Without going back and fixing those failures, it will be impossible for gay marriage to be allowed without restricting the rights of other people who happen to be religious. That is the first step which is necessary before allowing gay marriage. It is wrong to jump steps and infringe upon the constitutional rights of another group.

[Lurockia]

I can't say that I'm able to comprehend why it is so important for the difference between Civil Union and Religious Union to even exist but that's just my personal opinion. If it is in fact that difficult to ignore simply because it's a same-sex marriage then how about we just think of them as mere two individuals? No more necessity to differentiate the two.

No gender, no race, no age. Just two individuals. Wouldn't that simplify things entirely?
Then everyone would be satisfied. There will always be those who don't agree with another's lifestyle but alas, that is how we as human beings are. We will always find something to nitpick about at the end of everyday. Eliminate one issue and another will always be guaranteed to emerge.

In the game, everyone throughout the world is equally against the mages. Take the mages out then they'll be against eachother. Orlesians and Fereldans, Tevinters and Qunari. Take the ethnics out of the equation and it will be the Elves and the Humans, after that it'll be the Nobility and the Poor. There's no winning this. It's an endless cycle really.

Modifié par Lurockia, 28 octobre 2012 - 05:18 .

[jcoultas]

Lurockia wrote...

I can't say that I'm able to comprehend why it is so important for the difference between Civil Union and Religious Union to even exist but that's just my personal opinion. If it is in fact that difficult to ignore simply because it's a same-sex marriage then how about we just think of them as mere two individuals? No more necessity to differentiate the two.

No gender, no race, no age. Just two individuals. Wouldn't that simplify things entirely?
Then everyone would be satisfied. There will always be those who don't agree with another's lifestyle but alas, that is how we as human beings are. We will always find something to nitpick about at the end of everyday. Eliminate one issue and another will always be guaranteed to emerge.

In the game, everyone throughout the world is equally against the mages. Take the mages out then they'll be against eachother. Orlesians and Fereldans, Tevinters and Qunari. Take the ethnics out of the equation and it will be the Elves and the Humans, after that it'll be the Nobility and the Poor. There's no winning this. It's an endless cycle really. Haha.

Again, it goes back to protecting the rights of the religious.  If we permit gay marriage then we'll get gay and lesbien couples who want to get married in churches, and the churches will say no for religious reasons, and some gays and lesbiens will sue for discrimination, and liberal judges may ignore church rights and rule in their favor.  Many liberals seem to hate religion, whether you want to admit it or not, so it would be irresponsible to pass a gay marriage law without first passing marriage reform to explain the difference between religious and civil marriage, thereby preventing liberal judges from illegally interpretting the law in a manner prejudiced against religion.

[CuriousArtemis]

That was really beautiful, OP. And I of course agree with you completely. I do see a lot of our contemporary plights and issues reflected in the DA narrative. Discrimination and persecution of LGBTQ people, people of color, religious and non-religious people, you name it. Anders does seem to represent the oppressed, and his passion is touching. And he is definitely a mover and shaker. There's always a fine line between a terrorist and a revolutionary; just depends on what side of the issue you're on to decide which term to use, I guess.

p.s. You will probably find people more receptive to your thoughts concerning Anders in the Anders thread

[jcoultas]

motomotogirl wrote...

That was really beautiful, OP. And I of course agree with you completely. I do see a lot of our contemporary plights and issues reflected in the DA narrative. Discrimination and persecution of LGBTQ people, people of color, religious and non-religious people, you name it. Anders does seem to represent the oppressed, and his passion is touching. And he is definitely a mover and shaker. There's always a fine line between a terrorist and a revolutionary; just depends on what side of the issue you're on to decide which term to use, I guess.

p.s. You will probably find people more receptive to your thoughts concerning Anders in the Anders thread

True.  My point regarding gay marriage was that if it is approached wrong the liberal judges who often seem to hate organized religion, will use such a law to assault the basic religious liberties of christians, jews, and muslims.  It is irresponsible to pass a gay marriage law without closing the loopholes that liberal judges might exploit to persecute churches without first fixing existing marriage laws to differentiate between religious and civil marriage.

That's like saying that since the mages were persecuted in Thedus for so long, that it's right for them to continue to persecute Andrastians even after they've won their freedom completely.  Is it right to take away their freedoms just because the mages want to?  No, it's not fair to give one minority group a right that sacrifices rights from another majority group.

[Lurockia]

jcoultas wrote...

True.  My point regarding gay marriage was that if it is approached wrong the liberal judges who often seem to hate organized religion, will use such a law to assault the basic religious liberties of christians, jews, and muslims.  It is irresponsible to pass a gay marriage law without closing the loopholes that liberal judges might exploit to persecute churches without first fixing existing marriage laws to differentiate between religious and civil marriage.

That's like saying that since the mages were persecuted in Thedus for so long, that it's right for them to continue to persecute Andrastians even after they've won their freedom completely.  Is it right to take away their freedoms just because the mages want to?  No, it's not fair to give one minority group a right that sacrifices rights from another majority group.

Ah, but you are also forgetting one thing. With time comes renovation. Old rules that have held for thousands of years are updated to suit the practicalities of a modern society. If we held on to every tradition simply for traditions sake then it would still be considered perfectly fine to not only own slaves, but to throw stones at those who share different beliefs until they die, and be put to death should you choose to work on a Sunday for whatever the reason.

As time progresses, some traditions simply cannot continue to strive. It's simply not possible. Otherwise it would be no better than the ancient regulations in Orzammar concerning the Castless where there are obvious faults but continue to hold up because they benefit a certain group of people. By eliminating the cause of the issue the ability to use discrimination against anything becomes far less significant because there would be nothing to discriminate against.

I would consider the current generation to be the most lenient one in our history when it comes to the concerns of same-sex relationships. It may not happen overnight, but one day they will benefit the same rights as anyone else whatever their background.

As for the persecutions of one another, many mages are in fact themselves Andrastian and respect the rules of the Chantry by not ruling over man just as Andraste asked of them. Just as there are many same-sex couples who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. One will not need to persecute the other if the matter is resolved. Revolutions only happen if there are no worthwhile results over an extended period of time. In between those battles, attempts at peaceful solutions are practiced in the hopes that someone will listen.

Anders had pleaded to Kirkwall's leaders for seven long years for change to happen through the Grand Cleric and his many Manifestos. His peaceful attempts of protests were not being taken into consideration and ignored for far too long. Thus triggering the Mage Revolution at the end of the story. It was inevitable. Now we'll just have to see where that will lead us in future installments of the series.

Modifié par Lurockia, 28 octobre 2012 - 08:15 .

[jcoultas]

Again, you can't take rights away from one group just because a minority group gets more rights. The rights of the religious must be maintained, they must have the discretion to not let gay and lesbian couples use their chapels without having to fear being sued for discrimination because they were practicing their religion, stating that they do not believe gay marriage is right and it has no place on their property. Existing laws must be amended to preserve the rights of religious folks from being persecuted by liberal religion-hating judges Like it or not, gay marriage will do more harm then good if it is not approached the right way,and liberal politicians do not want to approach it the right way, because if they did, and if they passed a gay marriage law while preserving religious rights, then they'd no longer have that argument to get people out to vote for them. Lower voter turnout for liberals means more power for conservatives. So whether they admit it or not most liberal politicians never want gay marriage to pass, because they don't want to lose that reliable voter block, so they intentionally try to pass it the wrong way, without first reaffirming the rights of the religious majority.

[Lurockia]

I can see that you're clearly not going to allow this to subside. So therefore, since there doen't seem to be a way to convince one another without compromise let us simply agree to disagree.

You obviously have a passionate belief about religious rights and their long time traditions.
Whilst I see renovation being required by removing discrimination from the equation.I am not offering more rights to one group or the other as the solution, merely offering equal rights to everyone regardless of who they are by eliminating the need to place a label on it. Straight, Gay, Transgendered, Werewolves, and Lilliputs. None. If everything continued to go the way it always has then women would still be seen as second class citizens that are paid far less than any man for the same amount of work and being unable to vote because society and religion deemed it so.

This is how revolutions begin. For now those that are concerned are content in protesting through the streets in  the traditional Pride Parades that we see in the news, but one day something far more extreme might happen. An event that could have been, and can still be avoided had all the signs been taken into consideration.

Now, are we really going to continue to run around in circles on this topic? Out of my entire Original Post that one example has evidently had the most impact and I can't say that that was the point of my argument concerning Anders. I have humored you by participating in debate but we're clearly too set in our ways to influence the other.

Modifié par Lurockia, 28 octobre 2012 - 06:54 .

[jcoultas]

I am posting from a middle area, pointing out that liberal judges who are predisposed towards hating organized religion can and will use any gay marriage law as a means to punish people just for believing that gay marriage is wrong. You cannot say that gays and lesbians wont try to sue for discrimination because it already happens, and the churches are only practicing their religious beliefs. Now, my grandmother is a licensed minister (by the state of Oregon), and before she retired she owned a chapel with her twin sister. She was not and is not affiliated with any church, so gays and lesbians can find wedding chapels that are not associated with a church and get married there, they don't have to take it personally and claim that they are getting discriminated against. Liberals tend to take everything personally, even when it's nothing personal. They have no common sense.

Anyway, many gays and lesbians probably have enough common sense to accept that churches have the right to say no for religious reasons to letting them use their chapels and their church owned property for a gay marriage, but there are always going to be bad apples that try to sue churches, so it's important that there be a reaffirmation of church rights and a separation of religious and civil marriage before a gay marriage passes, otherwise religious institutions will be the ones getting persecuted by god-hating, or at least organized religion hating, liberal judges.

[Lurockia]

People will always find ways to make the lives of others difficult. There will always be something to discriminate against there's no avoiding it. Perhaps you hate dog people because they allow their pets to urinate wherever they wish thus discriminate them for having a dog, perhaps you hate the color red because it reminds you of communism and thus discriminate anyone who wears the color.

It's just so simple. You can even sue someone for having the gall to pat you on the shoulder because you don't like being touched. Some things just matter more than others and that's when compromise has to be made. There is no way to satisfy everyone, everyone will always want something no matter how unreasonable it is. However there are ways to facilitate existing problems and sometimes for the greater good, sacrifices must be made.

I like to think of myself as non-political, but even while standing on the sidelines even I can see that certain things need to change. Divorce was once a forbidden right and still is in the Catholic Church and for better or for worse a controversial move had to happen for the right to do so and now we have Protestant Churches all over the place. If history has taught us anything is that nothing is consistent.

Modifié par Lurockia, 28 octobre 2012 - 09:31 .

[Gazardiel]

I applaud your analysis, and I appreciate your brave defense of Anders. I just finished a playthrough (sided with mages, friendmanced Anders), and I found this storyline incredibly powerful for similar reasons (Eurasian mutt here too!).

I wanted to add an idea to this: while many see the Chantry victims as innocents, they were complicit in a "compromise" that was in fact not just (and more an ultimatum than a compromise). It was all well and good for them (including Grand Cleric Elthina) to feel sad that the mages and Templars weren't getting along: they weren't locked up, subjected to curfews, and looked upon as potential monsters. Had the Chantry ever intervened to prevent a mage from being made Tranquil? Or did they just throw up their hands, sigh, and leave it to the Templars to execute the process (and to the Maker to judge)? To someone like Anders, the Chantry represented a band-aid on the deeper issue and an excuse to do nothing and to say nothing. And to Vengeance/Justice, they were part of the problem - a scab that kept the pus from draining properly.

(P.S. Proud Washington State voter who supported marriage equality!)
(P.P.S. There is a lot more to the history of the institution of marriage than Judeo-Christian dogma. First, much of the world's population doesn't believe in Adam & Eve or the Church. Second, in much of Europe's history, marriage was contextualized by religion, but for the masses, determined by the people as a practical arrangement or a private commitment. The meaning and purpose of marriage is complex and ever-changing and to fixate on one aspect as universal represents a failure to appreciate that history.)

[Reikilea]

DA2 made me extremely promage. Mostly because I got bored that everything in the city (except quanari) was about ah look insane blood mage. Not again. I kind of dislike that a mage Hawke didn’t have an option to helps Anders with the plan.

Honestly I could never blame him. He clearly knew only worse things about being a mage, clearly.  And after all the events in DA2 storyline, I wondered why he didn’t do it sooner. I mean:

1. Karl. He passed his harrowing and was perfect saint type of a mage. Talented, reasonable, obedient. Why would they make him tranquil? It makes no sense. Unnecesary cruelty. Imagine your friend (or worse even ex-lover) was stripped of everything life means and only used as a tool against you. Me personally, I would get mad. Really, ripping heads mad.

 2. Mages underground. It was said that during those three years after act 2 Meredith completely crushed mages underground. Anders clearly had many friends there. All his friends killed. Why? Because they wanted to be free. So there was this group of people I got to know over the years and suddenly they are all murdered. And people wonder why he was feeling depressed.

3. Alric was making mages into tranquil for no reason. Even walking around gallows was depressing. That girl who responded to I love you with I belong to Ser Alric now. Just no.

 4. Meredith asked for the Annulment before the Chantry explosion. I overheard it at the Gallows. Actually, I was quite scared. Again. What right Meredith had to even think about it?

5. Ethina was sly. She was giving mages a false hope that things can be better, while she was clearly supporting templars. She wasn’t neutral, she was ignorant. She had a power to strip Meredith of her rank a long time ago and avoid all of this. She never did. Seriously, she was supposed to step in when Meredith took the Viscounts seat.  And that right after the second act. Whole Kirkwal realised Meredith overstepped her bounderies. And because Templars are under the Chantry, Ethina could do something. And yet she never did. This proves that the ones responsible to put things in order had no intention of doing it. That’s why that something else had to be done. 

6.Chantry. This only worship one god rule that is the source of all oppression. If you go against it they will go after you. Forcing mages into solitude, locking them in circles, hunting them like animals. Or forcing elves into abandoning their ways of life because of this one god and the actually beeing racist against them. No wonder so many elves joined Arishok.

Anders had perfectly logical reasons to do what he did. Agree with the revolutionary. He isn’t terrorist. He never was. He is revolutionary and that’s exactly what they do - they change the course of events by actually doing something. The world needed this change. For me Anders is someone – as a man whose life was shattered to pieces thanks to templars and chantry. Thedas wanted this war. Anders only helped them.

So obviously, I support Anders action. Or the things he fights for. And no it doesn’t make me a terrorist.

Modifié par Reikilea, 26 décembre 2012 - 04:35 .

[Dabrikishaw]

jcoultas wrote...

I am posting from a middle area, pointing out that liberal judges who are predisposed towards hating organized religion can and will use any gay marriage law as a means to punish people just for believing that gay marriage is wrong. You cannot say that gays and lesbians wont try to sue for discrimination because it already happens, and the churches are only practicing their religious beliefs. Now, my grandmother is a licensed minister (by the state of Oregon), and before she retired she owned a chapel with her twin sister. She was not and is not affiliated with any church, so gays and lesbians can find wedding chapels that are not associated with a church and get married there, they don't have to take it personally and claim that they are getting discriminated against. Liberals tend to take everything personally, even when it's nothing personal. They have no common sense.

Anyway, many gays and lesbians probably have enough common sense to accept that churches have the right to say no for religious reasons to letting them use their chapels and their church owned property for a gay marriage, but there are always going to be bad apples that try to sue churches, so it's important that there be a reaffirmation of church rights and a separation of religious and civil marriage before a gay marriage passes, otherwise religious institutions will be the ones getting persecuted by god-hating, or at least organized religion hating, liberal judges.

This is......something.

[ReiKokoFuuu]

in most of my playthroughs (including my first one), i'm pro-mage. i always thought that mages were treated unfairly, regardless of whether they were blood mages or not. although it was rather excessive that there were blood mages in every corner of kirkwall, you do also meet several mages who are clearly good people. there were both good and bad people on both sides, but i feel that the mages need more support than the templars do. they are the ones who are treated like mass murderers and monsters, even if they have never hurt anyone in their lives.

i have roleplayed different hawkes, each with differing personalities and thoughts, but in my canon playthrough, although my mage hawke does not approve of anders' method, and was devastated by his lies, he still would've either helped him or tried to talk him out of making the bomb, but he would never walk away from him. anders clearly needs support from SOMEONE, someone to help keep him on the right track, and not spiralling down into desperation and getting himself cornered.

[MisterJB]

OP, don't be offended but I disagree with you completely and utterly and I think you are wrong in your convictions, even if you clearly mean well.

First and foremost, you base you belief in the freedom of mages by using a fallacy. You are comparing their social issues with social issues that have existed in our world but they simply do not apply because our world doesn't have magic. To judge someone dangerous or sinful because of something like race or sexuality or religious orientation is wrong because we can safely determine that, more or less, all humans are equal. There are amongst us those who are smarter, those who are stronger etc but, ultimately, we all have acess to the same abilities.

However, mundanes and mages are not equal. This is a simple fact of nature, they are not equal, they will never be equal. The difference between them is as clear and undeniable as the difference between water and acid.

Mages have acess to abilities that mundanes don't and never will. Abilities that not only make them more dangerous but alos more prone to suceed in life. Of course, there are exception mundanes who through charisma and intelligence can rise above mages but we can safely say that the average mundanes will be vastly outclassed by the average mage. I will assume that you care for mundanes and you're not a mage supremacist.
If you feel that freedom for mages is a good goal, something that will benefit society, then this is the question I ask you to answer. In a society where some can conjure things with their mind and other can't, how do you stop those who can't from becoming second class citizens?

I've reached the conclusion that this is impossible. Mundanes and mages can never live equally together and thus, I've chosen the side of mundanes in this endless war that has been fought since the first mage and mundane were born and met each other.
That is why, while you what you say is true; social changes tend to happen through controversial means; I will not support Anders or his actions. Because I do not believe that this social change should happen.
So, I understand Anders' action. He want to protect the lives and freedoms of mages across Thedas. My Hawke wants to protect the lives and freedoms and the role in shaping society of mundanes across Thedas.
And that is why they are enemies.
I do not despise Anders for his beliefs but it is exactly because I feel that they concern me and my people, humans without magic, that I oppose him.
I despise Anders because he is ok with selling Fenris into slavery after spending a whole game warping about how enslaved mages are. Hypocrite.


In the subject of Quentin, it is true that people don't need magic to commit murders. But magic turns everyday situations into catastrophes.
Look at Connor. His father was sick, dying. What does a mundane child does in this situation? Cry and pray to the Maker his father will get better.
What did a mage child do in this situation? Summoned a demon, made a deal with it and unleashed an army of undead in the neighboring city causing dozens if not hundreds of deaths.
He wasn't a bad person trying to enslave all mundanes everywhere. He was just a small child trying to save his father.

Likewise for Quentin. He wasn't mad. He was a man who loved his wife, would do anything to have her back and magic gave him the ability. How many husbands are there not today who would have done the very same thing?

Modifié par MisterJB, 02 janvier 2013 - 03:45 .

[MisterJB]

Besides, what exactly is so wrong about the Circle system?
Mages live amongst a community of their kind in a luxurious tower where they are fed, clothed, educated, protected of those who; understandably; fear them and are also kept from harming anyone. It's true that every now and again templars like Alrik come along but corruption exists everywhere, not just in the Order.

It's true that they have less freedoms than mundanes but any society must restrict the freedoms of their members in order to remain civil. It's why there are rules that we all must obey or be punished. Because we all have the potential to be dangerous.

Would you argue that the safety measures taken when handling water should be the same as when handling radioactive waste?
I assume not, then why would you argue that the safety measures taken when handling mundanes should be the same as when handling mages?

[paShadoWn]

In D&D setting, where mages rule large portions of the world and have considerable influence over its events, there are still mage towers. No Templars watching them, but the other basics are the same: isolation from wordly distractions, trials, acceptance from childhood. The only difference is that mages go and stay voluntarily. But the need of templars in DA is perfectly justified; because circle mages are pathetic, cowardly weaklings. Remember those scenes when you go to Irving study, and what happened in Tower when demons invaded. 'Every' mage who got locked in circle 'deserves' it. If he was not able enough to avoid templars he needs his hand held. This is the very reason why prisons exist: to improve the quality of criminals. In medieval times when they were serious about fighting crime they were chopping hands and heads, burning alive and hanging in lines along the roads for 'vagrancy'. Templars are merely an instrument of keeping power in mundane hands to avoid inevitable Tevinter. Its the simple alternative of whos enslaving whom: mages normal people or vice versa. There is an alternative to slavery and it is extermination. The so-called freedom in peace is to be a willing slave. Try to rebel against the holding power in stupid way and you'll end in prison or dead. Theres nothing wrong about Circle system. Wrong things do not exist for centuries. Hitler was wrong about Germans being the uber nation and he haven't held for long. There is nothing wrong with Anders too: he resents the slavery and wants to go with open extermination. Blowing up the chantry is the perfectly reasonable act of declaring the war like it was done with Twin Towers. And it was about the time, too: the deciding factor, namely the Hawke, had fully come into play and 'had' to be enacted. Thing is, Hawke did not actually chose the side: he merely eradicated daemonic corruption both in mages and the templars as the final battles had shown up. The more efficient way is to side with the templars: that way less trained warriors get wasted and more weaklings get culled out. Captain-Commander Cullen, lol. I wish there was a way to not pay Anders for the map in templar lives. I sided with mages on my first playthrough, deceived by the notions of injustice, and felt a deep sorrow for every templar live i took away. Justice is never with the weak, those who are righteous are strong because of that.

[paShadoWn]

Look at Connor. His father was sick, dying. What does a mundane child does in this situation? Cry and pray to the Maker his father will get better.
What did a mage child do in this situation? Summoned a demon, made a deal with it and unleashed an army of undead in the neighboring city causing dozens if not hundreds of deaths.
He wasn't a bad person trying to enslave all mundanes everywhere. He was just a small child trying to save his father.

That give me good lolz though. He had unleashed the army of undead on that pitiful village for 'fun'. Same reason he made Bann Teagan dance. It was his village after all. His only fault was that as a child he havent yet the sense to properly care for his servants. He chose that they be of more fun to him as undead slaves, a mistake many fresh-made vam... erm, abominations make. Given a few hundred years he would have either perished anyway or became far more wise like Flemeth did.

Thats not the point of lolz though. Point is that you actually prefer people as helpless slaves, man. Crying and praying to the maker. I do know for certain that Russian orthodoxal christian worshippers use the exact phrase "God's Slave" for themselves. As living in a land that until quite recently was atheistic as ofiicial religion, i know the difference. Being a slave to some sentient dream? Excuse me.

[dewayne31]

But Anders and most of the kirkwall circle proved the templars right too. the mages need freedom yes. but they are also a danger to thedas and themselves too