87 réponses à ce sujet

[ashesandwine]

 Hi guys, I know there are a lot of threads on Anders already but I have something that I would like point out and discuss about his supporters. Below are my ideas as to why Anders have gained so many supporters, so bare with me guys.

From what I've observed from debates and discussions on Anders, a lot of his supporters tend to believe firmly that his action was justified for the opression him and the other mages suffered under The Chantry and Templars. 

So because he was oppressed, somehow his action was justified? By that logic, how many lives are enough to pay for the unjustice the mages went through? Can you even put a number on that? How about a Right of Annulment for The Chantry? Would that suffice? Is it freedom the mages are fighting for? Or vengence against those who caused them suffering? If it was for freedom, why did you guys (Anders' supporters) condoned the killing of innocents? I am aware that a lot of you guys considered Chantry members directly caused the mages' suffering. But that is debatable. Last I checked, Brothers and Sisters of the Chantry did not wield swords and pointed them at mages. Yes, the Templars answered to the Chantry, but it is the Templars that are physically in the way of the mages' freedom. If mages were to fight for solely for their freedom, one would think that by taking out the Templars, that would be enough to grant them freedom. If so, why did Anders have to blow up The Chantry? Could it be for revenge? If it was for revenge, then doesn't that make the grand purpose of his action, kind of petty?

I would give Anders' supporters more credits if you guys would stop trying to justify his action. He fought for what he believed in, made no excuses for it, and he was ready to die for it. And that is good enough. But you guys act as though his action was heroic and should be celebrated for. Correct me if I am wrong but I think a lot of you guys are in denial. You guys just happen to symphathize with mages, and here come a mage who (may or may not be drunk in hatred) happened  to reinforce that symphathy by telling you guys exactly what you want to hear. And when he blew up the Chantry, you guys found out that there are people who condemned Anders for his action; so you guys felt like you guys had to somehow justify for yourself and Anders. After all, you guys would like to believe that you are a good, and morally correct human being. So I welcome anyone to correct and discuss the ideas I've brought up here.


TL;DR: It is ok to fight for what you believe in, but doing so doesn't make you morally correct. Humans are selfish.

[Xilizhra]

Do recall that none of his "supporters" had any input into his decision whatsoever. Personally, I have my doubts as to whether or not it was the best possible course of action. However, it doesn't matter; not only his he my friend, but I need him to defend the mages and destroy the templars.

Also, FYI, aside from Elthina, we only see templars die in that cutscene.

[The Elder King]

Xilizhra wrote...

Do recall that none of his "supporters" had any input into his decision whatsoever. Personally, I have my doubts as to whether or not it was the best possible course of action. However, it doesn't matter; not only his he my friend, but I need him to defend the mages and destroy the templars.

Also, FYI, aside from Elthina, we only see templars die in that cutscene.

Someon posted that if you support templars and spare Anders, in a dialogue with him Hawke mentioned the death of Chantry priests. I don't know if it's true, since I didn't t play DA2 for a long time, and I tried to remove from my mind the idiocy the game after the Chantry's destruction.

[ashesandwine]

Xilizhra wrote...

Do recall that none of his "supporters" had any input into his decision whatsoever.

Indeed they did not had any input into Anders' action. However, do you not agree that a lot have tried to justify his action? Or did I just misunderstood?

Also, FYI, aside from Elthina, we only see templars die in that cutscene.

I still don't see how that would make it better. Unless you are either implying that Elthina deserved to die with the Templars or it was only one life, thus making it not that bad.

[Xilizhra]

Someon posted that if you support templars and spare Anders, in a dialogue with him Hawke mentioned the death of Chantry priests. I don't know if it's true, since I didn't t play DA2 for a long time, and I tried to remove from my mind the idiocy the game after the Chantry's destruction.

I'm not destroying my Hawke's soul just to see that.

Indeed they did not had any input into Anders' action. However, do you not agree that a lot have tried to justify his action? Or did I just misunderstood?

Some have. I don't personally consider it clear-cut, either in a good or a bad way.

I still don't see how that would make it better. Unless you are either implying that Elthina deserved to die with the Templars or it was only one life, thus making it not that bad.

Elthina was at minimum criminally negligent. At most, she was on Meredith's side the whole time. Either way, she's culpable for the templars' actions as well.

[9TailsFox]

Attacking army is waste of time best go directly to government. You separating chantry and Templars like two factions witch they are not, but from what I read it will be in DA3. Anders didn't want to free mages yes it is his goal, what he wanted start war witch he did. Tell me more how wrong is to blow organization who supported slavery.

[D3Perfecto93]

When I finish Dragon Age II on PS3 I was kinda shock what Anders did but I think the templars are to blame for his insanity.

[The Elder King]

Xilizhra wrote...

Someon posted that if you support templars and spare Anders, in a dialogue with him Hawke mentioned the death of Chantry priests. I don't know if it's true, since I didn't t play DA2 for a long time, and I tried to remove from my mind the idiocy the game after the Chantry's destruction.

I'm not destroying my Hawke's soul just to see that. 

That's not my point. The point is that not only templars were killed.
Unless I roleplay an extremist pro-templar (which wouldn't be my canon), my canon wouldn't side with Meredith, regardless if he's pro-mage or pro-templar. That doesn't mean that I don't know that Anders didn't kill only templars.

[Plaintiff]

ashesandwine wrote...
By that logic, how many lives are enough to pay for the unjustice the mages went through?

Missing the point. It's not about making the Chantry "pay" for oppressing the mages, it's about making them stop doing it.

If it was for freedom, why did you guys (Anders' supporters) condoned the killing of innocents?

Innocents were already being killed. Why does everyone except Anders get a free pass?

I am aware that a lot of you guys considered Chantry members directly caused the mages' suffering. But that is debatable.

LOL.

Last I checked, Brothers and Sisters of the Chantry did not wield swords and pointed them at mages. Yes, the Templars answered to the Chantry, but it is the Templars that are physically in the way of the mages' freedom. If mages were to fight for solely for their freedom, one would think that by taking out the Templars, that would be enough to grant them freedom. If so, why did Anders have to blow up The Chantry? Could it be for revenge? If it was for revenge, then doesn't that make the grand purpose of his action, kind of petty?

It's obviously for freedom, and always was. No, killing the Templars is not enough, the Templars are a symptom, not the cause. The Chantry is absolutely responsible for creating the culture of oppression that allows the Templars to act the way they do, and even if all the Templars were killed, the Chantry could churn out more indefinitely. When you want to kill something, you cut off its head, not its arm.

I would give Anders' supporters more credits if you guys would stop trying to justify his action.

If I didn't think his actions were justified, that wouldn't make me much of a supporter now, would it.

"I would give you more credit if you discarded the entire premise on which your opinion is based." Wut?

He fought for what he believed in, made no excuses for it, and he was ready to die for it. And that is good enough.

No it's not. All manner of evil is committed by people "fighting for what they believed in". Meredith fought for what she believed in, but that's not "good enough" for me to support her, because I don't consider her cause to be just in the first place.

But you guys act as though his action was heroic and should be celebrated for.

Generally, the death of a tyrant is an event worthy of celebration.

Correct me if I am wrong but I think a lot of you guys are in denial.

I wouldn't dream of correcting you, I don't have a degree ins psychoanalysis, like you obviously do.

You guys just happen to symphathize with mages, and here come a mage who (may or may not be drunk in hatred) happened  to reinforce that symphathy by telling you guys exactly what you want to hear. And when he blew up the Chantry, you guys found out that there are people who condemned Anders for his action; so you guys felt like you guys had to somehow justify for yourself and Anders. After all, you guys would like to believe that you are a good, and morally correct human being. So I welcome anyone to correct and discuss the ideas I've brought up here.

I would support the destruction of the Chantry even if I didn't sympathise with mages.

TL;DR: It is ok to fight for what you believe in, but doing so doesn't make you morally correct. Humans are selfish.

No, really?

Morality is relative. Moral correctness is what I say it is.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 16 juin 2013 - 12:42 .

[ashesandwine]

Xilizhra wrote...

Elthina was at minimum criminally negligent. At most, she was on Meredith's side the whole time. Either way, she's culpable for the templars' actions as well.

If that is the case, Anders blew up the Chantry for vengence.

9TailsFox wrote...

Attacking army is waste of time best go directly to government. You separating chantry and Templars like two factions witch they are not, but from what I read it will be in DA3. Anders didn't want to free mages yes it is his goal, what he wanted start war witch he did. Tell me more how wrong is to blow organization who supported slavery.

So destroying the Chantries would leave the Templars disarrayed? Does the Templars have no Unit Leaders? Or just people that are capable of rallying, and unifying them to hunt mages? I was not aware that The Chantries were comprised of personnels whom are experts in strategic warfare.

So Anders wanted to start a war..and not to free mages? One would think he started a war TO free mages. I'm sorry but where did you get this information from?

[iOnlySignIn]

ashesandwine wrote...

From what I've observed from debates and discussions on Anders, a lot of his supporters tend to believe firmly that his action was justified for the opression him and the other mages suffered under The Chantry and Templars. 

Hahahahahahahaha no.

This is war. Nothing needs to be justified because eventually one side will be annihilated.

People who have ceased to exist do not require justifications.

Modifié par iOnlySignIn, 16 juin 2013 - 12:37 .

[DPSSOC]

9TailsFox wrote...

Attacking army is waste of time best go directly to government. You separating chantry and Templars like two factions witch they are not, but from what I read it will be in DA3. Anders didn't want to free mages yes it is his goal, what he wanted start war witch he did.

 
This is why I don't get people justifying Anders actions personally.  What he did doesn't really bother me, I can understand why he chose the target he chose and it makes sense, but why he did it drives me up the wall.  He wasn't some grand visionary with a dream of freedom; he was a petulant child, a spoiled brat really given his upbringing, looking to not only pick a fight but drag unwilling participants into it, and people defend it.  How?

9TailsFox wrote...
Tell me more how wrong is to blow organization who supported slavery.

Only using the loosest definition of the word do the Circles qualify as slavery.  The Circle is a prison, you may consider it unjust and unfair (and I can agree it is) but it's just a prison.  Were mages compelled to do anything, anything at all, other than stay put you'd have an argument for calling it slavery, but as it stands it's just a buzz word to force an emotional reaction rather than a rational one.

[d-boy15]

Well... I just have to make it clear before someone misunderstand.

Mage supporter =/= Anders supporter

Modifié par d-boy15, 16 juin 2013 - 12:47 .

[Vilegrim]

It's called 'collateral damage'. It happens in a war, he launched a near perfect decapitation strike (and with Hawke's help) finished the job, leaving the Chantry, Templar Order and Circle leaderless and in chaos.

Allowing the rebellion to start against disorganised foes and win.

Text book.

It had been made clear that  the Templars where never going to stop, that sooner rather than later the mages would be annihilated.  As a first strike it was near perfect.

Modifié par Vilegrim, 16 juin 2013 - 12:48 .

[Xilizhra]

This is why I don't get people justifying Anders actions personally. What he did doesn't really bother me, I can understand why he chose the target he chose and it makes sense, but why he did it drives me up the wall. He wasn't some grand visionary with a dream of freedom; he was a petulant child, a spoiled brat really given his upbringing, looking to not only pick a fight but drag unwilling participants into it, and people defend it. How?

It's entirely possible that Justice would have snapped his mind completely if he didn't make some kind of strike against the Chantry. Notice that if Hawke doesn't kill him, he's a lot calmer and more positive afterwards, and he acknowledges that he "messed [his life] up" as you do.

[ashesandwine]

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...

[quote]ashesandwine wrote...
By that logic, how many lives are enough to pay for the unjustice the mages went through?[/quote]
Missing the point. It's not about making the Chantry "pay" for oppressing the mages, it's about making them stop doing it.

[quote]If it was for freedom, why did you guys (Anders' supporters) condoned the killing of innocents?[/quote]
Innocents were already being killed. WHy does everyone except Anders get a free pass?

[quote]I am aware that a lot of you guys considered Chantry members directly caused the mages' suffering. But that is debatable.[/quote]
LOL.

[quote]Last I checked, Brothers and Sisters of the Chantry did not wield swords and pointed them at mages. Yes, the Templars answered to the Chantry, but it is the Templars that are physically in the way of the mages' freedom. If mages were to fight for solely for their freedom, one would think that by taking out the Templars, that would be enough to grant them freedom. If so, why did Anders have to blow up The Chantry? Could it be for revenge? If it was for revenge, then doesn't that make the grand purpose of his action, kind of petty?[/quote]
It's obviously for freedom, and always was. No, killing the Templars is not enough, the Templars are a symptom, not the cause. The Chantry is absolutely responsible for creating the culture of oppression that allows the Templars to act the way they do, and even if all the Templars were killed, the Chantry could churn out more indefinitely. When you want to kill something, you cut off its head, not its arm.

[quote]I would give Anders' supporters more credits if you guys would stop trying to justify his action.[/quote]
If I didn't think his actions were justified, that wouldn't make me much of a supporter now, would it.

"I would give you more credit if you discarded the entire premise on which your opinion is based." Wut?

[quote]He fought for what he believed in, made no excuses for it, and he was ready to die for it. And that is good enough.[/quote]
No it's not. All manner of evil is committed by people "fighting for what they believed in". Meredith fought for what she believed in, but that's not "good enough" for me to support her, because I don't consider her cause to be just in the first place.

[quote]But you guys act as though his action was heroic and should be celebrated for.[/quote]
Generally, the death of a tyrant is an event worthy of celebration.

[quote]Correct me if I am wrong but I think a lot of you guys are in denial.[/quote]
I wouldn't dream of correcting you, I don't have a degree ins psychoanalysis, like you obviously do.

[quote]You guys just happen to symphathize with mages, and here come a mage who (may or may not be drunk in hatred) happened  to reinforce that symphathy by telling you guys exactly what you want to hear. And when he blew up the Chantry, you guys found out that there are people who condemned Anders for his action; so you guys felt like you guys had to somehow justify for yourself and Anders. After all, you guys would like to believe that you are a good, and morally correct human being. So I welcome anyone to correct and discuss the ideas I've brought up here.[/quote]
I would support the destruction of the Chantry even if I didn't sympathise with mages.


[quote]TL;DR: It is ok to fight for what you believe in, but doing so doesn't make you morally correct. Humans are selfish.[/quote]
No, really?

Morality is relative. Moral correctness is what I say it is.
[/quote]

Hehe, I don't claim to be a psychoanalysis. Forgive me if I came off distasteful. I just wanted to understand what are the reasons why people support Anders. And yes I do know that morals are subjective and relative, that's why I didn't understand why people were supporting Anders when I condemned him. From what you posted, you are saying that there must be war between mages and The Chantry? What about after that war, how do you propose mages be governed? And who is responsible for the task of apprehending rouge mages?

[Xilizhra]

Hehe, I don't claim to be a psychoanalysis. Forgive me if I came off distasteful. I just wanted to understand what are the reasons why people support Anders. And yes I do know that morals are subjective and relative, that's why I didn't understand why people were supporting Anders when I condemned him. From what you posted, you are saying that there must be war between mages and The Chantry? What about after that war, how do you propose mages be governed? And who is responsible for the task of apprehending rouge mages?

Actually, the Chantry gave up without a fight, so now we're up against only templars. Whom we might as well have been at war with for the past thousand years, so no problems there. As for how mages should be governed... that's a valid question, but not immediately relevant to crushing the templars.

[Herr Uhl]

ashesandwine wrote...

And yes I do know that morals are subjective and relative, that's why I didn't understand why people were supporting Anders when I condemned him.

Because morals are subjective and relative?

[iOnlySignIn]

Vilegrim wrote...

It's called 'collateral damage'. It happens in a war, he launched a near perfect decapitation strike (and with Hawke's help) finished the job, leaving the Chantry, Templar Order and Circle leaderless and in chaos.

Allowing the rebellion to start against disorganised foes and win.

Text book.

It had been made clear that  the Templars where never going to stop, that sooner rather than later the mages would be annihilated.  As a first strike it was near perfect.

Finally. Someone who thinks and understands what's actually going on.

Modifié par iOnlySignIn, 16 juin 2013 - 12:58 .

[DPSSOC]

Xilizhra wrote...

This is why I don't get people justifying Anders actions personally. What he did doesn't really bother me, I can understand why he chose the target he chose and it makes sense, but why he did it drives me up the wall. He wasn't some grand visionary with a dream of freedom; he was a petulant child, a spoiled brat really given his upbringing, looking to not only pick a fight but drag unwilling participants into it, and people defend it. How?

It's entirely possible that Justice would have snapped his mind completely if he didn't make some kind of strike against the Chantry. Notice that if Hawke doesn't kill him, he's a lot calmer and more positive afterwards, and he acknowledges that he "messed [his life] up" as you do.

Ok but there are ways he could have done that that wouldn't have dragged other people into the fight.  That was his goal, that's what he wanted to accomplish was to force the mages to fight the Templars or die.  He could have assaulted Meredith directly (she was standing right in front of him often enough), or better yet attacked the Lyrium stores at the docks, but he specifically acted to cut Meredith's leash and set the rabid dog loose.

Again, what he did I understand, if he'd coordinated something and planned to use the confusion of the Chantry's destruction to get as many mages as possible out of the Circle and it just went horribly wrong (Meredith organizing faster than he expected) I'd have his back, but that wasn't what he was going for.  His goal, all he wanted to do, was drag the mages into his fight and then die.  What he did might be justifiable, why he did it makes him the lowest form of pond scum imaginable.

[d-boy15]

Vilegrim wrote...

It's called 'collateral damage'. It happens in a war, he launched a near perfect decapitation strike (and with Hawke's help) finished the job, leaving the Chantry, Templar Order and Circle leaderless and in chaos.

Allowing the rebellion to start against disorganised foes and win.

Text book.

It had been made clear that  the Templars where never going to stop, that sooner rather than later the mages would be annihilated.  As a first strike it was near perfect.

Except it's not a war (yet), you don't blow up a church and called it colleteral damage.

If you called that colleteral damage then 9/11 is probably the same, torrorist just choose to strike first because US
wouldn't stop opposing them anyway.

If Anders act is justified then act of terror around the world are also justified. 

[The Elder King]

Xilizhra wrote...

This is why I don't get people justifying Anders actions personally. What he did doesn't really bother me, I can understand why he chose the target he chose and it makes sense, but why he did it drives me up the wall. He wasn't some grand visionary with a dream of freedom; he was a petulant child, a spoiled brat really given his upbringing, looking to not only pick a fight but drag unwilling participants into it, and people defend it. How?

It's entirely possible that Justice would have snapped his mind completely if he didn't make some kind of strike against the Chantry. Notice that if Hawke doesn't kill him, he's a lot calmer and more positive afterwards, and he acknowledges that he "messed [his life] up" as you do.

Actually, Justice takes over Anders when he tried to remove the bomb from the Chantry, in the rivarly path. That means that in Act 3 either Anders agrees with Justice's more extreme methods, or he's unable to control his own body, in a worse way than in the previous acts. He could end up being Justice's slave if he decides to be more moderate.

[ashesandwine]

Vilegrim wrote...

It's called 'collateral damage'. It happens in a war, he launched a near perfect decapitation strike (and with Hawke's help) finished the job, leaving the Chantry, Templar Order and Circle leaderless and in chaos.

Allowing the rebellion to start against disorganised foes and win.

Text book.

It had been made clear that  the Templars where never going to stop, that sooner rather than later the mages would be annihilated.  As a first strike it was near perfect.

But I thought the leader of Kirkwall at that time was Meridith? Or you are saying that was what Anders planned on doing, to kill Meredith and Elthina inside the chantry.

Herr Uhl wrote...

Because morals are subjective and relative?

You got me 

Modifié par ashesandwine, 16 juin 2013 - 01:05 .

[Herr Uhl]

Vilegrim wrote...

It's called 'collateral damage'. It happens in a war, he launched a near perfect decapitation strike (and with Hawke's help) finished the job, leaving the Chantry, Templar Order and Circle leaderless and in chaos.

If he wanted that, he should have bombed Meredith. He didn't do it as a strategic target, he did it to ****** off Meredith and force a rebellion in response.