Ce sujet est fermé
Highly debatable.
im not saying shes innocent, but seriously if you had a choice to take out hitler or mousoulinni (dont ask for the spelling idk) you would undoubtedly take hitler for he was the greater evil.... why not go after meredith instead of elthina, or go after both... just doing the lesser of the evils is a really stupid strategy
i found this quote , and i thought it will interest all those who couldn't take the change between his personality in awkening and 2 .. i say try to read it ,and think about it. you might finally get it . for me , i still think Anders's character was too deep and more darker than people thought through the game ..I still get the feelings many things about him were left unspoken ~
Anders is as deep as a puddle and no amount of fanboyism is going to change that.
im not saying shes innocent, but seriously if you had a choice to take out hitler or mousoulinni (dont ask for the spelling idk) you would undoubtedly take hitler for he was the greater evil.... why not go after meredith instead of elthina, or go after both... just doing the lesser of the evils is a really stupid strategy
Well, to be fair, he does explain his logic about going after Elthina to you and as far as those things go it's pretty sound logic. Elthina was the primary neutral figure in Kirkwall, and through treating Meredith and Orsino as equally powerful figures she unintentionally condoned the abuse of the mages. By openly murdering the neutral figure, it's sending a message to all similar neutral figures that they better pick a side, or else. Better the enemy you know, after all.
It's all the collateral damage that I took issue with. What happened to a nice, obviously magical assassination?
Well, to be fair, he does explain his logic about going after Elthina to you and as far as those things go it's pretty sound logic. Elthina was the primary neutral figure in Kirkwall, and through treating Meredith and Orsino as equally powerful figures she unintentionally condoned the abuse of the mages. By openly murdering the neutral figure, it's sending a message to all similar neutral figures that they better pick a side, or else. Better the enemy you know, after all.
It's all the collateral damage that I took issue with. What happened to a nice, obviously magical assassination?
That's a stupid message to send. "You're either with us or against us." never works out well.
That's a stupid message to send. "You're either with us or against us." never works out well.
Thank you, I was hoping someone else would say this.
Yeah. I mean, he was willing to let the entire Kirkwall Circle get annulled, so why not just set the charges in the Templar's Quarters section of the Circle?
Because he wanted to corner the Circles and force them into rebellion.
That's a stupid message to send. "You're either with us or against us." never works out well.
Eh, it's a pretty common message amongst irl revolutions/revolutionaries so I'm not mad from a story perspective, you know? Desmond Tutu: "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."
Although in this case we must also discuss the fact that the mouse in this case is a supernatural being that could set the elephant on fire if it weren't being crushed, but that speaks more about my dislike of the trope of using superpowered beings as metaphors for oppressed peoples when really it works best the other way 'round. Like Tevinter: you don;t have to prove to the magic person you're not harmful, the magic person has to prove they're not going to harm you.
Because he wanted to corner the Circles and force them into rebellion.
So he took away the freedom of the mages to decide how they would pursue their own Freedomg? And for this people want to congratulate him?
Eh, it's a pretty common message amongst irl revolutions/revolutionaries so I'm not mad from a story perspective, you know?
People also used to think it was a good idea to spray dangerous checmicals on food and that human slavery was fine. That's not a justification to continue along those lines.
So he took away the freedom of the mages to decide how they would pursue their own Freedomg? And for this people want to congratulate him?
People also used to think it was a good idea to spray dangerous checmicals on food and that human slavery was fine. That's not a justification to continue along those lines.
That's why I said 'from a story perspective'. As a story, it makes sense. As a person responding to that story, stabbity-stab.
Eh, it's a pretty common message amongst irl revolutions/revolutionaries so I'm not mad from a story perspective, you know? Desmond Tutu: "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."
Although in this case we must also discuss the fact that the mouse in this case is a supernatural being that could set the elephant on fire if it weren't being crushed, but that speaks more about my dislike of the trope of using superpowered beings as metaphors for oppressed peoples when really it works best the other way 'round. Like Tevinter: you don;t have to prove to the magic person you're not harmful, the magic person has to prove they're not going to harm you.
By itself, maybe not. But killing a neutral party and basically going "If you don't help us, this will happen to you." is only going to get everyone who was neutral actually on the other side.
The Circle of Magi were smart to write Anders off as a madman is Asunder and say they are not affiliated with him.
Because he wanted to corner the Circles and force them into rebellion.
The same thing would have happened, except there would have been one more Circle to help the Mage side.
So he took away the freedom of the mages to decide how they would pursue their own Freedomg? And for this people want to congratulate him?
Well, he told it himself - "I removed the chance of compromise."
And I'm not sure if anyone, but his diehard fans want to congratulate him. Many people who likes him as a character, still condemn his actions.
Uh the Chantry isn't exactly a neutral party here. In fact, it isn't at all whatsoever.
Well, he told it himself - "I removed the chance of compromise."
And I'm not sure if anyone, but his diehard fans want to congratulate him. Many people who likes him as a character, still condemn his actions.
That's not true at all. I know people who hate the character who applauded that action. Not everyone who agrees with what Anders did is a diehard Anders fan. The whole thing is supposed to be a super grey area.
Uh the Chantry isn't exactly a neutral party here. In fact, it isn't at all whatsoever.
They are in DA2, because they keep the Templars on a short leash and to an extent protect the mages.
Since the vast majority of the population(and even many mages) believe in the Chantry, Anders did pretty much the dumbest thing he could possibly do for his "rebellion".
No they aren't. The Chantry created the Templars and the Chantry spreads the message that mages need to be locked up, many claiming that they aren't even people. They're "protecting" the mages they locked up against their will in the first place for just being who they are. The Chantry system as it is really sucks, plain and simple. There is nothing that makes it neutral even if the mages believe in it. And Anders did the perfect thing for his goal, actually. The whole point of what he did was to incite action and it did. His methods were extremely questionable at best but he accomplished what he set out to accomplish with that bomb.
Uh the Chantry isn't exactly a neutral party here. In fact, it isn't at all whatsoever.
Oh boy. It's like saying that 9/11 was justified, because USA weren't a neutral party to islam. Please.
I'm sorry in advance for bringing up this comparison.
In before thread gets closed.
No they aren't. The Chantry created the Templars and the Chantry spreads the message that mages need to be locked up, many claiming that they aren't even people. They're "protecting" the mages they locked up against their will in the first place for just being who they are. The Chantry system as it is really sucks, plain and simple. There is nothing that makes it neutral even if the mages believe in it. And Anders did the perfect thing for his goal, actually. The whole point of what he did was to incite action and it did. His methods were extremely questionable at best but he accomplished what he set out to accomplish with that bomb.
Oh boy. It's like saying that 9/11 was justified, because USA weren't a neutral party to islam. Please.
I'm sorry in advance for bringing up this comparison.
It isn't at all like that, come on. Plus I never said that blowing up the Chantry was justified, just that the claims that the Chantry is neutral is completely false. The Templars are the Chantry's militia for Pete's sake. If it wasn't for the Chantry, mages wouldn't even be locked up.
And Anders did the perfect thing for his goal, actually. The whole point of what he did was to incite action and it did. His methods were extremely questionable at best but he accomplished what he set out to accomplish with that bomb.
And caused the deaths of an entire circle that was innocent of wrong doing, deaths that could've been avoided since that same Chantry you hate rejected (twice) Templars asking for a RoA. An action that killed the one woman in power that was more interested in keeping the peace than hunting Mages. Turning a lot of people who may have been on the fence against the mages. Forcing other mages who agreed with the Circle (like our new dear Iron Lady) or at least wanted to earn their freedom in other non-violent ways into open conflict.
The price for 'forcing action' was too high.
Mages need to be protected from others and themselves, this is the view of the Chantry and many mages.
So it was a good idea of Anders to get 99,9% of the population to hate him and everything he stands for?
He started, or at least partially started, his war. Which is what he wanted. Whether or not it's "good" doesn't really matter, he accomplished his goal. Guy didn't even think he'd live to see the rest!
No they aren't. The Chantry created the Templars and the Chantry spreads the message that mages need to be locked up, many claiming that they aren't even people. They're "protecting" the mages they locked up against their will in the first place for just being who they are. The Chantry system as it is really sucks, plain and simple. There is nothing that makes it neutral even if the mages believe in it. And Anders did the perfect thing for his goal, actually. The whole point of what he did was to incite action and it did. His methods were extremely questionable at best but he accomplished what he set out to accomplish with that bomb.
Oh, it incited action alright. He justified every fear any Andrastian ever had about mages.
And caused the deaths of an entire circle that was innocent of wrong doing, deaths that could've been avoided since that same Chantry you hate rejected (twice) Templars asking for a RoA. An action that killed the one woman in power that was more interested in keeping the peace than hunting Mages. Turning a lot of people who may have been on the fence against the mages. Forcing other mages who agreed with the Circle (like our new dear Iron Lady) or at least wanted to earn their freedom in other non-violent ways into open conflict.
The price for 'forcing action' was too high.
I think you're mistaking me saying I don't like the Chantry as saying that Anders did the best thing by blowing it up. I already said I didn't agree with it but he did get what he wanted. All he wanted to do with that bomb was start the fighting and that happened. So in that way it WAS effective. Will it be effective for mage freedom? Who knows. I suppose our characters will help decide that one in the future.
Guy didn't even think he'd live to see the rest!
Retour en haut