Ce sujet est fermé
. Is blowing up the Chantry misguided. I’m going with a resounding no here. Why? Because it’s a political target symbolic of the oppression of mages run by a woman who condones said oppression. I got into the character of Elthina a bit in an earlier post. I don’t want to run on about her here, so I’ll summarize: Elthina says it’s not her job to judge Meredith’s character. This is incorrect. The templars answer to the Chantry, Elthina’s the highest ranking member of the Chantry in Kirkwall, thus it is her job to oversee her subordinates and make sure they don’t abuse their position. She even demonstrates her authority over Meredith in Act 3 when she sends her back to the Gallows and tells her to be “a good girl.” So Elthina has power, uses it, but chooses not to use it when the mages are concerned. While she doesn’t support the Tranquil Solution, she also does nothing to punish those who allowed it to happen. Her inaction translates into silent support for a regime that terrorizes its victims. Thus, she and the Chantry are a perfectly valid target for an act of war.
And that’s what blowing up the Chantry is: a declaration of war. Yes, it can also be seen as a terrorist act. Terrorism is defined as the use of violence or threat of violence for coercion, especially with political purposes. Yet it is also defined as a terroristic method of governing, which Meredith, the templars, and the Chantry are responsible for. So both sides here have delved into these waters. I’m not saying that makes Anders right. But neither does it make the templars or the Chantry pure victims. They most certainly are not, not when they condone the rapes, beatings, and forced-Tranquilities of countless mages. Not when they terrorize non-mages for harboring apostates. Kirkwall at the end of Act 3 is a terrorist state.
You’ll be hard pressed to find any act of war or violence that leads to peace and understanding, agreed. Then again, you’ll be hard pressed to find any act period that leads to peace and understanding. Civil disobedience in the 60s still sparked hundreds of riots that got thousands of people killed. The Easter Rising in Ireland was supposed to be a peaceful protest in which the Irish seized control of federal buildings and read out a declaration of Independence. It turned into a massacre that led to the imprisonment, torture, and execution of its ringleaders, which in turn lead to one of the most violent revolutions and civil wars, the effects of which are still being felt today.
It’s not easy to say Anders should have done something different, then things would have turned out better. For one thing, it’s an oversimplification of a larger issue. There’s no saying peace and understanding would have come about from a peaceful means of protest. For another, Anders had been trying for this peaceful compromise for years. Hence the manifestos and all the times he mentions speaking to the Grand Cleric. No one listens. No one did anything. So he acted instead.
So to summarize: You condone Anders' act of terrorism, because he as an illegal Apostate, who had no business interfering with Circle affairs, weren't listened to by the powers that be.
You know that whole "We don't negotiate with terrorist" policy that most governments use?
Retour en haut
