1260 réponses à ce sujet

[Bigdoser]

You know, after thousands of years of recorded history and millions of years of existing, I think if such a thing were possible, it would have happened by now. Thedas is no different. 

Yet those people in the real world that don't give up or give into the cycle of hatred are remembered today for being pivotal in some of the great changes in some nations. Just because its a part of human nature does not mean we should not fight it or give into it since its not helping doing so causes more suffering than necessary. 

 

You saying that to me makes me think you fully agree with anders that there is no compromise at all. No matter if you support mages or support templars. 

[Br3admax]

There's a difference betweening hoping for something and expecting it. Hoping for the best doesn't mean you don't expect the worst.  There will always be hatred. There is no way around. The only thing that can be done is minimize the casualties. These are truths. 

[Grieving Natashina]

Yet those people in the real world that don't give up or give into the cycle of hatred are remembered today for being pivotal in some of the great changes in some nations. Just because its a part of human nature does not mean we should not fight it or give into it since its not helping doing so but causes more suffering than necessary. 

 

You saying that to me makes me think you fully agree with anders that there is no compromise at all. No matter if you support mages or support templars. 

...You've never read posts from TheKomanderShepard, have you?  That's a poster that truly doesn't believe in compromise.  According to him:

 

Mages should all be slaughtered to the last infant.  Yes, he's aware that most of the time magic doesn't manifest until puberty.  If they have a single drop of mage blood in their family tree, they are dead.  You're not a mage?  Too bad, your great-great-great uncle on your mother's cousin's side was a mage.  You and your whole family are getting the Red Wedding treatment.   Damn the templars too, bunch of soft-willed puppets. Any templar that stands against him must die.  The Chantry needs to burn to the ground.  

 

You get the idea.  This is a level of extremism that most of the staunch pro-Templar posters think is stupid and wasteful.  

 

Speaking of which, I almost never see a thread get this long without his interesting and crazy input. 

[MisterJB]

There is no compromise that will ensure eternal peace, no.

You discard the Circle for having, in your opinion, lead to this war but fail to take into account that whatever solution that comes afterwards will lead to more war. The question is how long the next system will hold before it breaks.

The Circle kept the peace for 900 years. It has a good track record, I say we stick with it.

[Gothfather]

Problem is that the numbers mean nothing considering the number of mages they sent to ostagar and the blight that discredits that argument. Why do you think duncan desperately wanted more mages? Since he knew the can easily turn the tide of the battles he says so himself. As duncan said its why gregoir refused since he knew that mages can unleash their full power on enemy and Duncan was counting on that hence why he wanted them.

 

The reason why chantries exalted marches are so successful is because of mages. The reason why Tevinter can keep pushing back the Qunari is again mages considering they are not large in number compared to normal warriors and normal people numbers is not a good argument I think plus towns folk don't have formal training or templar abilities what are they going to do? Plus towns folk using Guile? 

 

Heck in asunder a whole tavern had problems with three mages being there and was looking to fight them? I put my money on the mages considering the spells they are busting out in the same book.

 

I recall a rebelling peasant uprising in awakening was not difficult to put down at all. Actually it was rather easy. I say good luck to what ever group of people want to take on an army of mages if you are not a templar. 

 

You are ignoring the rise of the beleif in the maker, that was a peasant uprising they didn't succeed because of mages. They had faith their cause was just and they had fevour that gave them strength.

 

I do not deny the power of mages. You seem to forget that numbers are a magic all their own.

 

The history of Thedas already has a successful peasant rebellion against mages, when mages where the seat of political power as well as weilders of arcane power. it is not beyond imagination to see mages lose again to a population riasing up in fear and anger aganst them.

[raging_monkey]

...You've never read posts from TheKomanderShepard, have you?  That's a poster that truly doesn't believe in compromise.  According to him:
 
Mages should all be slaughtered to the last infant.  Yes, he's aware that most of the time magic doesn't manifest until puberty.  If they have a single drop of mage blood in their family tree, they are dead.  You're not a mage?  Too bad, your great-great-great uncle on your mother's cousin's side was a mage.  You and you're whole family are getting the Red Wedding treatment.   Damn the templars too, bunch of soft-willed puppets. Any templar that stands against him must die.  The Chantry needs to burn to the ground.  
 
You get the idea.  This is a level of extremism that most of the staunch pro-Templar posters think is stupid and wasteful.  
 
Speaking of which, I almost never see a thread get this long without his interesting and crazy input.

im quite glad personally it get old cause theres no reasoning with em

[Bigdoser]

Honestly the way I am speaking I think me and Josephine are going to be great friends going by what we have seen of her. 

[Xilizhra]

You are ignoring the rise of the beleif in the maker, that was a peasant uprising they didn't succeed because of mages. They had faith their cause was just and they had fevour that gave them strength.

 

I do not deny the power of mages. You seem to forget that numbers are a magic all their own.

 

The history of Thedas already has a successful peasant rebellion against mages, when mages where the seat of political power as well as weilders of arcane power. it is not beyond imagination to see mages lose again to a population riasing up in fear and anger aganst them.

Well, it was more like a huge barbarian horde against a badly shaken aristocracy, that only succeeded in breaking the Imperium's southern provinces away from it, that also included virtually the entirety of the elven race. And probably plenty of mages.

[Sports72Xtrm]

Sorry but Anders killing Ella does count you are trying to make a distiction because hawke can effct the outcome but narratively speaking hawke isn't responsible for the choice Anders or Isabela make as i clearly show in my post below.
[Edit] It not a very engaging story if I view every event based on which mechanics i triggered to cause said event and it doesn't actually change the intent of the story. The intent of the story is for Anders to kill Ella it is why the mechanics that stop it are much higher than Isabela's. Granted if you stop the event its a valid result to the story but that result doesn't negate other results people get.
 
Anders is a tragically flawed human who we watch slide into evil that is the whole point of his story. To watch a person fighting for a cause become so twisted by hatred that he becomes the evil he claims is found in his enemy, Or if you are pro mage... To watch a person fighting for a just cause become so twisted by hatred that he becomes the evil he hates.

He didn't blame it on the templars, he tested the templars to see if they really had the mages' best interests at heart. He showed everyone the truth that mages are dangerous, just because they are in the Circle doesn't change the potential damage they could do. Naturally the mundanes after they remember that mages could hurt a lot of people, go to their natural reaction of wanting to destroy what they do not understand nor control even if these mages are people. The templars' duty is to protect the mages from this hysteria just as they protect the mundanes and they chose to murder the Circle for a crime they did not commit. Anders fully acknowledges he is responsible for the bombings' deaths and offers his own life as atonement. He takes personal responsibility for what he does. An "evil" person would just run away, but he punishes himself because that is what justice required of him. Now the templars failed his test, they instigated the Annulment even when the mages surrendered multiple times. They murdered the Kirkwall Circle of their own free will and stoked the fires of the hysteria. Do they punish themselves for the murder of mages who had nothing to do with Anders? Do they take accountability? No, they murder with out even questioning what they did was wrong. Some would call that inhumane and "evil". Because he did what he did, a lot of people are able to reflect and criticize this event to find out why things went wrong and if the Circle system is a good or an evil.
 

• Velanna: What sort of atonement would be appropriate?
• Justice: You have reconsidered, then?
• Velanna: I am simply curious to hear what you think would be suitable.
• Justice: Teach them. Show these humans what they are so carelessly destroying.
• Velanna: And if they do not listen?
• Justice: Then you have done what you could.
• Velanna: It's... worth thinking about.

 
Good does not mean preventing danger, it means "that which is morally right; righteousness." He killed and he allowed himself to be killed in return. Or if he's allowed to live, no doubt would spend the rest of his days trying to help as many people as he could to atone.

 

• Justice: This thing you did, the murders of those men in the forest...
• Velanna: What of it?
• Justice: What you did was wrong. You must make amends.
• Velanna: And to whom should I make these amends? Those humans are dead, if you'll recall.
• Justice: You must make amends to humans. It was your condemnation of their race that led to your folly.
• Velanna: I wouldn't expect that to occur anytime soon.

───────

• Justice: Why do you believe that atonement is unnecessary?
• Velanna: By the Creators! This again?
• Justice: You murdered humans because you believed they had wronged you, yet they had not.
• Velanna: Humans have wronged my kind plenty.
• Justice: Yet they were innocent of this.
• Velanna: Don't speak of what you do not understand, spirit!

───────

• Justice: You are correct that I do not understand, Velanna. Help me to understand.
• Velanna: (Sigh) There is... so much history between my kind and humans, Justice. Where would I begin?
• Justice: You can only be responsible for your actions, your judgment. Does the same not apply to them?
• Velanna: You may be right. I don't know.
• Justice: And the atonement?
• Velanna: I will atone when they do.

───────

 

 
Also, in friendship route, Hawke's influence changes the story line of the character. Anders' anger turning Justice into Vengeance is a flaw but one with Hawke's support helps Anders keep his focus on his pure mission statement of "protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty" and when he doesn't kill Ella it shows growth that he maintains his focus on that mission statement with Hawke's support.

[Bigdoser]

snip

Hmmm... I will just say your post just gave me a new perspective of that situation now thinking back to velanna and justice conversation that you noted here. I do recall one of the templar duties is to protect mages from mundanes they even note that in Asunder. You have given me a lot to think about. 

[Terodil]

[Issue 1] Good does not mean preventing danger, it means "that which is morally right; righteousness." He killed and he allowed himself to be killed in return. Or if he's allowed to live, no doubt would spend the rest of his days trying to help as many people as he could to atone.

 
[Issue 2] Also, in friendship route, Hawke's influence changes the story line of the character. Anders' anger turning Justice into Vengeance is a flaw but one with Hawke's support helps Anders keep his focus on his pure mission statement of "protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty" and when he doesn't kill Ella it shows growth that he maintains his focus on that mission statement with Hawke's support.

 

Ad 1: He killed and allowed himself to be killed in return to become a martyr (fixed). You are really trying to sanctify him here, to turn him into the embodiment of justice that he may have been when "Justice" was still young in the world of mortals. We're talking about Vengeance, a fully degenerated demon, here, who would do anything to achieve his goal. Vengeance gets a kick out of getting killed, because it proves his point. Double win: Martyr + QED.

 

Ad 2: Anders does not manage to keep his focus on that altruistic Justice-mode mission statement, even on a friendship path. He deceives you into helping him blow up a chantry full of innocent people. How does that match the mission statement of "protecting the innocent"? It's not growth that you can see; it's just a slower degeneration. It actually reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=WdgwRT5dLt8 (Diablo 2 Act III cinematic: "It was then I realised my companion hadn't been gaining strength... he had been losing what was left of his humanity.")

 

Also, I would like to ask those that vote for letting him live: How will your Hawkes live with themselves if when they learn that Anders/Vengeance has once again failed to maintain control? He has failed so many times now, he has killed or almost killed so many times, and he has been so shaken so f*ing many times now, I see absolutely no reason to believe that he has learnt from this "chantry incident" and will change his ways. In fact, I would call such assumption delusional, wishful thinking. Anders all but says so himself.

 

I agree that Hakwe is not responsible for her companions' acts, but at this point, letting a loose cannon run around is such a grave mistake that Hawke will have to put the next outbreak, possibly with another huge number of victims, on her own conscience.

[(Disgusted noise.)]

When I saw the title of this thread, I was excited for an Anders in Dragon Age: Inquisition thread, but this has devolved into another let's hate on Anders and talk about whether or not to murder him thread.

 

I'm disappointed.

[Kalas Magnus]

i only like anders in awakening.

[Terodil]

@Hippo: Well the two issues are hardly separable.

 

If Anders is dead: We might see him in the Fade somewhere or not at all.

If Anders is alive and he somehow managed to break the possession by Vengeance: He'll most probably end up a drunkard, because the Anders from DA:A could probably not live (well) with what he did while possessed.

If Anders is alive and he is still possessed: He's probably a full-fledged abomination/arcane horror/whatever now. Have fun inviting him for a chat "like old times".

[Gothfather]

He didn't blame it on the templars, he tested the templars to see if they really had the mages' best interests at heart. He showed everyone the truth that mages are dangerous, just because they are in the Circle doesn't change the potential damage they could do. Naturally the mundanes after they remember that mages could hurt a lot of people, go to their natural reaction of wanting to destroy what they do not understand nor control even if these mages are people. The templars' duty is to protect the mages from this hysteria just as they protect the mundanes and they chose to murder the Circle for a crime they did not commit. Anders fully acknowledges he is responsible for the bombings' deaths and offers his own life as atonement. He takes personal responsibility for what he does. An "evil" person would just run away, but he punishes himself because that is what justice required of him. Now the templars failed his test, they instigated the Annulment even when the mages surrendered multiple times. They murdered the Kirkwall Circle of their own free will and stoked the fires of the hysteria. Do they punish themselves for the murder of mages who had nothing to do with Anders? Do they take accountability? No, they murder with out even questioning what they did was wrong. Some would call that inhumane and "evil". Because he did what he did, a lot of people are able to reflect and criticize this event to find out why things went wrong and if the Circle system is a good or an evil.
 

 
Good does not mean preventing danger, it means "that which is morally right; righteousness." He killed and he allowed himself to be killed in return. Or if he's allowed to live, no doubt would spend the rest of his days trying to help as many people as he could to atone.

 
Also, in friendship route, Hawke's influence changes the story line of the character. Anders' anger turning Justice into Vengeance is a flaw but one with Hawke's support helps Anders keep his focus on his pure mission statement of "protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty" and when he doesn't kill Ella it shows growth that he maintains his focus on that mission statement with Hawke's support.

 

 

Anders is evil. Just because he regretes having to kill people doesn't make the act less evil. Either Anders was in complete control and he desided to kill innocents to remove any chance at compramise OR he was controlled. If he was controlled he's no longer anders and thus lost so killing him isn't killing anders. If he's not controlled then his willingness to die a marytr doesn't mean he's not evil. Plenty of people in the real world are willing to die to do evil acts doesn't mean because they are willing to be caught and judge by authorities or killed that they aren't evil. Remorse doesn't mean you aren't evil Rudolf hess was remorseful he still did terrible things and he wasn't remorseful after the fact he flew to england before Germany was even at the height of their power.

 

What makes Anders such a great character is that he isn't static he slides into evil, you can mitigate the impact of his slide into evil with Ella but nothing stops it (because its central to the plot of the story) Saving Ella isn't an example of Anders growing but a sign the his devolution isn't complete. The anders of Awakenings would never have killed ella.

 

Also you miss understood my point about anders and the tempars..

 

Isabela's solution to a crisis is to try and end the conflict by returning the book.

 

Anders solution to try and mitigate the crisis of killing Ella? Hope it gets blamed on the templars or Blame her death on the templars. This can be interpeted both ways. Both are damning to his character.

 

Anders starts as a pretty moral character in Awakenings and he slides all teh way down that he betrays his own ideals. The idea of you abanding the innocents in the town to protect the keep outrages him. A decade later and he willing to blow up innocents to spark a war. That is a pretty clear cut case of devolution of one's character.

 

Anders is evil, misguided but has a just cause (in my opinion), what makes him such a polarising character in the DA series is that he doesn't start this way he starts quite the opposite, A good, principle person who values all innocent life even non mages.

[Lumix19]

Anders is evil. Just because he regretes having to kill people doesn't make the act less evil. Either Anders was in complete control and he desided to kill innocents to remove any chance at compramise OR he was controlled. If he was controlled he's no longer anders and thus lost so killing him isn't killing anders. If he's not controlled then his willingness to die a marytr doesn't mean he's not evil. Plenty of people in the real world are willing to die to do evil acts doesn't mean because they are willing to be caught and judge by authorities or killed that they aren't evil. Remorse doesn't mean you aren't evil Rudolf hess was remorseful he still did terrible things and he wasn't remorseful after the fact he flew to england before Germany was even at the height of their power.
 
What makes Anders such a great character is that he isn't static he slides into evil, you can mitigate the impact of his slide into evil with Ella but nothing stops it (because its central to the plot of the story) Saving Ella isn't an example of Anders growing but a sign the his devolution isn't complete. The anders of Awakenings would never have killed ella.
 
Also you miss understood my point about anders and the tempars..
 
Isabela's solution to a crisis is to try and end the conflict by returning the book.
 
Anders solution to try and mitigate the crisis of killing Ella? Hope it gets blamed on the templars or Blame her death on the templars. This can be interpeted both ways. Both are damning to his character.
 
Anders starts as a pretty moral character in Awakenings and he slides all teh way down that he betrays his own ideals. The idea of you abanding the innocents in the town to protect the keep outrages him. A decade later and he willing to blow up innocents to spark a war. That is a pretty clear cut case of devolution of one's character.
 
Anders is evil, misguided but has a just cause (in my opinion), what makes him such a polarising character in the DA series is that he doesn't start this way he starts quite the opposite, A good, principle person who values all innocent life even non mages.

Umm, just a question but what in Awakenings gave you the idea that he was pretty moral? And what moral values from DA:A did you feel he betrayed in DA2?

[TheJediSaint]

When I saw the title of this thread, I was excited for an Anders in Dragon Age: Inquisition thread, but this has devolved into another let's hate on Anders and talk about whether or not to murder him thread.

 

I'm disappointed.

I was proactive and murdered him in DA2, rendering the thread topic moot.

[Mimilette]

When it comes to Templars and Mages, both side have compelling arguments, and it all comes down to what one's find morally acceptable.

 

However, it does seem a little illogical to be, rightfully so, appalled by Anders's murder of hundreds of innocent people, while at the same time cheering for the murder of other innocent people (for the most part at least), just because they happen to share a genitic trait with the culprit.

 

I don't think the Circle, as it is now, works anymore, and the fact that it has "worked" (at least for the mundanes) for a long time does not mean that it should be exempt of reforms if reforms are needed. I never even really understood why mages needed to sever completely all ties with family and friends. A trauma such as being torn from your family just increases the odds of creating unstable people, and folks that love their kids will do anything to hide them. Even if you don't aknowledge the moral issues inherent to this kind of system, it just seems utterly inefficient.

 

Obviously the mages need training and supervising, but at the same time, it seems quite hypocritical to treat them all like "cursed" dangerous criminals, and then ask them to go lay down their life every time you need them to go to war, fight the Blights, etc. Or even to allow the ruling class to use mages to attend to their needs, while denying citizens all the benefits they could get from having hospitals runned by healers, for examples. Every time magic is discussed, it seems the focus is sorely on the bad, while there is so much potential for good.

[Gothfather]

Umm, just a question but what in Awakenings gave you the idea that he was pretty moral? And what moral values from DA:A did you feel he betrayed in DA2?

 

His view of protecting the innocent, that innocent life has value in and of itself. He's very vocal about choosing to save the keep over saving Amaranthine, he doesn't like it. This is lost by the time we get to act 3 of DA2. innocent life is simply the price need to be paid to insure no compromise could be reach as things slide towards war. That is a significant devolution of his character.

[Sports72Xtrm]

His view of protecting the innocent, that innocent life has value in and of itself. He's very vocal about choosing to save the keep over saving Amaranthine, he doesn't like it. This is lost by the time we get to act 3 of DA2. innocent life is simply the price need to be paid to insure no compromise could be reach as things slide towards war. That is a significant devolution of his character.

 

Did you know Isabela used to be a slave trasporter for a Tevinter Magister before the game? When Orlesian ships were catching up to her, she let her slave cargo drowned into the ocean so she could escape them. Fenris is the property of a tevinter and killed many tevinters trying to get him back including his sister. Sebastian is willing to war with Kirkwall if you don't kill Anders. And both Hawke and the wardens can have blood on their hands. By saving Amaranthine, you left your warden comrades to die. And by siding with the templars, you could kill innocent people who's only crime was being born a mage. "He who has not sin cast the first stone." If everyone in Dragon Age honestly judged each other by your standards, they'd all kill each other.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Did you know Isabela used to be a slave trasporter for a Tevinter Magister before the game? When Orlesian ships were catching up to her, she let her slave cargo drowned into the ocean so she could escape them. Fenris is the property of a tevinter and killed many tevinters trying to get him back including his sister. Sebastian is willing to war with Kirkwall if you don't kill Anders. And both Hawke and the wardens can have blood on their hands. By saving Amaranthine, you left your warden comrades to die. And by siding with the templars, you could kill innocent people who's only crime was being born a mage. "He who has not sin cast the first stone." If everyone in Dragon Age honestly judged each other by your standards, they'd all kill each other.

The Fenris one is unfair. He only killed those Tevinters because they kept coming after him to recapture him. So they were not innocent people.

 

Also, you can save both Warden's Keep and Amaranthine. There is even an option in the Keep for it. 

[Barrendall]

People choose death as a 'punishment' way too easily. When my Hawke does not romance Anders I allow him to live with what he's done and most likely he'll spend his life regretting all the mage deaths he's caused for his part in the inevitable Mage/Templar war as well as on the run from both parties alike. Death is not a punishment, at least to him in my eyes. Especially when you give the guy basically what he wants.

My canon play male Hawke agrees with his actions and allows him to live anyway, so I hope when Hawke shows up Anders will be right beside him.

 

I didn't kill Anders to punish him.  It was a form of justice and cautious prevention.  He was on a path that was only going to lead up to a higher body count.  I felt it was my duty to stop this and I didn't take any pleasure from it but in my playthroughs it was a necessary act.

[lupin8314]

I didn't kill Anders to punish him.  It was a form of justice and cautious prevention.  He was on a path that was only going to lead up to a higher body count.  I felt it was my duty to stop this and I didn't take any pleasure from it but in my playthroughs it was a necessary act.

the PC probably kill more characters than Anders put together. This is just silly argument. The players has killed templars, thieves, mages, Qunaris, blah blah blah... many of these people are only trying to survive in a harsh world yet we kill them all the same. u may say it is for self-defense but they are everywhere. who is to say that the "hundreds of people" Anders killed are not these people as well. 

[QueenofFereldan]

Did you know Isabela used to be a slave trasporter for a Tevinter Magister before the game? When Orlesian ships were catching up to her, she let her slave cargo drowned into the ocean so she could escape them. Fenris is the property of a tevinter and killed many tevinters trying to get him back including his sister. Sebastian is willing to war with Kirkwall if you don't kill Anders. And both Hawke and the wardens can have blood on their hands. By saving Amaranthine, you left your warden comrades to die. And by siding with the templars, you could kill innocent people who's only crime was being born a mage. "He who has not sin cast the first stone." If everyone in Dragon Age honestly judged each other by your standards, they'd all kill each other

 

 

So Fenris shouldn't defend himself when the magisters were going after him? Killing his sister is something I never let him do (except once but that was it), because that was out of revenge, but everything else was out of defense. Hawke and the Warden fight those who attack them, UNLESS you CHOOSE to make those choices. The Vigil's Keep can be saved if you took the time to build up its defenses. Yes, Isabela did what she did, but she showed regret. Doesn't change what she did, but you can tell her choices bothered her. Anders, on the other hand, never did. He WANTED to do that for his own war. There is no way that you can stop that or convince him otherwise. And siding with the templars mean you just kill innocent mages? Um...I played the mage ending...I still killed mages because they chose blood magic! And I am pretty sure most of them were still using blood magic in the templar ending. Orsino did in both.

 

I am still neutral with the factions, but Anders' actions can't be written off with a slap on a wrist. Especially when he did nothing to fix his actions or showed any remorse for those choices. I know in RL, I couldn't bring myself to kill him, but I definitely wouldn't let him wonder free. He would be given to the authority for justice those whom he killed.

[Mimilette]

The fact Hawke or the Warden can be evil is not an excuse for Anders though. Just because other people are murderers does not mean it's ok to become one.

However, I can see how someone killing left and right might sound hypocritical when blaming Anders.

 

I hope we will see him in Inquisition, just to see at least Varric and Cassandra's reactions. At the very least I hope Hawke will talk about him.