63 odpowiedzi w tym temacie

[MisterJB]

In "Mark of the Assassin", Anders says:

"At the Circle, any accidental babies are taken away before the mother even sees them."

 

Except, there is this from The World of Thedas Volume 2, page 89:

 

"Wynne gave birth to a healthy baby boy, whom she was allowed one day with before he was taken into Chantry custody."

 

Now, I'm not going to say one day it's all that big a deal. In fact, it could be even more heartbreaking, just picture Wynne holding Rhys, trying to make every second count.

But she was allowed a day with him. Therefore, it can't be "any accidental babies". It could be "most accidental babies" but there are clearly cases where the mother is allowed a day with the baby before it is taken away.

Anders was from Kinloch Hold so, this was something he should be aware of.

 

 

[SmilesJA]

One day with the baby before never seeing him again until years later?

[renfrees]

I tell you as a woman, it's even worse that they let her spend a day with her baby.

[Krypplingz]

Probably depends on the mage. 

Wynne is a calm person and loyal to the circle. There was probably little risk of her harming the child, trying to flee with it or becoming aggressive as it was removed. So she got to spend some time with it and maybe got to hear news of him as he got older. 

A more brash mage might not get to spend time with her child, especially if she might harm the child (won't let you suffer my life), try to escape with it or react aggressively when the child was taken. And she would probably never learn of the childs fate either.

Anders is a troubled person. I doubt he hung around the loyalist much, given his tendency to try to escape. So his friends were probably in similar mindset. The mage girls he knew were probably those who did not get to spend time with their kids. So as far as he knew, the babies were taken away straight after birth. 

And after all, a one day with the life you grew inside you for nine months is a very short time. The mother is probably exhausted from the birth, so most of that day goes into recovering. By the time you can start to appreciate what's happening, the templars are probably coming to take the child away. 

[TheEnigmousPretentiator]

I am not sure how that indicates Wynne's baby was accidental and if it is something that generally occurs - mothers not seeing their babies - one or a few exceptions would not damage his credibility, and getting one day with the child is not any better, nor would it matter as Anders did not need to exaggerate anything to justify the dissolution of the Circle.

And who cares if he lies - aside from idealists? It works in the favor of those it favors. The truth is only as useful as it can be stretched.

[nightscrawl]

I don't understand peoples' insistence on using specific events from this or that Circle to argue a point about something, whether it is pro or anti, mage or templar. There are general rules and guidelines, but overall each Circle is different; each will have their own ways of doing things, and permissiveness will also ebb and flow with the changing of each mage First Enchanter, the templar Knight-Commander, and the working relationship between them.
 
Vivienne's Montsimmard Circle is not like the Kirkwall Circle, and neither are like Ferelden's Circle.
 
That aside, WoT can have conflicting information. Some of the information therein is presented as written accounts by a third party, which can also be tainted by perspective. Regarding this specific example, this would have been before Anders's time there, with a different Knight-Commander and First Enchanter, so he wouldn't have known about it directly. Perhaps this is the case with the babies he was personally aware of.

I am not sure how that indicates Wynne's baby was accidental...

While that quote doesn't indicate the baby was accidental, it's pretty safe to assume that ANY Circle babies are accidental. Hell, most babies in general are un-planned; some are happy accidents, but they're accidents nonetheless.

Also, we know from Wynne herself (in DAO) that relations between two mages are not encouraged, and from Asunder that Rhys's father was a templar, which is a big no-no.

[MisterJB]

I don't understand peoples' insistence on using specific events from this or that Circle to argue a point about something, whether it is pro or anti, mage or templar. There are general rules and guidelines, but overall each Circle is different; each will have their own ways of doing things, and permissiveness will also ebb and flow with the changing of each mage First Enchanter, the templar Knight-Commander, and the working relationship between them.
 
Vivienne's Montsimmard Circle is not like the Kirkwall Circle, and neither are like Ferelden's Circle.
 
That aside, WoT can have conflicting information. Some of the information therein is presented as written accounts by a third party, which can also be tainted by perspective. Regarding this specific example, this would have been before Anders's time there, with a different Knight-Commander and First Enchanter, so he wouldn't have known about it directly. Perhaps this is the case with the babies he was personally aware of.

 

All true but all that means is that Anders is, at best, an unreliable source.

At worst, he is a manipulative liar which is consistent with his character since he lied to Hawke and attempted to lie to the parents of his victim.
 

[Sah291]

Anders was prone to hyperbole. But I would think taking children away at all is wrong. It's like Sebastian wondering if something must have happened to Anders in the circle. Just because he wasn't personally raped or abused, doesn't mean that sort of thing doesn't go on, or that it is necessarily morally right to confine people, even if they were otherwise treated kindly. Most circle probably mages live comfortable lives compared most elves and peasants living in alienages after all.  

 

Spoiler for DAI...

Spoiler

Dorian points this out about slavery in Tevinter too, how some might say it's better or no worse than having alienages, because at least you are provided for and not starving or struggling to scrape by like the peasants do in Andrastian lands.

 

Sure, he's an unreliable source, since he's just one mage with his opinion. But the game treats all of the characters that way, including even the codex entries.

[caradoc2000]

Is it possible that due to major speculation that the father is Gregoir, he had something to do with it?

Anders: "You killed my father!"

Gregoir: "No, I am your father!"

Anders: "NOOOO!..."

Gregoir: "... and I am your mother as well"

Anders: "Huh?"

Gregoir: "The Circle is Mother, the Circle is Father"

Anders: "Huh again??"

Gregoir: "You ever watch Babylon 5?"

 

[Lulupab]

All true but all that means is that Anders is, at best, an unreliable source.

At worst, he is a manipulative liar which is consistent with his character since he lied to Hawke and attempted to lie to the parents of his victim.
 

 

This is isn't really evidence. It might have been a favor for Wynne.

 

Its in the game and if one thing is certain, its the fact that during Anders' time in the circle, any accidental babies were taken away before the mother saw them. When Wynne gave birth, Anders was not in the circle, not to mention it might have been a favor to Wynne or the father was a Templar so he influenced the decision.

 

Anders didn't exaggerate more than other characters since all of them talk about their own opinions, many codex entries are opinions as well.

[S.W.]

This is a rather spurious claim for claiming Anders is manipulative. There are better sources in the game you can pick through.

 

There is very little material difference between taking a baby away on the day of birth and taking a baby away exactly one day after birth. The point is Anders is making is that babies are taken from their mothers before they can remember them. Mothers lose their children very early on and children grow up without parents. This is rather cruel, and from Anders' point of view, also unnecessary.

 

People frequently mildly exaggerate or forget numbers in anecdotes. Anders was having a conversation where he's trying to convince you of the worthiness of his cause - he was not writing an academic paper on different familial structures of mage-born children. I think you emphasis on the difference between zero/none doesn't counter the thrust of the argument.

 

Edit: it's also worth noting, that Anders is likely talking from a) what he's seen in circles, and what is common knowledge in circles. Hence his knowledge may not be beyond reasonable doubt, but he is not lying to you in that particular instance because lying requires knowing the truth to begin with.

[MisterJB]

What Anders says is "Any babies". He does not extablished a time period, a particular Circle or the behaviour of the mother whose baby is imediatelly taken from her. He speaks in absolutes (which means he is a Sith Lord but that is another discussion) so, all one has to do is present one case where the baby wasn't taken away to prove that he is either misinformed or lying.

[Sah291]

Outside of the Justice quest, though, I just don't think he ever actually lies about anything. Mostly because I think he was written to be a really terrible liar (due to the whole spirit possession thing). It's a running joke how he's bad at cards, and that even Hawke's dog was better at bluffing (according to Varric). He drops obvious hints during his act 3 quest and caves easily if you call him out about there being no potion....forcing him to switch to emotional blackmail. So emotionally manipulative, yep, but he's a bad liar. Justice just doesn't get that kind of subtly and nuance, to a fault...which is why his lie at the end comes as such a surprise.

[MisterJB]

Outside of the Justice quest, though, I just don't think he ever actually lies about anything. Mostly because I think he was written to be a really terrible liar (due to the whole spirit possession thing). It's a running joke how he's bad at cards, and that even Hawke's dog was better at bluffing (according to Varric). He drops obvious hints during his act 3 quest and caves easily if you call him out about there being no potion....forcing him to switch to emotional blackmail. So emotionally manipulative, yep, but he's a bad liar. Justice just doesn't get that kind of subtly and nuance, to a fault...which is why his lie at the end comes as such a surprise.

 

He does try to approach Ela's parents (the girl he can kill) at her funeral and convince them the Templars did it.

He is not even above walking up to the parents of the girl he murdered, at her funeral, and lie to their face to support his political ideals.

[Lulupab]

He does try to approach Ela's parents (the girl he can kill) at her funeral and convince them the Templars did it.

He is not even above walking up to the parents of the girl he murdered, at her funeral, and lie to their face to support his political ideals.

 

That's still part of Justice quest, not to mention I think the parents would rather think their daughter was killed by Templars rather than finding out she was raped and abused and turned into a tranquil unjustly. We do stop Templars because of Anders after all.

 

The problem with Anders was his dealing in absolutes (due to Justice) made him do something extreme. Before the explosion of Chantry, he is the perfect mage activist. He cannot bribed, he doesn't care what happens to himself and more importantly nothing will stop him or weaken his resolve.

 

The chantry destruction was too much, but other than that everything else Anders did or tried to do was justified in a sence that Inquisition has showed enough flaws and cruetly in the system to justify protest and change. Plus Ela's death can be easily prevented if you build trust with Anders so don't talk about it like its canon. If you make him a 100% friend and choose a certain dialogue he even confesses to to doing something incriminating when you gather supplies for the pink bomb, so he doesn't lie even then. You can't expect Anders to trust you and not lie if you don't trust him yourself. The fact remains that he doesn't lie of he trusts you and that is enough to not make him a liar.

[MisterJB]

This is a rather spurious claim for claiming Anders is manipulative. There are better sources in the game you can pick through.

 

That is true. I have pointed them out.

 

 

There is very little material difference between taking a baby away on the day of birth and taking a baby away exactly one day after birth. The point is Anders is making is that babies are taken from their mothers before they can remember them. Mothers lose their children very early on and children grow up without parents. This is rather cruel, and from Anders' point of view, also unnecessary.

 

People frequently mildly exaggerate or forget numbers in anecdotes. Anders was having a conversation where he's trying to convince you of the worthiness of his cause - he was not writing an academic paper on different familial structures of mage-born children. I think you emphasis on the difference between zero/none doesn't counter the thrust of the argument.

 

I acknowledge in the OP that one may not find much difference between one day and one minute and thus, that was not really my point.

Only that what Anders says is factually untrue

 

Edit: it's also worth noting, that Anders is likely talking from a) what he's seen in circles, and what is common knowledge in circles. Hence his knowledge may not be beyond reasonable doubt, but he is not lying to you in that particular instance because lying requires knowing the truth to begin with.

Which, if true, would make him misinformed. Not exactly excusable when what he proposes is the overthrow of a 900 years old institution that deals with the lives of millions of people.

[Sah291]

He does try to approach Ela's parents (the girl he can kill) at her funeral and convince them the Templars did it.
He is not even above walking up to the parents of the girl he murdered, at her funeral, and lie to their face to support his political ideals.

Forgot about that. I don't usually let him kill Ela.

I don't think that really changes much though. He learns to lie eventually by the end of the game, and he also accepts the use of violence when he didn't before. That's his character arc. Up until act 3 Justice is still very black and white like a typical spirit, and Anders is still against using violence. It's implied that Justice doesn't understand how to lie (he tells Hawke so if you lie to the sloth demon in the fade during act 2). In fact, I don't think most of the other spirits or demons you encounter ever outright lie. They manipulate and tempt you with desires and whatnot, but they almost never seem to blatantly lie.

I just don't see him deliberately lying over little details/facts like that, throughout most of the game. He's manipualtive and trying to pursuade, yes. He chooses to talk about babies for the emotional impact.

In this case I think it is more likely the writers just softened a bit on their portrayal of the circles, or this is a minor detail that was overlooked.

[S.W.]

 
 

 
I acknowledge in the OP that one may not find much difference between one day and one minute and thus, that was not really my point.
Only that what Anders says is factually untrue

Extent of accuracy is really important. There's a massive difference between one day and say... three years. I think the line you're drawing here is really unfair.

For instance, if I in a casual conversation argue:
"It takes at least two years to access a Gender Identity Clinic if you need it"
I am not accounting for the few, and far between examples, of those who need to go to a GIC but can privately fund themselves and thus it takes less than two years. For them it's closer to one year or so.
However, they are so far and few between that it does not take away from the original moral argument intended in that statement, which is:
"It's wrong that transgender people are forced to wait so long for free gender reassignment by the national healthcare service."
Even with the slight factual inaccuracy of my statement, my moral argument hasn't become irrelevant because a large number of people, much much more than 50%, do have to wait in the country I'm from.

Here's the thing: Anders' moral argument still stands (taking newborn babies from their parents is wrong), because the inaccuracy is so slight that it doesn't really detract from the moral claim he makes in that statement.

Which is why I think you're splitting hairs.
 

Which, if true, would make him misinformed. Not exactly excusable when what he proposes is the overthrow of a 900 years old institution that deals with the lives of millions of people.

1. The age or legality of an institution does not ever justify its existence. Slavery was legal and entrenched in the southern economy and culture for a very long time in America but that does not justify its usage, for instance. This isn't to say that I agree with Anders about the Chantry. Just that if moral abuses occur, how 'important' the Chantry is in terms of age, tradition, etc. doesn't detract from those arguments against it. It just means it's harder to convince people, that's all.


2. To repeat, he's having a casual conversation with Hawke, not converting anyone, give him some slack.

[MisterJB]

Extent of accuracy is really important. There's a massive difference between one day and say... three years. I think the line you're drawing here is really unfair.

For instance, if I in a casual conversation argue:
"It takes at least two years to access a Gender Identity Clinic if you need it"
I am not accounting for the few, and far between examples, of those who need to go to a GIC but can privately fund themselves and thus it takes less than two years. For them it's closer to one year or so.
However, they are so far and few between that it does not take away from the original moral argument intended in that statement, which is:
"It's wrong that transgender people are forced to wait so long for free gender reassignment by the national healthcare service."
Even with the slight factual inaccuracy of my statement, my moral argument hasn't become irrelevant because a large number of people, much much more than 50%, do have to wait in the country I'm from.

Here's the thing: Anders' moral argument still stands (taking newborn babies from their parents is wrong), because the inaccuracy is so slight that it doesn't really detract from the moral claim he makes in that statement.

Which is why I think you're splitting hairs.
 

 

As I said before, I am not contesting his position on moral grounds. I could, but I am not.

I am merely pointing out the fact that he is wrong. He says that no babies are ever allowed more than a couple seconds with their mothers but we know that is not true because Wynne had a day with hers.

How often this occurrs, we do not know. But we know that he is factually wrong when he says it doesn't ever happen.

 

If you really want to argue the morality of this policy we can in which case, my positions is as follows:
It's sad that newborns are taken from their parents but, ultimately, it is the best option both for the baby and society at large. Not so much for the parents but their happiness can't come before that of the whole of Thedas.

 

 

1. The age or legality of an institution does not ever justify its existence. Slavery was legal and entrenched in the southern economy and culture for a very long time in America but that does not justify its usage, for instance. This isn't to say that I agree with Anders about the Chantry. Just that if moral abuses occur, how 'important' the Chantry is in terms of age, tradition, etc. doesn't detract from those arguments against it. It just means it's harder to convince people, that's all.

 

The age of the Circle is very relevant here because it proves that it has kept order for the past 900 years. For nine centuries, the Circle has prevented mages from abusing their powers; untrained mages from killing their own families; mages from being killed by mobs; Abominations from slaugthering hundreds; Tevinter from rising again.
If Anders intends to destroy this, then he better have some spectacular arguments and a solution all lined up that can produce even better results and last just as long.

But, as we can see, he doesn't even know the facts of his own Circle.
 

 

 

 

 

2. To repeat, he's having a casual conversation with Hawke, not converting anyone, give him some slack.

I am. I am merely pointing out how he was wrong by a day.

If I wanted to comment on him as a person, I have long list of how he is apalling.

 

 

[ComedicSociopathy]

It's possible that the Templars just changed their policy on ripping away children from their parents in between Wynne's youth and Ander's interment in the Kinloch Hold. The Circle isn't a static organization that's remained the same for the entirely of its existence after all. 

[berelinde]

Wynne had privileges most circle mages only dream of, and the baby's father was a Circle templar. Her situation was hardly typical, and Anders was speaking in generalities. More importantly, it doesn't matter. Anders's point was that Circle mage mothers never got to bond with their babies. They were denied that basic right that most free people take for granted. Even Wynne never got to watch Rhys's first steps, never heard his first word, never got to decide how to raise him. 

 

Reproductive rights are a touchy subject, but I'm inclined to believe that Wynne and all other mage parents got the short end of the stick on that one.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Yeah, mass-murderers tend to be full of crap. It makes sense, though -- what is lying to someone who kills people?

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Anders: "You killed my father!"

Gregoir: "No, I am your father!"

Anders: "NOOOO!..."

Gregoir: "... and I am your mother as well"

Anders: "Huh?"

Gregoir: "The Circle is Mother, the Circle is Father"

Anders: "Huh again??"

Gregoir: "You ever watch Babylon 5?"

 

 

Babylon 5 actually struck me as the inspiration for a lot of Bioware concepts, including the Circle.

[SwobyJ]

I'm inclined to believe Anders believes that this is the general practice, which it probably is.

 

And I agree with the post that it's actually worse in a way for the mother to see their baby once before never seeing them again.

 

(Killed Anders BTW)