So, the Dales, Celene, even Meredith and her heavy handiness that bought Anders to this point retroactively becomes productive and necessary because it reached a positive conclusion. And you don't see how this kind of thinking results in monsters like Meredith and Grand Seeker Lambert from ever having to think about the consequences of their actions. Sure, a revolution lead to the birth a progressive nation, but it also result in genocide, mass-murder and a police state. You seriously don't see the connection between Anders and Meredith?
Maybe I'm just a coward acting like some native child, but you can't tell me that you can't see the dangers of such thing, especially when the decision to start such a revolution is put in the hands a single man.
If you notice I'm not really taking a side. I'm accepting how things work at a certain time. We all call out hated characters names. Stupid, foolish, etc. But looking at things objectively, Fiona's intentions were always good. She is a good person, too good for how harsh Thedas is so she makes immature mistakes at times. Childishly hating her and wanting to kill her is not my thing, its very too judgmental for my taste. This applies to everyone.
We are all selfish, only the scale of it is different. Lambert thought he was doing maker's work like many lord seekers before him. They all lied and did evetything in their power to protect Seeker secrets.
Meredith is mentally damaged because of her backstory and not a good example, but it still applies.
Coming from a country which has suffered more than 40 years and 1.000 deaths because of terrorism, I'll abstain from debating with people that justify it because of supposed "higher ends". Just so you know, EVERY terrorist claims to be fighting a bigger evil.
I don't have the conversation at hand, but I recalled that later Solas apologizes to Blackwall for judging him so harshly, so he must have realized at some point that he was throwing accusations at his own reflection in a mirror.
Comparing modern age to dark age again. A crucial logical mistake. You try to apply the norms of a post merchantile democratic society in a pre-merchantile feudal society. Truly nowadays such an act of terrorism is abhorrent, inexcusable and not an effective carrier of change. People react to exercises of strength or violence in a different manner and a non agressive approach is much more plausible because most of our societies have democratic regimes or even before those at least in the past 3 centuries there was a diffusion of authority because of merchantile strength and the rise of the burgeois against the feudal system. Dragon Age is clearly a feudal society and not a particularly enlightened one politically. The common people have no electoral power and very minor purchasing power. The feudal lords have very limited electoral power which is under the constant censure of military and religious power centers. Ferelden is perhaps further advanced because its existence is in opposition to Orlais; their nationalism is defined in opposition to Orlesian norms and it is well likely that the Orlesians could reclaim it at any moment.
Kirkwall is much different. Its viscounts are presented to have ruled under the approval of the chantry and templars. If the common people rebelled against Meredith, she would simply put them down; in fact Leliana makes it pretty clear that the Divine might well put the entire city to the torch. In this balance, one should consider the choice made by Anders. Perhaps change could be accomplished with a moderate approach but it would not take decades, but rather centuries. Not until the economic and political structures could support rights movements would the Mages be able to tap to the concordance of the collective to force political reforms. In this time we are weighing a likely short though violent war against the current situation.
Templars do not simply incarcerate mages. There are extensive instances of molestation and rape, constant psychological violence, and the right of tranquility which is not only murder of free will and slavery but also largely economical exploitation; the skills of the Tranquil in enchantment partly fund the Chantry and the Templars. All I am saying is, do not compare what Anders did with examples of social reforms in the past century cause there is no analogy. Rather consider any instances of actual social reform taking place peacefully in the Dark Ages.
You know something i find ironic about Ander? His moral principles seem more in line with non-mages then mages, perhaps even closer to templars then he would want to admit. He is one of the most adamant companions against the use of blood magic, yet his actions indicate it is not the tendency toward bloodshed and insanity that bother him, but the fact that the mages are allowing themselves to become demon puppets. Yet he views his action, while as destructive as anything you would expect from a blood mage, morally justified because he did on his own basis and with no demon influencing him (I’m ignoring justice here since they are the same at this point). It seems ironic for him to believe this considering a party banter with Feris follows a similar topic. Fenris asks Anders if he thinks he is safe as an abomination, while Anders points out he ripped a man’s heart out in their first meeting. Feris feels his action was morally justifiable since he did not do it at the behest of a demon, but Anders scolds him by pointing out you don’t need a demon to be a vicious killer. Similarly, templar believe they hold the moral high ground over mages as they are not as susceptible to demon influence, so they feel they are automatically in the right. So Anders is a lot more like templars then he seems to want to admit, as he views his action as justifiable simply because it was his choice, not a demon's, rather then judge the moral worth of an action by the actual human lose and damage it will cause.
So called modern day terrorist are nothing more than brainwashed thugs. I wish you people stopped bringing that up on Anders discussions.
Retour en haut
).
